Kolkata Court December 1923 Judgments
Dwijendra NaraIn Roy Vs. Joges Chandra De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-31-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal600,79Ind.Cas.520
Mookerjee, J.1. These are two appeals by the first and the second defendant respectively, in a suit for recovery of possession of land and mesne profits, upon declaration of title. The facts material for the determination of the questions in controversy are beyond dispute and may be briefly recited.2. On the 17th January, 1913, the first defendant executed four documents in favour of the plaintiff, namely:(1) a patni patta in respect of lands described in schedule ha of the plaint;(2) a darpatni patta in respect of lands described in schedule kha of the plaint;(3) a mourasi mokrari patta of the de-buttar lakhraj resumed chakran lands described in schedules ga, gha and una of the plaint; and(4) a maurasi mokrari patta of the aima and resumed chowkidari chakran lands described in schedule cha of the plaint.3. The first and second documents were taken in the name of the plaintiff himself; the third and fourth documents were taken by the plaintiff in the name of the third defendant. On the...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshan Chandra Mandal Vs. Takim Dhali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-31-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal558
Mookerjee, J.1. The subject-matter of the litigation, which has culminated in this appeal, is tenure created on the 25th February, 1881, by the proprietor of Chuck Ula Kalijuga appertaining to Tauzi No. 57 of the Collectorate of Khulna. The proprietary interest, which, at that time, was vested in Suryya Kanta Rai Chaudhuri, has since been transferred to Jogendra Chandra Ghosh and others. The case for the plaintiff is that the tenure was granted to one Idu Sana; while the case for the defendants is that the grant was made in favour of his son Budhai Sana. The relationship of the parties will appear from the following genealogical table: Idu Sana d. 1884 | __________________________________________________ | | | Niamat Chand Budhai d. 1900 d. 1892 | |____________________ || | | |Siam Hemala Samela |Def.5 Def.8 Def.9. | | ________________________________________ | | | | Abdul Ektar Amela Khutti Def. 6 Def. 7 Def. 10 Def. 112. Idu Sana left three sons, Niamat, Chand and Budhai, who inherit...
Tag this Judgment!Lukhan Chandra Mondal Vs. Takim Dhali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-31-1923
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.357
1. The subject-matter in the litigation, which has culminated in this appeal, is a tenure created on the 25th February 1881, by the proprietor of Chuck Ula Kalijuga appertaining to Tauzi No. 57 of the Collectorate of Khulna. The proprietary interest, which, at that time was vested in Suryyakanta Bai Chaudhuri, has since been transferred to Jogendra Chandra Ghosh and others. The case for the plaintiff is that the tenure was granted to one Idu Sana; while the case for the defendants is that the grant was made in favour of his son Bhudai Sana. The relationship of the parties will appear from the annexed genealogical table: Idu Sana d. 1884 | ________________________________________________________ | | | Niamat Chand Budhai d. 1900 d. 1892 | | | ______________________________ | | _________________________________ | | | | | Siam Hemela Samela | Def. 5 Def. 8 Def. 9 | | | _______________________________________ | | | | Abdul Ektar Amela Khutti Def. 6 Def. 7 Def. 10 Def. 112. Idu Sana left...
Tag this Judgment!Kush Kanta Barkakati Vs. Chandra Kanta Kakati and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1056,83Ind.Cas.151
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of the price and hire of an elephant as also the cost of an iron chain. The case for the plaintiff is that the first defendant on behalf of the third defendant who is an officer of the second defendant (the Surma Valley Saw Mills Company, Limited), hired his elephant for a period of ten months from the 15th July, 1919, to the 14tb May, 1920. There was a written agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant executed on the 8th July, 1919. The plaintiff alleges that although the period of the hire expired on the 14th May, 1920, the first defendant did not re-deliver the elephant to him, and, as he was subsequently apprised, the elephant died on the 22nd May, 1920. The plaintiff accordingly seeks to recover from the three defendants, jointly and severally, Rs. 5,000 as price of the elephant, Rs. 45 as price of the iron chain supplied be him when the elephant was delivered to the first defendant, and Rs 16-5-4 as hire f...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Chandra Pal Vs. Chandramohan Datta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal199
Newbould, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment. The plaintiff's case is that he is a raiyat and the principal defendants held under him as under-raiyats. In 1907 the plaintiff brought a suit for the ejectment of the defendants after notice under Section 49 (a) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That suit ended in a compromise.2. The only question in this appeal is what is the proper interpretation of the decree passed embodying that compromise. Admittedly the plaintiff has served no fresh notice on the defendants before the institution of this suit. He can only eject the defendants if Clause (a) of Section 49 is applicable, that is to say, on the expiration of the term of a lease. In other words the plaintiff's case depends on whether the effect of the solenamah decree was that of a written lease for a term of years. The main provisions of the solenamah are that the defendant No. 1 shall pay at the end of each 9 years a selami of Rs. 44 if he cultivates pan by other people and a ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeshchandra Pal Vs. Chandramohan Datta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1923
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.730
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould in a suit for ejectment.2. In 1897, the first defendant took the land from the plaintiff, a raiyat and thus became an under-raiyat. In 1907, the plaintiff sued to eject the defendant after service of notice under Section 49, Bengal Tenancy Act. On the 13th June 1908 a decree was made in that suit by consent of parties. On the 20th November 1919, the plaintiff institute ed the present suit for ejectment on the theory that the defendant had, in accordance with the provisions of the consent decree, forfeited the tenancy and was a trespasser in occupation. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. That decision has been affirmed successively by the Subordinate Judge and by Mr. Justice Newbould. We are of opinion that the decree of dismissal must be maintained.3. In 1907, when the plaintiff sued to ejcet the defendant after notice under Section 49, Bengal Tenancy Act, the defendant was an under-ra...
Tag this Judgment!Bholanath Das and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal614,83Ind.Cas.628
1. We have already directed that some of the petitioners are to be released on bail, but the questions of law raised by the learned Vakil of the petitioner remain to be decided.2. The facts are as follows : - One Promotha Nath Das was arrested in June of this year, he was brought before the Additional Magistrate of Alipore on the 7th June when he made a confession which was recorded. As a result of Promotha's confession the petitioners were arrested on the 5th August, and on the 20th August they were brought before the Police Magistrate of Sealdah and a letter from the investigating Police Officer was received, their application for bail was refused and the case was adjourned to the 4th September. On the 4th September, the case was again adjourned until the 18th September when a Magistrate, who had been deputed to verify Promotha's confession, was examined and the case was adjourned to the 2nd October. One of the accused Nagendra was subsequently released on bail by this Court on the g...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Sarat Sundari Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal447
Rankin, J.1. The plaintiff brings her suit for a declaration that the orders of the Board of Revenue whereby certain char land has been assessed to additional revenue under Act IX of 1847 are ultra vires and invalid. The land in question is an area of over 10 acres or 30 bighas. The mouza in which the plaintiff is interested is a mouza called Chandigram and, on the opposite side of a certain river or rivulet, as to which I shall say something in a moment, there is another mouza called Pathril. The plaintiff's mouza lies within a Parganah called Kagmari and, on the opposite side of the river already mentioned, facing Kagmari is a Parganah called Atia. The 10 acres in suit are shown in the Thak and the Revenue Surveys of 1850 and 1851 in this manner:-There was at that time undoubtedly a river known as Alam. The Revenue Survey Map shows it in 1851 as a flowing river. Between the plaintiff's mouza and the opposite mouza, the line of demarcation is put in the middle of that river; but, on o...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Chandra Tara Debi and anr. Vs. Srish Chandra Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1928Cal277
1. We are invited in this appeal to examine the propriety of an order of dismissal, made on an application for letters of administration with copy of will annexed in respect of the estate of one Sibsundari Debi. The lady made a testamentary disposition on 15th Jane 1896. She died in the following month leaving four sons, two of whom had been married. The will recites that as the sons were of extravagant habits, it was necessary to take steps for the preservation of the estate. The property was consequently left to the two daughters-in-law and various directions were given for its management and distribution. On 2nd January 1920, the daughters-in-law made the present application for letters of administration to the estate of their mother-in-law with copy of her will annexed. The application was opposed by one Srish Chandra Bhattacharjya, who claimed an interest in the estate by purchase at a sale held in execution of a decree against the sons of the deceased, who would have taken the es...
Tag this Judgment!Najimunnessa Bibi, Wife of Subid Sheik Vs. NacharaddIn Sardar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal744,83Ind.Cas.233
Rankin, J.1. This is a title suit for lands by a lady against the judgment-creditors of her husband who caused the lands to be taken in execution as being the husband's property and bought them himself at the execution sale. The defendant's decree was obtained in 1910 in Suit No. 453 of 1909. On 4th November, 1910, he attached the lands and the plain-till filed a claim under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code. Her claim was dismissed for default on 7th January, 1911. Nevertheless, the defendant as decree-holder took no further steps to bring the property to sale, and the execution proceedings were dismissed very soon afterwards for default whereupon the attachment ceased under Order 21, Rule 57. In 1918, the defendant issued execution against the same lands and purchased them at the auction sale. The Lower Appellate Court has disposed of the case on the footing that the second execution was under the same decree.2. The present question is whether, on the assumptions, this suit brought in 19...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »