Skip to content

Kolkata Court May 1906 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.

May 02 1906

Dayamani Debi Vs. Srinibash Kundu

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: May-02-1906

Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal842

Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is a suit be certain reversioners, and the object of the suit is to set aside a permanent lease of certain property granted by their mother, who was a Hindu widow. The lease was granted to the defendants in consideration of a rent and of a premium of about 400 rupees. The lower Appellate Court has found that the lease was for the benefit of the estate. It has found that the previous tenants on the property would not adhere to it, because it was not profitable, and that it was impracticable, the land being jungle, to bring it under cultivation without spending a substantial sum on its improvement. In those circumstances the lady decided to grant the lease in question. It has also been found that the bargain was a good one and that both the bonus and the rents went into the pockets of the plaintiff's; and that what the mother did was for the good of the plaintiffs, and the latter have been benefited by her act. The District Judge refused to set a...


May 02 1906

Gopinath Adhikary Vs. Gadadhar Das

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: May-02-1906

Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1020

Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is a case of some peculiarity and novelty. The defendant brought a suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act seeking for a decree directing that a certain document might be registered: and he obtained a decree against, the present plaintiff--a decree simply directing the document to he registered: it said nothing about its presentation for registration within thirty days from the passing of the decree. The section only authorizes the institution of such a suit: nothing more. But to give effect to what would appear to be the intention of the section the decree made under it ought, I think, to provide that the document should be duly presented for registration within thirty days after the passing of the decree. That, I think, is what is meant by the words 'a suit for a decree directing the document to be registered in such office, if it be duly presented for registration within thirty days after the passing of such decree.' The section, howev...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial