Kolkata Court February 1922 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.
Romesh Chandra Chakerbutty Vs. Durga Charan Chakerbutty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal128,70Ind.Cas.292
1. This appeal arises out of an application to set aside an ex parts decree on the ground of non-service of summons under Rule 13, Order V of the Civil Procedure Code We think the appeal must succeed on several grounds. In the first place, it is not shown that Sufficient attempt was made to personally serve the summons secondly, it is not shown that the person who has been described as a cousin of the appellant was a person who was sufficiently authorized to receive the summons. The third point, whether or not service was sufficiently made at the house in which the appellant was said to be residing, does not arise having regard to the findings on the other points and we do not, therefore, consider them. We think, therefore, in the circumstances of this case, the order which we should make will be made on, terms. The terms which we propose and which are made condition precedent to the setting aside of the judgment of the lower Court and to the restoration of the suit is that the present...
Binayakdas Acharjee Choudhuri and ors. Vs. Nalini Kumar Chakrovarty an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.459
1. This appeal is against an order made by the Subordinate Judge under paragraph 21 of Schedule II of the Civil Procedure Code for filing an award. The parties to the reference to arbitration were in different groups. They are owners in different rights of contiguous properties which for convenience have been described in the proceedings below as Patpasha Estate and Ujanchak Estate. The first party are owners of 6 annas share in the Zemidari of Patpasha Estate. The 2nd party known as Ula Babus are owners of another share of the same Zemiadari. Their entire share was let out in patni to the 4th party; The 3rd party, called the Sahcbanpur Babus, are owners of 6 annas share of Patpasha in, Zemindari and Patni right and 2 annas share in ijura right and they are also owners of 8 annas share in the Zemindari of estate Ujanchak. The 4th party, as already stated, are patnidars of the share of the 2nd party hi Patpasha, and the 4th ka party are jotedars of Patpasha under the 4th party. The 5th ...
Guru Prosanna Roy and ors. Vs. Ful Chand Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal291,67Ind.Cas.244
1. This appeal is preferred against a decision of the District Judge of Birbhum affirming a decision of the Munsif of Bolpur.2. The suit was one for a declaration of the plaintiffs' right to take water from a tank belonging to the defendants. Both the lower Courts have decreed the suit and the defendants now appeal.3. On their behalf the main contention is that the suit was barred by limitation by reason of its not having been instituted within two years of the last interruption of the alleged exercise of this right to take water. Now, if the success of the plaintiff's claim had depended only on Section 25 of the Limitation Act there would have been force in this contention. But as the learned District Judge has pointed out, the plaintiffs in their plaint set out an alternate claim based upon a lost grant. The learned Munsif expressly found that it is 'quite clear that the plaintiffs are using the water of the tank for irrigation purposes for a long time and from time immemorial.' With...
Srimoti Sarat Kamini Dasi and on Her Death Her Heirs and Legal Represe ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal289,67Ind.Cas.290
1. The plaintiffs-appellants sought to recover possession, by ejectment of the defendants, of the property in dispute under a purchase from Raja Balabhadra Singh. There are a large number of defendants in the case. Among other defences they raised the plea that the plaintiff was the benamdar for her husband and, as such, she could not maintain a suit for recovery of possession and for ejectment.2. The suit was tried along with another which was also dismissed on the same grounds.3. There were appeals in both suits. The other suit was remanded to the lower Court for re-trial, the Court having found that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suit. So far as the present case is concerned, it appears that one of the defendants, namely, defendant No. 20, Nagendra Nath Mahapatra, died while the appeal was pending before the Court of Appeal below and no application for substitution of the heirs was made within the period allowed by law. The learned District Judge held that the entire sui...
Anukul Chandra Dhar Vs. Kamala Kanta Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal270,67Ind.Cas.787
1. This is an appeal by the defendant against a decision of the Additional District Judge confirming a decision of the Munsif. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by a co-sharer landlord to recover khas possession from the purchaser of a non-transferable occupancy holding. The defence alleged was that the defendant had been in possession of the holding for a period of some 16 or 17 years and that, under the circumstances, the plaintiff could not recover khas possession but could only get rent. The only question that really arises in the appeal is with regard to the admissibility of a certain ex parte rent-decree passed in the year 1912 against the heirs of the recorded tenant Rafi Mahomed. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that as he was not a party to this decree it cannot be used in evidence against him and it has been further urged that, even if it is admissible in evidence, it is only admissible with regard to the fact that such a decree was in fact passed. We...
Midnapore Zamindary Company, Limited Vs. Sridhar Mahata
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal152,67Ind.Cas.775
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Walmsley in a proceeding under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The appellants who were the landlords instituted these proceedings against the respondent, their tenant, with a view to have fair and equitable rent settled in respect of the tenure held by him. The case as presented to the Settlement Officer was that the defendant was in occupation of an area in excess of what be paid rent for and was consequently liable to have his rent increased. Two issues were raised to cover this point; namely, first does the defendant hold any area in excess of what he is paying rent for? and secondly, 'what should be the fair rate of rent for assessment of the excess area, if any?' The Settlement Officer came to the conclusion that the defendant held an excess area of 595 acres, and that the rate of rent, should be fixed at 2 annas 6 pies per bigha which was the average rate fixed upon the original a...
Altaf Ali Choudhury and ors. Vs. Srimati Jarina Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.871
1. This is an appeal by the defendants. The First Court dismissed the suit and the lower Appellate Court has decreed it in the plaintiff's favour. Now, the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is attacked on two grounds: First, with regard to the procedure adopted by the learned Judge and, secondly, with regard to his findings as to title which are said to be defective. It is not necessary for us to deal with the second point because we think that the procedure adopted by the learned Judge was clearly incorrect and that the case must go back in order that the appeal should be re-heard by the lower Appellate Court.2. Now, apparently what happened is this the bearing of the case was concluded on the 3rd February 1920 and judgment was reserved. When the learned Judge came to consider his judgment he found some difficulty apparently in arriving at a conclusion upon the materials on the record and, accordingly, he sent for, in the absence of the parties, the khasra papers, and looking at t...
AmiruddIn Mahamad Vs. Sankar Borman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal56,67Ind.Cas.91
1. The land in this case formed part of a jots which originally belonged to one Pacha Bama who mortgaged the entire jote to the defendant on the 30th September 1902. After his death, his widow Batashi surrendered the entire holding to the landlord in January 1903. A portion of the jots, namely, the disputed land, was settled with Dhunda Das by the landlord and the plaintiff claims the disputed portion by purchase of the tenancy of Dhunda Das on the 28th December 1910, The defendant claims the land under a kabala from Batachi, widow of Pacha Bama, executed on the 19th March 1915 in satisfaction of the mortgage which had been executed by Pasha in favour of the defendant.2. The plaintiff granted a dur-chukani settlement in respect of the land to Batashi and Dhunda Das and in execution of a decree for arrears of rent against them purchased the disputed land. He obtained possession through the Court but did not obtain actual possession, having been dispossessed from the land by the defendan...
M. Abdul Aziz and anr. Vs. Amir Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.149
1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 5 and 9 against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Chittagong modifying a decision of the Munsif. The plaintiff sued alleging that the land mentioned in the plaint was a non occupancy holding belonging to defendant No. 6 which he purchased at a sale in execution of a decree for arrears of rent, the purchase being dated the 7th of April 1915. The Munsif decreed the suit and allowed khas possession. There was an appeal preferred against the Munsif's decision by defendants Nos. 5, 9, 19, 20 and 21. The learned Subordinate Judge held that defendants NOS. 9, 19, 20 and 21 had protected interests but that defendant No. 5 had no protected interest. So far as defendant No. 9 is concerned the only question that arises is with regard to the form of the decree. What the learned Subordinate Judge in the lower Appellate Court held was that, so far as defendant No. 9 was concerned, no decree for that possession was to be made in respect of the plots which ...
Osman Mandal Vs. Radhika Mohan Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal298,67Ind.Cas.294
1. These two appeals are by the defendant against decisions of the Subordinate Judge of 24-Pargannahs affirming decisions of the Munsif of Baruipur.2. The main point that arises for our decision in these appeals is, whether the tenant defendant who is an occupancy raiyat is entitled to the protection of Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Now, what has been argued before us is that despite the definition of Permanent Settlement contained in Section 3, Sub-section (12) of the Act, the decisions of this Court go to show that the words Permanent Settlement as used in Section 50 are not to be confined to the Permanent Settlement of 1793 and it is said that inasmuch as the land in suit was not permanently settled until 1905 we should hold that the words Permanent Settlement as appearing in Section 50, Sub-section (1) and a so in Sub-section (2) refer not to the Permanent Settlement of 1793 but to the Settlement of 1905 when the land itself was permanently settled. Now, no decision has bee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »