Kolkata Court August 1921 Judgments
Bhuban Mohan Sardar and ors. Vs. Dhangopal Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal761,84Ind.Cas.22
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Walmsley in an Appeal from Appellate Decree arising out of a suit for confirmation of possession of land upon establishment of title. The subject matter of the litigation is the site of an old embankment on the west bank of the river Hugli which was entered as No. 73 in Schedule. D to the Bengal Embankment Act, 1873. The embankment was abandoned, and on the 21st February 1912, the Collector conveyed the site to the predecessor of the plaintiffs. The defendants are the proprietors of estate No. 302, and the disputed land is admittedly included within the ambit of their estate. The plaintiffs based their claim on the conveyance executed by the Collector. The defendants disputed the validity of the transfer as made in contravention of Section 87 of the Bengal Embankment Act, 1882. The Trial Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a valid title and dismissed the suit Upon appeal, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mobarak Molla Vs. Hechamuddi Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.214
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Officiating Subordinate Judge, First Court, of Faridpur; and the suit was brought to recover the sum of Rs. 780 on accounts which ware alleged to have been settled between the plaintiff and the first defendant.2. The first Court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal to the lower Appellate Court, that judgment was reversed and the suit was dismissed; and the plaintiff has appealed by way of second appeal to this Court.3. It appears that accounts were settled between the parties sometime about August 1916, but in August 1916 the plaintiff agreed to take a mortgage-bond from the first defendant in his (plaintiff's) favour. That mortgage-bond is dated the 9th Bhadra 1323 B.S., which, I understand, corresponds with August 1916. The due date for payment of the money, which was mentioned as Rs. 750 in that mortgage, was the end of Pous 1323 B.S., which corresponded to the 13th of January 1917. Therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Jivan Krishna Chakraverty Vs. Ramesh Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal500,65Ind.Cas.47
1. We are invited in this Rule to amend the decree of this Court in Jiban Krishna Chakravarti v. Ramesh Chandra Das 44 Ind. Cas. 225. That appeal arose out of a suit brought by one Jiban Krishna Chakraverty against several defendants, one of whom was Monindra Lal Das. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, there was a compromise between the plaintiff and Monindra Lal Das. The terms of the compromise were evidenced in a lease executed by Monindra Lal Das. The plaintiff obtained a Rule calling upon the defendants to show cause why the compromise should not be recorded. The Rule and the appeal were heard by Mr. Justice Chitty and Mr. Justice Smither on the 22nd November 1917. The Rule was made absolute as between the plaintiff and Monindra Lal Das and it was directed that the compromise be recorded. The appeal also was heard, as there were parties to the appeal other than Monindra Lal Das. The result of the appeal was that it was dismissed. The decree was then drawn up in the fo...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Mohan Dey Vs. H.N. Dutta and Co. Solicitors, High Court
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.209
1. The facts connected with this Rule are as follows: One Hari Dasi is the administratrix of the estate of her husband Tulsidas Dey. Certain premises forming part of the estate having been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, one lac and forty-eight thousand rupees was awarded as compensation. She was not satisfied with the award, and caused a reference to be made to the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal for the determination of the proper amount of compensation payable for the premises, and the Tribunal enhanced the award by Rs. 27,000. Both the said sum and the amount, of the original award have been invested in War bonds under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. The opposite party, Messrs. H.N. Dutta & Co., acted as Solicitors on her behalf in the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Collector, as well as before the Improvement Tribunal. They obtained a decree against her in the Calcutta Small Cause Court for Rs. 2,018 and odd for their bill of costs for the work done in conn...
Tag this Judgment!Gobinda Chandra Gope and ors. Vs. Akhil Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.858
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Faridpur, which confirmed the decree of the First Court, whereby the plaintiffs were given a decree for declaration of their title by auction purchase in respect of the lands described in the schedule of the plaint, and that the plaintiffs should recover khas possession thereof as against all the defendants and that the terms of the solenamah between the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 be embodied in the decree except in regard to costs.2. In this case, the appeal is by defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 only. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 agree to the decree against them. It is not necessary for me to go through all the facts of this case as they are stated in the judgments of the Courts below. In order to make my judgment intelligible it is necessary to state one or two facts. Defendants NOS. 5, 6 and 7 were mortgagees holding a mortgage executed in their favour by defendant No. 1 o...
Tag this Judgment!Sital Chandra Majhi Vs. Parbati Charan Chakrabarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal32,69Ind.Cas.841
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. These are three appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr Justice Newbould in three connected second appeals in suits for recovery of possession of land upon declaration of title. The disputed lands are comprised in a holding held by three brothers, Bhut Nath Mal, Akahay Kumar Mal and Hari Charan Mal, under one Premamayi Dasi, now deceased. On the 9th September 1901 the Mala mortgaged a portion of their holding, comprising an area of 9 bighas 9 1/4 cottahs cut of 11 bighas 18 1/2 cottahs of land, to the respondent, Parbati Charan Chiskrabarti. On the 14th September 1914 the mortgagee obtained a decree on his mortgage against the mortgagors. On the 12th May 195 the mortgagee decree- holder purchased the hypo hecated property at the execution sale which was confirmed due course on the 24th June 1915. The purchaser however, was resisted by the defendants-appellants when be attempted to take delivery of possession through the Court. This ...
Tag this Judgment!ishan Chandra Bakshi Vs. Sefatulla Sikdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1921
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.219
1. This is an appeal under clause lo of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould in an Appeal from Appellate Decree in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title. The plaintiff claimed the disputed land as included in an occupancy holding held by one Biswambhur Bakshi at an annual rent of Rs. 6-4-0 under the Sinha Rays who were tenure holders under the Raja of Dighapatya. The occupancy holding was sold in 1900 in execution of a decree for arrears of rent, when it was purchased by one Prosanna Chandra Bhattacharjya. His representatives made default in the payment of rent, and the occupancy holding was again sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent on the 23rd April 1913 when it was purchased by the landlords themselves. The plaintiff took settlement from the landlords on the 24th February 1915, but was unable to obtain possession of the disputed area. The result was the institution of this suit on the 10th January 1916. The defendants ...
Tag this Judgment!Syama Charan Borman Vs. Narottam Borman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.257
Pearson, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued upon a bond under which the payment was provided for in three instalments, namely, Rs. 31 in 1333, and two other instalments of the same amounts in 1324 and 1325, and it was also provided that in case of default the amount of the instalment in arrears should carry interest at the rate of one anna per rupee per mensem and that the creditor would have further the option of suing for the entire amount of the bond with the stipulated interest on the arrears.2. The lower Court has dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. It appears that the default was made in the first instalment and in so far as that is concerned, the claim is admittedly barred. The question arises as to the second and third instalments. I have been referred to a number of cases of this nature decided by this Court bearing on the point, and the learned Vakil has relied mainly on the case of Rup Narain Bhattacharya v. Gopi Nath Mandol 11 C.W.N. 903. That decision purport...
Tag this Judgment!Gendli Bibi and ors. Vs. Joynal AbdIn Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal254,64Ind.Cas.565
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in an action in ejectment. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had no right of possession in the disputed land and was liable to be ejected as a trespasser. The defendant pleaded that he was an occupancy raiyat tinder the plaintiffs and held the land at a rental of Rs. 10. Upon these pleadings, the Trial Court raised the issue, whether the plaintiffs had a right to get khas possession of the land in suit. The Court came to the conclusion that the defendant was not a raiyat but a trespasser, and decreed the suit. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the defendant was an adhiar tenant, that is, a tenant who cultivates the land on condition of payment of one half of the produce to the landlord. In this view the lower Appellate Court held that the defendant could not be ejected as a trespasser. On the present appeal, the decree of the Subordinate Judge has been assailed on two grounds : namely, first, that the case has ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Shachuni and anr. Vs. Shiekh Basir and ors. and Nurjan Bewa and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.613
1. Two contentions have been raised in this case : the first is that with regard to the question of title, the defendants set up a new case on appeal to the lower Appellate Court.2. We do not think, however, that any new case was set up. The plaintiffs' case was that all the properties belonged to their maternal grandfather Lobai, and that they were entitled to two thirds of the same. The case for the defendants was that the entire properties belonged to their father Budhai. The Court of first instance found in favour of the plaintiffs with regard to all the properties and gave them a decree for two thirds share as claimed. The Court of Appeal below disagreed with that finding with regard to properties other than the homestead, and with regard to the homestead, that Court found that the property originally belonged to Lobai Sircar. It cannot be said, therefore, that the lower Appellate Court decided the question of title upon a new case.3. The second contention is that the Court of App...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »