Kolkata Court March 1922 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
i.J. Cohen Vs. G. Dias
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal475,70Ind.Cas.551
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Reference by the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes in Calcutta and the facts which are material for this Reference are set out in the Reference. They are stated as follows:1. The plaintiff is the landlord of certain premises in Calcutta known as Cohen Mansions and the defendant is tenant of suit No. 8 thereof.2. The monthly Rent was Rs. 75.3. The Rent Controller appointed under the Calcutta Rent Act 1920, by his order dated 15th July 1920, fixed the standard rent at Rs. 93-12.4. Being dissatisfied with the said order the plaintiff, on the 24th August 1920, applied under Section 18 of the said Act to the President of the Tribunal appointed under the Calcutta Improvement Act, for revision of the said order.5. The decision of the President, dated the nth February 1921, fixed the standard rent at Rs. 100 a month.6. It is admitted that subsequent to, the Rent Controller's order the plaintiff complied 'with the provisions of Section 8 of th...
Norendra Nath Dey Vs. Jotish Chandra Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.705
Newbould, J.1. The plaintiff who is the appellant before us instituted a suit against the defendant-respondent to recover damages for malicious prosecution. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the suits on findings against the plaintiff on preliminary issues as to his cause of action and the maintainability of the Suit.2. The main facts of the case as they appear from the pleadings of the parties are as follows: The appellant brought a title suit against the respondent and another person and in that suit ho filed Letters of Administration with copy of the Will annexed. The respondent alleged that there were interpolations in the copy of the Will and applied to the Munsif who tried the title suit for sanction under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, to procedure the plaintiff under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. There was a good deal of litigation in connection with this application, and finally an order of sanction which had been passed by the District Judge on appeal w...
MafizuddIn Howladar Vs. Mohammad Islam Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal281,67Ind.Cas.741
Newbould, J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit for establishment of his title to the disputed land and recovery of khas possession of it claiming as auction-purchaser at a revenue sale.2. One of the pleas taken in defence was that the plaintiff was a benamidar. The first Court decided this issue and the other issues raised in the plaintiff's favour and granted him a decree. On appeal the lower Appellate Court came to a contrary decision on the issue of benami and on that ground alone dismissed the suit. It has been held, however, by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Gur Narayan v. Sheo Lal Singh 49 Ind. Cas. 1 : 23 C.W.N. 521 : 17 A.L.J. 66 : 36 M.L.J. 68 : 9 L.W. 335; I.U.P.L.R. (P.C.) 1 : 46 C. 566 : 12 Bur. L.T. 122 : 46 I.A.I. (P.C.) that a benamidar can maintain a suit for recovery of possession. The lower Appellate Court having dismissed the suit solely on the finding that the plaintiff as a mere benamidar cannot maintain the suit, his judgment must be re...
Brojendra Kishore Roy Chowdhury Vs. Sheikh Somar Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal282,68Ind.Cas.298
Newbould, J.1. This appeal arises out of a rent suit and the only question in dispute is the amount of rent payable. The plaintiff relies on a decision in a case under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defendant relies on a decision in a suit for rent for the years previous to those for which rent is claimed in the present suit.2. The appellant has taken back from the file of the lower Court the judgment delivered in Section 105 case, Consequently I have before me only the statement by the lower Court of the purport of that judgment. From that it appears that in that case the only point which the Revenue Officer had to consider was what additional rent was to be allowed for the exce(sic)s area. If that was the only point decided it is of no help to the appellant that the rant of the original area was recorded at the conclusion of that case at the same amount as it had been recorded in the kh tian. The lower Courts have held that the presumption arising from the entry in the kh...
Srimati Krishna Pramada Dasi, Widow of Late Suresh Chandra Ghose Vs. R ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal327(1),67Ind.Cas.709
Newbould, J.1. The plaintiff is the purchaser of a patni tenure and brought this suit to eject the principal defendant after service of notice under Section 15 of the Patni Sale Regulation of 1819. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the defendant is protected from eviction under the proviso to Section 11 of that Regulation on the ground that he is a khudkast raiyat or resident and hereditary cultivator. The lower Appellate Court has found that defendant No. 1 and his father were in khas possession of the culturable portion of the holding by cultivating the same through labourers. It is also found that the defendant's father took lease of the land and built his bari on a part of it about 30 years ago. On these findings which I must accept in second appeal I hold that the lower Appellate Court was right.2. Khudkast raiyats are described in paragraph 20 of Field's Introduction to the Regulation as raiyats cultivating lands in their own village or in village in which they a...
Ramgolam Kalwar Vs. Gumti Shaw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal535a
1. This is an application in respect of an order passed by the Rent Controller whose judgment is as follows:As the two rooms are admittedly portions of huts standing on bastee land belonging to the superior landlords the provisions of the Act do not apply, as they are not premises according to the definition of the Rent Act.He therefore dismissed the applicant's application for fixing a standard rent.2. It appears to me that his decision is clearly justifiable by the terms of the definition of the word 'premises' in Section 2(e) of the Act, which means any building or part of a building or hut let separately for residential, charitable, educational or public purposes, or for the purposes of a shop or an office including any land appertaining thereto and let therewith.3. Now, it cannot be contended that, if those words are taken according to their literal meaning as they stand, the decision of Rent Controller is incorrect. But the argument before us is this, that, when the section says,...
Siva Prosad Singh Vs. Rani Proyag Kumari Devi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal479,70Ind.Cas.519
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an application by one Shiva Prosad Singh for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council.2. The suit related to an impartible estate of one Raja Sangram Singh. He left three sons. Durga Prosad Singh was the descendant of the first son. He died on the 7th of March 1916, leaving three widows who are the plaintiffs in the suit. Siva Prosad, the applicant, is the descendant of another son of Raj a Sangram Singh, He is the defendant in the suit. After the death' of Durga Prosad, the defendant entered into possession of the estate. There was an installation ceremony held in March 1916 and the defendant's name was registered as the proprietor of the estate under the Land Registration Act. Durga Prosad bad left a Will dealing with certain jewellery and money, the Will containing, among other matters, a provision that each of the widows was to receive Rs. 300 a month by way of maintenance. No Probate was taken out of the Will. But in August 1916 certain arrangem...
Sham Lal Rai Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Radha Charan Rai Chowdhury and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1922
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.774
1. The suit giving rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff for possession of certain lands and for mesne profits. Admittedly, the property belonged originally to one Raj Kumnr. Plaintiff states that defendant No. 5 Rasik had advanced some money to Raj Kumar in the benami of his brother Ganga Charan, defendant No. 6, and a decree was obtained for the debt in the name of defendant No. 6 in execution of which, the property was sold and purchased by defendant No. 5 in the name of defendant No. 6, the ostensible decree-holder, on 18th March 1903 and symbolical possession obtained on the 28th October 1903. Plaintiff purchased it from defendant No. 5 by a kabala in the benami of defendant No. 4 on 5th October 1910 and he seeks possession on the basis of this title. Plaintiff, however, states in his plaint that the father of defendant No. 1 had in execution of his own decree against Raj Kumar purchased the property on 24th October 1903 and was in actual possession and that defendant N...
Ram Golam Kalwar Vs. Gumti Shaw and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1922
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.976
1. This is an application in respect of an order passed by the Rent Controller whose judgment is as follows:As the two rooms are admittedly portions of huts standing on bastee land belonging to the superior landlords the provisions of the Act do not apply, as they are not premises according to the definition of the Rent Act. ' He, therefore, dismissed the applicant's application for fixing a standard rent.2. It appears to me that his decision is clearly justifiable by the terms of the definition of the word ' premises' in Section 2 (e) of the Act, which means any building or part of a building or hut let separately foe residential, charitable, educational or public purposes, or for the purposes of a shop or an office including any land appertaining there to and let therewith.3. Now, it cannot be contended that if those words are taken according to their literal meaning as they stand, the decision of Rent Controller is incorrect. But the argument before us is this, that when the section...
Jogesh Chandra Shaha Vs. Bhiku Sau Paramanik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal512
1. This appeal is against an order of the District Judge of Birbhum refusing to grant Probate of the Will of one Rasaraj Saha. He is said to have executed the Will on the 2nd November, 1919, at about 10 a.m. He died the very sumo day at about 4-30 p.m.2. The petitioner who propounded the Will its a distant agnate of the deceased. The objector is the first cousin (father's brother's son). He lived at a different place about 12 miles away and had no concern with the deceased. On the other-hand, Rasaraj used to take his food in the house of the petitioner and was evidently more intimate with him. Under these circumstances, we think the learned Judge was right in holding that the deceased, if he had testamentary capacity when he is said to have executed the Will, would in all probability have excluded the objector and that the Will in favour of the petitioner could not be said to be unnatural.3. The learned Judge, however, found that the deceased had no testamentary capacity at the time wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »