Kolkata Court July 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.
Lalit Mohan Sen Vs. Manoranjan Ghosh Chaudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal13,72Ind.Cas.698
1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in a suit for confirmation or recovery of possession of land on establishment of title. The disputed property is one-and-a-quarter annas share of taluk Ramprosad which bears touzi No. 1631 of the Bakerganj Collectorate. In respect of seven-and-three-quarters annas state of the entire taluk, a separate account had been opened in the Collectorate, of this share, four annas belonged to the zemindars of Kirtipasa with whom we are not concerned here, and three and-three-quarters annas to the Guhis, who are the sixth and seventh defendants in this litigation Of the residuary share, one-and-a-quarter anna belonged to Ellen Jolly, three-and-a-half annas to the Boses who are the second, third and fourth defendants m this suit, and another three-and a-half annas share to the Guhas, who are the sixth and seventh defendants. The plaintiff purchased the share of Ellon Jolly on the 7th February, 1895, and, at the time of the events which have led up to thi...
Syam Lall Nasua Vs. Brindaban Chandra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal460,72Ind.Cas.655
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for ejectment. The case for the plaintiff is that he sued the defendants for arrears of rent in 1915 on the allegation that they held the disputed land under him as his tenants. In that litigation, the defendants pleaded that they were not tenants under the plaintiffs and set up a title in themselves. The Court, thereupon, framed an issue in the following terms : 'Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.' The trial Court came to the conclusion upon the evidence that the plaintiff had failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and in this view dismissed the suit for rent on the 22nd March, 1915. On the 21st May l918, the plaintiff instituted the present suit to eject the defendants on the allegation that they were trespassers. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. Upon appeal the District Judge has reversed the decision. It was argued in the Courts below that the decisio...
Makhan Lal De Vs. Arun Bala Devi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal465
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for ejectment. The plaintiffs brought the action on the allegation that the disputed tenure was the non-transferable holding of their tenant Saroda Charan Ghose who conveyed it to the defendant on the 3rd May, 1914, who is in occupation as a trespasser without title. The defendant contended that the tenancy was not an agricultural but a maurasi mokarrari holding which was transferable by law. The Courts below have on these pleadings considered the question whether the lease was under the Transfer of Property Act or under the Bengal Tenancy Act. They have concurrently come to the conclusion that the lease waa under the Bengal Tenancy Act and the interest of the tenant was not transferable. In this view, the plaintiffs have been awarded a decree for ejectment. In our opinion, it is plain that the Courts below did not consider the real question in controversy in this litigation. It has been found that the origin of the tenancy is not known, ...
Butterfield Vs. Butterfield
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal426,74Ind.Cas.250
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a case which was referred to us by the District Judge in which he made a decree nisi for the dissolution of the marriage on the ground of adultery and desertion by the respondent. The petitioner was the wife. The learned District Judge further made an order that, pending the final disposal of the case by the High Court, the petitioner would have the custody of the three children of the marriage. The respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 150 a month towards the maintenance of the three children from the date of the decree to the date of final disposal of the case. The decree came before this Court for confirmation and it was necessary, in our judgment, to remand the case to the lower Court for further findings, but, unfortunately, before the findings could be considered by this Court, the petitioner had died on the 6th August 1921. The question, therefore, arises what course this Court is to adopt. In my judgment, in consequence of the death of t...
Makhan Lal De Vs. Srimati Arun Bala Devi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1922
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.2
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for ejectment. The plaintiffs brought the action on the allegation that the disputed tenure was the non-transferable holding of their tenant Saroda Charan Ghose who conveyed it to the defendant on the 3rd May 1914, who is in occupation as a trespasser without title. The defendant contended that the tenancy was not an agricultural but a maurusi mokarrari holding which was transferable by law. The Courts below have on these pleadings considered the question whether the lease was under the Transfer of Property Act or under the Bengal Tenancy Act. They have concurrently come to the conclusion that the lease was under the Benagal Tenancy Act and the interest of the tenant was not transferable. In this view, the plaintiffs have been awarded a decree for ejectment.2. In our opinion, it is plain that the Courts below did not consider the real question in controversy in this litigation. It has been found that the origin of the tenancy is not known...
Jitendra Nath Roy Vs. Asutosh Goswami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal429,70Ind.Cas.828
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent with regard to a kaimi jama held by the defendant under the plaintiffs. The objection of the defendant which is now material to mention is that the landlords are not entitled to the full rent claimed which is reserved under the lease but that he (defendant) is entitled to an abatement to the extent of Rs. 80 which amount the defendant has to pay to the Government under the following circumstances: There was a river within the estate called Barasil river on the bed of which lands formed. The Government instituted Dearah proceedings with reference to the lands formed on the bed of the river. It has been found by the Trial Court--and that finding has not been displaced on appeal--that the plaintiffs had notice of the proceedings commenced by the Government. As a result of these proceedings the Government constituted the lands so formed into a separate estate and offered settlement to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not accept s...
Haji MohammudIn and Company Vs. the Eastern Japan Trading Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal652,79Ind.Cas.242
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of my learned brother Mr. Justice Buckland, against the defendants in a suit. The suit was brought for a balance alleged to be due in respect of certain drafts accepted by the defendants in consideration of certain goods which had been supplied by the plaintiffs to the defendants. The plaintiffs made an application to the learned Judge, based upon an a davit whereby the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were disposing of their stock-in-trade with a view to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree which might be passed against them, and the learned Judge, in the first instance, made an order, dated the 8th May 1922. By that order the defendants were called upon to show cause why they should not furnish security for the claim and costs of the plaintiffs or why, in default, their stock-in-trade at 55-11, Canning Street, should not be attached until the final determination of the suit or until the further order of the Cou...
Kunja Mohan Chakravarty and anr. Vs. Manindra Chandra Roy Chaudhury an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal619,77Ind.Cas.253
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for recovery of possession or, in the alternative, for assessment of rent. The disputed tenure was held by the defendants under the plaintiffs and fell into arrears. The plaintiffs thereupon instituted a suit for arrears of rent and obtained n decree. In execution of that decree the tenure was sold on the 8th January 1907 and was purchased by the landlord decree-holders for the sum of Rs. 1. On the 29th April 1918 the plaintiffs landlords instituted the present suit for ejectment on the allegation that the defendants were in unlawful occupation, notwithstanding the sale of their tenure. The defendants urged that the decree had been made and the sale had been held without jurisdiction. So that their interest in the tenure had not been affected thereby. The Trial Court accepted this contention as well founded and dismissed the claim for ejectment. The Court, however, made a decree for arrears of rent. Upon appeal the District Judge has rev...
Sashi Bhusan Jha Vs. Sk. Ahmadullah Chaudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal372
Woodroffe, J.1. One of the grounds taken in this appeal is that set out in the 8th paragraph of the memorandum of appeal. It is urged that the Court of Appeal below has omitted to come to a finding whether the holding (assuming, though not admitting, it to be an occupancy holding), is or is not transferable by custom as alleged by the defendant, and that in the absence of a definite finding upon this point the decree for ejectment is wrong and liable to be set aside. The point was undoubtedly dealt with by the Court of First Instance, the judgments of which state (after finding that the plaintiff gave no permission to purchase the holding), that it was for the defendant to prove the alleged custom and usage with regard to transfer. It holds that he has failed to discharge that onus of proof, that his witnesses did not carry conviction, and that the defendant's evidence does not establish that the Zamindars are bound to recognize the transferee as a tenant whenever nazrana is paid. The ...
Sheikh Karim Vs. Sobedar Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal531a,72Ind.Cas.47
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for mesne profits. The story is rather a curious one. It appears from the Munsif s judgment that the defendant, who is now the appellant, brought a suit for partition of his land against the predecessor of the present plaintiff-respondent. He failed on the ground that the area in the occupation of the defendant was distinct and separate from the land claimed by the present plaintiff. Then there was a proceeding under Section 145, Civil Procedure Code, which ended in favour of the defendant. This was followed by a suit instituted by the plaintiff in which he asked for his title to be declared to a piece of land measuring one bigha ten cottas odd out of a larger plot measuring two bighas seven cottas odd. He gave the boundaries of the larger plot but did not give the boundaries of the smaller plot. He asked also for recovery of possession. He obtained a decree in both Courts, then proceeded to put his decree into execution. On objection by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »