Kolkata Court March 1905 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.
Hiatunnessa Bibi and ors. Vs. Kailash Chandra Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1905
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.224
1. This is a suit to recover possession of a parcel of land of which the plaintiff alleges that he was dispossessed by the defendants in the year 1299. The plaintiff's case was that the land formed part of a holding No. 267, which had been settled with him. Some four months after the institution of the suit, the plaintiff put in a petition before the Munsif in which he said that the disputed land was covered by plots Nos. 498, 499 and 500 of the Collectorate Chittas prepared in the year 1268.2. The defence set up was that the disputed land belonged not to the plaintiff's holding bat to a holding which the defendants had acquired by purchase from Korban Ali in the year 1291.3. Several issues were drawn up but it is only necessary, for the purposes of this appeal to notice two of them--the third and the fourth. The third is--'is the claim barred by limitation?' The fourth is--'Whether the plaint land appertains to plaintiff's jama and the defendants have wrongfully dispossessed him?' The...
Chutterput Singh Vs. Maharaj Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1905
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.64
1. When the security to be given by an Applicant for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council consists of Government Securities, the market-value of such securities must be Rs. 4,000 on the date of their deposit.2. In the present case, if the value of the Government Securities be not Rs. 4,000, the applicant must make up the difference within a fortnight from this date....
Umed Ali Bhuyan Vs. Raj Laksmi Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal84
Brett and Woodroffe JJ.1. A certificate was filed under Section 7 (1) h of Act I of 1895 against the appellant on 26th March 1898 for an arrear of Rs. 207-13-0 on account of rent, cesser and interest for the years 1303, 1304 B.S. It has been fount that notice was duly served under Section 10 on 23rd May 1898. No petition of objection was filed under Section 12. A certain amount was realized, some moveable property of the appellant having been sold in July 1898 in execution. For the balance due execution was taken against the holding in arrear, which was sold on the 9th January 1900.2. The present suit was instituted on the 30th July 1900 to cancel the certificate and set aside the sale. The plaintiff alleges that a certificate was made without his knowledge for a sum based on the rent being Rs. 180 instead of Rs. 83-12-0, which is alleged by him to be the rate settled during a recent cadastral survey: he further alleges that no notice was served; that there was no rent in arrear; and t...
Ram Doyal Das Vs. Kamala Priya Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1905
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.223
Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of rent for the year 1308 B.S. It appears, upon the judgments of both the Courts below, that in the year 1281 B.S. corresponding to 1874 the defendant executed a qabuliat in favour of the plaintiff in which the jama of the holding in his occupation was stated to be Rs. 25-9-9 but that, on account of the straitened circumstances of the defendant, the landlord agreed to hold in abeyance (hajut) a portion of the jama, namely, Rs. 11-15-6, and to receive Rs. 13-10-3. Between the years 1281 and 1306, the defendant paid rent at the rate of Rs. 13-10-3. In the year 1307, he executed another qabuliat in favour of the plaintiff in which the jama of his holding was again mentioned to be Rs. 25-9-9, and it was stated that, his condition in life having improved be agreed to pay out of the amount that was being held in abeyance Rs. 3-6-6 in addition to Rs. 13-10-3. Upon the findings arrived at by both the Courts below the defendant actually ...
Rammoyi Dasi Vs. Rupai Pramanick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1905
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.801
1. The present appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant to recover rent from the defendants for certain lands in their possession for the year 1307.2. The defendants raised the plea in defence to the suit that the suit could not proceed against them for the full rent claimed, because there had been a sub-division of the holding or tenure by the sale of a portion thereof to a third party, and that the suit could not proceed unless that third party was made a party to it, and that the plaintiff could not recover the full rent for the holding from the defendants as they were only in possession of a portion of the same.3. The Munsiff held that the plea of the defendants was untenable, because, even supposing that it was within their right to sell a portion of the holding, yet the provisions of Section 88 of the Bengal Tenancy Act had not been complied with and that, therefore, even if any sub-division of the holding had been effected by such sale, it was not binding o...
Dular Koer Vs. Dwarka Nath Misser
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1905
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal971
Harington, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge affirming on certain conditions the decree of the Munsif in a suit in which the plaintiff claimed restitution of conjugal rights.2. From the paper-book it appears that the plaintiff expelled the defendant, her son and daughter-in-law from his house in 1875 and that for the 26 years anterior to the bringing of the suit the parties have been living separate. The plaintiff married a second wife, and took as a concubine a low caste prostitute to live with him. The defendant's, son had brought a suit for partition in which an appeal was (at the time this suit was heard) pending in the High Court. The Subordinate Judge thinks that the plaintiff's motive in bringing the suit after the lapse of 26 years was to coerce the defendant into withdrawing the appeal presented by her in her son's partition-suit by forcing her under the decree of the Court to return to her husband, and reside with him as wif...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›