Kolkata Court February 1925 Judgments
Sivadas Dutt and anr. Vs. Birendra Krishna Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal783
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of the first Court of the 24-Parganahs confirming a decision of the Munsiff, 1st Court, Baruipur. The plaintiff who is a co-sharer landlord sued the defendants for his share of the rent of their holding for the years 1324 to 1327. The defendants' allegation was that on the construction of the potta the plaintiff was not entitled to claim the rent at the rate for which he sued but that there should be a deduction. A written statement was filed by the defendants on the 7th April, 1921, and subsequently they applied for measurement of the land and the application was rejected on the 8th July, 1921, as having been made at a late stage of the proceedings.2. Three points have been urged before us in this appeal. The first point deals with the decision of the learned Judge in the Court below that when a co-sharer landlord sues a tenant for his share of rent the question of abatement of rent cannot be...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Chandra Chakrabarty Vs. Kiran Chandra Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1069,90Ind.Cas.944
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for accounts, brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant who worked as their Tahsildar. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court has reversed the decision and passed a preliminary decree for accounts for the period in suit, to be taken by a Commissioner to be appointed for the purpose. The defendant has thereupon preferred this appeal.2. The appellant's contention substantially is to the effect that upon the finding of the Court of Appeal below, the plaintiff's suit should have been dismissed. It is also urged that in view of the finding that the defendant has submitted all the papers, which it was his duty to prepare and submit, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any decree in the absence of circumstances justifying the granting of liberty to the plaintiffs to surcharge and falsify. This last mentioned argument, however, is based upon a misconception, for it is not pretended that the accounts were eve...
Tag this Judgment!Gobinda Ramanuj Das Mohanta Vs. Ram Charan Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1107
Walmsley, J.1. The questions raised in this appeal are rather out of the ordinary. They relate to the right to succeed to a mohantship and to enjoy possession of the property belonging to the foundation.2. The appellant is the plaintiff, Gobinda Ramanuj Das, commonly called Chhota Gobinda to distinguish him from another Gobinda, the Gobinda through whom the defendant claims.3. In the District of Midnapur there is a muth called the Nayaganj Bora Asthal: it has subordinate Asthals, one of them at Shyamchandpur. The Thakurs installed in the muth are Sri Sri Gopinath Jiu and Raghunath Jiu and the sheba is preformed by members of the Ramanuj section. Nothing is known of the foundation of the muth. The earliest document on the record is one of 1841 by which one Nitai Singh gave various pieces of land to the then mohant Lachman for the purpose of carrying on the sheba of Sri Sri Gopinath Jiu, and of another Thakur Sri Sri Sitaram Jiu to be installed at Shyamchandpur.4. Lachman was succeeded b...
Tag this Judgment!Gobinda Ramanuj Das Mohanta Vs. Ram Charan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal748
Walmsley, J.1. The questions raised in this appeal are rather out of the ordinary: they relate to the right to succeed to a Mohuntship, and to enjoy possession of the property belonging to the foundation.2. The appellant is the plaintiff, Gobinda Ramanuj Das, commonly called Chota Gobinda to distinguish him from another Gobinda, the Gobinda through whom the defendant claims.3. In the district of Midnapaore there is a mutt called the Nayaganj Bara Asthal. It has subordinate asthals, one of them at Shyamchandpur. The Thakurs installed in the mutt are Sri Sri Gopinath Jiu and Raghunath Jiu, and the seba is performed by members of the Ramanuj Section Nothing is known of the foundation of the mutt. The earliest document on the record is one of 1841 by which one Nitai Singh gave various pieces of land to the then Mohunt Lachman for the purpose of carrying on the seba of Sri Sri Gopinath Jiu, and of another Thakur Sri Sri Sitaram Jiu to be installed at Shyamchandpur.4. Lachman was succeeded b...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Narayan Sinha and ors. Vs. Raja Bijoya Singh Dudhuria and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal962
Walmsley, J.1. This is a novel case. The learned Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad has granted to the zamindar an injunction restraining the patnidar and his lessees, the defendants from making bricks anywhere in the patni, and also a nominal sum by way of damages for the mischief caused by the brick-making that has already taken place.2. The defendants appeal, and urge that the decision is wrong on three grounds. firstly, because the relation between zamindar and patnidar is such that the former is not entitled to the relief claimed; secondly, because the document creating the patni contains no stipulation against brick-making; and thirdly because the practice was begun many years ago, and has been continued without objection by the zemindar until this suit was instituted.3. It appears to me that the defendants are entitled to succeed on each of these grounds.4. In regard to the first ground, the only matter to be considered is whether the use made of the land affects the landlord's se...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra NaraIn Sinha Vs. Bijoy Singh Doodhoria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal655
Walmsley, J.1. This is a novel case. The learned Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad has granted to the zemindar an injunction restraining the patnidar and his lessees the defendants from making bricks anywhere in the patni, and also a nominal sum by way of damages for the mischief caused by the brick-making that has already taken place.2. The defendants appeal, and urge that the decision is wrong on three grounds, firstly, because the relation between zemindar and patnidar is such that the former is not entitled to the relief claimed, secondly, because the document creating the patni contains no stipulation against brick-making and thirdly, because the practice was begun many years ago, and has been continued without objection by the zemindar until this suit was instituted.3. It appears to me that the defendants are entitled to succeed on each of these grounds.4. In regard to the first ground, the only matter to be considered is whether the use made of the land affects the landlord's sec...
Tag this Judgment!Nalini Ranjan Sen Gupta Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal983
Walmsley, J.1. The petitioner has been held liable for damage caused to a lamp-post by his motor car. It is found by the learned Judge that the car was taken out by a chauffeur, that the cleaner accompanied him, that the chauffeur stopped, the car when he came to an obstruction, that he left the car in charge of the cleaner while he went to a shop on business, and that while he was abseut the cleaner put the car in motion and brought it into collision with the lamp-post. The defendant's statement that the cleaner was employed only to clean the car, and had been forbidden to drive it, has been accepted.2. It is clear that the master is not liable merely on the ground that the cleaner was his servant, for the reason that driving the car lay outside the scope of the gleaner's employment. The learned Judge does not rest his conclusion on that ground: he holds that the chauffeur was negligent in allowing to the cleaner the chance to drive the car; and in taking this view he relies on the de...
Tag this Judgment!Nalini Ranjan Sen Gupta Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal87,89Ind.Cas.781
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. The petitioner has been held liable for damage caused to a lamp post by his motorcar. It is found by the learned Judge that the car was taken out by a chauffeur, that the cleaner accompanied him, that the chauffeur stopped the car when lie came to an obstruction, that he left the car in charge of the cleaner while he went to a shop on business, arid that while he was absent the cleaner put the car in. motion and brought it into collision with the lamp post. The defendant's statement that the cleaner was employed only to clean the car, and had been forbidden to drive it, has been accepted.2. It is clear that the master is not liable merely on the ground that the cleaner was his servant, for the reason that driving the car lay outside the scope of the cleaner's employment. The learned Judge does not rest his conclusion on that ground; he holds that the chauffeur was negligent in allowing to the cleaner the chance to drive the car; and in taking this view he relies on,...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra NaraIn Sinha and ors. Vs. Raja Bejoya Singh Dudhoria and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.785
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. This is a novel case. The learned Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad has granted to the zemindar an injunction restraining the putnidar and his lessees, the defendants, from making bricks anywhere in the putni, and also a nominal sum by way of damages for the mischief caused by the brick-making that has already taken place.2. The defendants appeal, and urge that the decision is wrong on three grounds, firstly, because the relation between zemindar and putnidar is such that the former is not entitled to the relief claimed: secondly, because the document creating the putni contains no stipulation against brick-making and thirdly, because the practice was begun many years ago, and has been continued without objection by the zemindar until this suit was instituted.3. It appears to me that the defendants are entitled to succeed on each of these grounds.4. In regard to the first ground, theory matter to be considered is whether the use made of the land affects the landlord'...
Tag this Judgment!Jamini Mohan Sarkar and ors. Vs. Jagabandhu Singh Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.927
Chakravarti, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to enforce three mortgage bonds said to have been executed by one Raja Balabhadra Singh. The suit was decreed partially in the Court below and against that decision the defendant No. 29 has preferred this appeal. The bond, dated the 11th July 1905, is the only bond, which is contested before us and the pre, sent appeal relates to that bond and that bond alone.2. There were numerous defendants in the suit. The defence of the defendant No. 29 was that the bond in question dated the 11th July 1905 was not a genuine document and that no consideration was paid for it. The plaintiff is a purchaser of the mortgage bond from the original mortgagee one Srinath Sahu. He bought it on the 1st July 1909 and instituted the present suit on the 9th March 1918, and, in addition to the representatives of the original mortgagor, numerous other defendants, were impleaded as subsequent mortgagees or as purchasers of portions of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »