Kolkata Court May 1892 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jagan Nath Das Vs. Birbhadra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal776
Prinsep and Banerjee, JJ.1. In this case the plaintiff, as shebait of a certain Hindu endowment, sues to set aside certain leases and alienations created by a person who, he says, has relinquished and abandoned the right of shebait, and consequently he asks to obtain khas possession of the land occupied by the defendants under such title.2. The defendants put the plaintiff to the proof of his title as shebait, and on failure of such proof the suit has been dismissed,3. It has been admitted that the plaintiff has held possession as shebait, and managed the properties connected with the endowment for more than ten years, on the nomination of the Hindu residents of the locality. It has not been shown that there is any local custom or authority for such appointment, and we may dismiss the suggestion that the appointment was made by the Collector, for it does not appear that anything further was done than that the appointment made was notified for the information of the Collector. It has be...
Padmanand Singh Vs. Bajo and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal577
Prinsep and Banerjee, JJ.1. It was found by the Settlement officer in this case, which has been dealt with under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act, that 4 out of the 7 bighas of lakhiraj land was held by the defendant under that title, and although it was admitted on behalf of the zemindar that at no time has he been in receipt of rent of any of those lands, either of the larger tenure of 7 bighas, or of the smaller exempted as rent-free, or of the 3 bighas, the difference between the two, the Settlement officer has recorded the 3 bighas as rent-paying land and made it liable to the payment of certain rent settled by him. There is certainly no authority for the assumption of such power on the part of the Settlement officer The only provision of the law under which he could make a settlement of rent in respect of excess land, is Section 104, and that does not apply to lands held by one who is not a tenant in respect of other lands to which they have become' attached. It seems to us ra...
Rhidoy Sundri and ors. Vs. Haladhar Saha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal593
Norris and Beverley, JJ.1. The plaintiffs in this suit are the 10 annas co-sharers of a certain zemindari mehal, No. 6490 of the Mymensingh Collectorate towjee. That mehal appears to have formed a portion of a larger estate which was brought to sale for arrears of revenue and purchased by Government in the year 1833. During the time the estate was in the khas possession of Government, the mehal in question was detached from the larger estate and formed into a separate estate, and in 1863 it was sold to the present plaintiffs and others.2. The mehal appears to comprise, and indeed to consist of, an under-tenure or dependent taluk which is held by the defendants, some of whom are also co-sharers in the zemindari mehal. This taluk is said to have existed before the Permanent Settlement; it was certainly in existence at the time the Government purchased the zemindari in 1833, and it was settled on several occasions at varying rents during the time the zemindari was in the khas possession o...
W.C. Bonerjee and anr. Vs. Dinobundhu Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal774
Prinsep and Beverley, JJ.1. The plaintiff's, landlords, contracted with the defendants, tenants, that they were at liberty to make a transfer of the under-tenure given to them, but that, unless the transferee furnished security, they (defendants) were not to be absolved from liability; in other words, the sale would not be valid, and the plaintiffs would not be bound to recognize the transferee.2. It seems that, notwithstanding this contract, the defendants have sold the tenure to one Ram Jibun by a registered document, and that the formalities prescribed by Section 12 of the Bengal Tenancy Act have been observed; that is to say, the Registration Officer has received and sent the 'landlord's fee' as prescribed by that section. Notwithstanding this, the transferee, Ram Jibun, has not furnished security, and the plaintiffs, landlords, therefore, in accordance with the terms of the kabuliyat executed by their under-tenants, the transferor-defendants, have refused to recognize the transfer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›