Kolkata Court June 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.
Roy Jatindra Nath Choudhury and anr. Vs. Azizarrahaman Shana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal433,71Ind.Cas.307
1. These appeals arise out of three suits to eject the defendant from the holdings in suit, the plaintiff's case being that the tenant who held the lands under them had no transferable interest in the same and abandoned the holdings after selling them to the defendant, and that the latter, therefore, had acquired no right under his purchase but was merely a trespasser on the land.2. The defence was, that the defendant was a tenant and could not be ejected as a trespasser. Among other things, the defendant relied upon a decision in a proceeding under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act in his favour.3. It appears that the defendant was entered in the Record of Rights as tenant of the lands and this was after the purchase of the holding by the defendant. The plaintiff thereupon brought a suit under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for the correction of the entry, on the ground that the defendant was not a tenant. The Revenue Officer, under Section 106, decided that the defendant w...
Sheikh Songsor Ali Vs. Jagannath Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal368,76Ind.Cas.252
Thomas Richardson, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant before us seeks to recover arrears of rent from the principal defendants Nos. 1 to 5. These defendant hold the land in question as burgadars or cultivators paying half the produce by way of rent, it appears that the original landlord to whom the rent was due way the defendant No. 7 whose title has since been conveyed to the defendant No 6. The plaintiff claim to the rent payable by the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 is based on a settlement which, as he alleges, he obtained from the defendant No. 7. This was an oral settlement not reduced to writing, and if at the trial it was tut disputed that there was some such settlement, the parties ware not agreed as to its terms. There being no document to construe, any question as to the nature of the settlement or its terms, in a question of fact.2. As I read the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in the lower Appellate Court, he has found on the evidence that the right obtained by the plaintiff f...
Monohar Peshakar Vs. Haran Chandra Karmakar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal543,71Ind.Cas.290
1. This is an appeal against a preliminary decree for partition.2. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the respondent that the appeal is not maintainable, on the ground that no appeal had been preferred against the final decree passed in the suit before this appeal was preferred.3. It appears that a preliminary decree for partition was passed on the 6th May 1919. That decree was affirmed on appeal on the 2lst January, 1920. On the 20th March, 1920, the final decree was passed and the final decree was drawn up and signed on the 31st March 1920. The present appeal was filed on 7th May 1920, from the decree of the lower Appellate Court affirming the preliminary decree passed by the Court of first instance; but no appeal has been preferred against the final decree.4. It will appear from the dates mentioned above that the final decree for partition was passed by the Court of first instance before this appeal was preferred, and in such circumstances it has been held in a series of ...
Raj Chandra Das Vs. Kali Kanta Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal394,82Ind.Cas.776
Suhrawardy, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows: The petitioner held a mortgage-decree against one Kali Kanta Das. In execution of a rent decree against Kali Kanta the mortgaged property was sold and purchased by the opposite party Kasiruddin Sarkar. On 1st March 1921, within 30 days from the sale, the petitioner made the necessary deposit and filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 89, Civil Procedure Code. The Munsif passed the following order. 'One Raj Chandra Das applies for setting aside the sale on deposit of the decretal amount with compensation. He is to prove the mortgage. Fix 9th March 1921 for hearing. The decree-holder also to bring evidence if he likes.' On the 9th March following the order passed was: 'The applicant does not appear to prove his case and hence the application under Order XXI, Rule 89, Civil Procedure Code is rejected.' The petitioner appealed to the District Judge against the order of the Munsif rejecting his ap...
Hamid Ali Vs. Mahomed Nurerjjama Meah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal361,76Ind.Cas.444
1. This appeal, arises out of a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent on the basis of a kabuliyat. This kabuliyat stipulated that arrears of rent should bear interest at the rate of 75 percent, per annum and in decreeing the claim both Courts have enforced this stipulation, The defendant appeals and on his behalf the sole contention is that interest at so high a rate is contrary to law.2. It appears that the respondent ban twice before obtained decrees for arrears of rent on the basis of this kabuhyat with interest at the rate stipulated. In 1911 the Munsif decreed the suit in part, but allowed interest at the rate claimed. His finding on the subject of interest was that the lease is a kayemi raiyati lease and that plaintiff was entitled to the rate claimed (vide Exhibit D). This finding had reference, no doubt, to the provision of Sections 178 and 179 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff appealed in respect to the part of his claim for arrears which had been disallowed, and the...
Rajani Kanta Roy and ors. Vs. Jyoti Prasad Singh Deo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal90
1. This appeal is against the final decree in a suit for partition of a Mouza called Ismail.2. There is a preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal on the ground that the defendant No. 2 Rakhal died and no substitution was made within time, that another defendant No. 41 Sibani Debya also died and no substitution was made in time, and that the suit being one for partition the appeal cannot proceed.3. Rakhal died on the 24th May, 1920. The application for substitution of his heirs was made on the 5th February, 1921, and substitution was ordered to be made subject to objection at the hearing.4. It appears that Rakhal's interest was sold away in execution of a decree in 1918. On Rakhal's death, therefore, the interest was not in his heirs but devolved on a third party. It was re-purchased on the 23rd January, 1921 by his heirs and they were brought on the record on the 5th May, 1921, subject to objection at the bearing. The appellant was not bound to recognise the purchaser and co...
Purna Chandra Das and anr. Vs. Ali Mahammad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal520
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in an action in ejectment. The case for the plaintiffs is that they are raiyats, that the defendants are the representatives in interest of an under-raiyat and that they have unlawfully continued in occupation of the land; notwithstanding the service of notice to quit in accordance with Clause (b) of Section 49, Bengal Tenancy Act. They accordingly instituted this suit on the 7th January 1918 to eject the defendant. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. Upon appeal that decision has been reversed by the Subordinate Judge. On the present appeal three questions have been raised, viz., first, what was the status of the plaintiffs? Were they raiyats as alleged by them or tenure-holders as alleged by the defendant? Secondly, if the defendants were under-raiyats under the plaintiffs, has their tenancy been terminated by a notice to quit; and thirdly, have the plaintiffs by acceptance of rent from the defendants subsequent to the ser...
Bhagu Singh Vs. Moheswar Barik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal531,73Ind.Cas.291
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title. The second defendant is admittedly the landlord of the disputed property. A notification was issued by him inviting applications for acceptance of settlement of the land. The plaintiff, it is found applied on the 6th May 1917; thereupon the following order was recorded 'Let the land be settled with the plaintiff at a rental of Re. 1 per bigha on taking kabuliyat from him on his paying Rs. 90 as salami and that the kabuliyat be given within 15 days.' The slaintiff paid the salami; but the kabuliyat was not executed within 15 days, the plaintiff who had been in possession from before, however, continued in occupation. On the 14th September 1917, the plaintiff executed a kabuliyat according to the draft supplied to him by the officer of the landlord. Meanwhile, on the 27th August 1917, the landlord had cancelled what he considered to be a void agreement and directed a fresh notifica...
Gunjar Mahommed and anr. Vs. Shuruz Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal536a
Panton, J.1. This is a Rule directed against the convictions of the two petitioners under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. The convictions in question were in respect of a kabin-nama purporting to have been executed by one of the petitioners, namely, Gunjar Mohammed and to have been witnessed by the other petitioner, Sunjar Mohammed.2. The learned Sessions Judge, to whom the case went on appeal, expressed the opinion, 'I have no doubt that the story of marriage is a fiction and that Gunjar intended to make a claim to Aimona's property alleging marriage and supporting his claim by means of the kabin'. Further on, the learned Judge in his judgment says : 'There can be no doubt that the kabin is a false document and admittedly Gunjar executed it.'3. For the petitioners, however, it is pointed out that although Gunjar may have had no business to execute this kabinnama in favour of Aimona Bibi, who was not in fact his wife, yet the document in question is not a false document within th...
Ram Hari Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Santosh Kumar Manna
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal642
Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the appeal should not be re-heard on the first and second grounds mentioned in the petition.2. The first and second grounds are, that 'The learned District Magistrate's order dismissing the appeal summarily is not proper,' and, 'That the proper disposal of the appeal required at least an examination of the document, Exhibit A, and the same not having been done, the appeal has not been properly disposed of.'3. The petitioners were convicted and they appealed to the District Magistrate who dismissed the appeal summarily. Two of my learned brothers thought it desirable that the learned District Magistrate should show cause why the appeal should not be re-heard. The explanation which has been forwarded by the District Magistrate is as follows : 'I should not be justified in taking up their Lordships' time over this trumpery case.' In my judgment this Rule should be made absolute. The learned Judges on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »