Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Hari Mohan Misser vs Surendra Narayan Singh on 15 May, 1907

Kumar Basanta Kumar Roy And Ors. vs Secretary Of State For India In Council on 8 June, 1910

In the other cases, which are collected in Hari Mohan v. Surendra Narain 31 C. 301, the endeavour was to raise the value and this was made in circumstances where that principle could not be invoked. I, therefore, hold that we must take the value of the property as that laid in the plaint and adopted by the respondents for the purposes of the appeal to tin's Court.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Mohini Mohan Misser vs Surendra Narayan Singh on 25 June, 1914

174. and before the Judicial Committee in Hari Mohan Misser v. Surendra Narayan Singh (1907) I. L. R. 34 Calc. 718. The proceedings having terminated in favour of the present plaintiffs they have brought this present suit to recover damages for malicious prosecution of the suit for an injunction. The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground, that it is barred by limitation. The first question for our decision is-is such an action as the present maintainable? The rule in England is very clear that a suit such as the present cannot be maintained.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Sree Rajah Vasi Reddi Srichandra ... vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 16 April, 1931

But this involves no conflict of opinion: indeed it may be pointed out that in both the cases I have mentioned the judgment was delivered by Sir James Colville and the members of the Board were the same. And the distinction is obvious for in the earlier case the endeavour was to lower the value of the subject-matter and this was made by one who had adopted it for the purpose of the previous appeal preferred by him so that the principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate governed, in the other cases which are collected in Hari Mohan Misser v. Surendra Narain Singh (1903) I.L.R. 31 C. 301 the endeavour was to raise the value and this was made in circumstances where that principle could not be invoked. 1 therefore hold that we must take the value of the property as that laid in the plaint and adopted by the respondents for the purposes of the appeal to this Court.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Mahendranarayan Ray Chaudhuri vs Janakinath Ray on 20 February, 1930

6. It is I think clear that the value referred to in Section 110 of the Code is the real or market value and that where, under the Court-fees Act or otherwise, a plaint or memorandum of appeal is not required to be valued according to the real or market value, but is allowed or required to be valued upon some other basis, the doctrine of "approbate and reprobate" does not apply: Hari Mohan Misser v. Surendra Narain Singh [1933] 31 Cal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Haramani Devi And Ors. vs Balaram Panda And Ors. on 31 January, 1957

6. But in the case of Hari Mohan v. Surendra Narain, ILR 31 Cal 301 fC), a Bench of three Judges consisting of Sir Francis W. Maclean, Chief. Justice, Mr. Justice Hill and Mr. Justice Stevens, construed the expression 'value of the subject-matter of the suit' and held, "In a suit for an injunction it is open to the applicant for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council to show what the real value of the subject-matter of the suit is, notwithstanding the fact that for the purposes of the Court-fees Act (7 of 1870) the value of the suit was fixed at a sum less than the appealable amount."
Orissa High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

N.V. Rama Chetty vs A.L.A.R.R.M. Arunachalam Chettiar And ... on 18 August, 1915

8. Thu substantial question for decision is therefore whether Section 151 intended to give the landholder a right to sue for any of the reliefs mentioned therein in all cases even if only a part of the holding was rendered unfit for agricultural purposes or whether it intended to give the right to sue for any of those reliefs, only when the holding as a whole was rendered substantially unfit for agricultural purposes by the acts of the ryot committed on the whole or on any part of the holding. On this question I think we are bound by the decision of the Privy Council in Hari Mohun Misser v. Surendra Narayan Singh (1907) I.L.R. 34 Calc. 718 (P.C.). In that case, the Calcutta High Court in construing Section 23 of the Bengal Tenancy Act (on which Section 11 of the Madras Estates Land Act is founded) laid down that the landholder is entitled to an injunction to remove an indigo vat built upon a portion of a large holding " because that portion had become evidently unfit for agricultural purposes." Their Lordships of the Privy Council say that the proposition of law so laid down by the High Court (namely, that even if a part of a holding had become unfit for agricultural purposes, the landlord is always entitled to an injunction to rectify the acts done on that part of the holding) cannot be upheld as that proposition was laid down too broadly and unconditionally. Their Lordships say that " reference must be had to the circumstances of individual cases," "to the size of the holding," "to the area withdrawn from actual cultivation," and " to the effect of such withdrawal upon the fitness of the holding taken as a whole for profitable cultivation " before the relief of injunction could be granted.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Navanna Vena Rama Chetty vs A.L.A.R.R.M. Arunachalam Chettiar And ... on 18 August, 1915

8. The substantial question for decision is, therefore, whether Section 151 intended to give the landholder a right to sue for any of the reliefs mentioned therein in all cases, even if only a part of the holding was rendered unfit for agricultural purposes, or whether it intended to give the right to sue for any of those reliefs, only when the holding ns a whole was rendered substantially unfit for agricultural purposes by the acts of the ryitt committed on the whole or on any part of the holding. On this question I think we are bound by the decision of the Privy Council in Hari Mohun Misser v. Surendra Narayan Singh 17 M.L.J. 361 : 34 C. 718 (P.C.) : 2 M.L.T. 399 : 11 C.W.N. 794 : 6 C.L.J. 19 : 9 Bom. L.R. 750 : 34 I.A. 133. In that case, the Calcutta High Court in construing Section 23 of the Bengal Tenancy Act (on which Section 11 of the Madras Estates Land Act is founded) laid down that the landholder is entitled to an injunction to remove an indigo vat built upon a portion of a large holding, because that portion had become evidently unfit for agricultural purposes. Their Lordships of the Privy Council say that the proposition of law So laid down by the High Court, (namely, that even if a part of a holding had become unfit for agricultural purposes, the landlord is always entitled to an injunction to rectify the acts done on that part of the holding) cannot be upheld, as that proposition was laid down too broadly and unconditionally. Their Lordships say that reference must be had to the circumstances of individual cases, "to the size of the holding," to the area withdrawn from actual cultivation," and 'to the effect of such withdrawal upon the fitness of the holding taken as a whole for profitable cultivation before the relief of injunction could be granted.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sankaralinga Moopanar And Ors. vs T.V. Subramania Pillai And Anr. on 3 August, 1915

2. In the appeal by the tenants, it is argued that as the building was erected only on a small portion of the holding, the finding that the whole laud has been rendered unfit for agricultural purposes is unsustainable. As was pointed out by the Judicial Committee in the case Hari Mohan Misser v. Surendra Narayan Singh 34 C. 718 : 17 M.L.J. 361 : 11 C.W.N. 794 : 4 A.L.J. 497 : 9 Bom. L.R. 750 : 6 C.L.J. 19 : 34 I.A. 133 (P.C.) : 2 M.L.T. 399, it is the Court which has jurisdiction to weigh evidence, that must find whether the land has been rendered unfit for agricultural purposes. As the Court of second Appeal, we are bound by that finding. We, therefore, accept the conclusion of the District Judge, which is unambiguous. Moreover, there is no issue as to on what portion of the holding, the building was erected and whether that erection prejudiced cultivation in other portions of it. Another objection taken by Mr. Venkatachariar is, that the holding is held in severalties by the brothers and that the act of waste committed by one of them should not entail liability to ejectment on the others. There is no finding that this division of the holding was assented to by the landlords or that they received separate rents from each of the individual tenants in respect of the portion in his occupation. Unless these conditions are satisfied Section 145 of the Estates Land Act cannot be invoked in favour of the tenants. We must overrule this contention also.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Rajkishore Mondal And Ors. vs Rajani Kant Chuckerbutty And Ors. on 20 May, 1915

2. Section 23 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which defines the incidents of occupancy right, provides that when a raiyat has a right of occupancy in respect of any land, he may use ,the land in any manner which does not materially impair the value of the land or render it unfit for the purposes of the tenancy. In the present case, it has not been disputed that the purpose of the tenancy was agricultural. As there is no evidence to show that the land would be materially impaired in value by the establishment of the proposed market, the only question in controversy is whether what the defendants have done or intend to do on the land is calculated to render it unfit for the purposes of the tenancy. It has been argued, with reference to the decision of the Judicial Committee in Hari Mohan Misser v. Surendra Narayan Singh 34 C. 718 : 34 I.A. 133 : 6 C.L.J. 19 : 11 C.W.N. 794 : 9 Bom. L.R. 750 : 17 M.L.J. 361 : 2 M.L.T. 399, that in order to determine this question, it is essential that the Court should have regard to the size of the holding, the area withdrawn from actual cultivation, and the effect of such withdrawal upon the fitness of the holding taken as a whole for profitable cultivation. But the case mentioned is clearly distinguishable. There the purpose for which a portion of the holding was withdrawn from actual cultivation was, according to the finding of the District Judge, directly connected with agricultural pursuits, namely, the erection of buildings suitable for indigo manufacture, In the case before us, the purpose for which a portion of the land is sought to be withdrawn from actual cultivation is totally unconnected with agriculture, for what the defendants seek to do is to establish a market on the site. It is immaterial that the market will occupy not more than one-tenths of the area of the entire holding; that circumstance cannot affect the nature and character of the unauthorized act. This is clearly a case where, if the defendants are permitted to execute their design, they will render the holding unfit for agriculture, for which purpose alone the land was let out to the tenants-defendants. It has been argued, however, that the establishment of the market would not permanently render unfit the land for the purposes of the tenancy and that consequently the act is not objectionable under Section 23. We are not prepared to accept this contention as well-founded on principle. Section 23 is applicable not only to cases where the land is made permanently unfit, but also to cases where the land is made temporarily unfit for the purposes of the tenancy. The main contention of the appellants, consequently, fails and the order for an injunction must be supported.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next