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.

Hemanta Kumar Roy and ors. Vs. Meser Bibi

Hemanta Kumar Roy and ors. vs Meser Bibi

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jun 09, 1925
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/885933

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 of 1885), Section St - Additional rent for additional area--Kabuliyat; Construction of--Intention of parties. -

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hemanta Kumar Roy and ors.

Respondent

Meser Bibi

Legal References

Reported In
95Ind.Cas.984

Excerpt

bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), section st - additional rent for additional area--kabuliyat; construction of--intention of parties. - 1. this appeal arises out of an application for increase of rent for increase of area presented before the assistant settlement officer of jessore. both the courts below rejected the application on the ground that the kabuliyats showed that the rents were fixed for the lands as described within the boundaries. the learned special judge observes that the area shown of each plot is a mere description and the rent was not fixed with reference to the area nor is it shown that the tenants have made any encroachment on the khas land of the landlord. the question depends upon the construction of the kabuliyats. it is true that the lands were let out as being bounded as described in the 'schedule and the area was described as 68 bighas and 15 1/2 cottas. ordinarily it must be held that the area was merely given by guess and the lands as described within the boundaries were let out at the rent arranged and if the landlord failed to prove that the tenant was occupying more lands than he was paying rent for by encroaching upon adjacent lands belonging to the landlord, a right to claim excess of rent for excess of area must fail. in this case, however, under clause 9 of the kabuliyat, it was stipulated that rent should be payable at certain rates with regard to a certain quality of land which would be found on measurement under a survey, at which the tenant bound himself to be present. it may be inferred from that clause that the lands as described within the boundaries were not let out at the fixed jama mentioned in the kabuliyat. but it was the intention of the parties that the rent should be assessed upon a survey of the lands within the boundaries having regard to the class of land and area of each plot. it does not seem, therefore, the decision of the court of the special judge is correct.2. the case must, therefore, be sent back to him for a finding as regards the area and rent payable with regard to each class of land, having regard to the rent payable in the locality.3.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal arises out of an application for increase of rent for increase of area presented before the Assistant Settlement Officer of Jessore. Both the Courts below rejected the application on the ground that the kabuliyats showed that the rents were fixed for the lands as described within the boundaries. The learned Special Judge observes that the area shown of each plot is a mere description and the rent was not fixed with reference to the area nor is it shown that the tenants have made any encroachment on the khas land of the landlord. The question depends upon the construction of the kabuliyats. It is true that the lands were let out as being bounded as described in the 'schedule and the area was described as 68 bighas and 15 1/2 cottas. Ordinarily it must be held that the area was merely given by guess and the lands as described Within the boundaries were let out at the rent arranged and if the landlord failed to prove that the tenant was occupying more lands than he was paying rent for by encroaching upon adjacent lands belonging to the landlord, a right to claim excess of rent for excess of area must fail. In this case, however, under Clause 9 of the kabuliyat, it was stipulated that rent should be payable at certain rates with regard to a certain quality of land which would be found on measurement under a survey, at which the tenant bound himself to be present. It may be inferred from that clause that the lands as described within the boundaries were not let out at the fixed jama mentioned in the kabuliyat. But it was the intention of the parties that the rent should be assessed upon a survey of the lands within the boundaries having regard to the class of land and area of each plot. It does not seem, therefore, the decision of the Court of the Special Judge is correct.

2. The case must, therefore, be sent back to him for a finding as regards the area and rent payable with regard to each class of land, having regard to the rent payable in the locality.

3. The costs of this appeal will abide the result. Hearing-fee, one gold mohur.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial