Kolkata Court August 1949 Judgments
Amarendra Lal Khan Vs. Ajodhya Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal302
ORDERG.N. Das, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of the plaintiff against a decision of Mr. Chakladar, learned Small Cause Court Judge, Midnapore. The suit was one for recovery of rent in respect of a plot of land which is admittedly governed not by the Bengal Tenancy Act but by the Transfer of Property Act. The rent was claimed for the year 1350 to 1354 B. S. at the annual rate of Rs. 3-15-9. In the plaint the plaintiff stated that the rent was in respect of a fraction of C. S. Dag No. 536, Khatian No. 523. The defendant in his written statement did not dispute the amount of rent payable but disputed the extent of the tenancy. On that the learned Small Cause Court Judge forgetting the provisions of Article 11, Schedule 2, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act raised a point for determination as to the extent of the tenancy.2. In my opinion, the question of the extent of the tenancy was entirely outside the scope of the suit and should have been left open for adjudication b...
Tag this Judgment!Bhulan Singh and ors. Vs. Ganendra Kumar Roy Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal74,54CWN366
Harries, C.J.1. These are four appeals from decrees of Banerjee J. sitting on the Original Side of this Court, made on 12th May 1949 in ejectment suits. The plaintiff-respondent in each of these appeals purchased certain premises known as No. 30 Kali Krishna Tagore Street in the year 1938. These premises were let to a number of tenants--including the four appellants. Notices to quit were served on each of the four appellants and on 14th January 1949 ejectment suits were filed by the plaintiff respondent against each of the four appellants. These suits were tried together by Banerjee J. sitting on the Original Side, as the facts were common to each case. The learned Judge eventually came to conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to possession asa against each of the four defendants and accordingly made decrees for ejectment in each suit. It is from these four decrees of ejectment that the present appeals have been filed.2. The short point involved in each of these appeals is whether...
Tag this Judgment!Bishan Singh Vs. Ram Nagina Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal77
ORDERSen, J.1. for Opposite Party. Order. -- This rule has been obtained by the petitioner who has been convicted by Sri R. C. Sen, Magistrate, First Class, Howrah, of having committed an offence punishable under Section 500, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. An appeal was taken to the Sessions Judge and it was dismissed. There-after this rule has been obtained.2. The facts briefly are as follows: The accused Bishan Singh went to a Grain Shop on a bicycle and leaving the bicycle outside he entered the Grain Shop. He borrowed the bicycle from one Mahadeo. When he came out be found the bicycle missing and was informed by some persons that a carpenter named Ram Nagina had taken the bicycle. Upon this in-formation being received, he went to his superior officer, B. N. Railway, at Shalimar, and inform-ed him of the incident. A document was written out and signed by Bishan Singh and it was taken to the Government...
Tag this Judgment!Ashutosh Bhadra and anr. Vs. Jatindra Mohan Seal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1949
Reported in: AIR1954Cal238
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Banerjee J, dated November 23, 1948, setting aside an abatement.2. The two plaintiffs brought a suit against Sm. Fuleswari Bhadra claiming a declaration that they had certain rights of light and air and an injunction restraining the defendant, her servants or agents from obstructing or interfering with these rights. There was also a claim for a declaration as to a right of way and an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with such right.3. The suit proceeded, but eventually it became known to the plaintiffs that Sm. Fuleswari Bhadra had died and the solicitors of the plaintiffs wrote to the defendant's solicitors asking them for information as to who were the personal representatives. No satisfactory reply was obtained, and eventually certain records were searched in this Court and it was discovered on August 23, 1948, that the lady had left a will naming Ashutosh Bhadra and Bejoy Kumar Bhadra as executors. They were th...
Tag this Judgment!Susamarani Debi and ors. Vs. Udai Chand Mahatab and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1949
Reported in: AIR1953Cal328
ORDERR.P. Mookerjee, J.1. On behalf of the defendants, it is urged that the court of appeal below erred in holding that the defence was barred under Section 109, Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff had brought the suit to realise arrears of rent, cess and interest in respect of a holding of which the rent had been settled under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act. The order passed under Section 105 was in 1937 and the present claim is for the years 1347 to 1350 B. S. The defence was that no rent was payable for the land as the plot in question was a resumed chowkidari chakran land and had been included in the putni created in 1846. The putni rent included the rent of these lands and the tenants are not liable to pay separately any rent for the same. Both the courts below have held that as rent was assessed under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, and the order passed by the revenue authorities (a copy of which is marked as Ex. 6 in the case) was a contested one, that decision had the force and...
Tag this Judgment!Bajrang Lal Laduram Vs. Agarwal Brothers
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal267
Chatterjee, J.1. This is an application by Bajranglal Serowgee who carries on business under the name and style of Bajranglal Laduram for having the effect of an arbitration agreement determined by this Court. The application is really for an adjudication that an arbitration agreement between the parties is still subsisting.2. By contract No. 1633 dated 28th July 1948 the petitioner alleges that he agreed to purchase from the respondent 80,000 heavy cees bags in 200 bales at the rate of Rs. 140/4/- per 100 bags, delivery August 1948. The terms of the agreement appear from a copy of the Bought Note included in the annexure to the petition.3. Clause 13 of the said contract contained an agreement for arbitration in very wide terms.4. The petitioner's case is that on 16th August 1948 he sent shipping instructions to the respondent to bring 50 bales, that is, 20,000 heavy cees bags, and on 18th August 100 bales, that is, 40,000 heavy cees bags alongside the vessel 'Kutsang.' The respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Binapani Devi Vs. Surendra Nath Haldar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal532
R.P. Mukerjee, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and arises oat of Title Suit No. 20 of 1944. The plaintiff had brought the suit on the plea that the defendant had taken settlement of the tank in suit for three years from Agrahayan 1346 B. S. to Jaista 1349 B. S. after executing a kabuliyat. After the expiry of the lease the defendant had continued in possession, though the plaintiff had not assented to such possession. The defendant, according to the plaintiff, is a trespasser and the prayer is for an ejectment from the demised property. The defence raised various points but the one material for the purpose of the present appeal is that the tenant had paid rent up to 1350 B.S. and that there had been a further agreement by the landlord accepting fresh tenancy after the expiry of the lease in Jaistha, 1349 B. S. 2. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal on behalf of the plaintiff. The learned Subordinate Judge has on a consideration of the evidenc...
Tag this Judgment!Hare Krishna Rana and ors. Vs. Sm. Jamini Sundari Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal555
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. In this appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs, the particular question which arises for decision is whether, under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P. C., dispossession referred to therein must be in course of the execution proceedings or may be a subsequent event.2. The plaintiffs brought the present suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration of their eight annas share in a particular sub-tenure held by them under the Patnidar. The plaintiffs' predecessor Gostha and pro forma defendant 5 Kedar after purchasing the eight annas share in the Patni sued Satish Adhikary who was then the owner of the sub-tenure in suit. That suit was decreed and in execution of this decree Gostha and Kedar became the auction-purchasers, the sale having taken place on 15th February 1924, and possession was delivered on 24th May 1924. The plaintiff a claimed in the pre-sent proceedings as the heirs of Gostha. Kedar who was the owner of the remaining eight annas share of the sub-tenure h...
Tag this Judgment!Adeline Maude Ellanor Catchick Nee Robertson and anr. Vs. Sunderlal Da ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal559
G.N. Das, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a decision of Mr. B. Mookerjee, Additional Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore, District 24 Parganas, dated 29th November 1944, dismissing their suit for possession and mesne profits.2. The plaintiffs' case is that the disputed property and other properties belonged to their father George Adolphus, Robertson. The letter was at all material times, living separate from his wife Olivia by whom he had several children. He had by one Mrs. Adeline Maude Bredee, a widow, two daughters viz., the plaintiffs.3. On 4th July 1892, Mr. Robertson executed a will. The will inter alia provided that Mrs. Bredee would be entitled to the disputed property for her life and the remainder would go to the plaintiffs. Mrs. Bredee and the testator's two brothers William Cecil Robertson and Edwin Robertson were appointed executors.4. On 12th January 1894, a son named George Nathaniel Robertson was born of Mrs. Bredee by the testator.5. On 11th June 1...
Tag this Judgment!Jatindra Mohan Das Vs. Khitipathinath Mitra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal82,54CWN284
K.C. Chunder, J.1. The rule was issued on the application of the petitioner who was a sublessee of premises No. 81 Pataldanga Street, Calcutta. Opposite party No. 2 was the lessee and Opposite party No 1 was the landlord. On 4th August 1947 the landlord gave a notice to his tenant opposite party No. 2 to quit by the last date of August 1947. As the premises were not vacated and peaceful possession delivered the landlord on 10th October 1947 brought a suit in ejectment at the Calcutta Court of Small Causes being Suit No. 5772 of 1947. The suit was decreed on 8th March 1948 by consent whereby the tenant agreed to vacate by 9th September 1948. Opposite party No. 2 brought a suit in the Original Side of this Court being Suit No 3079 of 1948 for a declaration that the ejectment decree was null and void. In that suit by consent it was ordered in September 1948 that opposite party No. 2, the tenant, was to give up vacant possession on 31st January 3949. It is said that opposite party No. 2 ha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »