Kolkata Court May 1910 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.
Chandra Kanta Das and ors. Vs. Ramanath Barman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.478
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in an action for rent commenced on the 15th April 1905. The plaintiff-respondent alleged in the Court of first instance that the defendants were in occupation of 500 bighas of land under a reclamation lease granted in favour of their predecessors on the 21st May 1892, but that they had defaulted in the payment of rent at the rate of Re. 1 per bigha per annum, as settled by the contract for seven-eighths of the year 1308 and for the whole of the years 1309, 1310 and 1311, i.e., from June 19ul to April 1905. The plaintiff accordingly prayed for a decree for over Rs. 2,000 together with damages and costs. The defendants admitted the tenancy, bat pleaded that, subsequent, to the grant of the lease in favour of their predecessors, the plaintiff created another tenancy in favour of certain persons who may be called the Ghoses, first by an amalnamah dated the 7th December 1893, and subsequently by a lease dated the 7th August, 1896; that portio...
Kamal Kamini Debi Vs. H.T.S. Forrest Esquire Chairman of the Howrah Mu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.446
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought for a declaration of the plaintiff's right and title to the land of a pathway and for a declaration that the defendant Municipality has no pathway over that land, and has no right to interfere with that path way in any way and for compensation.2. What led to this plaint was that the Municipality of Howrah, deeming it necessary to repair the bank of a tank belonging to the plaintiff within their jurisdiction, had, after giving the statutory notice required by the Bengal Municipal Act (III of 1884), undertaken this work of repair, and for the purpose of carrying it into effect had used the soil of the pathway to which the plaint refers and of which the plaintiff claims- to be the owner. The Municipality's defence, as formulated in its written statement, was, not that the pathway was vested in it, but that what it did was justified by its statutory powers, and this plea is reiterated throughout the written statement. It is ...
Raghu Nath Das and ors. Vs. Collector of Dacca
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.457
1. These appeals are directed against awards made under the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of lands acquired by the Government of Eastern Bengal and Assam, for extension of the compound of St. Gregory's School in the town of Dacca. The total area acquired measures four bighas three cottahs and 18 dhurs; for the major portion the Collector made his award at the rate of Rs. 1,200 per bigha, for part of the land, comprised in one of these cases, the Collector allowed Rs. 2,550 inclusive of buildings thereon. The claimants were dissatisfied with the award, and obtained references to the Special Judge, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the Special Judge it appears to have been contended, first, that the acquisition-proceedings were illegal, and, secondly, that the amount awarded was too low. The Special Judge declined to entertain the first objection and overruled the second on the merits. In this view he substantially affirmed the award of the Collector. The claimants ...
Umedulla Sardar Vs. Ram Chandra Bhaduri and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.892
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The defendant-appellant's contention that the suit should have been dismissed, inasmuch as it prayed for ejectment and that relief could not be granted, cannot, in our opinion, be sustained for other relief was sought which was within the Court's jurisdiction and has in fact been granted. The only question is whether it was right to grant this relief. It is common ground that the record-of rights was prepared on the application of the proprietor under Section 103 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which empowers the Revenue Officer to ascertain and record all or any of the particulars specified in Section 102.2. The proprietor questioned the propriety of an entry which purported to show defendant as the purchaser of the Jote-rights in certain plots of land on the ground that these rights were not transferable and the Revenue Officer, deciding in the plaintiffs' favour, ordered that 'the plaintiffs be declared as entitled to have the plots in their khas possession and t...
RamadhIn Bania Vs. Sewbalak Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal714
Pugh, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code for an order that what is described as a judgment, but is really an order of the 5th Judge (now officiating 4th Judge) of the Calcutta Small Cause Court, refusing sanction to prosecute the plaintiff in a certain case, may be set aside; that the record should be sent for, and such order as the Court may think fit and proper may be passed.2. The order actually asked for is that the 5th Judge, now the officiating 4th Judge, may be directed to hear and determine the application according to law. It is made by Sewbalak Singh, the defendant in the Small Cause Court suit, who is represented by Mr. Hume as his attorney, who is in fact the Public Prosecutor, and it is stated that this application is made by him officially, and not as a merely private attorney. It appears from the affidavit of Surjya Pada Banerjee, a pleader, that he made the application on behalf of Sewbalak, but instructed by the Criminal Investiga...
RamdIn Bania Vs. Sew Baksh Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.473
Pugh, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code for an order that what is described as a judgment but is really an order of the 5th Judge (now officiating 4th Judge) of the Calcutta Small Cause Court refusing sanction to prosecute the plaintiff in a certain case may be set aside, that the record should be sent for and such order as the Court may think fit and proper may be passed. The order actually asked for is that the 5th Judge, now the officiating 4th Judge, may be directed to hear and determine the application according to law. It is made by Sew Buksh Singh the defendant in the Small Cause Court suit, who is represented by Mr. Hume as his attorney who is in fact the Public Prosecutor and it is stated that this application is made by him officially--and not as a merely private attorney. It appears from the affidavit of Surya Pada Banerjee a pleader that he made the application on behalf of Sew Buksh but instructed by the Criminal Investigation Depart...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›