Kolkata Court March 1924 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.
Udoy Chand Panna Lal Vs. Khetsidas Tilokchand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1025
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Buckland which was delivered on the 21st of December, 1923.2. The judgment was delivered in respect of a notice, which was issued by the Assistant Registrar of this Court on the 13th of December, 1923, and addressed to the attorney for the plaintiff in the following terms : 'Under Rule 36, Chap X of the Rules of the High Court, Original Side, 1914, notice is hereby given that the above suit will be set down in a list to be taken in chambers on Wednesday, the 19th day of December instant before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Buckland, and will be dismissed for default unless, on that day, good cause is shown to the contrary, or be otherwise dealt with as the Judge may think proper.' That was a notice which was in terms of Rule 36, Chap. X of the Original Side, High Court Rules, which in its present form runs as follows : 'Suits and proceedings which have not appeared in the Prospective List within six month...
Jadab Chandra Santra Vs. Gopal Chandea Debnath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.94
Mukerji, J.1. The question which arises in this Rule is whether the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 49 alleged to have been due as price of bhag paddy and straw. The plaint alleged that the land had been settled with the defendant in the month of Jaistha and the defendant had stipulated to deliver to the plaintiff by the month of Falgoon a half share of the paddy and straw that would be grown on the land, and in case of default would be liable to deliver 25 per cent, more as bridhi or interest in accordance with local usage; that the defendant, in accordance with the aforesaid promise or stipulation, after having taken settlement of the land cultivated the land and grew paddy and straw of which the quantities were also stated and the price of half thereof was claimed together with interest as aforesaid. One of the objections taken in the written statement was that the suit was one for rent and so was not...
Udoy Chand Pannalal Vs. Khetsidas Tilokchand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal905
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of my learned brother, Mr. Justice Buckland, which was delivered on the 21st of December 1923.2. The judgment was delivered in respect of a notice which was issued by the Assistant Registrar of this Court on the 13th of December 1923 and addressed to the attorney for the plaintiff in the following terms: Under Rule 36, Chapter X of the Rules of the High Court, Original Side, 1914, notice is hereby given that the above suit will be set down in a list to be taken in Chambers on Wednesday, the 19th day of December instant, before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Buckland and will be dismissed for default unless, on the day, good cause is shown to the contrary, or be otherwise dealt with as the Judge may think proper That was a notice which was in terms of Rule 36, Chapter X of the Original Side High Court Rules, which in its present form runs as follows: 'Suits and proceedings which have not appeared in the Prospective List within six months fr...
Sarat Chandra Pal and ors. Vs. Mahammad Akbar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.753
Mukerji, J.1. It is quite clear in this case that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in the view that he took of the provisions of Section 115 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. He has held upon the authority or supposed authority of the cases of Golab Misser v. Kumar Kalanand Singh 6 Ind. Cas. 217 : 14 C.W.N. 884 : 12 C.L.J. 107 and Pirthi Chand Lal Chowdhury v. Basarat Ali 3 Ind. Cas. 440 : 37 C. 30 : 13 C.W.N. 1149 : 10 C.L.J. 343 (F.B.) that in spite of the Record of Eights, the defendants are entitled to the presumption which arises under the provisions of Section 50, Clause (2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, It will be seen that the question whether the presumption arises or not was not definitely dealt with in the case reported as Golab Misser v. Kumar Kalanand Singh 6 Ind. Cas. 217 : 14 C.W.N. 884 : 12 C.L.J. 107 and the Full Bench decision reported as Pirthi Chand Lal Chowdhury v. Basarat All 3 Ind. Cas. 440 : 37 C. 30 : 13 C.W.N. 1149 : 10 C.L.J. 343 (F.B.) referred to above, if any...
Chhaganmull Agarwalla and ors. Vs. Amanathulla Mohammad Prodhan and an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1010
M.N. Mukerji, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of 12 hals of land with mesne profits. The plaintiffs claimed to have purchased a dur chukani tenancy comprising of 16 hals of land under a kobala, dated 1312 B. Section from certain persons who along with two others (who subsequently left the land) had obtained dur-chukani settlement in respect of the said quantity of land. The chukani out of which this dur-chukani settlement was made comprised of 17 1/2 hals of land. There were proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. between the plaintiffs and the defendants which ended in an order under that section in respect of 4 hals in favour of the plaintiffs, 3 hals in favour of the defendants, and an order under Section 146, Cr.P.C. in respect of the remaining 9 hals of the dur-chukani. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for the 12 hals of which he had failed to be declared in possession as aforesaid.2. The Subordinate Judge g...
Jaha Baksho and ors. Vs. Abdul Latif and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal500
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is an from an order passed by the Additional District Judge of Chittagong dismissing the appellants' petition for restoration of an appeal which was dismissed as the appellants were absent at the hearing of the appeal. The appeal was pending in the Court of the District Judge of Chittagong. On the 28th November, it was transferred to the file of the Additional District Judge and on the same day the case was called, and as the appellants were not present, it was dismissed for default. Appellants subsequently filed a petition for restoration of the appeal on the ground that neither they nor their pleader were aware of the transfer of the appeal to the file of the Additional District Judge and so could not be present when the case was called. The learned Additional District Judge, without taking any evidence or giving the appellants an opportunity of adducing evidence, dismissed the application as he was of opinion that it was hard to believe that either the pleader ...
Pranesh Chandra Sen and ors. Vs. Banwarilal Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal898
Mukherji, J.1. The appeal as presented before me is confined to the portion of the plaintiffs' claim in a suit for arrears of rant for the years 1322 to 1325 B.S. in so far as it is a claim for enhancement of rent based upon Section 30, Clause (a) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, that is to say, on the ground that the rate of rent) paid by the rah/at is below the prevailing rate paid by occupancy raiyats for lands of a similar description and with similar advantages in the same village or neighbouring villages and that there is no sufficient reason for his holding at so low a rate. The plaintiffs' case was that the prevailing rates in the village and other neighbouring villages were Rs. 6-8 per pakhi of khad lands, Rs. 4-8 per pakhi of palan lands and Rs. 2 per pakhi of Fasli lands. The defendant's case was that the prevailing rates were Rs. 2-8 per pakhi of khad lands, Rs. 1-4 per pakhi of palan lands, and 4-annas to 8-annas per pakhi of Fasli lands. The plaintiffs alleged that the lands in...
Jogesh Chandra Roy Vs. Tazar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1238,85Ind.Cas.757
Mukerji, J.1. Upon the arguments addressed to us on behalf of the appellants in this appeal the three questions which arise for our consideration are: 1st, what was the status of Homar Ali, that is to say whether he was a tenure-holder or an occupancy ryot? 2nd, whether the compromise entered into by the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 with the plaintiff, after the institution of the suit, amounted to a surrender of the holding, which, taken wish the previous sale in favour of the Defendants Nos. 7 to 13 (or rather in favour of some of them and the predecessors of the rest) by Homar Ali the predecessor of the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, operated to constitute abandonment conferring on the plaintiff the right of re-entry, and if so whether that relief should be given to him in this suit; and 3rd, whether the decree of the Court of first instance declaring that the Defendants Nos. 8 to 10 are not liable to ejectment from 1/8th share of the disputed lands should stand in view of the fact that the pl...
Jaha Baksha and ors. Vs. Abdul Latif and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.319
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the Additional District Judge of Chittagong dismissing the appellant's petition for restoration of an appeal which was dismissed as the appellants were absent at the hearing of the appeal. The appeal was pending in the Court of the District Judge of Chittagong. On the 28th November it was transferred to the file of the Additional District Judge and on the same day the case was called and as the appellants were not present, it was dismissed for default. The appellants subsequently filed a petition for restoration of the appeal on the ground that neither they nor their pleader were aware of the transfer of the appeal to the file of the Additional District Judge and so could not be present when the case was called The learned Additional District Judge, without taking any evidence or giving the appellants an 'opportunity of adducing evidence, dismissed the application as he was of opinion that it was hard to believe that either the...
Chhagmull Agarwalla Vs. Amanatulla Mahammad Prodhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal853
Mukerji, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of 12 hals of land with mesne profits. The plaintiffs claimed to have purchased a dar-chukani tenancy comprising of 16 hals of land under a kabala dated 1312 B.S. from certain persons who, along with two others (who subsequently left the land), had obtained dar-chukani settlement in respect of the said quantity of land. The chukani out of which this dar-chukani settlement was made comprised of 17 1/2 hals of land. There were proceedings under section. 145 Cr. P.C. between the plaintiffs and the defendants, which ended in an order under that section in respect of 4 hals in favour of the plaintiffs, 8 hals in favour of the defendants, and an order under Section 146 Cr. P.C. in respect of the remaining 9 hals of the dar-chukani. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for the 12 hals of which he had failed to be declared in possession as aforesaid.2. The Subordinate Judge gave the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »