Kolkata Court July 1921 Judgments
Bomkesh Seth and anr. Vs. Bhutnath Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.689
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould passed in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.2. A suit for rent was instituted by the appellant in the Court of the First Munsif at Sealdah in the District of 24-Perganas. The claim was contested and the suit was dismissed. An appeal was thereupon lodged in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of 24 Pargannas. The appeal was heard on the merits and the decision of the Trial Court was reversed. Against the decree of the Subordinate Judge two proceedings were instituted in this Court : one was an appeal from appellate decree, the other was an application for revision, on the basis whereof a Rule was issued by this Court. The common question which was argued before Mr. Justice Newbould in both these proceedings was, whether an appeal lay to the Subordinate Judge from the decision of the Primary Court. It was urged that as the amount claimed did not exceed lis. 50 and as the suit was decid...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjib Chandra Sanyal Vs. Santosh Kumar Lahiri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal436,69Ind.Cas.877
Rankin, J.1. In July 1925 certain proprietors of a business called the 'Minerva Library' were in occupation of a shop room at 54, College Street, Calcutta, and by them the plaintiff was put in possession on his own behalf of the shop and business. It appears that these parties were holding under an unregistered instrument of tenancy which purported to demise the premises for five years ending in December 1916. However, the plaintiff and his predecessors occupied the premises for the fall, period of five years, and at the expiry of this period, defendants Nos. 6 to 9, whom I will call the Mondal defendants, were the landlords. The plaintiff entered into negotiations with them for a farther term and these negotiations resulted in a written instrument, dated 15th January 1917. This the plaintiff tenders in evidence, but it is objected to by Counsel for defendants Nos. 1 to 5 (whom I will call the Lahiri defendants) on the ground that it comes within Section 17 of the Registration Act (XVI...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal Vs. J. S. Mul ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal469,66Ind.Cas.428
1. This is an appeal against an acquittal. The respondent J. S. Mall was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Licensed Ware house and Fire brigade Act, 1893 which provides a penalty for any person who uses any building or plate as a ware-house in respect of which a license has been refused. A preliminary objection has been taken whish is fatal to this appeal. The Act provides that the refusal of an application for license shall, under Section 7, be by an order in writing under the hand of the Chairman of the Commissioners. In the present ease, the order of refusal was passed by the Vise Chairman. Although under Section 45 of the Bengal Municipal Act, III (B. C.) of 1884, the Chairman may delegate his duties or powers to the Vice Chairman, the powers he can so delegate are the powers as defined by that Act. He cannot by virtue of that section delegate to the Vise-Chairman his powers under the Licensed Ware-house and Fire brigade Act. That Act provi...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Umesh NaraIn Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.696
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Latter a Patent from a judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould in an appeal from an appellate decree in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, The question in controversy was, whether there was. a valid, deposit of rent under Section 61 of the Bengal Tenancy Act prior to the institution of the suit, f ha Court of first instance answered in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge reversed that decision and his decree has been confirmed by Mr. Justice Newbould.2. It appears that the defendants at one time held under the plaintiffs three distinct tenancies. The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit for recovery of rent due in respect of the lands comprised in all the three tenancies, on the allegation that the tenancies had been amalgamated and now constituted, in reality, only one tenancy. The defendants pleaded that the tenancies were distinct and that on this footing they had, prior to the instituti...
Tag this Judgment!Sarada Kripa Lala Vs. Horendra Kumar Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal271,68Ind.Cas.289
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This Rule arises out of an order of the Officiating Subordinate Judge of (sic)bittagong, by which be overruled the decision which bad been arrived at by the learned Munsif. It appears that the petitioner to this Court bad obtained a money-decree against one Romesh Chandra Das and that, in execution of the decree, the property of Romesh Chandra Das was put up to sale by auction. The petitioner, the decree holder, purchased the property at the auction sale, for Rs. 375. Two days after the auction tale the judgment-debtor purported to sell the property by means of a kabala to a third party whose name was Harendra Lal Das. Hardendra Lal Das then applied under Order XXI, Rule 89, Code of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of making the deposits which are therein specified. The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that Harendra Lal Das was not qualified to nuke the deposit under Order XXI, Rule 89, The learned Munsif held that the private sale was void as against th...
Tag this Judgment!Mokbul Ali Sadagar Vs. Basarat Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal192,66Ind.Cas.911
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for ejectment on the basis of title acquired by purchase at a sale for arrears of revenue held under Act XI of 1859. The baieapti, taluk purchased by the plaintiff was made an entire estate in 1841. At that time the lands comprised in the taluk were subject to the etmam tenure set up by the defendants which, it has been found, was in existence in the year 1837, that is, before the creation of the taluk in the year 1844. In these circumstances, the question arises whether the plaintiff is entitled to eject-the defendants under Section 37 of Act XI of 1859, which provides as follows: The purchaser of an entire estate in the permanently settled districts of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, sold under this Act for the recovery of arrears due on account of the tame, shall acquire the estate free from all encumbrances which may have been imposed upon it after the time of Settlement and shall be entitled to avoid and annual all under-tenures and forthw...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Kamini Debi Vs. Mahammad EmaduddIn Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.606
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. The question in this case relates to the Court-fee payable on a memorandum of cross-objections against an order, disallowing costs to the respondents, in the decree of the Court below. The suit was upon a mortgage and the respondents were added as parties to the suit as second mortgagees. They pleaded that with regard to a portion of the claim, they held the position of first mortgagees. The Court decided the question in their favour but did not allow them costs. The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court, and the respondents have preferred cross-objection on the ground that the Court below is wrong in not allowing them costs. They paid a Court fee of two rupees On the memorandum of cross-objections. The Stamp Reporter was of opinion that ad valorem Court-fee is payable under Schedule I, Article 1 of the Court Fees Act, because Schedule V of the Civil Procedure Code has repealed Section 16 of the Court Fees Act. The Vakil for the respondent having refused to accep...
Tag this Judgment!Profulla Chandra Ghose and anr. Vs. Baburam Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal289,65Ind.Cas.1
1. This appeal arises out of a suit by one of the heirs of a deceased tenant to recover his share of (he holding, which was sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent obtained by two co-sharer landlords and purchased by the latter.2. The plaintiff was not made a party to the suit for rent, and he brought the suit, on the ground that he was not bound by the decree for rent and that the decree did not affect his interest, specially as the suit was not framed under Section 148A of the Bengal Tenancy Act.3. The defense was that the suit was barred by the special limitation of two years under Article 3, Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act, that the decree was one under Section 148 A and that the sale held thereunder passed the entire holding.4. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. On appeal the decree was reversed and the suit was decreed.5. The defendants Nos, 1 and 2, who are the landlords, have preferred this appeal.6. Two questions arise for our decision. The first ...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Kalwar Vs. Musammat Sekali Telini and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal291,64Ind.Cas.574
1. This appeal arises out of suit for damages for malicious prosecution.2. It appears that the defendant (Gangadhar) brought a criminal case under Section 504, Indian Penal Code, against the plaintiffs, who are the mother, wife and brother's wife respectively of one Janaki Teli, against whom he had obtained a decree and taken out attachment of his homestead. The criminal case was dismissed and thereupon this suit for damages for malicious prosecution was instituted by the plaintiffs. The defendant (Gangadhar) also brought a suit for damages against the plaintiffs for having used abusive language to him (the defendant).3. The suits were tried together upon the same evidence, but two separate judgments were pronounced. The suit instituted by the present defendant for damages against the plaintiffs for having used abusive language was dismissed and then the plaintiffs suit for damages for malicious prosecution was decreed. The defendant appealed to the lower Appellate Court in the suit fo...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul HossaIn and ors. Vs. AfsaruddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal83,67Ind.Cas.639
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Walmsley in a suit for ejectment. The disputed land is claimed both by the plaintiffs and the defendants as tenants under the same landlord, On, the 10th October 1912, the defendants executed a kabuliyat in favour of the landlord in respect of a defined area. On the 12th January 1914 the plaintiffs executed a kabuliyat in favour of the same landlord, also in respect of a defined area. The case for the plaintiffs was that the land in dispute was comprised within the boundaries of their tenancy and that the defendants had unlawfully kept them out of possession thereof. The defendants resisted the claim on the ground that the land was comprised within the ambit of their tenancy and that as their tenancy was earlier in point of time the plaintiffs had required no valid title thereto. The Court of first instance tame to the conclusion that the land was comprised within the tenancy of the defendants a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »