Kolkata Court December 1934 Judgments

Surendra Nath Sen Vs. Ganesh Chandra Shaha and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.733

Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for ejectment under old Section 49(b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The substantial defence of the defendant was that he was not an under-raiyat but was a raiyat. The Courts below have concurrently found that the defendant is an under raiyat and in that view they have decreed the plaintiff's suit. In the present appeal the substantial point which was argued by the learned Advocate for the appellant was that the onus of proving the status of the defendant was not properly placed by the Courts below. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal has not given his own reasons for holding that the defendant is an under-raiyat. The only observation that he has made on the question of status in his judgment is as follows:The learned Munsif after full discussion has found that the defendant is an under-raiyat and his argument could not be challenged. I, therefore, see no reason, to interfere with the findings2. In my judgment this...

Akshay Kumar Saha Vs. Kamini Kumar Saha and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal459

Guha, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit in which this appeal has arisen, prayed for relief by way of permanent injunction in the matter of a masonry structure described as mantop, and for a declaration of his right to demolish the same in case the brick-built structure of a permanent nature were completed during the pendency of the litigation. The case of the plaintiff before the Court was that the defendants were tenants at will, and had no right to have a permanent pucca structure in their homestead. The claim of the plaintiffs in the suit was resisted by the defendants, who asserted that they were raiyats with rights of occupancy, and were under the law entitled to build a permanent pucca mantop on their homestead, as a part of their dwelling house.2. According to the finding arrived at by the Courts below, the defendants were occupancy raiyats, and a mantop in the defendants' house has existed for several generations. The mantop was formerly roofed with corrugated iron sheets and had ...

Nrishinha Kumar Sinha Vs. Deb Prosanna Mukherjee and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal460,157Ind.Cas.140

1. This is an appeal by a Receiver in insolvency; there is also an application for revision made by him in the alternative, and they are directed against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan on 7th January 1934, rejecting an application made by the Receiver praying that certain mortgaged properties which are now in the custody of the Court, through a Receiver appointed by the Court, be made over to the Receiver in insolvency. It appears that in mortgage Suit No. 53 of 1922, a Receiver was appointed by the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, at the instance of the mortgagee, plaintiff in the suit, on the ground that it wasjust and convenient that a Receiver should be appointed for protecting the mortgaged properties from being sold in auction for non-payment of Government demand and rent.2. The order appointing a Receiver was made on 5th April 1924, and payments towards satisfaction of the mortgage-debt were being made by the Receiver under the direction of the Court, f...

In Re Moolji Sicka and Others.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1935]3ITR123(Cal)

LORT-WILLIAMS, J. - This is a case stated under Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act (XI of 1922).Originally the question of law submitted for the opinion of this Court was 'whether in the circumstances recorded in this case, assessees share of income from the firm of Moolji Sicka and Company is assessable against him in the status of a Hindu undivided family or of an individual.'The firm of Moolji Sicka and Company was first registered as a partnership of five persons and their shares were assessed as individuals. Each of the partners contended that they ought to be assessed as five Hindu undivided families.The Commissioner found as a fact that none of the assessees had succeeded in proving that they had thrown their separate income into common stock. This was in respect of the 1930-31 assessment and was based on a partnership deed of 1919.The present case arises on the assessment for 1931-32 and is founded on a partnership deed of 1930.The facts which have been found show that the fir...

The Port Canning and Land Improvement Co. Ltd. Vs. Sarada Prosad Dalal ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.745

R.C. Mitter, J.1. These ten appeals are in ten suits instituted by the plaintiff-appellant, some in the year 192(5 and others in the year 1927 in respect of ten tenancies. Eight other suits instituted by the plaintiff in the year 1930 in respect of eight other tenancies were tried analogously with the said ten suits by the Munsif. In. all these suits the plaintiff claimed additional rent under Section 52 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and claimed the arrears at the old rent together with additional rent for the alleged additional area in the possession of the tenants. In the suits of the year 1930 the Munsif granted his claim for additional rent and there was no further appeal from those decrees. The claim for additional rent made in the first mentioned ten suits was, however, dismissed by the Munsif and his decrees have been affirmed by the Subordinate Judge on appeal.2. To sustain the claim for additional rent the plaintiff had to prove that the tenants are in possession of lands proved b...

Bhupendra Nath Roy Vs. Narayanpada Adhikari

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal607,159Ind.Cas.515

R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal on behalf of the plaintiff is in a suit for possession of a piece of land admittedly in the possession of the defendants. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants were their tenants but they denied the relationship of landlord and tenant in two suits, one instituted in the year 1920 and the other in the year 1929 and that by reason of the denials being given effect to in the said suits, there has been a forfeiture of the tenancy. In the prayer portion, the plaintiff asked for possession on declaration of their title. The Court of first instance after overruling the plea of res judicata urged by the defendants found in favour of the plaintiffs on the question of their title and also on the question of limitation and decreed the suit. On an appeal by the defendants the Subordinate Judge has held that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by res judicata. The only question is whether the decision of the Subordinate Judge on the question of res judicata is correct...

Rasik Lal Mukhuti and ors. Vs. Prasanna Kumar Saha and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit for recovery of khas possession on establishment of their title. The land in suit is a very small strip of land and a very narrow ditch on the border of the plaintiffs' land recorded in dag; No. 362 of the settlement map and the defendants' homestead recorded in dags Nos. 364 and 368 of the settlement map of Mouza Palong, the plaintiffs and the defendants respectively claiming this part of the land and ditch and parts of their respective homesteads. A Commissioner was appointed to relay the Thak map and the settlement map in the locality. He could not relay the Thak map accurately and both the Courts below have held that the Commissioner's relaying in reference to the Thak map cannot be accepted.2. The Court of first instance held that the Commissioner's relaying of the settlement line was reliable and in accordance with the Commissioner's report in this, respect made a decree in part in favour of the plai...

Udai Chand Pannalal Vs. Thansing Karamchand

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal537,157Ind.Cas.937

Ameer Ali, J.1. The short facts of this case are as follows: Shortly before the events in issue in this suit, the firm of Chandanmull Khanmull, big jute dealers, were indebted to the Bank of India, and as security for this indebtedness they had deposited with that Bank a number of balas of jute to the extent of 41,000. Before the events in suit, the liability and the security had been transferred to the National Bank. This firm of Chandanmull Khanmull were also indebted to creditors other than the Bank, in particular to a firm of the name of Udai Chand Pannalal, the plaintiff in the present suit. As one means of obtaining payment, the plaintiff firm in the beginning of 1933 instituted insolvency proceedings against Chandanmull Khanmull whom I will call the debtor firm. Pending these proceedings a system of payment or satisfaction was discovered and certain creditors including Udai Chand Pannalal made an arrangement to take over certain bales at a certain price, paying to the National B...

Sariatulla and ors. Vs. JoyenuddIn Khan

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal462

Nasim Ali, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit for ejectment. The plaintiff's case is that the predecessor of the defendants was an under-raiyat in respect of the plaint land, and that he died in the year 1332 leaving the defendants as his heirs. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that the under-raiyati not being heritable the defendants are trespassers and are liable to be ejected. Defendants 1 to 5 contested the suit. The main defence of the defendants was that the plaintiff was a tenure-holder and that the defendants' predecessor was a raiyat with a right of occupancy. The defendants further pleaded that after the death of their predecessor the plaintiff accepted rent from them and consequently the plaintiff was not entitled to eject them. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff the learned Judge has come to the following findings: (1) that the defendants are under-raiyats; (2) that no evidence was given by the defendants to prove that they were oc...

RafiqueuddIn Ahmad and ors. Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal184,155Ind.Cas.687

Mukherji, J.1. The four accused persons Rafiqueuddin Ahmed, Jyotish Chandra Ghose, Jatindra Nath Ray and Bhengra alias Hasimuddin Mamud were tried by the Sessions Judge of Rangpur with the aid of a jury. The charges on which they were tried were for offences under Sections 302 and 392, I.P.C., a charge of murder for having caused the death of one Gobind Ram Marwari and a charge of robbery for having stolen away some valuables and cash which were in the possession of the said Gobind Ram Marwari in the room in which he was murdered. The jury at first brought in a divided verdict of 5 to 4. The Judge thereupon asked them to retire and to see if they could be unanimous. They retired and after a deliberation for over fifteen minutes they came back and said that they were still divided, this time in the proportion of 6 to 3; six of the jurors were of opinion that the case against the accused was reasonably doubtful so that they should be held not guilty and the other three were of opinion th...