Kolkata Court August 1923 Judgments
Bhairab Chandra Das and ors. Vs. the Midnapur Zemindari Co., Ltd. and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal513
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the tenant defendants in a proceeding under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act instituted by the plaintiffs respondents for settlement of fair and equitable rent of a tenure. The tenancy is recorded as Kayemi Mokarari in the record of rights. The tenants consequently contended that though rent could be assessed in respect of excess lands, the rate of rent could not be enhanced. This contention was overruled by the Assistant Settlement Officer who assessed fair and equitable rent on the basis of the assets. On appeal by the landlords and cross-appeal by the tenants, the Special Judge remanded the case for further enquiry under Order 41, Rule 25, Civil Procedure Code. Ultimately, the Special Judge varied the order of the primary Court in favour of the landlords. On the present appeal, the tenants have urged that the tenure was held at a fixed rate of rent and consequently fair and equitable rent could not be assessed. When the appeal was heard on t...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Gopika Raman Ray Vs. Mahar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal872
Mookerjee, J.1. This Rule was granted on an application for review of the order made by this Court on the 4th July 1922, in connection with Appeal from Original Decree No. 204 of 1919. The order was in these terms.Before Babu Dwarka Nath Chakrabarti proceeds to open this appeal, Babu Mahendra Nath Ray, on behalf of the adult tenant defendants, takes a preliminary objection that the appeal is incompetent and cannot proceed as against the tenant defendants, because some of the tenant defendants have died and no steps have been taken to bring their legal representatives on the record, and that from the nature of the reliefs sought the appeal cannot proceed as against the surviving tenant defendants. In reply, Babu Dwarka Nath Chakrabarti states that he intends to proceed against defendant No. 161 (proprietor) only. The appeal will therefore stand dismissed as against the tenant defendants (Nos. 1-160), both adults and infants.2. The appeal was taken up for disposal on the 4th July 1922. M...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendra Nath Mookerjee Vs. Monohar Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal456
1. This is an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (s) from an order rejecting an application for the appointment of a Receiver under Order XL, Rule 1, C.P.C., in a suit for construction of a Will, for establishment of title to shebaitship of a debuttar estate and for incidental reliefs.2. The history of this endowment is set out in the judgment of this Court in Monohar Mukherjee v. Peary Mohan Mukherjee [1920] 24 C.W.N. 478, which was confirmed on appeal by the judicial Committee Peary Mohan Mukherjee v. Monohar Mukherjee A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 235. It is sufficient to state that the endowment was created by Jagomohan Mukherjee, the common ancestor of the parties to this suit, who made a testamentary disposition of his properties on the 11th September, 1840. A suit was instituted by the first defendant Monohar Mukherjee for construction of the Will, for the administration of the trust created thereby, for the removal of Raja Peary Mohan Mukherjee from the shebaitship, for the appointmen...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendra Nath Mukherjee Vs. Monohar Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1923
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.783
1. This is an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1 Clause (s) from an order rejecting an application for the appointment of a Receiver under Order XL, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code in a suit for construction of a Will for establishment of title to shebaitship of a debutter estate and for incidental reliefs.2. The history of this endowment is set out in the judgment of this Court in Manohar Mookerjee v. Raja Peary Mohan Mookerjee 54 Ind. Cas. 6 : 24 C.W.N. 478 : 30 C.L.J. which was confirmed on appeal by the Judicial Committee Peary Mohan Mukerji v. Monohar Mukerji 60 Ind. Cas. 76 : 48 I.A. 258 : 26 C.W.N. 133 : 34 C.L.J. 86 : 41 M.L.J. 68 : 14 L.W. 104 : 23 Bom. L.R. 913 : (1921) M.W.N. 554 : 19 A.L.J. 773 : 2 P.L.T. 725 : 300 M.L.T. 24 : 48 C. 1019 : (1922) A.I.R. (P.C.) 235 (P.C.), it is sufficient to state that the endowment was created by Jagomohan Mukherjee, the common ancestor of the parties to this suit, who made a testamentary disposition of his properties on the 11th September 1840...
Tag this Judgment!Bhuban Mohini Dasi and ors. Vs. Kumud Bala Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal467
1. This is an appeal by the third, fourth and fifth defendants in a suit for partition of joint family properties. The relationship of the parties may be gathered from the following genealogical table:Digamber Kasyapi|-----------------------------| |Nabin D. 21-11-1899. Rasikw. Bhuban Mohini, Deft. 1. w. Jnanada Mayi.d. 24-12-1922. |-------------------------------------------------------| | | | | |Behari Hira Lal Amrita Nani Mani Makhan| Deft. 2 Deft. 3. Deft. 4 Deft. 5. d. 20-9-1918------------ w. Kumud Bala.| | Rajani SajaniDeft. 6. Deft. 7 2. The founder of the family, Digambar Kasyapi, left two sons, Nabin and Rasik. Nabin amassed a considerable fortune and died on the 21st November, 1899. He left a widow Bhuban Mohini and six sons. One of them Behari died leaving two sons, Rajani and Sajani. Another son, Makhan, died on the 20th September, 1918, leaving a widow Kumud Bala who had been married to him for thirty years. It is common ground that the sons of Nabin formed a joint Hindu ...
Tag this Judgment!Habibar Rahman Vs. Saidannessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal473
1. We are invited in this Rule to consider the legality of an order made by the District Judge in favour of two mutwallis of a Mohammadan wakf, authorising them to grant a lease of the wakf property. The petitioner before us who is another mutwalli, preferred an objection, but did not appear to support it, with the result that an order in favour of the applicants was made ex Paste. The petitioner thereupon appealed to this Court; but the appeal was dismissed as incompetent; Habibar Rahman v. Syedunnessa Bibi : AIR1924Cal327 . The petitioner now assails the order of the District Judge as made without jurisdiction, because he dealt with the matter on the basis of an application and not of a plaint.2. It is well-Settled that the District Judge has jurisdiction to authorise dealings with wakf property in the same way as a Qazi might have done under the Mohammadan Law; see the judgment of Amir Ali and Pratt, JJ., in Syama Charan v. Abdul Kabir [1898] 3 C.W.N. 158. This was followed by Woodr...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendra Kumar Datta Vs. King Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal687
Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule is directed against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 109 of the Indian Railways Act, IX of 1890, At the hearing we have allowed the East Indian Railway Company to appear in support of the order of the Court below in view of the importance of the issues involved.2. This case raises a question which has not yet been considered by this Court but has come under consideration of all the other chartered High Courts. The petitioner avowedly committed the offence with which he is charged in order to test the legality of the action of the East Indian Railway Company in reserving a third class compartment in some of their trains for the use of European passengers only. No other justification for the conduct of the petitioner has been pleaded or argued before us. The only question that we are called upon to consider is an unmixed question of law which may be stated in this form : 'Whether the act of the Railway Company in reserving a compartment in trains ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendra Kumar Dutt Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal168
Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule is directed against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 109 of the Indian Railways Act (IX of 1890). At the hearing we have allowed the East Indian Railway Company to appear in support of the order of the Court below in view of the importance of the issues involved.2. This case raises a question which has not yet been considered by this Court, but has come under consideration of all the other Chartered High Courts. The petitioner avowedly committed the offence with which he is charged in order to test the legality of the action of the Bast Indian Railway Company in reserving a third class compartment in some of their trains for the use of European passengers only. No other justification for the conduct of the petitioner has been pleaded or argued before us. The only question that we are called upon to consider is an unmixed question of law which may be stated in this form: whether the act of the Railway Company, in reserving a compartment in trains...
Tag this Judgment!Habibar Rahaman Vs. Saidannessa Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal331
Mookerjee and Panton, JJ.1. We are invited in this Kale to consider the legality of an order made by the District Judge in favour of two mutwallis of a Muhammadan wakf, authorising them to grant a lease of the wakf property. The petitioner before us, who is another mutwalli, preferred an objection but did not appear to support it, with the result that an order in favour of the applicants was made ex parte. The petitioner thereupon appealed to this Court; but the appeal was dismissed as incompetent: Habibar Rahman v. Saidannessa Bibi (1922) 38 C.L.J. 353. The petitioner now assails the order of the District Judge as made without jurisdiction, because he dealt with the matter on the basis of an application and not of a plaint.2. It is well-settled that the District Judge has jurisdiction to authorise dealings with wakf property in the same way as a Qazi might have done tinder the Muhammadan Law; see the judgment of Ameer Ali and Pratt, JJ., in Syamacharan v. Abdul Kabir (1898) 3 C.W.N. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Bhubanmohini Dasi and ors. Vs. Kumudbala Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1923
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.934
1. This is an appeal by the third, fourth and fifth defendants in a suit for partition of joint family properties. The relationship of the parties may be gathered from the following genealogical table: Digambar Kasyapi _______________|____________ | | Nabin d. 21-11-1899 Rasik W. Bhubanmohini W. Jnanadamayi defendant No. 1, d. 24-12-1922. ______|__________________________________________________ | | | | | |Behari Hira Lal, Amrita, Nani, Mani, Makhan, | defendant defendant defendant defendant d. 20-9-1918 | No. 2. No. 3. No. 4. No. 5. W. Kumud- |______________ bala, Plaintiff. | |Rajani Sajni,defendant defendant No. 7.No. 6.2. The founder of the family, Digambar Kasyapi, left two sons, Nabin and Rasik. Nabin amassed a considerable fortune and died on the 21st November 1899. He left a widow Bhubanmohini and six sons. One of them, Behari, died leaving two sons, Rajani and Sajani. Another son, Makhan, died on the 20th September 1918, leaving a widow, Kumudbala, who had been married to him...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »