Kolkata Court May 1923 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.
Ramesh Chandra Sinha and anr. Vs. Mohammed Elahi Buksh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.309
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal preferred by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 arises out of a suit brought for declaration of title to a jote and for a further declaration that a decree obtained by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the present appellants, against the pro forma defendants in a rent suit was fraudulent. The Courts below have given the plaintiff the decree which he asked for and consequently this appeal is preferred by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It is not necessary to go further into the details of the case. The appellants have put forward two contentions. The first is that the so-called tenure is only a raiyati and that the holding is a non-transferable raiyati holding and the plaintiff acquired nothing by his purchase. So far as this point is concerned, the answer given by the learned Judge of the Court of Appeal is conclusive. The holding is shown in the Record of rights as a tenure and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 presented an application under Section 105 of the Tenancy Act on the...
Pran Krishna Gharai Vs. Nitya Copal Matti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal239
Walmsley, J.1. These appeals are the outcome of a sale of property under the Public Demands Recovery Act. The plaintiff in each of the two suits claims only a share in the entire property sold, and in each case he has valued the suit and paid Court-fees on the basis of the valuation put on his share. An objection was taken by the contesting defendants that the suits ought to have been valued, for purposes both of jurisdiction and Court-fee, at the value of the entire property. The learned Munsif accepted that contention and held that he had no jurisdiction to try the suits. He proceeded, however, to record findings on the other issues, and one of his findings, was that the suits were not maintainable. The learned Judge on appeal in a judgment, which I find rather hard to follow, held that the Munsif had jurisdiction to hear the suits. The question which has been argued before us is as to the manner in which the suits should have been valued. Without going into details, I think the seco...
Satchidananda Dutt Vs. Nritya Nath Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal517,79Ind.Cas.287
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of Mr. Justice Pearson by the defendant in a suit instituted by a broker for commission alleged to have been earned in respect of the lease of premises belonging to the defendant. On the 23rd August 1918, the defendant Satchidananda Dutt gave a letter of authority to Gosthabehari Sana to negotiate the lease of the properties in question. On the strength of this letter, apparently, one Kirtichandra Dawn, on the 26th August 1918, intimated to Dutt through his solicitor that he was prepared to take the lease, provided the title was approved and the area of the land was not less than two bignas as had been assured by the agent. What followed on this has not transpired, but we find that on the 5th November 1918, Satchidananda Dutt granted another authority to Nrityanath Mitter to negotiate the lease of the properties on terms specified. The terms were as follows:1. Lease for ninety-one years.2. Selami Rs. 25,000 (twenty-five thousand) onl...
Pran Krishna Gharai Vs. Nitya Gopal Maiti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.333
Walmsley, J.1. These appeals are the outcome of a sale of property under the Public Demands Recovery Act. The plaintiff in each of the two suits claims only a share in the entire property sold and in each case he has valued the suit and paid court-fees on the basis of the valuation put on his share. An objection was taken by the contesting defendants that the suits ought to have been valued for purposes both of jurisdiction and court-fee at the value of the entire property, The learned Munsif accepted that contention and held that he had no jurisdiction to try the suits. He proceeded, however, to record findings on the other issues and one of his findings was that the suits were not maintainable. The learned Judge on appeal, in a judgment which I find rather hard to follow, held that the Munsif had jurisdiction to hear the suits. The question which has been argued before us is as to the manner in which the suits should have been valued. Without going into details, I think the second pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›