Kolkata Court August 1922 Judgments
Herendra Kumar Roy Choudhuri and ors. Vs. Hara Kishore Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal201,70Ind.Cas.166
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment.2. It has been found that the land in question was originally the homestead of one Lobai Chang, a cultivating raiyat, who held the same as part of his non-transferable occupancy holding.3. Having sold the other portions of his holding he next proceeded to sell his homestead to the defendant on 23rd Kartic 1304=8th November 1897. The land in question is situated in Chashara, a Mauza lying within and now forming what may be described as a residential suburb of the Municipality of Naraingunj. The defendant is a Pleader practising in the Civil Courts established in that Sub-Divisional head-quarter.4. It has been held by the Courts below that having purchased from Lobai, the defendant next secured from the landlords their recognition of his purchase, and have thus acquired in the land the rights of an occupancy raiyat.5. On behalf of the landlord appellant it has been contended before us that the arrangement between the landlord and the defen...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Bose Vs. Brojendra Kumar Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal501,77Ind.Cas.790
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for partition. The plaintiff and the defendant are two brothers, governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu Law. Under a testamentary disposition of their father, now deceased, they are entitled in equal shares to the properties in suit and any other properties. In this suit, the plaintiff seeks partition of an ancestral house at Srinagar two horses at Dacca and a large number of moveables. The defendant contends that all the joint properties should be included in the suit and divided, by the decree therein. The Subordinate Judge has overruled this objection, and has made a preliminary decree. On the present appeal, the defendant has urged that the plaintiff should not be allowed to sue for partial partition.2. The principles applicable to cases of this character are well settled. The general rule is that all property held in co-tenancy and nothing but property held in co-tenancy should be included in a partition suit. A cotenant, whose ti...
Tag this Judgment!Nanda Lal Agrani Vs. Jogendra Chandra Datta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.960
1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in a suit for recovery of possession, of land upon declaration of title. The litigation has a protracted history, and a formidable list of issues was drawn up in the Trial Court; but many of them were not pressed in that Court and others have not even been mentioned in the course of argument here. The facts material for the determination of the substantial contention which has been advanced before us may be shortly recited.2. The subject-matter of the litigation is a tract, of land, measuring about 30 bighas, described in Schedule A to the, plaint. The land belonged admittedly to the Sahas, who executed a mortgage in favour of Malik on the 29th September 1900. The mortgagee sued to enforce his Security, and obtained a decree on the 27th September 1902. At the execution-sale which followed in due course, on 14th May 1907, Samalka became the purchaser. He obtained a sale-certificate on the 28th April 1908. Samalka, it is said, was the nominal p...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Upendra NaraIn Roy and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal247,71Ind.Cas.849
1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council, who was the defendant in a suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent with a view to test the legality of an assessment of revenue made under the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Act (IX of 1847). The case for the plaintiff is that the disputed lands, which have been constituted into a new estate and assessed with revenue, belonged to him by virtue of his Zemindari right in Touzi No. 105 of the Collectorate of Pabna. The plaintiff maintains that the assessment could not have been validly made under the provisions of Act IX of 1847, as the lands are not 'added' lands within the meaning of that Statute, but are re-formations in situ. The plaintiff seeks, in addition, consequential relief by way of recovery of possession and mesne profits. The claim is resisted on behalf of the Secretary of State substantially on the ground that the disputed lands formed the bed of the river Ganges, locally known as Padma, at the time of th...
Tag this Judgment!Kailas Chandra Nag and ors. Vs. Bijay Chandra Nag and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.680
1. These three appeals are directed against the preliminary decree in a suit for partition of joint property. The subject-matter of the litigation is described in the plaint as Chak Nagergati; the plaintiffs assert that this is also known as Rajballavpore, but is a revenue-free Ukhraj and does not appertain to sikmi taluk Rajballavpore within Zemindaris bearing Touzi Nos. 4082, 138, 130 and 141 of the Collectorate of Mymensingh. The disputed block of land which covers about 75 bighas is said to have been formerly the Khanabari of four brothers, Krishnaprasad Nag, Debiprasad Nag, Kalikaprasad Nag and Sambhunath Nag, sons of one Aditya Ram Nag. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 represent the branch of Krishnaprasad Nag and defendants Nos. 5 to 7 represent the branch of Shambhunath Nag. The plaintiffs claim 8-annas shaie in the khanabari, 4-annas as representing the branch of Debiprasad Nag and 4-annas as acquired by adverse possession against the representatives of Kalikaprasad Nag. According to th...
Tag this Judgment!Jotindra Mohan Pal Vs. Bhola Nath Bhakat and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal715,80Ind.Cas.353
Ghose, J.1. This rule was obtained by the decree-holder against the order of the Munsif of Howrah, dated the 15th March 1922, allowing the claim made by the Opposite Party under Order XXI, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code to the property attached by the decree-holder in execution of a decree for rent which he had obtained against one Abdul Latif for the property in question.2. The ground upon which the judgment of the learned Munsif is attacked is that it was beyond his jurisdiction to entertain the claim having regard to Section 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, as the decree he had obtained was for rent under the Bengal Tenancy Act. The claimant alleged that this property was not a tenure or holding and that the Bengal Tenancy Act was not applicable with reference to a suit for rent brought for the land. The learned Munsif went into evidence for the purpose of ascertaining whether the land was of such a character as to make the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act applicable. His finding i...
Tag this Judgment!Kamini Mohan Basu and ors. Vs. Nibaran Chundra Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal506,76Ind.Cas.577
1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in a suit for recovery of money due as the price of jute supplied by the plaintiffs' to the first four defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the first four defendants had a joint business known as Lachman Jute Company, and were supplied with jute from time to time. He accordingly claimed Rs. 904-9-o as due on account of the price of jute. The fifth defendant was joined on the allegation that he had acted as a broker in the transaction and that as it had been asserted that he had received some money on this account from the other defendant, it was desirable that the matters in issue should be decided in his presence. The fifth defendant pleaded that, he was not a broker but a partner of the plaintiff, and he offered to join as a co-plaintiff. This offer was apparently ignored. The result was that there was an investigation of the price of jute supplied to the first four defendants, which the Trial Court found amounted to Rs. 270-13-0. The Co...
Tag this Judgment!Prodyot Kumar Tagore Vs. Umesh Chandra Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal367
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration that three entries in a record-of-rights finally published are erroneous and for correction thereof. The three parcels in dispute are those numbered 926, 927 and 937. The defendants are recorded in the record-of-rights as settled raiyats in respect of those lands. The case for the plaintiff is that the lands are not agricultural and, consequently, the status of settled raiyats could not be acquired in respect of such lands. The Courts below have dismissed the suit, though it is difficult to gather from the judgment the precise facts in relation to each of these parcels.2. It is not disputed that on 27th March, 1839, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff granted a lease for 10 years to Srikanta Saha, the father of the first two defendants. The parcels now in dispute were included in the lease. The real question in controversy is, whether Srikanta Saha was a settled raiyat at the time in respect of one or other of the...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Nath Sukul Vs. SafiuddIn Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal379,72Ind.Cas.454
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for redemption of a mortgage executed in his favour by the plaintiffs on the 26th February, 1912. The case for the plaintiffs is, that on an adjustment between the parties, it was settled that, after remission, Rs. 200 would be accepted in full satisfaction of the sum due under the mortgage. The plaintiffs-allege that this sum was paid on the 30th May, 1917, and though the defendant-granted a receipt, he has not returned the mortgage-bond. The plaintiffs accordingly ask for redemption and for delivery of the deed. The Courts below have found in favour of the plaintiffs and have decreed the suit. On the present appeal, it has been contended that the receipt could not be admitted in evidence, as it was not registered in accordance with Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. The contention in substance is that the receipt was an instrument which purported or operated to extinguish an interest in immovable property of the value of more th...
Tag this Judgment!Dhirendra Chandra Rai and ors. Vs. Nawab Khaja Habibullah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1925Cal758
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These two appeals are by the defendants and arise out of two suits for rent. The suit out of which appeal No. 2500 arises was for rent for about 213 acres of land comprised in permanent miras tenure created in 1864 A. D. in favour of the predecessor of the defendants at a rent of Rs. 359 odd. There has been gradual accretion of some lands contiguous to the lands of the miras in the bed of a river and the defendants are entitled to those lands as an increment to their tenure. The plaintiffs did not include these accreted lands in their suit for rent for the miras. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that the plaintiffs were bound to give the extent and boundaries of the land in their suit for rant under Section 148 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and as the accreted lands are an increment to the tenure the plaintiffs were bound to include those in their suit and as they did not do so the suit ought to be dismissed. We do not think that the contention is sound. The plaint...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »