Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Manjanali Debi Vs. Kailash Nath Mitra, on His Death His Heir and Legal Representative Gour Sundar Mitra and ors.

Manjanali Debi vs Kailash Nath Mitra, on His Death His Heir and Legal Representative Gour Sundar Mitra and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jan 10, 1918
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/884837

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII B.C. of 1885), Section 52 - Landlord and tenant--Landlord, whether can claim additional rent for excess area within boundaries specified in pattah. -

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manjanali Debi

Respondent

Kailash Nath Mitra, on His Death His Heir and Legal Representative Gour Sundar Mitra and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1919Cal523(2),44Ind.Cas.24

Excerpt

bengal tenancy act (viii b.c. of 1885), section 52 - landlord and tenant--landlord, whether can claim additional rent for excess area within boundaries specified in pattah. - 1. this appeal arises out of a suit brought by the original plaintiff (the appellant before us) for enhancement of rent of a certain holding. it appears that the tenancy was created by a pattah marked exhibit a. according to that pattah it would seem that rent was fixed for the whole area within the boundaries specified, though that area may have been estimated at 40 bighas. if that is so, the plaintiff is not entitled to additional rent on account of excess area merely because the area within the boundaries is proved to be more or considerably more than 40 bighas. the question whether any land in respect of which additional rent is claimed lies outside the boundaries specified in the patth has apparently not been considered in the courts below. if any part of the lands is outside the boundaries, the judgment leaves it open to the plaintiff in any future proceedings he may be advised to take to claim additional rent in respect thereof. with these observations the appeal is dismissed with costs.2. we ought to add that this appeal only relates to the 3-annas 4-pies portion of the holding and does not affect the judgment of the court below in respect of the 8 annas share of the holding, to which that judgment refers.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the original plaintiff (the appellant before us) for enhancement of rent of a certain holding. It appears that the tenancy was created by a pattah marked Exhibit A. According to that pattah it would seem that rent was fixed for the whole area within the boundaries specified, though that area may have been estimated at 40 bighas. If that is so, the plaintiff is not entitled to additional rent on account of excess area merely because the area within the boundaries is proved to be more or considerably more than 40 bighas. The question whether any land in respect of which additional rent is claimed lies outside the boundaries specified in the patth has apparently not been considered in the Courts below. If any part of the lands is outside the boundaries, the judgment leaves it open to the plaintiff in any future proceedings he may be advised to take to claim additional rent in respect thereof. With these observations the appeal is dismissed with costs.

2. We ought to add that this appeal only relates to the 3-annas 4-pies portion of the holding and does not affect the judgment of the Court below in respect of the 8 annas share of the holding, to which that judgment refers.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial