Kolkata Court August 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.
Major A.Y. Reily Vs. Rajkumari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1922
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.770
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for partial cancellation of a decree in a previous litigation, for reinvestigation of the boundary between two disputed tracts of land, for recovery of possession, and for incidental reliefs. The facts material for the determination of the questions raised before us may be briefly recited.2. On the 18th February 1857 the Commissioner of the Sunderbans notified in the Calcutta Gazette that various lots situated within the limits of the Jessore and Baker-ganj portions of the Sundarbans would be exposed for sale, in order that settlement might be made with the highest bidder, lot No. 5 was purchased by Kamalkumari Chaudhurani, mother of the present respondent, in the name of her officer Nilmadhab Ray and a patta was granted on the 12th May 1857. Lot No. 6 was purchased by George Maxwell Reily, father of the present plaintiff, and patta was granted to him on the 15th September 1862. The southern boundary of plot No. 5 was identical with the n...
Pankaj Mohan Rai and ors. Vs. BipIn Behari Chakladar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal118
1. These appeals arise out of suits for khas possession of the land in dispute in each case which had been allotted on a partition of an estate effected by the Collector as between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The partition was made on a rayatwari basis, but the lands were in the exclusive possession of the defendants who were also co-sharers of the estate in which the lands in dispute are situate.2. The defendants pleaded inter alia that the plaintiffs were not entitled to get khas possession of the lands as the defendants had a chak right, or a tenancy right by adverse possession for more than 12 years.3. The Court of first instance decreed the suits on the grounds that the defendants had failed to prove chack right and as co-sharers did not acquire any right by adverse possession. On appeal the learned District Judge reversed that decision and the plaintiffs have preferred these appeals.4. The history of the case leading up to the suits is a long one and has been exhaustively ...
Mahomed YasIn Vs. Bimola Prosad Mukerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal443
1. The opposite party No. 1 in this rule instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore for specific performance of a contract for lease of a certain property situated in the district of Burdwan. The contract is said to have been originally entered into by one Kundan Lal Kapur of Burdwan and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 in the present rule, are the executors under the Will of Kundan Lal and took out Probate of his Will. It was alleged in the suit that, subsequent to the agreement of granting a lease in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1, on the 22nd August, 1920, granted a lease to defendant No. 3 who took it with notice of the prior agreement in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, accordingly prayed for specific performance of the agreement to grant him the mining lease on declaration that the defendant No. 3 acquired no right, title or interest under the lease of 22nd August, 1920.2. The defendant No. 3 inter...
Harihar Das Chowdhury Vs. Raj Kumar Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal405,71Ind.Cas.1014
1. We are invited in this Rule to allow the defendants in the Court below to lodge an appeal in this Court against the decree of the Subordinate Judge in a suit for redemption which was valued at Rs. 3,600 by the plaintiffs for purposes of jurisdiction. The petitioners contend that the real value of the subject-matter of the litigation exceeds Rs. 5,000 and that, consequently, the appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge lies to the High Court and not to the Court of the District Judge, We are of opinion that this contention is not well founded.2. Section 20 of the Bengal Civil Courts Act, 1887, provides that an appeal from a decree or order of a District Judge or Additional Judge shall lie to the High Court; Section 21 then provides that, save as aforesaid, an appeal from a decree or order of a Subordinate Judge shall lie to the District Judge where the value of the original suit in which, or in any proceeding arising out of which, the decree or order was made, did not exceed...
Pankaj Mohan Bal and ors. Vs. BipIn Behary Chakladar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1922
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.511
1. These appeals arise out of suits for khas possession of the land in dispute in each case which had been allotted on a partition of an estate effected by the Collector as between the plaintiffs and the defendants The partition was made on a rayatwari basis but the lands were in the exclusive possession of the defendants who were also co-sharers of the estate in which the lands in dispute are situate.2. The defendants pleaded inter alia that the plaintiffs were not entitled to get khas possession of the lands as the defendants had a chak right, or a tenancy right by adverse possession for more than twelve years.3. The Court of first instance decreed the suits on the grounds that the defendants had failed to prove the chak right and as co-sharers did not acquire any right by adverse possession. On appeal tie learned District Judge reversed that decision and the plaintiffs have preferred these appeals.4. The history of the case leading up to the suits is a long one and has been ex-h ust...
Gour Krishna Sircar and anr. Vs. Nilmadhab Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal113,73Ind.Cas.34
1. This is an appeal by the tenants-defendants in a proceeding instituted by the landlords-respondents under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for the settlement of fair and equitable rent in respect of the lands in their possession.2. An objection has been taken by the respondents on the ground that the appeal has become infructuous, as the decree which is assailed has been vacated by the lower Appellate Court as the result of an application for review of judgment presented by the tenants. It appeals that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court was pronounced on the 6th May 1918. On the 18th July 1918 the tenants made an application for review of judgment. The Court thereupon directed notice to be served on the landlords as required by Order XLVI, Rule (2)(a), Civil Procedure Code. On the 14th November 1918, during the pendency of the application for review of judgment, the tenants lodged in this Court the appeal now before us, which is directed against the decree of the lower A...
Krishna Kamini Dasi and anr. Vs. Nil Madhab Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal66,73Ind.Cas.312
1. These seventeen appeals arise out of as many proceedings, instituted by landlords under Section. 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for assessment of fair and equitable rent in respect of lands included in tenures held under them. The tenure-holders contended that they were entitled to the benefit of the presumption formulated in Section 50(2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act and were consequently protected from enhancement under Section 50(1). It was found that the original tenures had been subdivided with the consent of the landlords; each fragment was held at a proportionate rent and the aggregate rent was equal to the original rent. Not with standing this, the Revenue Officer held that the provisions of Section 50 were inapplicable to the disputed tenures, which must be deemed to be new tenures the rent whereof was liable to enhancement. On appeal, the Special Judge held that the sub-division of a tenure does not operate as a breach of the continuity of the tenure, if each fragment is held ...
Moulvi Mohamed YasIn Vs. Bimola Prosad Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1922
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.405
1. The opposite party No. I in this Rule instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore for specific performance of a contract for lease of a certain property situated in the District of Burdwan. The contract is said to have been originally entered into by one Kundan kal Kapur of Burdwan and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 in the present Rule, are the executors under the Will of Kundan Lal and took out Probate of his Will. It was alleged in the suit that, subsequent to the agreement of granting a lease in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1, on the 22nd August 1920, granted a lease to defendant No. 3 who took it with notice of the prior agreement in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff accordingly prayed for specific performance of the agreement to grant him the mining lease on declaration that the defendant No. 3 acquired no right, title or interest under the lease of 22nd August 1920.2. The defendant No. 3 inter al...
In Re: Babu Mohendra Lal Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal550,71Ind.Cas.673
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a report under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act by the Additional District Magistrate of Dacca with respect to charges of misconduct under sections 13(b) and 13(f) against three Pleaders and one Mukhtear practising in the Courts of and subordinate to the District Magistrate of Dacca. The report has been forwarded through the learned Sessions Judge of Dacca.2. There were two other Pleaders against whom charges were framed, but the Additional District Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was no ground for reporting against these two Pleaders.3. At the beginning of the hearing in this Court, a preliminary point was taken by the learned Vakil, appearing for Mohendra Lal Roy, that the reference was invalid by reason of the procedure adopted.4. It was contended that the proceedings, if any, should have been instituted by the Deputy Magistrate who was trying the case during the hearing of which the incident which is the basis of these procee...
Tarakeshwar Pal Chowdhury Vs. Sirish Chandra Ghosh Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal236
1. These two appeals are directed against an order of remand made by the Subordinate Judge in a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property on establishment of title. The subject-matter of the litigation is a tank with its banks, situated within the property of the Plaintiff. The Defendants purchased the tank under two conveyances, dated the 4th and 11th November 1906 from persons who claimed to hold under two grants made' in favour of their predecessors on the 6th October 1836 and 16th July 1849. The Plaintiff alleged that, as the vendors of the Defendants had no transferable right, they were liable to be ejected, as trespassers. The primary Court held that the Defendants had aspired a valid title by their purchase and dismissed the claim for ejectment, subject to a declaration in favour of Plaintiff in respect of his title as the superior landlord. The Subordinate Judge has remanded the case for further investigation. The Plaintiff as also the Defendants are dissatisfied wi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »