Kolkata Court July 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.
Nekjannessa Bibi and anr. Vs. Abbas Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1923
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.657
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the dismissal of their suit by the lower Appellate Court reversing the decree of the Trial Court. The suit was brought on the 30th January 1919, and was one for khas possession of a tank. The plaintiffs and the main defendants claim under the same landlords, it being admitted that the defendants Nos. 23 to 26 have the maliki right in the tank in suit. In 1916 the landlord settled the tank with the plaintiffs. In 1904 it appears that the landlords had threatened the defendant's that the tank would be settled with a third party. In 1914 they advertised for settling the tank and at the auction defendants also bid. In these circumstances the contention of the plaintiff is that the learned Judge has misdirected himself in law in finding that the landlords having been but of possession for over 12 years the plaintiffs suit cannot be maintained.2. The case is admittedly one where the defendants are already tenants of the landlords. The defendants...
Mohini Mohan Roy Vs. Ramdas Paramhansa
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1923
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.210
Rankin, J.1. In this case, the defendant appeals from a decision of the District Judge of Nadia reversing a decision of the Munsif of Ranaghat. The plaintiff brought the suit for a sum of money as due to him by the terms of a document called ekrarnama. That document is dated the 28th March 1891 and contemporaneously with it on the same day there was a conveyance of certain land by the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff to the predecessor of the defendant. The terms of the ekrarnama have been discussed in the judgments of the Courts below and the first question is the question of construction. It is to be observed that the conveyance contains no reference whatever to any such covenant as I am now about to read from the ekrarnama. The ekrarnama which was executed by the defendant's predecessor-in-title was as follows: 'When you expressed your desire to sell your share of the putni and jamai right in mouza Goid, village Salua Parga Ukhara, I had promised before you that, if the above s...
Satis Kanta Roy and anr. Vs. Jyotirupa Devi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal49,81Ind.Cas.459
Rankin, J.1. In this case, the appellants desire to establish that a certain compromise decree made on the 17th May, 1920, with reference to a Solenama is capable of enforcement as a matter of execution in that suit, and that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Jessore to the contrary should be set aside as being erroneous in law. It appears that the respondent who was the first defendant in the suit is the widow of the brother of the two persons now the appellants who brought the suit as plaintiff's Nos. 1 and 2. The plaint referred partly to properties being secular properties in which the first defendant had the estate of a Hindu widow and in which the plaintiffs were at all events expectant reversioners. It referred also to certain debuttar properties and the complaint made as to them was to the effect that the defendant No. 1 was not properly performing her duties as Shebait, that the Deb Sheba was not being performed properly but that the money in which the defendant...
Tara Prasanna Chaugdar Vs. Narisingha Moorari Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal731
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for the reversal of a sale held under the putni Regulation of 1819. The appeal raises an important question of law, namely, whether a suit instituted under Section 14 of Regulation VIII of 1819, for the reversal of a putni sale is a suit to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed within the meaning of Article 17 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act of 1870.2. The putni in suit was brought to sale under the provisions of the Regulation on the 15th May, 1919, when the third defendant became the purchaser. He defaulted in the payment of rent, with the result that the putni was brought to sale again on the 15th May, 1920, when the first two defendants, the sons of the third defendant became the purchaser. The fourth defendant is the original putnidar, and the remaining four defendants are the Zamindars. The plaintiff, who is the darputnidar, instituted this suit on the 16th June, 1920, for the reversal of the secon...
Debendra Nath Basu and ors. Vs. Arun Chandra Singha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal64
1. These appeals arise out of proceedings under Sections 105 and 105 (a) of the Bengal Tenancy Act and the question is whether the presumption arising from payment of rent at uniform rates for 20 years that the tenure has been held at the same rate of rent from the time of the permanent settlement has been rebutted by certain papers relied upon by the Courts below. The three papers referred to by the learned Judge are: (1) the writ of attachment, kistibundi papers (2) the jamawashil baki papers of 1797 and (3) the butwara papers of 1800 prepared by the Collector. The learned Judge was of opinion that the first two were not of much help, but the third was a more accurate document and as it did not contain any mention of those taluks, he held that they were not in existence at the time of the permanent settlement. Now, the absence of an entry may be evidence though its effect is to be determined in the light of the general evidence: [see the case of Imambandi v. Mutsaddi A.I.R. 1918 P.C....
Janabali Molla and ors. Vs. Port Canning and Land Improvement Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal336,84Ind.Cas.735
1. These are second appeals in suits brought under Section 46 of the Bengal Tenancy Act by the landlords against tenants for the settlement of fair and equitable rent for the holdings. There are in all 7 suits before the Court in appeal. The defence taken as regards all these suits is that the defendants are occupancy raiyats and that accordingly they are not within the scope of the section sued. They also say that the rent which has been fixed is excessive and has been fixed upon an improper principle. There is one particular question with regard to suit No. 99 which is now appeal No. 1817.2. Now the difficulty upon the first question is that the lands in suit are lands in the Sunderbans and it appears that no notice was issued by the Collector declaring the area as constituting villages until some date in 1912. For the present purpose it may be taken that the lands in respect of which the occupancy right is claimed are lands in all cases of which the defendants have been in possessio...
Minnat Ali and anr. Vs. Nabendra Kishore Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1928Cal253
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration of the plaintiffs' title as mutwallis to certain waqf and also for other reliefs.2. The Court of first instance gave a decree to the plaintiffs. On appeal that decree was reversed and the plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.3. The Court of appeal below found thatthe waqf was a collusive paper transaction intended to keep the properties covered by the waqfnama safe from the claims of any possible future creditor or other claims of other personsand thatit is clear that the disputed property was never treated as waqf property and it was treated as secular property of Kamarali Patari and after his death it descended to his heirs as secular property and treated by them as secular property.4. The learned Judge, in the concluding portion of his judgment observes as follows:There can be no doubt that the wakfnama created by Kamarali Patari was a sham colourable transaction and it was not intended to be acted upon and it was not given eff...
Midnapore Zamindary Co., Ltd. Vs. Trailokya Nath Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal562
Rankin, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that, the appeal having been dismissed by an order of Chatterjea and Cuming, JJ., dated the 18th December, 1922, against some of the respondents, it is not competent as against the others. I am of opinion that there is no substance in this contention and it cannot be sustained. We therefore proceed to hear the appeal on the merits.2. In this case, the plaintiff - the Midnapore Zamindary Company - appeals from the decision of the learned District Judge of Murshidabad who has dismissed their suit brought in 1918 against about 120 fishermen. The right of the plaintiff company is that they have a patni and darpatni interest in a certain mehal bearing touzi No. 432 of the Murshidabad Collectorate. They claim to have the exclusive right of fishery in a navigable river, namely, the Ganges over a length of its course approximating to twenty miles; and, as part of this exclusive right of the fishery ...
Midnapore Zemindary Co., Ltd. Vs. Trailokya Nath Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal110
Rankin, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that, the appeal having been dismissed by an order of Chatterjea and Cuming JJ., dated the 18th December 1922, against some of the respondents, it is not competent as against the others. I am of opinion that there is no substance in this contention and it cannot be sustained. We therefore proceed to bear the appeal on the merits.2. IN this case, the plaintiff--the Midnapore Zemindary Company--appeals from the decision of the learned District Judge of Murshidabad who has dismissed their suit brought in 1918 against about 120 fishermen. The right of the plaintiff company is that they have a patni and darpatni interest in a certain mehal bearing touzi No. 432 of the Murshidabad Collectorate. They claim to have the exclusive right of fishery in a navigable river, namely, the Ganges over a length of its course approximating to twenty miles; and, as part of this exclusive right of the fishery--alt...
Midnapore Zemindary Co., Ltd. Vs. Trailokya Nath Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.501
Rankin, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that, the appeal having been dismissed by an order of Chatterjea and Cuming, JJ., dated the 18th December, 1922, against some of the respondents, it is not competent as against the others. I am of opinion that there is no substance in this contention and it cannot be sustained. We therefore, proceed to hear the appeal oil the merits.2. In this case, the plaintiffs--the Midna-pore Zemindary Company--appeal from the decision of the learned District Judge of Murshidabad who has dismissed their suit brought in 1918 against about 120 fishermen. The right of the plaintiff company is that they have a patni and darpatni interest in a certain mehal bearing Touzi No. 432 of the Murshidabad Collectorate. They claim to have the exclusive right of fishery in a navigable river, namely, the Ganges over a length of its course approximating to twenty miles; and, as part of this exclusive right of the fishery...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »