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.
Rambrama Chatterjee Vs. Kedar Nath Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal60,72Ind.Cas.1026
1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to participate in the bhog offered to three idols and for consequential relief. One Gopinath Chatterjee, the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants, more than 200 years ago, consecrated an image of Vishnu. His sons Nandadulal Chatterjee and Durga Charan Chatterjee followed in the footsteps of their father; each of them consecrated an image of Siva, and Durga Charan Chatterjee consecrated, in addition, an image of Kali. Temples were erected, those now in existence were consecrated in 1792 and 1801 and elaborate arrangements were made for the daily worship. Properties were also dedicated to secure the due performance of the worship, though this is not directly evidenced by a written document. But the execution of a document is not essential for the purpose of a valid dedication which may be inferred from application of proceeds and family conduct; Muddun Lal v. Komul Bibee 8 W...
Nurul Huq Vs. Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal133
Mookerjee, J.1. These seven appeals arise out of as many proceedings instituted, under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, by a landlord for assessment of fair and equitable rents in respect of lands in the occupation of his tenure-holders. The Settlement Officer held that the rents were unalterable and dismissed the suits. Upon appeal, the Special Judge has held that the rents were enhanceable, and he has accordingly settled fair and equitable rents. The tenure-holders have appealed to this Court and have urged, first, the rents of their tenures are not enhanceable; and, secondly, that if the tenures are not protected from enhancement, the Special Judge has settled rent on principles erroneous in law.2. As regards the first point, the tenure-holders rely upon Section 6 of the Bengal Tenancy Act which is in the following terms.6. Where a tenure has been held from the time of the Permanent Settlement, its rent shall not be liable to enhancement except on proof-(a) that the landlord u...
Emperor Vs. Sristidhar Mazumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal97,81Ind.Cas.236
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Birbhum in a case in which the accused Sristidhar Mazumdar was charged with murder and with a minor offence. The accused is a youth, whose age is said to be somewhere between 15 and 17 years.2. The main allegations on behalf of the prosecution were that the accused and the deceased Umapada were attending a school at Bolpur, that they both lived in the house of a Pleader at Bolpur , that they occupied the same room, that on the morning of the occurrence between 10 and 11 o'clock they were seen preparing themselves for bathing and that later in the day the deceased boy was found by a woman sometime about 2 o'clock lying in an irrigation pit near a tank which was about half a mile away from the place where the boys were lodging--half of his body was covered in the mud--he was wounded and he had apparently lost a considerable amount of blood. It was alleged that he stated that the accused was the person who had inflicte...
Kazi Nurul Huq Vs. Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.979
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. These seven appeals arise out of as many proceedings instituted, under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy-Act, by a landlord for assessment of fair and equitable rents in respect of lands in the occupation of his tenure-holders. The Settlement Officer held that the rents were unalterable and dismissed the suits. Upon appeal, the Special Judge has held that the rents were enhanceable and he has accordingly settled fair and equitable rents. The tenure-holders have appealed to this Court and have urged, first, that the rents of their tenures are not enhanceable; and, secondly, that if the tenures are not protected from enhancement, the Special Judge has settled rent on principles erroneous in law.2. As regards the first point, the tenure-holders rely upon Section 6 of the. Bengal Tenancy Act which is in the following terms:6. Where a tenure has been held from the time of the Permanent Settlement, its rent shall not be liable to enhancement except on proof-(a) that t...
Akshoy Kumar Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. Brojeswar Ghatak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.365
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside on the second and fifth grounds mentioned in the petition.2. The second ground is, 'for that with regard to the portion lying to the east of Thia-Khal the Magistrate's finding being that there was no satisfactory evidence of possession on either side, the order in respect of the said portion is without jurisdiction.'3. The fifth ground is 'for that the order is without jurisdiction as relating to 112 bighas of land when the, entire area, according to the learned Magistrate himself, is not less than 250 bighas and no attempt, has been made to define the smaller area,'4. The proceedings were, under Section 145, of the Criminal Procedure Code and the learned Magistrate declared that the second party was in possession of the disputed land and that the disputed land was bounded on the north by Kangal Mandal's Bheri, on the ea...
Kali Krishna Roy and anr. Vs. Makhan Lal Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal160,72Ind.Cas.686
1. This appeal is directed against an order for the grant of letters of Administration, with copy of the Will annexed, to the estate left by one Bidhumani Debi. The lady made a testamentary disposition of her properties on the 29th November 1898 and died on the 16th December 1898; she directed the expenditure, of Rs. 600 on the occasion of her obsequious ceremonies and Rs. 1,400 in the, payment of specified amounts as legacies to various persons. The residue, she directed, would be devoted to the maintenance of the worship of the idol Sri Sri Iswar Lakshmi Janardan established by the ancestors of her husband. The executor named in the Will did not take out Probate and it was not till the 5th November 1904 that one Rajendra Nath Roy, a first cousin of the lady, came forward to take out letter of Administration with copy of the Will annexed. We are not now concerned with the history of the management of the estate by the administrator. It is sufficient to state that on his death, one Mak...
Satish Chandra Biswas and anr. Vs. Nil Madhab Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1922
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.77
1. This is an appeal by the tenants in a proceeding instituted by their landlords under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, for assessment of fair and equitable rents in respect of the lands in their possession. The question in controversy is as to the status of the tenants. They were recorded as settled raiyats in the finally published Record of Rights. The landlords thereupon instituted the present suit for settlement of fair and equitable rent. The tenants contended that they were raiyats at fixed rent. In order to establish their allegation, they relied upon the presumption embodied in Section 50, Sub-section (2), of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which provides that if it is proved in any proceeding under the Act that either a tenure holder or raiyat and his predecessors-in-interest have held at a rent or rate of rent which has not been changed during the 20 years immediately before the institution of the proceedings, it shall be presumed until the contrary is shown, that they have held at ...
Monmotha Nath Kar Vs. Probodh Chandra Ratarhi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal102,73Ind.Cas.416
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a siut for recovery of possession of land upon establishment of title. The plaintiff is the landlord of the disputed property, which, according to him, comprises two non, transferable occupancy holdings and was purchased by the defendant on the 21st August 1917 at a sale in execution of a mortgage decree. The defendant contended, first, that the holdings belonged to a raiyat at fixed rent and were consequently transferable under Section 18 of the Bengal Tenancy Act; secondly, that what had been mortgaged and was brought to sale was not the entire land of the two tenancies, so that he was the purchaser of a portion of the holding and was consequently not liable to be evicted; and, thirdly, that he had been recognised as tenant by the landlord, who had, after his purchase, demanded rent from him. The Trial Court held that the tenancy could not be deemed to consist of holdings at fixed rent, as the rent was payable partly in cash and partly in kind...
Secretary of State Vs. Ramcharan Acharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal464
Suhrawardy, J.1. In this appeal the only question argued before us is whether the suit is in time, having been instituted more than six months after the date of the final publication under Section 104-H of the Bengal Tenancy Act. A suit of this nature has to be brought within six months from the date of the final publication. Both the learned Munsif and the District Judge were of opinion that the period of six months expired during the vacation and the suit was instituted on the day the Court re-opened and that the suit was in time. I see no reason to take a contrary view.2. There is, further, a cross-objection by the respondent which remains to be considered. Two questions are raised by the cross-objection. It is contended, firstly, that the Court of appeal below should have held that the rent of the holding was not liable to enhancement and that a presumption under Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act arising from proof of uniform payment of rent for over 20 years did apply to this c...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Ram Charan Acharjya an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.207
John Woodroffe, J.1. In this appeal the only question argued before us is whether the suit is in time, having been instituted more than six months after the date of the final publication under Section 104-H of the Bengal Tenancy Act. A suit of this nature has to be brought within six months from the date of the final publication. Both the learned Munsif and the District Judge were of opinion that the period of six months expired during the vacation and the suit was instituted on the day the Court re-opened and that the suit was in time. I see no reason to take a contrary-view.2. There is, further, a cross-objection by the respondent which remains to be considered. Two questions are raised by the cross-objection. It is contended, firstly, that the Court of Appeal below should have held that the rent of the holding was not liable to enhancement and that a presumption under Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act arising from proof of uniform payment of rent for over 20 years did apply to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »