Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-28-1910
Reported in : 7Ind.Cas.102
1. The substantial question of law, which we are invited to decide in this appeal, relates to the true effect of Section 109 comprised in Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885 as amended by Act III of 1898 B.C. and as it stood before the charges made by the Eastern Bengal and Assam Tenancy Amendment Act of 1908 came into force. The Court of appeal below, in reversal of the decision of the Court of first instance, has held that the effect of Section 109 is to bar all suits in Civil Court for declaration that entries made in a record-of-rights finally published under Section 103A, are erroneous, when such publication has been followed by an application by the landlord under Section 105 for settlement of fair and equitable rent in respect of the land entered in the record as held by the tenants. The circumstances under which this question arises for decision are not disputed, and are indeed all matters of record. The record-of-rights was finally published on the 13th December 1904; ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-03-1910
Reported in : (1911)21MLJ202
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The first question which has been referred to us is whether the registered instrument referred to in Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act must be signed by the lessor. Section 9 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that a transfer of property may be made without writing in every case in which a writing is not expressly required by law. Section 107 provides that a lease to which the section applies can be made only by a registered instrument. This, I take it, is an express provision that lease to which the section applies must be in writing. Section 105 defines a lease of immoveable property as a transfer of a right to enjoy such property. I do not think that Section 107 can be relied on as enacting, either expressly or by implication, that a lease must be executed by the lessor. Can Section 105 be relied on for this purpose? I think not. By Section 105 a lease is a transfer of a right to enjoy property. I do not think, for the purposes of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-19-1910
Reported in : (1911)ILR34Mad29
ORDERArnold White, C.J.1. In these proceedings two second-grade pleaders have been called upon to show cause why they should not be suspended or dismissed by reason of their conduct in having joined the Board of Directors of the ' Cirears Provident Fund Limited of Bapatla' and in connection with the affairs of that company.2. The company is now in liquidation. One of the pleaders was the President of the company (I will refer to him as ' the President'). The other was a Director (I will refer to him as 'the Director')- Criminal proceedings were taken against the two pleaders in connection with the affairs of the company and they were convicted of criminal breach of trust by the Sessions Judge of Guntur. On appeal, these convictions were set aside. There can. I think, be no question that the convictions could not be upheld. In appropriating to their own use the sums of money which formed the subject-matter of the charge of criminal breach of trust, the President and the Director did not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-29-1910
Reported in : 5Ind.Cas.503
Richards, J.1. The facts of the case referred are very simple. The defendant by usufructuary mortgages mortgaged to the plaintiff his proprietary rights in a holding. Since the date of the mortgage, that is to say, for nine years before the institution of the suit, the defendant has continued in occupation of certain lands comprised in the holding which were prior to the mortgages in his own cultivation. The present suit was instituted to recover possession of inter alia this land. Both the Courts below gave the plaintiff a decree subject to the occupancy rights of the defendant in the land in his own cultivation. Section 41 of Regulation II of 1877 of the Ajmere Code is as follows Any person who may have, whether before or after the passing of this Regulation, lost or parted with his/proprietary rights in any holding, either, temporarily or permanently and has since continued in occupation of any of the lands comprised in such holding which, as proprietor, he retained under his own cu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-07-1910
Reported in : (1910)12BOMLR737
Macleod, J.1. In January last the triennial election of eight Councillors for B. Ward Mandvi to the Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay was held according to the provisions of the City of Bombay Municipal Act III of 1888. There were fifteen candidates and the result of the poll was duly declared by the Municipal Commissioner under Section 28 (/) of the Act. Under Section 28 (q] the first eight candidates were deemed to be elected.2. A petition was then presented under Section 33 of the Act by one Husenbhai Abdulabhai Laljee to the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court praying that the whole election or the election of the eight Councillors or of one or more of them might be set aside and a scrutiny held. The fifteen candidates and the Municipal Commissioner were made respondents. The Chief Judge held an inquiry and set aside the election of Lakhamsey Nappoo and Khimji Hirji Kayani who occupied the 3rd and 6th positions amongst the successful candidates.3. The Chief Judge then c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-19-1910
Reported in : 6Ind.Cas.313
Arnold White, C.J.1. In these proceedings two Second Grade Pleaders have been called upon to show cause why they should not be suspended or dismissed by reason of their conduct in having joined the Board of Directors of the 'Circars Provident Fund Limited of Bapatla' and in connection with the affairs of that company. The company is now in liquidation. One of the pleaders was the President of the company. I will refer to him as 'the President.' The other was as director. I will refer to him as 'the Director.' Criminal proceedings were taken against the two pleaders in connection with the affairs of the company and they were convicted of criminal breach of trust by the Sessions Judge of Guntur. On appeal these convictions were set aside See 5 Ind. Cas. 847 : 7 M. L. T. 299 : 20 M.L.J. 220 : (1910) M.W.N. 65 Ed. There can, I think, be no. question that the convictions could not be upheld. In appropriating to their own use the sums of money which formed the subject-matter of the charge of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-07-1910
Reported in : 6Ind.Cas.8
1. A rule has been granted in this case on the District Magistrate of the 24-Perganahs, to show cause why bail, should not be granted on the ground that no order has been made applying the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, to the case; and on the further ground that there does not appear to be any sufficient cause for further enquiry into the guilt of the accused.2. The facts relating to this matter are as follows. A dacoity, commonly referred to as the Nettra dacoity, took place on the 24th April 1909. On the 20th January 1910, the Local Government made an order under Section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, purporting to apply the provision of Part I of that Act to the offence. On the 24th January 1910, the petitioner was arrested on suspicion of being concerned in it and so having committed offences under Section 395 (dacoity) and 397 (dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code. On the 28th January, he applied to the District Magi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-19-1910
Reported in : (1910)20MLJ500
ORDERArnold White, C.J.1. In these proceedings two Second Grade Pleaders have been called upon to show cause why they should not be suspended or dismissed by reason of their conduct in having joined the Board of Directors of the '' Circars Provident Fund Ld., of Bapatla ' and in connection with the affairs of that Company. The Company is now in liquidation. One of the pleaders was the President of the company. I will refer to him as ' the President'. The other was a Director, I will refer to him as 'the Director,' Criminal proceedings were taken against the two pleaders in connection with the affairs of the company and they were convicted of criminal breach of trust by the Sessions Judge of Guntur. On appeal these convictions were set aside. There can, I think, be no question that the convictions could not be upheld. In appropriating to their own use the sums of money which formed the subject-matter of the charge of criminal breach of trust, the President and the Director did not excee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-16-1910
Reported in : 6Ind.Cas.101
George Knox, J.1. Rustam Ranghar, Pirthi, Mithani and Hoshnak Rajput have been convicted of the wilful murder of one Anup Singh and sentenced to death. The case has been submitted to us for confirmation of the sentences of death by the Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut. We have also before us a petition from Jail sent in by Rustam. Pirthi, Mithan and Hoshnak have had their cases laid before us by learned Counsel. The case for the prosecution has been very fully and carefully set out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment, and we do not propose going into the facts of the case. We agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that it is beyond doubt that Anup Singh was murdered on the 10th of August, 1909. The Medical evidence shows that death was due to wounds on the neck which had divided the trachea and gullet and severed the vessels on both sides of the throat. Evidence is given by one Bijai Singh to the effect that on the 9th of August, he saw Anup Singh ridi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-16-1910
Reported in : 6Ind.Cas.609
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for profits brought by a recorded co-sharer under Section 164 of the Tenancy Act against a lumbardar who is appellant before us.2. On second appeal to this Court, the learned Judge, before whom this case came, held that on the true construction of Clause 3, Section 201, of the Agra Tenancy Act, a Revenue Court had no power to go behind the entry in the record-of-rights. In that view he remanded the case for trial of the remaining issues.3. It is urged before us that the learned Judge is in error for the following reasons: First, because the words shall presume' in the above-mentioned clause must be held to mean 'shall presume until the contrary is proved' and the Revenue Court is, therefore, entitled to go into the point and decide whether or not the plaintiff actually has title and an appeal will lie from its decision to the District Judge under Section 177(e) of the Act; secondly, that the Court ought not to read the word 'conclusively' ...
Tag this Judgment!