Kolkata Court December 1896 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.
Gobind Chunder Nundy and anr. Vs. Srigobind Chowdhry and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal330
Banerjee and Rampini, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for contribution, on the allegation that the plaintiff's and defendant No. 2 took from defendant No. 1 a 2 annas 5 gundas and a 15 gundas share of a certain zemindari in putni by two separate documents; that thereupon a suit was brought by one Prannath Nundy against the plaintiff's and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for enforcing specific performance of a contract to grant a putni to him of the said two shares; that that suit was decreed with costs, and the whole costs decreed in favour of Prannath Nundy were realized from the plaintiff's. The plaintiff's seek to recover two different amounts from the two defendants Nos. 1 and 2.2. The defence of the defendants was a denial of liability. They also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable; and they took some exception as to the extent of the liability of each.3. The Courts below have thrown out the suit on the ground that no suit for contributio...
Kewal Kishan Singh Vs. Sookhari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal173
Beverley, J.1. This second appeal is on behalf of the judgment-debtor, and it raises an important question as to the construction of Section 11 of the Court Fees Act. The respondent had obtained a decree for possession of immoveable property with mesne profits, which were to be assessed in the course of executing the decree. In March 1893 the decree-holder presented an application to execute the decree as to the possession of the property and to ascertain the mesne profits. The application for execution as regards possession was separately registered, and, as we understand, that portion of the decree has been executed and possession has been delivered to the decree-holders. On the 22nd March 1895, a further application as regards the mesne profits appears to have been filed, and on the 27th of the same month the mesne profits were assessed at a certain sum, and an order was made upon the decree-holder to deposit the necessary Court fees under Section 11 of the Court Fees Acton the foll...
Bhabiram Dutt Barna Vs. Patan Marin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal239
Rampini, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sues for a declaration of his right to 5 bighas and 15 lessas of land, for possession of the same, and for mesne profits, amounting to Rs. 50.2. The lower Courts have found that the plaintiff is entitled to this land. They both hold that 2 bighas of the land was part of his ancestral holding, and that 3 bighas 15 lessas of it were formerly the land of one Mohmer, in consequence of whose death or abandonment of them they became available for settlement before the time of the Cadastral survey, and as the plaintiff was found in possession of them at the time of the Cadastral survey, they were properly settled with the plaintiff, and the Revenue authorities had consequently no right to order the land to be transferred to the defendant's holding.3. The defendant appeals, and on his behalf it has been urged that the suit is not maintainable under Section 154 of the Assam Regulation I of 1886, according to which, except as otherwise provided in this Re...
Surja Kanta Acharjee Vs. Buneswar Shaha and on His Death His Son, Heir ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal251
Banerjee and Rampini, JJ.1. In these appeals, which arise out of suits for enhancement of rent and for additional rent for excess lands, two questions have been raised on behalf of the appellant: first, whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in relying upon the dak(sic)hilas produced by the defendants when they have not been duly proved; and, second, whether the Lower Appellate Court, upon the facts found by it, was right in dismissing the claim for additional rent for excess lands.2. With reference to the first point this is what the Lower Appellate Court says in its judgment: 'It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that some rent receipts have not been proved and some have been disproved by the witnesses. The defendant, however, has proved them all by saying that he received the receipts on payment of rent. This I consider sufficient proof. The nature and appearance of the receipts convince me of their genuineness. The very variations that they show in the payment go t...
Gopinath Chakravarti and ors. Vs. Umakanta Das Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal169
Banerjee and Rampini, JJ.1. The only question raised in this appeal, which arises out of a suit for arrears of rent, is whether the lower Appellate Court was right in giving effect to the statutory presumption under Section 56, Clause 4, of the Bengal Tenancy Act, in favour of the defendants, respondents. The learned Vakil for the appellants contends that the lower Appellate Court was wrong in giving effect to that presumption for two reasons: first 'because the receip(sic)2. (Ex. A), which is made the basis of the presumption, was not signed by all the landlords, and the party by whom it was signed was not authorised in writing to sign it on behalf of all the landlords; and, secondly, because, even if verbal authority was sufficient, the lower Appellate Court has not affirmatively found that Gopinath was verbally authorised to sign the receipt for all the landlords.3. We are of opinion that the first ground upon which the learned Vakil for the appellant bases his contention is not ten...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›