Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-31-1917
Reported in : 44Ind.Cas.254
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould in a suit for ejectment. On the 20th February 1891 the plaintiff granted an under raiyati lease to the defendant. The lease was not for any specified term, but was described as a barsana patta (yearly lease). The grantor stated that she had a raigati interest in the land under a grant from her superior landlord, dated the 26th November 1838; and the grantee was enjoined to have an entry made in the Survey and Settlement Record that the grantor possessed a raiyati right and the grantee himself a harsana right. On the 12th April 1911 the plaintiff served a notice upon the defendant calling upon him to quit the land at the end of six months. On the 14th August 1911, she instituted the present suit to eject the defendant who had not left the land in spite of the notice to quit. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on the ground that the tenancy was permanent a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-27-1917
Reported in : 48Ind.Cas.322
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant, Mr. S.R. Das, against the judgment of Chaudhuri, J., whereby he held that the plaintiff Bank was entitled to a personal decree against the 1st and 2nd defendants.2. It was contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a personal decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inasmuch as the conditions precedent entitling them to ask for such a decree had not been fulfilled : and the terms of the decrees, dated 8th February 1915 and 28th February 1916, had not been carried out.3. The facts were as follows:H. Guznavi was indebted to the Allahabad Bank and his indebtedness was secured by mortgage of certain properties.4. He was also indebted to the plaintiff Bank. On, the, 1st August 1913, A. H. Guzuavi executed a mortgage to the plaintiff Bank to secure the floating balance' This mortgage was with respect to the same properties as were covered by the mortgage held by the Allahabad Bank and was subject t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-08-1917
Reported in : 41Ind.Cas.747
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Mr. Justice Mullick in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title. The case for the plaintiffs is that on the 21st March 1897 they, along with defendants Nos. 1 and 8, purchased the disputed property from the proprietor, but that, by the fraud of the first defendant who was entrusted with the preparation and execution of the every once, the (sic)namas of the plaintiffs were omitted from the document The plaintiffs were for a declaration of their title and for recovery of the lands from the defendants who have wrongfully kept them out of possession The Courts below have concurrently found that the allegations of the plaintiffs are well founded and have decreed the claim. The decree has been affirmed by Mr. Justice Mullick. In the present appeal, this decision has been assailed as erroneous in law. It has been argued that the plaintiffs cannot establish their title till the conveyance is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-07-1917
Reported in : 41Ind.Cas.804
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Mr. Justice Roe in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. One of the questions in controversy between the parties related to the amount of rent payable in cash. The Court of first, instance decreed the claim in full. The Subordina e Judge on appeal modified that decree and allowed the plain iff a decree at the rate admitted by the defendants. Before the Subordinate Judge, as before the Trial Court, reliance was' placed upon a petition of compromise filed in a previous suit, for arrears of rent. This document embodied an agreement to pay Rs. 139-2 0, as rent for an area of 35 bighas. A question was thereupon raised, whether the document was admissible in evidence. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that it was admissible in evidence. The Subordinate Judge took the contrary view. There can be no doubt that the opinion of the Subordinate Judge is supported by the decision of a Full Bench in Lalit Mohan Ghos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-28-1917
Reported in : 41Ind.Cas.313
Teunon, J.1. These are six applications made to this Court under the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and of Section 195 (6) read with Section 195 (7) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. In each case the applicant was the defendant and the opposite party the plaintiff in a suit brought in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta. The suit having been dismissed, the defendants applied to the Trial Judge for sanction to prosecute the plaintiffs under Sections 209 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Sanction having been refused, in these applications, for the hearing of which I and Chaudhuri, J., have been constituted a Divisional Bench by his Lordship the Chief Justice, we are invited to revise and set aside the order of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes and to giant the sanction for which application was, and is, made.3. At the hearing Babu Manmatha Nath Mukerjee, a Vakil enrolled and ordinarily practising in this Court, was authorised by the plaintiffs-opposite ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-27-1917
Reported in : 45Ind.Cas.338
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this matter the Rule was issued by me as Chief Justice of this Court after consultation with the learned Judges in consequence of two articles which appeared in the 'Amrita Bazar Patrika' newspaper on the 18th and 2.2nd of May 1917, respectively. The Eule was directed to Tarit Kanti Biswas, the printer and publisher of the newspaper, and to Moti Lal Ghose, Golap Lal Ghose and Pijush Kanti Ghose, Directors, and Golap Lal Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Ghose, the Managers of the Company called the 'Amrita Bazar Patrika Ltd.,'having its registered office at No. 2 Anando Chatterjee's Lane, Calcutta, and the Rule called upon them to show cause why they should not be committed or otherwise dealt with according to law for contempt of Court alleged to have been committed by them by unlawfully publishing the two articles concerning the High Court and the Chief Justice in his administration thereof.2. The respondents to the Rule hare all appeared by learned Counsel.3. The f...
Tag this Judgment!