Kolkata Court April 1921 Judgments
Debendra Nath Upadhaya Vs. Bhagirathi Mahto
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal552,76Ind.Cas.391
1. This Rule is directed against an order made by the Second Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta on the 25th February 1921 by which he dismissed, under the provisions of Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, the complaint brought by the petitioner against the opposite party.2. The complaint purported to be one of the commission of an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 477, Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that the accused had wilfully and dishonestly destroyed two documents, one said to be a written contract dated the 1st December 1920, by which the complainant's firm sold to the accused or to his from 100 maunds of what is called T.N. shellac at Rs. 190 per maund. He further alleged the destruction, similarly, by the opposite party of another document spoken of sometimes as a tender and sometimes as a delivery order bearing endorsement in favour of the complaint's firm made by one A.M. Arratoon. The learned Presidency Magistrate took the view that, even if the ...
Tag this Judgment!Asutosh Chandra Mitra and ors. Vs. Haripada Ganguli and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal187,62Ind.Cas.793
Asutosh Mookerjee, C.J.1. These two appeals are directed against two awards in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. The question in controversy in each of these cases is, whether the occupancy raiyat is entitled to any portion of the compensation money. The landlord of the raiyat argues that under the terms of the contract of tenancy, dated the 10th March 1907, the occupancy raiyat has no claim to a share of the compensation money. This contention has been negatived by the Judge in the Court below.2. The convenant is in these terms: 'If the land covered by this kabuliyat be acquired by any Railway Company or any Canal Company or any other Company or Government, you shall get the value or compensation that may be awarded for the same. I shall have no concern with the same.' There is no room for the controversy that a covenant of this character is not illegal and is enforceable. Godadhar Bhatta v. Lalit Kumar Chatterjee 4 Ind. Cas. 434 : 10 C.L.J. 476; Godadhar Dass v. Dhunput Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Baikuntha Nath Ghatak Vs. Sheikh Fazil and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.192
1. The only question in this case is whether the suit is barred by the special limitation contained in Article 3, Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The dispossession admittedly took place two years before the suit, but the Court below overruled the objection as to special limitation on the ground that the relation of landlord and tenant is not admitted on any side.3. The applicability of the special limitation does not depend upon the admission of the parties. It must, however, be shown that there was relation of landlord and tenant between the parties. The land is owned by the defendant No. 1 as part of his putni taluk, and it appears from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge that there was a compromise decree te which both the plaintiffs and the defendants were parties. Under the terms of that compromise the defendant No, i was to realise rent from the tenants of his putni taluk. That being so, there was relation of landlord and tenant between the parties and disposs...
Tag this Judgment!Ahindra Nath Chatterjee Vs. L.T. Col. E.K. Twiss
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal394,70Ind.Cas.75
Greaves, J.1. The plaintiffs, who carry on business under the name and style of J.B. Arnold & Co., instituted this suit on the 3rd August last for a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to continue in possession of the eastern portion of the top flat of No. 1, Mission Row, and for a decree for vacant possession of the premises. They also claim a sum of Rs. 958-1-0 for arrears of rent from the 5th May 1920 to 8th July 1920, and Rs. 96-8-0 for the occupier's share of taxes and Rs. 480 for use and occupation from the 8th July 1920 to the date of the institution of the suit at the rate of Rs. 450, per month.2. The plaintiffs in paragraph 2 of their plaint plead that, in or about the month of February 1920, it was agreed between them and one A.R. Mellis, acting on behalf of and as the agent of the defendant, that the plaintiffs should sub-let to the defendants the eastern portion of the top flat north of No. 1, Mission Row, (which the plaintiffs held under a five years' lease from...
Tag this Judgment!Alom Sheikh Gazi and ors. Vs. Harinath Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.763
1. The plaintiff's case was that the land was held by one Chand Gazi, who surrendered it in favour of the landlord. The landlord, it is said, granted a lease of the land in favour of the plaintiff's father-in-law and that the plaintiff himself subsequently obtained a patta from the landlord. The plaintiff says that Chand Gazi or his heirs were not in possession of the land, that he was in possession and that he was subsequently dispossessed in 1321 by the defendants, the heirs of Chand Gazi.2. The Court of first instance found against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court gave a decree to the plaintiff and the defendants have appealed to this Court.3. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the story of surrender has not been proved. That being so, the plaintiff, in order to succeed, must show that he had acquired a title by adverse possession as the amalnama, which is said to have been granted by the landlord in 1313, was within 12 years of th...
Tag this Judgment!Hamida Rahaman and anr. Vs. Jamila Khatun and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal298,65Ind.Cas.837
1. This is an appeal against two orders by which the Receiver who had been appointed in a suit was directed to take possession of certain properties, moveable and immoveable. In the suit in question Jamila Khatun and others were the plaintiffs and Mokbul Ahmed and others were the defendants. The appellants before us are no parties to the suit; but all the parties to the suit and the two appellants are descendants of one Haji Sadaddin Sadagar. The suit in question is a suit for partition of the properties left by Khalil Ahmed Sadagar, the eldest son of Haji Sadaddin Sadagar. When the Receiver was appointed in the suit and directed to take possession of the properties described in the plaint the present appellants filed a petition in which they alleged that certain properties described in Schedule 1 of their petition belonged to them both, that certain immoveable properties described in Schedule 2 belonged to the petitioner No. 2, and that certain moveable property described in the list ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiva Kumari Devi Vs. Becharam Lahiri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal525,66Ind.Cas.604
John Woodroffe, J.1. This is a suit for defamation against a Pleader. The defamation is alleged to have taken place during the course of the defence to an action brought for rent. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff, who is a lady, was described as a cheat, It is alleged the defendant had said that that she had forged papers fraudulently, that she was a rogue, etc., and that the defendant 'expressed wrath and contempt towards the plaintiff by making various accusations against her.'2. In the defence to the suit the defendant stated that these allegations were not true and that he merely commented upon certain Exhibits, Nos. P and Q, after reading them and that he did not use the expressions alleged by the plaintiff. Farther, the defendant Lays that he never used the expressions 'Badmash,' etc. The case in which the defamation is said to have occured was tried in the Court of the Munsif who made a note at the time of the incident and stated in his evidence that he remembered ...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Chand Sett and anr. Vs. Kanai Lal Sett and anr. and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal81(1),66Ind.Cas.621
1. This is an application by Uma Charan Sett and Annoda Prosad Sett for a Certificate that this is a fit and proper case for appeal to the Judicial Committe of the Privy Council. The relationship of the parties appears in the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Mookerjee. After stating that the appeal was by the first three defendants in a suit for partition and accounts of a joint family property, he went on to say; 'The founder of the family was one Bhola Nath Sett who died in or about Agrahan 1284, that is, towards the end of the year 1877. He left three sons Uma Charan (defendant No. 1), Annoda (defendant No. 2) and Nogen who died in 1279, He also left a widow Nritya Moyi, who is the third defendant, The fourth defendant in the suit is Rajendra who is the son of the first defendant Uma Charan. The plaintiffs in the suit are Kauai and Jyotindra---the two sons of Nogen. The second plaintiff was, at the date of the institution of the suit and is even now, an infant represented ...
Tag this Judgment!SerajuddIn Haldar Vs. Isab Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal258,70Ind.Cas.203
1. The property in dispute in the suit, out of which this appeal arises, belonged to one Pochai Haldar, the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff predeceased Pochai and the latter executed a heba-bil-ewaz in favour of the plaintiff, but the defendants, who are the other sons of Pochai, dispossessed the plaintiff, Thereupon this suit was instituted for recovery of possession of the property after establishing his right thereto.2. The consideration recited ill the document was a Koran, rosary and prayer mat, but no evidence was adduced that any such consideration passed.3. The learned Munsif held that, although the document could not take effect as a heba-bil-ewaz, it could be treated as a simple gift or heba and as the plaintiff was a minor under the guardianship of his grandfather, the donor, no acceptance by or transfer of possession to the minor was possible or necessary under the Muhammadan Law, a declaration of the intention to give being quite sufficie...
Tag this Judgment!Sarat Chandra Sarkar Vs. Maihar Stone and Lime Co., Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal335,67Ind.Cas.917
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Pearson, whereby he get aside the abatement of a suit and directed that the record be amended by substituting Sarat Chandra Sarkar for the original defendant, Jadu Nath Sarkar, who has died. The learned Counsel, Mr. Langford James, took a preliminary objection that there was no right of appeal in respect of this judgment, but our attention was drawn to an unreported decision of this Court in Padmabati v. Tulsi Munjuri Debi (Appeal No. 16 of 1918, decided on the 18th June 1918) to which I was a party, the actual decision being given by my learned brother, Mr. Justice Woodroffe, and when Mr. Langford James had read that decision, he agreed that he could not further contend that there was no right of appeal.2. This case is one which I hope is out of the ordinary; and, in order to substantiate that remark, it is necessary for me to refer to some material dates The suit was filed on the 1st of S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »