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.
Sarat Chandra De Das and anr. Vs. Taraprasanna Bhattacharyya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal141,70Ind.Cas.437
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Panton in a proceeding under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for assessment of fair and equitable rent in respect of the land of the disputed tenancy. The appellants were recorded as occupancy raiyats in the Record of Rights. Thereupon the landlords-respondents applied tinder Section 105 for settlement of fair and equitable rent. The tenants contended that the entry was erroneous and that they were in fact tenants at a fixed rate of rent. The Assistant Settlement Officer came to of the conclusion that, as the defendants had failed to prove that they held at the same rate of rent for 20 years, they were not entitled to the benefit of the presumption mentioned in Section 50. Upon appeal the Special Judge reversed that decision. His conclusion was that, as the rent had not been varied for over 20 years, the tenants were raiyats at a fixed rate of rent. On second appeal to this; Court Mr. Just...
Hara Sundar Majumdar Vs. Lahabar Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal315,67Ind.Cas.277
Greaves, J.1. In this Rule it appears from the materials before me that the Judge has clearly acted under a misapprehension in disallowing the travelling expenses of the witnesses. He states that it is the practice for the parties to pay such expenses. No doubt the party who summons a witness pays his expenses in the first instance. But, clearly, if he is successful, he is entitled as against the unsuccessful party against whom costs are awarded to recover all proper expenses including travelling expenses, incurred by summons of the witness and paid in the first instance by the successful party.2. The Rule is accordingly made absolute and the Judge will allow the travelling expenses of the witnesses properly incurred.3. I make no order as to costs of this Rule....
Syed Nayajan Ali and ors. Vs. Midnapore Zamindary Company, Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal285,67Ind.Cas.770
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants. The suit by the plaintiffs was for khas possession of certain land and for damages and for an injunction. The plaintiffs were Zamindars of a certain Pargannah which included the village in which, I understand, the defendants held some land and the dispute was with regard to certain land which the plaintiffs claimed as their khas land. Whereas the defendants alleged that this land had been let out to them and that the plaintiffs had no right to eject them. Both the lower Courts have decreed the suit in the plaintiffs' favour.2. Four points are urged before me. First, it is said that the lower Appellate Court wrongly excluded certain evidence that was tendered on behalf of the defendants, namely, the Settlement map and khatain forming part of the Record of Rights. It is said that this evidence could not be adduced in the First Court as the Record of Rights had not been finally published but that between the hearing before the Munsif and ...
Ram Hari Kapali and ors. Vs. Rohini Kanta Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.943
Greavas, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the plaintiffs. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover from the defendant as son and legal representative of the plaintiffs' late Pleader a certain sum of money received or alleged to have been received by the plaintiffs' Pleader out of Court for payment to the plaintiffs. The learned Small Cause Court Judge states that the Pleader, Lakshmi Kanta Chakravarty, in Kartic 1319 received Rs. 50 on account of a certain decree and that he also received in November 1911 and November 1912 certain other decretal amounts making a total of Rs. 171-8-6. Now, it appears that Lakshmi Babu died in Kartik 1322 without having made over to the plaintiffs these sums of money. The present suit was commenced on the 19th of November 1920. The suit, therefore, is a very belated one. The learned Small Cause Court Judge has stated, for the reasons appearing in his judgment, that it is barred by limitation it is to attack this finding that the pres...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›