Kolkata Court May 1921 Judgments

Gyanendra Nath Chakravarti Vs. Poresh Nath Pal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1922Cal255,65Ind.Cas.39

1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted on the 29th November 1913, which was originally framed as one for damages and permanent injunction. It was alleged that the plaintiffs had title to and possession of the land in suit, and that the defendants had trespassed upon the land. The defendants on the 12th January 1914 filed a written statement in which they pleaded that the plaintiffs having no right to or possession of the land, the suit for damages in the form laid could not proceed according to law. On the 11th July 1914 the plaintiffs by a petition prayed for amendment of the plaint with a prayer for declaration of their title and it was alleged that the plaintiffs had been holding khas possession of the land, and had acquired title by adverse possession.2. The case came on for hearing on the 22nd January 1915, and the Court of first instance found that the plaintiffs were out of possession of the disputed land before the institution of the suit, and that the suit for injuncti...

Srimati Katyani Devi Vs. Uday Kumar Das

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1922Cal348,69Ind.Cas.117

John Woodroffe, J.1. The fasts are as follows: The plaintiff brought two rent suits, one for the rent of the Falgun instalment of 1322 B.S. and the whole of 1323 B.S. and the other for the rent of 1324 B S of a certain Ganti, which suits were partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff.2. Appeal No. 221 arises out of the first of these suits and there is also a cross objection by the plaintiff.3. Appeal No. 285 arises out of the second of these suits and there is in that suit also a separate Appeal No. 17 by the plaintiff.4. The plaintiff's case is that Satyendra Nath Tagore, his predecessor-in-interest, in 1878 granted to one Ananda Chandra Bandopa-dhaya and others a tenure or Ganti of certain lands within certain boundaries, and from these persons by various transfers the tenancy came into the hands of the present defendant in 1894. The land was at that time estimated by guess to be some 3800 bighas and the rent was fixed at Rs. 3,087, the rate being 13 annas per bigha. Subsequently on...

Krishna Das Ray and anr. Vs. Mohendra Chandra Sil and ors.

Court: Kolkata

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for mandatory injunction upon the defendants to fill up a tank, which had been excavated on a portion of the land comprising the tenancy (which is found by the Courts below to be a tenure), held by some of the defendants under the plaintiffs, in breach of a condition in the kabuliyat; for compensation, and for ejectment of the defendants therefrom.2. It was alleged that the notices under Section 155 of the Bengal Tenancy Act were served upon the defendants. It is found, however, that the notice was defective and not served upon all the defendants. The suit, moreover, was instituted more than a year after the excavation of the tank. The Court of first instance (the Subordinate Judge) accordingly disallowed the claim for ejectment. He also found that the tank supplies good drinking water to the people of the locality, has supplied a great want and is a work of great public utility, that the tank and ghats have been made at a considerable cost, and in f...

Makhan Lal Sircar Vs. Gokul Chandra Chakravarti

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.885

M. A. No. 337 of 1920.1. This appeal arises oat of an application under Section 47. Civil Procedure Code, objecting to the attachment and sale of certain properties of the judgment debtor in execution of a money decree on the ground that the properties were debuttar and the judgment debtor was only a shebait.2. The question was whether the properties, which the judgment-debtor claimed to hold under the Will executed by one Ram Gopal Pandit on the 6th Aughran 1315 B.S. were debuttar3. The Court of first instance was of opinion that there was no dedication of the properties to the idol (thakur) but that the properties were subject to the charge of performance of the sheba of the thakur, and accordingly held that the properties ware liabls to attachment and sale as the judgment-debtor's properties, subject to the charge of the due performance of sheba of the idol Sridhar Thakur. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the properties were debuttar.4. Now, the Wi...

Bhuban Chandra Hazra Vs. Nibaran Chandra Santra and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1922Cal382,62Ind.Cas.323

1. This Rule arises out of proceedings taken under the provisions of Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. The Rule was issued because it appeared to the Court that in his final order the Trial Magistrate did not sufficiently get out the reasons which had led him to his decision.2. It is contended on behalf of the opposite-party that Sections 366 and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not in terms apply to proceeding under Section 145, and in support of this contention reference has been made to the case reported as Kalu Mirza v. Emperor 5 Ind Cas. 29 : 37 C. 91 : 14 C.W.N 49 : 11 Cr. L.J 23. Whether the Sections cited do or do hot apply to proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, we have no doubt that we are entitled to require from Trial Magistrate a statement of the reasons for his decision sufficient to enable as to determine whether he has or has not complied with sub Section (4) of Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and directed his mind to the considerati...

P.E. Billinghurst Vs. D.B. Meek

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1922Cal334,61Ind.Cas.993

1. In this case it appears that on the 23rd of August 1920 a complalnt was lodged before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, charging five persons with the commission of offenses punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal code.2. The prosecution was at the instance of the Government of India and the five accused were Waite and Stoddart, two officers working under the Munitions Board, Calcutta, and Billinghurst, Blackburn and Michael, members of a Calcutta firm known as Spalding and Co.3. In the course of the investigation preceding the lodging of complaint, the premises of Messrs, Spalding and co. had been searched on the 23rd December 1919, and at various times between that date and the 23rd of August 1920, Billinghurst, Blackburn and Michael proceeded, Billinghurst to Burma, Blackburn and Michael to England.4. Billinghurst was arrested in Burma on the 1st of September and having been brought under arrest to Calcutta, was released on the 9th of September on his furnishing...

Gogan Howladar Vs. Karimaddi Chawkidar and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.855

1. In this case proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated in respect of a tract of land measuring some 43 bighas. The final order has been made by the Trial Magistrate on the basis of a local enquiry of which we have no note or memorandum, and on the basis further, of a judgment in a case made under Section 448, Indian Penal Code, instituted on the complaint of one Sajoo Bibi, the wife of Hasnuddi, against Karimaddi Chaukidar and Dholai Howladar who appear to be members of the second party. The final order is thus it appears based upon no evidence and must, therefore, be set aside. The proceedings will now be re-opened at the stage reached on the 10th February 1921 and the matter heard and disposed of in accordance with law.2. The Sub Divisional Magistrate who made the final order, we learn from the explanation submitted by the District Magistrate, has been transferred from the Sub division in question. There is nothing, therefore, to prevent the fu...

Chaturbhuj Chandanmull Vs. Basdeo Das Daga

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.198

Lancelot Sanderson, C. J.1. This is an application for an order that the execution of the decree, dated the 22nd of Marsh 1921, be stayed until the final determination of the appeal, upon the appellants furnishing such security to the satisfaction of the Registrar and within such time as the Court may be pleased to direct.2. The case was tried by my learned brother Mr. Justice Rankin, who, on the 22nd of March 1921, gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 41,131 (Rs. 41,000?). It was alleged by the appellants, though denied by the plaintiff, that negotiations with regard to settlement took place. They, however, came to nothing and the plaintiff applied in the ordinary course to the Master for execution of the decree.3. Thereupon, on the 14th of April 1921, nearly a month after the judgment had been given by Mr. Justice Rankin, the appellants applied to Mr. Justice Greaves. for stay of execution of the decree, pending the final determination of the intended appeal, a...

Sudhir Chandra Das Vs. Rasseswari Chaudhuri and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1921Cal419,69Ind.Cas.796

Greaves, J.1. This is a claim for Rs. 28,286-13-6 put forward by the firm of Ram Kissen Das Bagri in the administration of the estate of one Srish Chunder Das. The following issues were raised;(1) Was any money advanced by Ram Kissen Das Bagri, if so, when and to whom?(2) If the debt was in fact incurred in carrying on the testator's business, were the executors entitled or justified in carrying on the business at the date when such debt was incurred, and was sash debt properly incurred and has the testator's estate benefited thereby?(3) Are the executors entitled to be indemnified out of the assets of the testator or any part thereof in respect of the debt in question?(4) Is the claimant entitled to be subrogated to the right of indemnity, if any, of the executors?(5) What sum, if any, is the claimant entitled to recover out of the estate?(6) Was the business mentioned in the pleadings ancestral?(7) Was the business carried on with the assent of the guardian of Sudhir?(8) Was the busi...

Maharaj Kumar Dharendra Krishna Deb Bahadur and ors. Vs. Altafur Raham ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.759

Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned District Judge of Tipperah.2. The decision of the appeal rests upon one Clause in the kubuliyot, the terms of which are set cut in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraphs of the plaint, and also upon the construction of Section 74 of the Indian Contrast Act. That sub-paragraph is as follows: 'that within 15 days of the following year, the defendant should, on the expiry of each year, submit the original and correct amadani, talabbaki and jama-wasil-baki accounts, the kabuliyats submitted by the tenants, chittas, khatians and ramabandi papers relating to the collections of his dar-ijara mahal, and should he fail to submit the same, he would pay damages at Rs. 3 for each set of papers of each year.'3. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 837 as damages for the classes of papers not supplied in three years.4. The learned Subordinate Judge who tried the case found that the defendant had not complied with contract in respec...