Kolkata Court July 1914 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.
Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi Vs. Midnapur Zemindari Company Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal505,28Ind.Cas.879
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for specific performance of a contract to grant a permanent lease. The agreement was made on the 20th September 1897 and was in respect of hinds which at that time formed the subject-matter of a litigation between the defendant and the Secretary of State for India in Counsel. The contract was for the grant of a lease by the defendant to the plaintiffs, if the former should obtain a decree in for suit against the Secretary of State. That suit was decided in favour of the defendant by the Judicial Committee on the 21st March 1906; and the plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendant on the 20th February 1909. The defendant denied that she and entered in to the alleged agreement with the plaintiffs and also contended that if the agreement was established, it was of such a character that a Court of equity would not grant specific performance thereof. The Subordinate Judge has overruled the contentions of the def...
Srimati Manorama Chowdhurani Vs. Soshi Mohan Das Majumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal419,28Ind.Cas.886
1. This was a unit for revocation of Probate of the Will of one Gobind Chandra Das Majumdar calling upon the executor to prove the Will in the presence of the petitioner.2. The testator died on the 27th or 28th December 1883 of cholera in a boat and the Will was said to have been executed on the 27th December 1883. He left a widow and five minor daughters unmarried as well as two brother's sons, the objectors in this case who were then also minors. By the Will the widow got a life-estate with remainder to the brother's sons, and the daughters were given allowance for maintenance of Rs. 12 a year each. The petitioner Manorama Choudharani is the only one of the daughters who has borne sons, and she claims to come in, because, admittedly although general citations were issued and her mother obtained Probate of the Wilt, no separate guardian ad litem was appointed to represent the minor daughters or the minor brother's sons in the Probate proceeding. The eldest daughter Kusum Kumari, now a...
Kalar Singh and ors. Vs. Mathura Prosad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal781,25Ind.Cas.547
1. These two appeals involve the question whether a part of the claim made by the plaintiffs is open to objection as (Soiling within the statutory prohibition against abwabs and other illegal cesses. The circumstances of each case may be briefly stated : Suit No. 520 relates to a case where there was no kabuliat. In No. 521 there was a kabuliat and that kabuliat has been placed before us. I will deal with the second of these two suits first. This kabuliat states: 'that there is an annual nakdi rent of Rs. 4-4 per bigha making in all the specified amounts of Rs. 42-8 annas' and that is followed by the usual provisions to be found in documents of this kind. It is then finally provided that over and above this (that is over and above the rent to which reference has been made), they (that is the tenants) would pay a cartload of husk year after year till the period of the patta was at an end, and in case they fail to do the same they would pay Rs. 6 as the value thereof; and that if they di...
Maharaja Birendra Kisore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Kailas Chandra Sarkar and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1914
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.937
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for assessment of rent. His allegations are that the defendants are tenants of some land within his estate, that they have unlawfully taken possession of the. disputed land which is not comprised within their tenancy, that in 1894 in the course of Settlement proceedings they were found in occupation of this land, and that although they were then entered in the Record of Rights as settled raiyats, they have not attorned to him and have not taken settlement at a fair and reasonable rent. The defendants urged that they are rent-free holders and that the claim is in any view barred by limitation. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, but gave the plaintiff a declaration that he had zemindari right in the disputed land. The defendants were satisfied with this decree as it did not hurt them in any way, but the plaintiff preferred an appeal. The Subordinate Judge has confirmed the decree of the primary Court on ...
Sobhan Baksh and anr. Vs. Maharaja Birendra Kisore Manikya Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal586(2),30Ind.Cas.939
1. This is an appeal by two of the defendants in a suit for recovery of possession of land with mesne profits or, in the alternative, for assessment of rent. The case for the plaintiff is that he is the owner of an extensive zemindari, that within his estate there are large tracts of land whereof possession has been taken by different persons without his knowledge and consent, that the defendants are persons of this description, that they are in occupation without title to the disputed lands in respect of which they wrongfully secured an entry in the Settlement Record on the 14th July 1898 to the effect that they were settled raiyats, and that thereafter they have neither attorned to him nor paid him rent. The plaintiff consequently seeks to reject the defendants as trespassers; he prays in the alternative that if, for any reason, ejectment is not decreed, rent may be assessed on the land in their occupation. The claim is valued at Rs. 79-3-3, namely, Rs. 50 as the market price of the ...
Ambika Prasad Singh Vs. Perdip Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal451
D. Chatterjee and Walmsley, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the partition of a mouza called Patailia in which the parties have different shares. The defendant No. 1 appeals against the final decree, on two grounds: first, that the allotment of shares is improper; and, secondly, that the costs before the preliminary decree should not have been decreed in favour of the plaintiff.2. As regards the first point, we think that the appellant has a good ground for complaint. The commissioner, allowed Mm one block to the north; but the learned Judge has split that block up into three and allotted him the one farthest from his house. We think that he should have his portion of the northern block as near as possible to his house, that is to say, he will have his northern block from the north-east commencing from Nos. 1852, 1860, 1861, 1862 and go west-wards so as to make this block equal in value to the block which has been allowed him to the north-west. Defendant No. 5 will get the bl...
Ambica Prosad Singh Vs. Pardip Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal618,28Ind.Cas.446
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the partition of a mouza called Patailia in which the parties have different shares. The defendant No. 1 appeals against the final decree on two grounds: first, that the allotment of shares is improper and, secondly, that the costs before the preliminary decree should not have been decreed in favour of the plaintiff.2. As regards the first point, we think that the appellant has a good ground for complaint. The Commissioner allowed him one block to the north; but the learned Judge has split that block up into three and allotted him the one farthest from his house. We think that he should have his portion of the northern block as near an possible to his house, that is to say, he will have his northern block from the north-cast, commencing from Nos. 1852, 1860, 1861, and 1862 and go westwards so as to make this block equal in value with the block which has been allowed him to the north-west. Defendant No. 5 will get the block to his west and defenda...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›