Kolkata Court March 1938 Judgments
Fakir Chandra Ray Vs. Sir Bejoy Chand Mahatab
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal477
1. This is an appeal by the tenant defendant in a suit for rent of a putni tenure. The suit was for the year 1339 and a portion of the year 1340, the annual rent being claimed to be Rs. 1632. The dispute between the parties is as to the annual rent payable by the defendant. The facts are that the putni tenure was created in 1834 in favour of one Golap Sundari Bibi and the annual rent was fixed in perpetuity at Rs. 1530 Sikka-Bs. 1632 in current coin and this rent was paid all along. In 1916 the tenure was sold at a putni sale and the present defendant purchased it. Thereafter in 1922 portions of the lands of the mouzas were washed away by floods of the river Darakeswar, which adjoins the tenure. Thereupon the defendant approached the plaintiff Moharaja and asked him to reduce the rent and the plaintiff Moharaja agreed to a reduction of the annual rent by Rs. 400 for a period of 10 years, namely 1329 to 1338 B. S. After the period of 10 years was over the plaintiff landlord had the putn...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Narayan Ray Vs. Bhairabendra Narayan Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal563
1. These five appeals are by the defendant and are directed against five final decrees for mesne profits passed against him by the Subordinate Judge of Rajshahi. The Commissioner appointed to ascertain mesne profits reported the aggregate amount of mesne profits in the five suits to be Rs. 17,273-8.0, but the learned Subordinate Judge has increased it considerably, his figure after amendment of two of the decrees amounting to Rs. 37,395-7-6. The plaintiffs and the defendant are co-sharers of the revenue paying estates which formed the subject-matter of the five suits (Title Suits Nos. 79 to 83 of 1911), and although their shares were slightly different in the different properties we may take it roughly that the share of the plaintiffs in zamindari and patni right is 9 1/2 annas and the defendant is the owner of the remaining 6 1/2 annas in zamindari right. There were in the past disputes and differences between them as regards the common enjoyment of joint khas lands. These were settle...
Tag this Judgment!Pravat Chandra Syam Vs. Bengal Central Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal589
1. The defendant is the appellant before us. The subject-matter of the suit is a tea estate named Longucharra Tea Estate, of which the defendant is the lessee under the plaintiff. The suit is one for possession on the ground that the defendant's lease has been determined by forfeiture. To follow the controversy between the parties in this appeal, the following facts have to be stated: The said Tea Estate originally belonged to the Union Tea and Trading Co., comprising an area of 400 Hals, some portion of which had already been planted with tea shrubs and on a portion whereof was a factory for manufacturing tea. The plaintiff purchased the said tea estate at a court sale and thereafter two transactions followed between the plaintiff and the defendant. Both these transactions were of the same date, namely 28th June 1935. The first is an agreement for sale between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is Ex. 1, Part 2, page 42. By this agreement, the defendant agreed to purchase the said te...
Tag this Judgment!Amulya Charan Misra Vs. Prankrishna Adhicary and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal531
1. These are eight appeals from the appellate decrees of the District Judge of Midnapur who affirmed the decrees of the Munsif of Tamluk. The facts are that within the estate of Mahisadol Raj which was under the Court of Wards an occupancy holding was held by Madhu and Bepin Bera. It was a large holding of over 8 acres containing 42 plots. They in course of time sold 30 plots to one or several of the 8 plaintiffs before us and 8 plots to other persons retaining 4 plots in their possession. On 15th September 1930, the Court of Wards acting for the landlords applied for a certificate for arrears of rent against the heirs of the old tenants Madhu and Bepin Bera. The certificate was signed by the Deputy Collector and in due course the holding was sold on 15th March 1932 and purchased by the appellant in this Court. The appellant was duly given possession by the Court. Thereafter the eight plaintiffs instituted their suits for declaration of their title and recovery of possession of the plo...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Bahadur Sir Prodyot Coomar Tagore Vs. MaynuddIn Mia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal724
S.K. Ghose, J.1. These second appeals arise out of suits some of which were tried together in the first Court and some were tried separately. In this Court, these second appeals have been treated as analogous on points that are common. But there are differences on other points and these will appear in the course of the judgment. The appeals arise out of suits which were brought by the plaintiff as landlord to eject the defendants substantially on the ground that the lands in suit are comprised in non-permanent tenures, that the leases relating to these tenures have expired, and that the defendants had been served with notice to quit. The case of the defendants substantially is that the tenancies are occupancy holdings and not tenures, that even if they are tenures they are permanent, that in certain cases the tenants are entitled to perpetual renewal of the lease, and in all cases the notices to quit are not valid. Some of these suits were dismissed and some were decreed by the first C...
Tag this Judgment!Khajeh Sajidulla and ors. Vs. K. Habibullah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal192
1. The claim in the suit out of which this appeal arises is Rs. 5100, made up of a sum of Rs. 4770 being the arrears of allowance from Baisakh, 1326 B.S. (April 1919) to Chaitra 1337 B.S. (March 1931), payable by the Nawab Bahadur of Dacca under two documents dated 26th August 1881, and 17th September 1881, to be referred to hereafter as the agreements of 1881, and Rs. 330 being damages for detention of the money. The question is whether the plaintiffs or defendants 2 to 4 (the Roy defendants) are entitled to this sum. The Nawab Bahadur of Dacca at one stage appeared to side with the plaintiffs, but ultimately adopted a neutral attitude, as he should do, and his only concern was that he should not be made liable to pay twice over in the events which had happened since the institution of the suit. In the plaint, many allegations were made and quite a number of questions raised, but before us, the appeal is confined to a few points depending entirely upon the construction of the said agr...
Tag this Judgment!Bengal Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. Baul Chandra Mukherji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal535
ORDERPatterson, J.1. The petitioner in this case was the decree-holder and opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 and the father of opposite parties Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were the judgment-debtors in a rent decree. The decree was an ex parte one and was passed on 15th September 1934. In execution of that decree, the hold-ing in arrear was put up to sale on 19th February 1935. The sale was confirmed on 28th March 1935 and possession was taken through Court on 4th September 1925. On 9th June 1936, the opposite parties filed a joint application under Order 9, Rule 13, for having the ex parte decree set aside. On the same day, they filed an application under Section 174, Ben. Ten. Act, (corresponding to Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C.) for having the sale set aside. The learned Munsiff heard both applications together and dismissed them by a single judgment, holding them both to be time barred. The opposite parties then filed two separate appeals in the Court of the learned District Judge, and the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Amulya Dhone Ghose Vs. Ram Sundar Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal422
ORDERPatterson, J.1. This rule is directed against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 11 of Act 2 of 1867. The charge against the petitioner was 'gambling for gain of money by making illegal bets on race-horses'. The evidence is purely circumstantial and points to the conclusion that the petitioner was, when arrested, engaged either in taking or in making bets, that is to say, either he or the other person concerned was what might be described as a 'street book-maker'. Now the section of the Gambling Act under which the petitioner has been convicted renders liable to fine any person playing for money in any public street, etc., any game not being a game of mere skill, by use of instruments of gaming. Apparently, the prosecution theory is that the two counterfoil receipts bearing names of certain horses on which bets had apparently been made which were found, in the possession of the petitioner, were instruments of gaming within the meaning of the section. I am very doubtful...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Sree Lakshmi Narayan Jiu Thakur and ors. Vs. Jagadish Chandra Sur ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal541
Khundkar, J.1. The subject-matter of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen is a house which was originally the property of two brothers each of whom dedicated his own share in the house by a separate document to the plaintiff deity. The shebait in respect of one share was one Madhab and the shebait in respect of the other share was one Guru Charan. In 1870 (1276-1277 B. S.) Madhab by two documents Ex. 0/10 and C/11 granted what purported to be a permanent lease in respect of an eight-anna share in the house to the predecessor of the defendants. That year the remaining eight-anna share in the house was sold in execution of a decree against Guru Charan, the other shebait and that interest, such as it may have been, came also to be acquired by the predecessor of the defendants. The entire interest of the defendants' predecessor was comprised in a debutter of the defendant deity of whom the other defendants are the present shebaits. In 1900 (1307 B. S.) the shebaibi right of the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Nath Banerjee Vs. Tollyganj Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal178
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for damages against the Tollygunj Municipality. The plaintiff's case was that the Tollygunj Municipality had failed to provide and maintain a sufficient system of drainage of a large area within its control within which is the house of the plaintiff with the result that there was great inconvenience and damage to the plaintiff, in that during the rainy season there was a large accumulation of water over a large area in this Municipality and this state of things had been going on for many years and the Municipal Commissioners inspite of complaints have taken no steps to improve the drainage of the area. The plaintiff claimed damages Rs. 100. The trial Court decided the suit in favour of the plaintiff and awarded him nominal damages Rs. 10. In appeal by the Municipal Commissioners the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed. Upon hearing the learned advocate for the plaintiff there appears no doubt about the facts, namely that the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »