Kolkata Court February 1917 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.
Rahmatulla Sheikh Vs. IsabuddIn Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.616
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant from a decision of the learned District Judge of Rangpur, dated the 6th May 1915, reversing the decision of the Officiating Munsif of Gaibanda. The suit was brought by the plaintiff, a raiyat, to eject the defendant, an under-raiyat, whose term had expired. Against the plaintiff's claim, the defendant pleaded that the kabuliyat which he had executed in favour of the landlord, the plaintiff, had been obtained from him improperly and so he was not bound by the terms thereof. That point has been found against the defendant. The kabuliyat contained a condition to the following effect: On the expiry of the term of the lease, I shall take a second settlement. Unless I do so, I shall have no interest in the land.' The defendant has not taken a fresh settlement and, according to his contract, he is to have no interest in the land. He never said that he was willing to take a fresh settlement and he never expressed his willingness until after the...
Kumar Prosunna Dev Raikat Vs. Panchkowri Majumdar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.691
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision dated the 19th March 19.5 of the learned District Judge of Dinajpur sitting as a Special Judge appointed under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, reversing the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer of Jalpaiguri. The proceeding which was before the learned Judge was a proceeding on an application made for assessment, of rent. The defence was that the rent was not liable to enhancement. It has been found that originally the tenancy was created before the date of the Permanent Settlement. The evidence showed and it was the common case that in the year 1868 the tenancy was sub divided and that, on that sub-division, the original tenancy came to be held at an apportioned rent. The Assistant * Settlement Officer, having regard to the decision of this Court in existence on the date of the hearing of the application, namely, a decision of Mr. Justice Sharfuddin and Mr. Justice Coxe, came to the conclusion that a mem subdivision wa...
Surja Datta Sarma Doloi Vs. Ekadahia Koch and anr.,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.522
1. The plaintiff as the Doloi or manager of a temple brought the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for a declaration that the defendant was liable to render certain personal services or in the alternative to pay full rent for the lands held by him, and for realisation of rent at the full rate.2. It appears that the lands, held by the defendant, were of two descriptions, viz., bhogdani and paikan. For the former the defendant pays rent at half the Government rates and supplies materials for bhog of the deity on certain occasions in the year. It is found that there has been no breach of the conditions on which the bhogdani lands are held, and so far as these lands are concerned the plaintiff's suit must fail. The other class of lands, viz., paikan lands were originally held at half the Government rates, and the tenant used to render certain personal services. The former manager commuted the services into a money-rent of one rupee only, but the present manager (who became the manager...
Sreemati Akiyannessa and ors. Vs. Abdul Gani Sadagar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.1
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned District Judge of Chittagong, affirming the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover possession of certain lands on the annulment of an encumbrances. Both the Courts below have decided the case in favour of the plaintiff. The present appeal has been brought by some of the defendants, and the first point that has been raised is as to whether the Courts below ought not to have found that the suit had abated and no proper case had been made for setting aside the abatement. The facts are these:---The suit was instituted on the 18th April 1911. In June 1912 the original defendant No. 5, died. On the 19th June 1914 the plaintiff applied to substitute the heirs of the deceased defendant No. 5 and an order was, however, made ex-perte After that the substituted defendants applied for and obtained further time in order to file their written statement. In their written statement they did rai...
Kali Kanta Das and ors. Vs. Mohesh Chandra Kanta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.836
1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the value of half the props of the land in suit or only a money rent of Rs. 40 yearly from the defendant under a barga kabuliyat. The kabuliyat provides that the defendant shall, carrying on cultivation, deliver every year 'at the house of the plaintiff at the proper time a moiety share after measurement of whatever crops are grown' on the land ; and that if the defendant does not deliver the same, then the plaintiff will be 'competent to realise a sum of Rs. 40 on account of value thereof by filing law suits.' It further provides: 'if through default of carrying on the tillage and cultivation ourselves or of maintenance and preservation thereof good crops are not grown, we shall deliver without objection such quantity of crops as would be in proportion to the output of the neighbouring lands. And if you so desire you shall be competent to wrest away the entire or portions of the land (from us) and le...
Kali Charan Shaha and ors. Vs. Gobinda Sundar Sanyal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.733
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Rajshahye, dated the 16th April 1913.2. The facts so far as they are relevant to the present appeal are as follows:---One Khormannessa on the 27th March 1897 created a permanent tenure in favour of persons who have been called the Kundus in the present case in certain property. The property consisted of shares in certain toujis as well as the whole of the mokarari interest of portions of the same lands.3. On the 17th of July 1902 the plaintiffs purchased the interest of Khormannessa in all the lands leased out to the Kundus. The plaintiffs on the 6th of June 1904 brought a suit for rent against the Kundus and obtained a decree on the 21st of November 1904. The tenure was put up for sale in execution and purchased by the plaintiffs on the 21st of May 1906. In the meantime on the 18th of January 1904, the defendants purchased at a sale in execution of a money-decree the interest of the Kundus in ...
Satis Chundra Mustafi and anr. Vs. Amanulla Bepari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.113
Fletcher, J.1. This is an app9al by the plaintiffs against a judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Rangpur, dated the 4th December 1914, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Gaibandha. The suit was brought to recover the rent due under a kabuliyat. The first Court decreed the suit. On appeal to the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, he reversed that decision. It has been found by the learned Subordinate Judge that the holding is an old holding and that the tenants have a right of occupancy in the land within the meaning of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The rent was originally Rs. 18, but for some reason which the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court was not satisfied with--and he was also not satisfied as to whether the truth had been told to him--the cash rent was reduced in the kabuliyat sued upon to Rs. 12, but it was stated that the balance of the rent, namely, Rs. 7-14-0 was kept in suspense and would not be payable during the term of the kabuliyat, but tha...
Pyari Mohan Kundu Vs. Kalu Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.497
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order passed by the Court below refusing to hear an application for review of a judgment presented to it by the petitioner, on the ground that an appeal had been preferred against the decree to this Court. The application for review, it appears, was filed on 26th June 1916 and the appeal to this Court was not preferred until the 4th of July. The application for review, therefore, was filed before any appeal was preferred to this Court. Section 114, Civil Procedure Code, lays down that Any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred, may apply for review of judgment.' It is clear from that Section that an application for review can be made before any appeal has been preferred. That being so, the question is whether there is anything in the Civil Procedure Code to prevent the Court from proceeding with the application for review notwithsta...
Sheik Hunai Alias Kurfanullah and anr. Vs. Sarat Chandraa Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.467
1. The respondent obtained, a decree for ejectment against the appellant for non-payment of arrears of rent under the provisions of Act VIII (B.C.) of 1869, the decree providing for ejectment unless the amount decreed was paid within fifteen days of the date of the decree. The defendant appealed against the decree and prayed for an extension of time to deposit the decretal amount. That question was considered by the Appellate Court and the prayer for extension of time was disallowed, and the appeal was dismissed. In the decree of the Appellate Court there was an express order that the defendant would be ejected' unless the amount as directed by the Court of first instance was paid within fifteen days. The defendant did not deposit the amount within fifteen days and, on the fifteenth day made an application to the Court of first instance to extend the time. The Court made an order extending the time for payment and the money appears to have been deposited on the 8th of May and accepted ...
Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Srimati Fuljan Bibi and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.469
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for assessment of rent.2. The case for the plaintiff is that the lands in dispute are included in a tenancy created on the 25th August 1849, and that rent has not hitherto been assessed for these lands, and that the defendant is not entitled to hold the lands without payment of rent.3. The defence in substance is that under the terms of the contract between the parties, the defendant is entitled to hold these lands without payment of rent, and that the lands were exempted from payment of rent in consideration, that the tenant would bring under cultivation the other lands included in the lease.4. In 1895, proceedings were taken under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act for preparation of a Record of Rights and the tenant then claimed to be entitled to hold these lands without payment of rent. His contention, however, was overruled, and an entry was made in the Record of Rights to the effect that the lands were included in the lease, and we...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »