Kolkata Court November 1923 Judgments
Guru Charan Das Vs. Port Canning and Land Improvement Co. Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1928Cal245
Rankin, J.1. In this case the appeal is brought from a decision of the District Judge, 24 Parganas, whereby he decreed a suit for rent. The arguments that have been very ably urged before us for the appellant arise out of the following facts : It appears that at the beginning, the defendant was a lessee of an ordinary non-permanent jote of some 302 bighas at a rental per bigha of Rs. 1-12-0 per annum. In March 1911 the lessee transferred some 55 bighas to a lady of the name of Bhagabati Dasi. That was a transfer; was not a sub-lease, but a complete transfer, as regards 55 bighas, of the defendant's right and interest. It was a transfer which the landlord, the present plaintiff, was not obliged to recognize. It appears, however, that in point of fact the landlord did recognize her and did accept rent from the transferee. On 25th February 1914 the landlord granted a permanent settlement to the defendant and, upon the document containing that permanent settlement, the present questions re...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra Chatterjee Vs. Kali Charan Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal437
Rankin, J.1. This is the plaintiff's appeal in a suit for rent for the years 1321 to 1324 B.S. The plaintiff claims that he is the landlord of the defendants in respect of a jama of Rs. 90-8-0 and odd gandas, the superior interest in which fell to his share upon a partition made in the year 1914 under the Bengal Estates Partition Act V. (B.C.) of 1897. The Munsif of Basirhat decreed his suit: but the Subordinate Judge of 24 Parganahs, on appeal has dismissed the suit.2. The facts upon which the case has been decided by the learned Subordinate Judge may be stated as follows:-Originally the plaintiff with a number of co-sharers was the landlord in respect of a tenancy comprising lands in a number of mouzas, of which tenancy the rent was Rs. 251-0-6 pies. In course of time, the tenancy by arrangement, in the first instance, was split up, and about the year 1913, if not much earlier, the tenants were claiming that the original jama of Rs. 251 odd had entirely gone and that in point of fact...
Tag this Judgment!Kameswari Dasya Vs. Sshuram Deka and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal792,83Ind.Cas.229
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould in a suit for recovery of possession of land upon declaration of title.2. The facts as found by the Subordinate Judge may be briefly recited. The husband of the plaintiff and the second defendant were joint owners of an area of land covering 11 cottahs and odd. By mutual arrangement, the husband of the plaintiff occupied the eastern half of the land, and the second defendant the western half. While they were thus in possession, the first defendant took a conveyance of two cottahs of land from the second defendant. On the basis of title thus acquired the first defendant ousted the plaintiff from the two cottahs now in suit. The Court of first instance held that as the plaintiff had failed to prove, as alleged by her, that there had been a final partition of the entire tract, she was entitled to no relief. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge, held that the first defendant was ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Gafur and ors. Vs. Ali Miah, Sub-registrar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal26
1. This is an appeal by the added defendants in a suit for arrears of rent.2. The plaintiff instituted the suit on the 16th April, 1919, against the tenant-defendant for recovery of rent for the period between the 18th October, 1916, and the 13th April, 1919. His allegation was that the tenant held under him an area of one kani seven gandas of land at an annual rent of Rs. 43-11.6. The defendant filed his written statement on the 17th July, 1919, and urged, amongst; other pleas, that the plaintiff alone was not competent to maintain the suit as he was in effect a fractional landlord. The Court thereupon adjourned the case till the 7th August, 1919. On the date, the plaintiff applied for time to add certain persons as defendants. The adjournment was granted, and on the 28th October, 1919, at the instance of the plaintiff, the present appellants were added as defendants. The plaint, however, was not amended as contemplated by Order 1, Rule 10, Sub-rule (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure,...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Gafur and ors. Vs. Ali Miah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1923
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.369
1. This is an appeal by the added defendants in a suit for arrears of rent.2. The plaintiff instituted this suit on the 16th April, 1919, against the tenant-defendant for recovery of rent for the period between the 18th October, 1916, and the 13th April, 1919. His allegation was that the tenant held under him an area of one kani seven gandas of land at an annual rent of Rs. 43-11-6. The defendant filed his written statement on the 17th July, 1919, and urged, amongst other pleas, that the plaintiff alone was not competent to maintain the suit as he was in effect a fractional landlord. The Court thereupon adjourned the case till the 7th August, 1919. On that date, the plaintiff applied for time to add certain persons as defendants. The adjournment was granted, and on the 28th October, 1919, at the instance of the plaintiff, the present appellants were added as defendants. The plaint, however, was not amended as contemplated by Order I, Rule 10, Sub-rule (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotsna Nath Sikdar Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal780,83Ind.Cas.591
1. In this case a Rule was issued at the instance of the accused calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why a certain order should not be set aside on ground No. 3 as stated in the petition. The accused were charged under Sections 120B, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Six witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant on the 21st and 28th of May, and on the 8th of June. On the 2nd July the complainant, who had already been partly examined, was further examined. The complainant was recalled on the 18th July and was examined, and on that date, the accused applied before the Magistrate for permission to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, and they filed a written application. The Magistrate directed the application to be filed, stating that he would consider the same offer the prosecution had closed their case. On the 26th July witnesses Nos. 6 and 8 to 11 were recalled and examined by the prosecution, and, on the 1st August, one witness for the prosec...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. Kasem Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal29
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of money. The claim has bean decreed against the first defendant but dismissed against the second. The question in controversy now is, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree against the second defendant, and if so, for what amount.2. The plaintiffs are money-lenders. The first defendant is a contractor. Among various works which he had undertaken, he had in hand a contract under the Bengal-Nagpur Railway Company in connexion with what is known as the Kharagpur Line Sub-Division. In this business, the second defendant was his partner under a deed executed on the 28th June, 1920, though the partnership had commenced on the 28th March, 1920. The partnership was dissolved by a con-sent decree on the 16th June, 1922, in a litigation between the defendants. The plaintiffs seek to recover from the defendants three sums of money for three successive periods. The first period covers the time between the 11th January, 1920, a...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotsna Nath Sikdar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal442
Greaves and Panton, JJ.1. In this case a Rule was issued at the instance of the accused calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why a certain order should not be set aside on ground No. 3 as stated in the petition. The accused were charged under Sections 120 B, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Six witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant on the 21st and 28th of May and on the 8th of June. On the 2nd July the complainant, who had already been partly examined, was farther examined The complainant was recalled on the 18th July and was examined, and on that date the accused applied before the Magistrate for permission to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, and they filed a written application. The Magistrate directed the application to be filed, stating that he would consider the same after the prosecution had closed their case. On the 26th July witnesses Nos. 6 and 8 to 11 were recalled and examined by the prosecution, and, on the 1st August, one w...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Charan Banik Vs. Mani Mohan Saha Banik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal794
Walmsley, J.1. These two appeals arise from two suits. Kali Charan, the appellant, was Plaintiff in one suit, and Mani Mohon, the Respondent, in the other, and each made the other Defendant. The dispute was about a strip of land between their two houses. Kali Charan alleged that the dispute had been referred to arbitrators and decided in his favour, and he asked to have a decree drawn up in accordance with the award. Mani Mohon asserted that there had not been any valid reference to arbitration and claimed a declaration of his title to the strip of land : he also sought for a declaration of his right of way over an adjoining strip of land.2. The trial Court found in favour of Kali Charan, overruling all Mani Mohon's objections to the reference, and holding with regard to the alleged right of way that such user as had been proved was of a permissive nature.3. Mani Mohon appealed: and the learned Subordinate Judge endorsed the Munsif's findings about the right of way, but held that the a...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Nawaz Vs. Karim Baksh Chaudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1044,84Ind.Cas.405
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Walmsley in a suit for arrears of rent.2. The plaintiff seeks to recover arrears of rent for the years 1914 to 1918 The rent is claimed at Rs. 20 a year together with ceses at annas ten per year. The defendants claim reduction of rent on account of diminution of area. The trial Court decreed the suit in full. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge varied the decree and allowed the reduction claimed. On second appeal to this Court, Mr. Justice Walmsley has reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restored that of the primary Court.3. The question in controversy arises in this way. The plaintiffs allege that the tenancy comprised 1 kani, 12 gandas of land within the boundaries specified and was held at Rs. 20 a year. The defendants contend that according to an entry in the record-of-rights, which was finally published on the 21st January, 1918, the area is 1 kani, 2 gandas and 2 kar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »