Kolkata Court July 1925 Judgments
Rafat Sheik and ors. Vs. Sachindra Kumar Lahiri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal559,91Ind.Cas.761
1. The only point urged in this second appeal is that the lower Appellate Court was wrong in holding that the onus was on the defendants to prove that the lands in suit were included in their tenancy. In this case the plaintiffs are admittedly the superior landlords of the lands in suit, these lands having fallen to their share of the estate after partition. For the appellants it is contended as was contended before the lower Appellate Court that it being admitted that they have tenancy under the plaintiffs it is for the plaintiffs to prove that the suit lands are out side the tenancy. The authorities are against this contention. It is sufficient to cite three cases reported as Gopini Debi v. Lokenath Tewari 11 Ind. Cas. 696 : 19 C.W.N. 140, Protap Chandra Roy v. Judhister Das 23 Ind. Cas. 69 : 19 C.L.J. 408 and Manners v. Harikar Dutt Koer 22 Ind. Cas. 563 : 19 C.W.N. 149. The passage most in point will be found in the head-note of the second of these cases. At page 144 Page of 19 C.W...
Tag this Judgment!Nawabzadi Mehar Bono Khanum and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal929
ORDERGreaves, J.1. This is a Reference under Section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act, Act XI of 1922, made to us by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The point which arises is a very short one, namely, whether mutation nazar, that is, the amount paid to landlord for recognising the transfer of a holding by one tenant to another, is agricultural income within the meaning of Section 2, Sub-section (1) (a) of the Indian Income-tax Act XI of 1922, and as such is exempt from assessment to Income-tax under Section 4, Sub-section (3) (viiii) of the said Act. The Income-tax officer held that such payments were assessable to income-tax having regard to the decision of this Court in the case of Maharaja Birendrakishor Manikya Bahadur v. Secretary of State A.I.R. 1921 Cal 262. An appeal was preferred by the assessee against the assessment of the Income-tax officer. The Assistant Commissioner of the Dacca Range rejected the appeal agreeing with the decision of the Income-tax officer. Accordingly an app...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Garib Haji Vs. Muchiram Shau and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1020
Pearson, J.1. This is a referenda under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. made by the learned Sessions Judge of Birbhum.2. It appears that the two accused, who were father and son, were convicted of an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of two trees which they cut down either partly or altogether.3. The facts show that they were admittedly occupying a pachai shop for about three years and that upon the bank of a tank near by, these trees were growing in what formed the compound of the house occupied by the accused.4. The learned Sessions Judge has given his opinion that the complaint does not disclose an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as the trees are admitted to have been on the holding in possession of the accused. That is an admission which disposes of the case because the offence under Section 379 is an offence against possession.5. It is said by the learned vakil appearing for the complainant that an admission in these circumstanc...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamad Keshab Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1021
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Rule granted by my learned brother, Mr. Justice Panton, and me, calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside, altered or modified and the boat restored to the petitioner on grounds III and IV.2. Ground III was ' that the liability to confiscation of a conveyance arises only when the owner of such conveyance uses the same for transportation and there being no evidence to that effect in this case the order is bad and fit to be set aside.'3. Ground IV was ' that the said order which was passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, who is the owner of the dinghee, to show cause is improper and without jurisdiction.'4. Hanumia, majhee, who was recorded as the majhee of the boat was not arrested, but three of the crew were arrested and they were tried before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate and convicted under Section 9 of Act I of 1878. At the same time the learned Presidency Magistrate m...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra Mitra Vs. Brojendra K. Chakravarti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1056
ORDERGreaves and Mukerji, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit wherein the plaintiffs, as four-annas co-sharers of a certain taluq, sought to recover arrears of rent from the defendants who, they alleged, were holding under them as tenure-holders. The defence of the defendants in substance, was that they were not tenure-holders but co-proprietors of the estate and further that the suit was not maintainable as all the person, who are successors-in-interest of the original transferee, Gour Sunder Singh, and whose names are recorded as such in the finally published record-of-rights were not made defendants therein.2. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance, and the said decision has been upheld by the lower Appellate Court. The defendants have thereupon preferred this appeal, in which the validity of the decisions of the Courts below has been challenged upon the two grounds which formed their defence as stated above.3. As regards the first of these grounds, we are not prepar...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra Mitra Vs. Brojendra Kumar Chakravarti and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.211
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. I agree in the view expressed by my learned brother Mr. Justice B.B. Ghose in the judgment which he is going to deliver.Greaves, J.2. I also agree, in the view expressed in that judgment.C.C. Ghose, J.3. The question that has been referred to the Full Bench is as to whether a suit for rent is maintainable against some of the heirs or successors-in-interest of a deceased tenant without bringing all the heirs or successors-in-interest on the record. In my view, the answer to the question ought to be in the negative. It will serve no useful purpose to discuss the conflicting authorities on the point. It is sufficient for me to observe that I adhere to the view which I expressed in the case of Abinash Chandra Roy v. Fulchand Chaudhuri.(7). I have heard nothing during the (sic) of the argument to induce me to (sic) from the opinion expressed by me in the above case. In my opinion, the suit as framed, should be dismissed and the appeal preferred by the defendants allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Sachindra Lal Mitter Vs. Panchanon Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal604,94Ind.Cas.871
Mukerji, J.1. It is unnecessary to set out the facts connected with the litigation out of which this application-arises as they have been set out in detail in the judgments of the two lower Courts. The application arises out of an order issuing a temporary injunction restraining the defendants, one of whom the defendant No. 2 is the petitioner before us, from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. The sole question before us now is whether the Courts below had jurisdiction to pass the order of temporary injunction complained of in this case. The order has been made in connection with a suit which is now pending in the second Court of the Subordinate Judge of the 24 Perganas. The prayers in the plaint in that suit are substantially as follows: (a) that the right of the plaintiffs who are three in number, as shebaits of certain deities may be declared; (b) that it may be declared that the three plaintiffs are entitled to the management of the debutter properties for a period ...
Tag this Judgment!Sasi Bhusan Mallick and ors. Vs. Sadananda Mallick and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal991,92Ind.Cas.845
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiffs sued for recovery of possession of on declaration of their title to certain bastu land. Their allegation was that the disputed homestead belonged to one Mati Lal Mallick who died some years ago leaving Monmohini as his widow and heir. Monmohini died in 1912, and then, according to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' father Muchiram who was the nearest reversionary heir of Motilal succeeded to the property in suit. The defendants, however, kept the plaintiffs out of possession and hence the suit.2. The defence was that the disputed homestead did not belong to Mati Lal and secondly that Muchiram was not the nearest reversionary heir of Matilal, because Jadab Charan, the ancestor of Muchiram, having been adopted by one Baisnab Charan, the plaintiffs' father Muchiram was not the nearest reversioner but the defendants' father was.3. The suit was tried in both the Courts on the issue whether Jadab Charan was or was not a...
Tag this Judgment!Jogesh Chandra Banerjee and anr. Vs. Hayder Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Cal237
1. In 1914 the residuary share of an estate was sold at a revenue sale and the plaintiffs purchased the rights of the auction-purchaser. They were unable to get possession of any portion of the estate as purchaser of this share. They then brought eight suits for declaration of their title and for joint possession against co-sharers who were in exclusive possession of different portions of the land of the estate. At the trial the main issue between the parties was whether the separate shares entered in the Collectorate register were recorded as separate accounts under Section 10 or under Section 11 of Act 11 of 1859. The plaintiffs' contention was that separate accounts were opened under Section 10 which relates to separation of shares held in common. The contention of the defendants in each suit was that the separate accounts were opened under Section 11 which relates to the separation of shares consisting of land. On this issue the plaintiffs succeeded and obtained decrees in the firs...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kanhya Lal Sewbux Vs. Ex Parte Ram Gopal Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.449
1. This is an application made on behalf of Ram Gopal Poddar, one of the creditors of the insolvent, Kanhaya Lal Sewbux, for an order that the trustee under the composition may be directed to pay him Rs. 19,159-6-0. On the 17th December 1923 an order was made approving the terms of composition annexed to the order, under which Babu Shedmull Dalmia of 69, Cotton Street, a creditor to the extent of Rs. 47,216 was appointed' to be the trustee. The terms of composition recite two mortgages, one in favour of Shedmull Dalmia amounting to Rs. 35,000, and the other in favour of the applicant for Rs. 15,000 and it says that these sums shall be paid first of all as soon as sufficient funds come into the hands of the trustee.2. It is alleged that the trustee has paid away considerable sums to unsecured creditors out of the assets, of which at present Rs. 20,000 are still in his hands. The trustee admits a certain amount of assets and that he has paid sums to unsecured creditors, but says that he ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »