Kolkata Court April 1922 Judgments
Kusum Bandhu Chakravarthy and anr. Vs. Ramdayal Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal362
Ghose, J.1. The plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal arises for declaration of title to and confirmation of possession in certain lands on the ground that they belonged to one Sarbanunda. Certain persons obtained a decree against Sarbanunda and executed the decree against him. During the course of the execution, Sarbanunda died and Parbati, the brother of Sarbanunda, was substituted in his place as his legal representative on the record. In execution, the disputed lands were sold and purchased by one Bharat. The plaintiff then purchased this property from Bharat. But when he sought for registration of his name in the Collectorate, his name was not registered apparently on the objection of the defendants and this led him to bring this suit.2. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below and the defendants Nos. 3 and 5 have appealed to this Court.3. The ground urged by the defendants Nos. 3 and 5, the appellants to this Court, is that the execution sale did not pass ...
Tag this Judgment!Ferasat Ali Mulik Vs. Priamboda Devi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal544
Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The defendant contends that the rent is not payable by him at the rate of Rs. 18-11-0 claimed by the plaintiff, because the rent of the holding was Rs. 12-12-0, and that, even assuming that he has agreed to pay an increased rate of rent, it is in contravention of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and therefore not enforceable under the law. The matter stands thus : - The defendant appears to have purchased a non-transferable occupancy holding which bore a rent of Rs. 12-12-0. The plaintiff landlord refused to recognise the defendant as a purchaser and in consequence she would have been entitled to khas possession; in order to retain possession of this holding, the defendant agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 18-11-0 and upon these terms the landlord allowed him to remain on the land. Thus it is not a question of enhancement of rent of the original tenant, but the defendant, whose position by virtue of his purchase was only that of a tr...
Tag this Judgment!Kusum Bandhu Chakravarty and anr. Vs. Ramdayal Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1922
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.179
Ghose, J.1. The plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal arises for declaration of title to and confirmation of possession in certain lands on the ground that they belonged to one, Sarbanunda. Certain persons obtained a decree against Sarbanunda and executed the decree against him. During the course of the execution, Sarbanunda died and Parbati, the brother of Sarbanunda,, was substituted in his place as his legal representative on the record. In execution, the disputed lands were sold and purchased by one Bharat. The plaintiff then purchased this property from Bharat. But when he sought for registration of hi* name in the Collectorate, his name was not registered apparently on the objection of the defendants and this led him to bring this suit.2. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below and the defendants Nos. 3 and 5 have appealed to. this Court.3. The ground urged by the defendants Nos. 3 and 5, the appellants to this Court, is that the execution sale did not pa...
Tag this Judgment!Ferasat Ali Mullik Vs. Srimati Priamboda Devi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1922
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.414
Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The defendant contends that the rent is not payable by him at the rate of R3. 18-11-0 claimed by the plaintiff, because the rent of the holding was Rs. 1212 0, and that, even assuming that he has agreed to pay an increased rate of rent, it is in contravention of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and, therefore, not enforceable under the law. The matter stands thus : The defendant appears to have purchased a non- transferable occupancy holding which bore a rent of Rs. 12-120. The plaintiff-landlord refused to recognise the defendant as a purchaser and in consequence she would have been entitled to khas possession; in order to retain possession of this holding, the defendant agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 18-11-0 and, upon these terms, the landlord allowed him to remain on the land. Thus, it is not a question of enhancement of rent of the original tenant bat the defendant whose Position by virtue of his purchase was only that of a tr...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Durga Charan Bepari Alias Durga Charan Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal124,68Ind.Cas.407
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in a case whish was tried by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge of Bakerganj and a Jury, and in which the three accused were found guilty of murder and were sentenced to death. There is also an appeal by the three accused. Two of the accused, Durga Charan Behari and Hasan Dewan, were found guilty of murder by the unanimous verdict of the Jury under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the other, Alimuddi Mistry, was found guilty of murder under Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. All three were found guilty on the remaining two charges, namely, under Section 364, which is the section dealing with abduction with intent that the person abducted may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, and under Section 148, which is the section which deals with rioting by a person or persona armed with deadly weapons.2. The first gr...
Tag this Judgment!Manmatha Nath Chuckerbutty and ors. Vs. Balai Chandra Bag
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal359,70Ind.Cas.111
B.B. Ghose, J.1. In this case, the plaintiffs are the appellants. They brought the suit against their lessee for the rent of two holdings. The defence of the lessee was that he had transferred one of the holdings entirely and a portion of the other to a third person and, therefore, he was not liable to pay the whole rent due to the landlord. The Court of first instance made a partial decree in favour of the plaintiffs to the extent of the rent due for the part which has not been transferred by the defendant to the third person. The plaintiffs appealed to the learned Additional District Judge and the judgment of the first Court has been affirmed by him.2. In my opinion, the judgment of the lower Appellate Court cannot be supported. The defendant is the legal representative of the original lessee, and under Section 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act, by which the present case is governed, the defendant does not cease to be subject to the liability to pay rent only by reason of the tr...
Tag this Judgment!Sadakali Khan Vs. Janakinath Singha Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal463
Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent brought by the plaintiff-respondent, the landlord, against the defendant-appellant, the tenant, for 15 cottas of land at the rate of Re. 1-8-0 per annum. The defendant's plea mainly was that the holding consisted of 11/2 bighas and that the annual rent payable was not Re. 1-8-0 for 15 cottas but Rs. 3 for the entire holding of 11/2 bighas. The findings arrived at by both the Courts below were that the defendants had sold a moiety of the holding, namely, 15 cottas of land to one Sobur Ali, that the purchaser was in possession of that half share by virtue of his purchase and that the landlord with the defendant's consent sub-divided the holding sometime after 1320 B.S It appears also that the landlord bas been receiving rent for the other half share of the original holding from the purchaser. Upon those findings the Court of appeal held that the landlord was entitled to claim rent for this 15 cottas of land at the rate mentioned. Ther...
Tag this Judgment!J.N. Ghose and ors. Vs. B.B. Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.638
John Woodroffe, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for administration of the estate and construction of the Will of one Apurba Krishna Ghose. It is alleged that certain properties (to which I will refer later) do not belong to the estate of the testator. The latter died in December 1917 leaving a will of which the first two defendants are executor and executrix. Probate was applied for and obtained of this Will on the 1st of February 1919. This suit was instituted in June 1919, that 13, some four months only after the grant of the Probate. The testator had two wives, the first of whom is now dead and the second is the defendant No. 1. He had, by his first wife, 4 sons and 3 daughters. The plaintiffs are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sons of the testator and his eldest son is the defendant No. 2. The third defendant is a minor, Srimati Mohamaya Dasi, the daughter of the first defendant. Of the three daughters of the first wife, Priyabala, Basanta Kumari and Katyani, two, namely, Basanta Kumar...
Tag this Judgment!Siva Prosad Singh Vs. Rani Prayag Kumari Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1922
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.901
Lancelot Sanderson, C J. 1. This is an application made by the defendant in the suit, who is the Appellant to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to set aside an order made by the Registrar on the 24th April 1922 and for a direction that the papers referred to therein may be excluded from the printed record, or in the alternative that the appellant's petition of objection be also included there in or for such other order as the Court may deem fit and proper.2. The circumstances leading up to this application are unusual and it is desirable to state the facts. Both the plaintiffs and the defendant in the suit filed appeals to this Court from the decision of the lower Court.3. On the 9th February 1922 a certain order was made by my learned brothers Mooker-jee and Cuming, JJ., in respect of two Rules obtained by the respective parties.4. An application was made by the defendant in the suit to the Bench (consisting of my learned brother Richerdson, J., and myself) taking Privy Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Haji Sadakali Khan Vs. Janakinath Singha Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1922
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.194
Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent brought by the plaintiff respondent, the landlord, against the defendant-appellant, the tenant, for 15 cotlas of land at the rate of Be. 1-8-0 per annum. The defendant's plea mainly was that the holding consisted of 1 1/2 bighas and that the annual rent payable was not Re. 180 for 15 cottas but Rs. 3 for the entire holding of 1 1/2 bighas. The findings arrived at by both the Courts below were that the defendants had told a moiety of the holding, namely, 15 cottas of land to one Sobur Ali, that the purchaser was in possession of that half share by virtue of his purchase and that the landlord with the defendant's consent sub-divided the holding sometime after 1320 B. S. It appears also that the landlord has been receiving rent for the other half share of the original holding from the purchaser. Upon those findings the Court of Appeal held that the landlord was entitled to claim rent for this 15 cottas of land at the rate mentioned. Th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »