Kolkata Court June 1921 Judgments
Romesh Chandra Das Vs. Sarada Kripa Lal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.751
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of land upon partition. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit after trial on the merits. The plaintiff then appealed to the District Judge. The lower Appellate Court called upon him to furnish security for the costs of the appeal and of the original suit under Sub-rule (i) of Rule (10) of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff did not comply with this order. Thereupon the Court proceeded to make the order contemplated by Sub-rule (ii) of Rule (10), which provides that where such security is not furnished, the Court shall reject the appeal. The order of the District Judge is not accurately expressed, because it states that the appeal is dismissed and not that the appeal is rejected. This inaccuracy in expression, however, does not alter the nature of the order. The plaintiff has now appealed to this Court.2. On behalf of the respondents, a preliminary objection has b...
Tag this Judgment!Khagendra Nandan Asram Vs. Sahayram Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal177,62Ind.Cas.776
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an application for a certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.2. A suit was brought by some members of the public, with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General, under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of a temple known as Gaptipara Muth. The first defendant claimed to be the mohunt of the temple.3. The first defendant had brought a suit against certain person or persons who had been appointed as manager or managers of the temple, and in that suit he obtained a decree and was held to be the duly constituted mohunt and entitled to the properties belonging thereto.4. The first Court which tried the present suit, to use the words of my learned brother Mr. Justice Mookerjee, 'dismissed the suit on the ground that the trial of the question raised herein is barred by the result of the decision in an earlier suit which was pending at the date of the institution of the present su...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Manmotha Nath Mitter Vs. Walter Locke and Co., and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1921
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.417
Ghose, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the owner of premises No. 4, Esplanade Eest, has instituted this suit against the defendants, (1) Walter Locke & Co. Ltd., being a Company registered under the English Companies Act; (2) Walter Locke & Co. Ltd. being a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, (3) H. Hobbs & Co., a firm carrying on business in partnership at 4, Esplanade East; and three persons named (4) J. B. Fulton; (5) G. B. Starry; (6) P. Rule Dunckley residing at 4 Esplanade East, and described as Merchants' Assistants, praying for the recovery of possession of the premises. The shit against the defendant No. 5 (G. Rule Stanley) has been withdrawn as the plaintiff was informed that he was not in possession of any portion of the premises. The defendants J. B. Fulton and P. Rule Dunckley, although served with the writ, have not appeared in this suit.2. The circumstances under whish this litigation has arisen are as follows:---On the 25th July 1901 the premises in question w...
Tag this Judgment!Brojendra Kumar Roy Choudhuri and ors. Vs. Asutosh Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal385,70Ind.Cas.420
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of the lands in dispute on the ground that they formed part of a tenure which was granted in; 1837 to one Hossein-ud-din Choudhuri, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants.2. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that a suit, for rent in respect of the tenure was brought against the heirs of Hossein-ud-din, and in execution of that decree the tenure was sold and purchased by the plaintiffs on the 12th July 1902. The sale was confirmed 12th the '13th August 1902. The plaintiffs obtained possesion on the 12th January 1934. The plaint is say that they continued in possession and were dispossessed in 1914. They then brought a suit in the Munsif's Court on the nth July 1914. That Court held that the suit was not cognisable by that Court, and accordingly returned the plaint. The plaint thereupon' was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge against the original defendants on the 15th June 1915. The defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Bejoy Kumar Addy and ors. Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal406,84Ind.Cas.727
George Woodroffe, J.1. The point which really arises in this case seems to me to have been missed. The Government determined to acquire certain land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for a public purpose which proceedings appear to be in-order. That land is held by the appellant under a document giving a permanent interest on payment of a revenue of Rs. 9-1-10 to Government. The document contains the following stipulation. 'If any portion or the whole of this land be required for the Government we shall give up the same without any compensation.' The land has been valued and no objection has now been taken on that ground. It is admitted by each side that each party, the claimant and the Government, has an interest in the compensation. The only question is what is that interest and its value. The Collector said as follows: 'Objection is taken to valuation and apportionment by party No. 2 who claim compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per cottah. They allege that the enti...
Tag this Judgment!Hamid Ali Vs. Ram Kumar Poddar and on His Death His Heirs Ane Legal Re ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.639
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Hamid Ali, who is the fourth defendant, from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chittagong.2. The suit was a rent-suit, and the plaintiffs were described as talukdars, and they sued for a sum of Rs. 180. The plaint alleges that the defendants are in possession, in sikmi taluka right, of a sikmi taluka in the name of their predecessors in respect of 6 cottas 13 3/4 gandas of land at an annual jama of 60 aris of bhag paddy; that the defendants delivered the bhag paddy prior to the period in suit, but they have not delivered the paddy in claim in spite of the plaintiffs' demand. The plaintiffs, therefore, pray that the amount shown below may be decreed against the defendants, at the rate of Rs. 30 for 50 aris of bhag paddy per year the price of two aris being Re, 1,for the years 1275-76,77-78 M.E., together with the cost of the suit and future interest:--Then, particulars are given follows: Rs. a. p. Price of paddy for those ye...
Tag this Judgment!Akshoy Rumar Saha and ors. Vs. Brojendra Chandra Dutta and anr.ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.674
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this appeal, which is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, the only question with which we need deal, is whether the lease upon which the plaintiffs relied was a valid lease. It appears that the plaintiffs had been in possession of the land in question as tenants of the defendants and that the defendants succeeded in ejecting the plaintiffs from this land by means of a suit, and the learned Judge who tried the case came to the conclusion that the lease which the plaintiffs obtained from their lessor was not a bona fide one. But I do not base my judgment upon that point. The plaintiffs' lessor was a mutwalli of wakf property, The lease purported to be a permanent lease and it was stated that the rental was Rs. 13 per year. The defendants and their predecessors have been in possession of this property, at any rate from 1883, when a lease had been granted by the father of the plaintiffs' leas...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›