Kolkata Court December 1925 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.
Radhabinode Mondal Vs. Naba Kishore Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal578,94Ind.Cas.244
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two different suits for rent brought by the plaintiff against a number of defendants. Defendant No. 12 is the appellant before us; and the only point that requires consideration is whether the plaintiff's suits are maintainable as framed. The plaintiff claims 1/6th share of the rent alleging that that is due to him on account of the holdings.2. The finding of the lower Appellate Court is that the co-sharers who own 2/3rd share in the estate were collecting their share of the rent separately for a considerable time, and the plaintiff and his brother were collecting their 1/3rd share jointly. But the plaintiff and his brother started collecting their shares separately from the beginning of 1321 B.S. The claim is for the rent of the years 1319 to 1322 B.S. Both the Courts below decreed the plaintiff's suit for the rent of his 6th share.3. The principal ground urged on behalf of the appellant is that the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain ...
Siataj Shaikh and ors. Vs. Bishnudas Dhar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.400
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent which has been decreed by both the Courts below.2. The only point argued is that the tenants defendants having transferred their holding and the landlords having presented a plaint previously for possession of the land as against the transferee is precluded from suing the defendants for the rent of the land. The suit of the landlords as against the transferee was not proceeded with and it came to nothing. It is contended that the presentation of the plaint ought to be taken as acceptance of the abandonment of the holding by the recorded tenants, that is, the defendants in the suit. That can hardly be accepted as a correct proposition of law. The landlord is not bound to accept any person as a tenant other than his recorded tenant and he is entitled to bring a suit for rent and obtain a decree as against the recorded tenant.3. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.Cuming, J.4. I agree....
Hari Mondal and ors. Vs. Durjodhon Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal882,94Ind.Cas.661
1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiffs sued for recovery of khas possession of some 4 bighas of land from the possession of the defendants Nos. 1 to 4. Their case was that they executed a kabuliyat in favour of defendants Nos. 6 to 9 in July 1919 and, this kabuliyat was accepted by the landlords defendants Nos. 6 to 9 and they were put in possession and that after being in possession for one year they wore evicted by defendants Nos. 1 to 9. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 contested the suit contending that this land formed part of their ancestral jama held under defendants Nos. 6 to 9. The first Court held that the lease to the plaintiffs contravened the provisions of Section 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, as he held that defendants Nos. 6 to 9 were occupancy raiyats. He, therefore, held the lease void and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Court and the learned Subordinate Judge held that the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 claiming as they did under t...
Rajendra Nath (Kumar) Das Vs. Peyari Mohan Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.321
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of khas possession of a certain land on the ground that the plaintiff as the reversioner of one Rup Chand Das who died many years ago. Rup Chand left a widow Haramani and a daughter. The daughter was married to one Mahima Chandra who lived in the house as ghar jawai. Mahima had a daughter born and brought up in the house of Haramani. She was married to defendant No. 1. It is said that the land in possession of defendant No. 1 was granted under a permanent lease to him by Haramani. The finding is that defendant No. 1 was given a lease of these properties in consideration of his looking after Haramani who had no male relation to look after her or her property. For that consideration defendant No. 1 married her grand-daughter and lived in the house as ghar jawai. The learned, Judge held that that was good legal necessity. I see no reason to differ from him.2. On that ground the appeal with regard to the properties in the posse...
Manmatha Nath Kar Vs. Probodh Chandra Ratari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.279
1. The plaintiff-respondent is the landlord of a non-transferable occupancy holding. His case is that there were two non-transferable occupancy holdings which were amalgamated and formed into one occupancy holding and held by Durga Charan and other heirs of the original tenant. He found that the defendant was in possession of the holding whereupon he brought the present suit for recovery of possession from the defendant who was a trespasser according to him. The defence was that there was a mortgage of a portion of the holding by the original tenant in favour of a third party and that in execution of the decree upon that mortgage the defendant purchased the portion mortgaged and was in possession thereof. He further stated that the entire holding was not mortgaged and that the original tenant did not leave possession of the portion of the holding not mortgaged. The controversy between the parties was limited to the question as to whether the mortgage-deed and the decree thereon covered...
Bahadur Ahmed Moulvi Vs. Hemanta Kumar Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.338
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of khas possession of certain land. The Trial Court dismissed the suit which was decreed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge.2. Defendant No. 1 has appealed to this Court. The facts found by the Subordinate Judge are that certain lands belonged jointly to two persons Baidya Nath and Golok in equal shares. There was a partition between the two co-sharers and the lands belonging to Golok's share were inherited by one Nityamoyi. She died sometime in 1916. Before her death she executed a kabuliyat in favour of the plaintiff dated the 11th of April 1907. It was stated in that kabuliyat that the lands of which she had been in possession was found on measurement to be in excess of the original jama and, therefore, the was altered and certain terms were arranged between the landlord and the Nityamoyi with regard to her leasehold property. The defendants came into possession by right of purchase from one Pitambari who was the widow o...
Keshab Lal Goswami Vs. Bholanath Gangopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal910,94Ind.Cas.342
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff who was unsuccessful in the Courts below has preferred this appeal with respect to 5 bighas of land. The Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that it was barred by limitation. The first ground urged on behalf of the appellant is to the effect that Article 148 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act applies to the case and, therefore, it should have been held that the suit was well within time. In order to deal with this ground it is necessary to consider the allegations upon which the plaintiff came to Court. Shortly stated the plaintiff's case was that about 13 bighas of land belonged to one Jafer Sheik and after his death it passed by inheritance to his son Kinu and daughter Umeda, that in l887 Kinu mortgaged the land by way of usufructuary mortgage to two persons, Sheik Jamait, Sheik Chhakuri, that in 1888 the said mortgagees or one of them it is not very clear whether both or one of them were parties to the transaction--sub-mortga...
Biseswar Sarkar Vs. Kali Charan Ash and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.418
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These three appeals arise out of three suits for rent. The plea of the defendants mainly was that the plaintiffs having dispossessed them from certain portions of their holdings they were entitled to have the entire rent suspended for the years in suit.2. There were previous suits for rent in 1915 for these very holdings. It appears that the defendants in those cases also raised the plea that they had been dispossessed of those very lands which are now in dispute and consequently there should be suspension of rent. The question of suspension of rent was decided against the defendants and it was found in those cases that there had been no dispossession by the landlords.3. The learned Munsif held that the question of suspension of the rent was res judicata. He also held upon the facts that it was not satisfactorily proved that the defendants had been dispossessed from any of the lands. Upon that finding the Munsif passed a decree for the entire amount claimed by the plai...
Harun Rashid Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal581,94Ind.Cas.270
1. The appellant before us has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Cachar under Sections 467/471, Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years. He was put on his trial along with four others--Shajid Ali, Atar Ali, Yakub Ali and Salim Mia, they being charged under Section 467 with forgery and he being charged under Section 467 read with Section 109 of abetment of forgery. The four others were acquitted. The trial was with the aid of three assessors who found the accused guilty of having abetted the forgery of a pertain document.2. The case for the prosecution was that the accused Shajid Ali had written out a kobala by which Mahomed Yusuf, and Sultan Mahomed purported to convey to the accused, Harun Rashid, 120 bighas of land for Rs. 4,000, the consideration being accounted for as follows, namely, Rs. 2,000 due to Harun Rashid on account of a certain debt and Rs. 2,000 commission due to him from them. In other words, no ...
Gobinda Chandra Majumdar and ors. Vs. Hari Charan Marwari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal826,94Ind.Cas.332
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by certain creditors named Majumdars against two orders of the District Judge of Birbhum, dated the 19th September, 1923 and 13th December of the same year.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that the appeal is out of time having regard to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. It is necessary to state a few facts before I deal with that objection. The creditors of the insolvent put in their proofs under the provisions of Section 33 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, and when the proofs had been put in they were referred to the Receiver who had been appointed to the insolvent's estate to be dealt with by him and for a report to the District Judge. The Receiver dealt with the various proofs and made his report to the District Judge on the 12th of September, 1923. That report is to be found in the paper-book and it bears this date. The Receiver in his report rejected the proofs of the Majumdars for reas...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›