Kolkata Court July 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.
Peary Mohun Mukerji Vs. Ali Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal249
Pigot and Rampini, JJ.1. The plaintiff in this suit seeks to eject the defendant No. 1, Ali Sheikh, from a certain plot of land, and to obtain khas possession of the land himself. He also prays that a lease of the land granted by the defendant No. 2 to the defendant No. 1 may be declared invalid, and that a former decree passed on an application by the defendant No. 1 under Section 158 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, in which it was declared that the defendant No. 1 was his (i.e., the present plaintiff's) tenant in respect of the land in dispute, may be set aside. It is alleged that the defendant No. 2 was formerly the plaintiff's gumastha and that when he let the land to the defendant No. 1, he exceeded his powers, and that the plaintiff subsequently let it to the defendant No. 3, who according to the plaintiff ought now to be in occupation of it, but who has been kept out of it by the defendant No. 1.2. Both the Lower Courts have held that the suit is barred by the rule of res judicata; i...
Surendronath Pal Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Tincowri Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal247
Pigot and Rampini, JJ.1. In this case the appellants were the holders of a patni, their interest in which has been sold in execution. The purchaser in execution has not agreed with the zemindar with respect to the amount of fee payable by him on the transfer of the patni to his name under the provisions of Section 5, Regulation VIII of 1819. The purchaser appears to dispute the amount of the fee, and as the result of that controversy the purchaser of the execution-sale has not got himself registered, and although he is in possession, the rent for which this suit is brought against the old tenant is undoubtedly unpaid. A decree has been given by the Lower Court against the old tenant for the amount of the rent due, and he appeals. No question has been raised in the argument before us as to the fact of the rent being due, or as to the amount of the rent which is due, but it is contended that inasmuch as the former owner of the patni who has lost it in the execution-sale is not in possess...
Khalilul Rahman Vs. Gobind Pershad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal328
Pigot and Rampini, JJ.1. This suit is brought on two mortgage-bonds executed in favour of plaintiff by Gobind Pershad, defendant No. 1, and Sukh Lal his brother, now deceased. The first dated 4th May 1881 is for Rs. 20,000, the second dated 3rd July 1882 for Rs. 5,000.2. The mortgagors were members of a joint family, governed by the Mitak-shara law, and by the mortgage-bonds in suit the joint family property was mortgaged for the amount of the sums borrowed. Default having been made in payment of principal and interest, this suit was brought.3. Before the institution of this suit Sukh Lal died.4. The suit, as now framed, is brought against Gobind Pershad and his sons Dwarka Nath and Kedar Nath, against Ram Lakhan, son of Sukh Lal, and against Krishna Nanda Ram and Tilakdhari Singh. Budri Narain, a third son of Gobind Pershad, was originally made a defendant, but was struck out, on the allegation that he was adopted into another family. The two last defendants are a mortgagee and a less...
Panchanan Banerji Vs. Rai Kumar Guha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal610
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. We think the District Judge has committed an error in holding on the strength of the decision cited by him--Gopal Chunder Das v. Umesh Narain Chowdhry I.L.R. 17 Cal. 695--that this suit is not maintainable. The present case is, we think, clearly istinguishable from that case. It is based on a kabuliyat executed by the defendant, and looking at that document as a whole, the effect of it clearly was to create a separate tenancy under the plaintiff. The kabuliyat sets out the total area of the land, the area which proportionately would belong to the plaintiff; and the defendant stipulates to pay the plaintiff rent for that area. It gives the plaintiff a right to measure the land, and the defendant undertakes to pay increased rent for any increase that may be found over the area for which rent is paid, and he is entitled to a deduction for any diminution in the area. It is quite obvious that in the case of Gopal Chunder Das v. Umesh Narain Chowdhry I.L.R. 17 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›