Kolkata Court February 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.
Sree Lal Chamaria Vs. Sir Hariram Goenka and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal181,88Ind.Cas.737
Chakravarti, J.1. plaintiff appeals against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Howrah dated the 29th June 1923 dismissing his suit for specific performance a contract for sale of lands and in the alternative for damages, which was ultimately, in the circumstances which had happened, limited to a suit for damages only for breach of contract. The facts are these: The defendant by a contract dated the 27th March 1920 agreed to sell to the plaintiff 74 and odd cottas of lands in Howrah at the rate of Rs. 9,001 per cotta. It is admitted that, there was a supplementary verbal contract when it was found that the mortgaged properties together with other properties had been advertised for sale in execution of a mortgage-decree dated November 13, 1917 obtained by the Maharajah of Darbbanga in the Original Side of this Court. By this latter contract the plaintiff undertook, to pay off the, entire mortgage-decree. This verbal contract was admitted by the plaintiff as will appear from what follow...
ishan Chandra Samanta Vs. Hridoy Krishna Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1040
Suhrawardy, J.1. I have the misfortune to differ from my learned brother in the interpretation of Section 360, Cr. P. Code and its applicability to proceedings under Chap. XII of the Code. Section 356 provides that in all trials, and in enquiries tinder Chaps. XII and XVIII the evidence of each witness shall be taken down in writing in the language of the Court. Section 360 says that as the evidence of each witness taken under Section 356 is completed it shall be read over to him in the presence of the ' accused' or his pleader. No exception is made in the section in the case of proceedings under Chap. XII which could easily have been made if the legislature intended to exclude them bat it is argued that the use of the word ' accused'* limits the applicability of Section 360 to cases where a person is charged with the commission of any offence for which he is liable to be punished, and excludes Chap. XII. The whole controversy, therefore, hinges on the meaning of the word ' accused' wh...
Satindra Mohan Tagore Vs. Bama Sundari Devi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.512
Suhrawardy, J.1. In these appeals the landlord objects to the order of the learned Special Judge disallowing his claim for enhancement of rent under Section 7, Bengal Tenancy Act. The learned Judge has found that the appellant has not adduced any evidence to show what is the customary rate payable by persons holding similar tenures in the vicinity. He then proceeds to consider whether the appellant is entitled to enhancement of rent under Sub-section (2) of Section 7. In two of these cases he gays that the claim should fail simply because no ground for enhancement on equitable considerations, has been made out. In some other cases he finds that there are some lands in the khas possession of the tenure-holders, and, therefore, the landlord is apparently entitled to enhancement of rent on the ground of rise in the price of staple food crops; but as the kabuliyats mention only one ground of enhancement, namely, when the rent payable by the tenant is below the prevailing rent in the neighb...
Satindra Mohun Tagore Vs. Ramsundar Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal239
Cuming, J.1. This is an appeal by the landlord against an order of the Special Judge dismissing his application under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, for assessment of fair and equitable rent for a certain tank. The case of the defendant was that in the finally published record of rights it was noted that the holding was liable to be assessed but that no rent was actually being paid. The holding in question in this case was a tank which was recorded in Khatian No. 14. The case of the defendants-respondents was that this tank was included in a jama which they held under a service tenure granted by the appellant. The Assistant Settlement Officer came to the finding that this tank formed part and parcel of the jama which the defendants held for more than 30 years under the chakrandar. On appeal the learned Special Judge has held that this tank was not included in the jama which the defendants held under the chakrandar; and he has held that as it has been in the possession of the responde...
Ram Sundar Das and ors. Vs. Satindra Mohan Tagore and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal85
1. These seven appeals are by the tenants. Appeals Nos. 2065, 2066 and 2067 raise questions similar to those ihat were urged in Second Appeal No. 287 of 1922. In view of our judgment in that case these appeals fail and are dismissed with costs, one gold mohur in each case.2. In the next group of appeals (Nos. 2068 to 2071) the question raised is that the learned Special Judge was not legally justified in enhancing the rent of the tenants under S. 7, Bengal Tenancy Act. The finding of the learned Judge is that the plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of a customary rate payable by persons holding similar tenures in the vicinity, and hence the plaintiff cannot claim any enhancement under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 7. He must, therefore, make out a case for enhancement which appears to be fair and equitable. This observation shows that the plaintiff having failed to establish the existence of a customary rate the Court is to proceed under Sub-section (2) of Sectio...
Satindra Mohan Tagore Vs. Jayanabi Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1183
1. (S.A. No. 2377 of 1921) This is an appeal by the landlord from a decision of the Special Judge of Tipperah, dated the 8th September 1921 Two points have been raised on his behalf. First, that on a proper construction of the kabuliyat in some of the cases in which the learned Judge has held that the tenancies are tenures he should have held that they were' raiyati holdings. The learned Judge being of opinion that the kabuliyat did not render any help in determining the question whether the tenancies were tenures of raiyati holding, proceeded to consider the evidence of actual user of the lands In some cases he came to the conclusion that the tenants held the lands in khas cultivation and hence the tenancies were raiyati holdings and in some other cases he found that the lands were in possession of sub-tenants and so he held that those tenancies were tenures. There is nothing in the kabuliyats in this case in which the tenancies have been held to be tenures to show that the lease was ...
Basant Kumar Kapali and ors. Vs. Satindra Mohun Tagore and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1209
Suhrawardy, J.1. These appeals are by the tenants against the decrees of the Special Judge of Tipperah from which the appeals we have just disposed of, namely, S.A. No. 2277 to 2280 of 1921, arose It is argued on behalf of the tenants that certain tenancies which were recorded in the record-of-rights as raiyati holdings and which the learned Special Judge has found to be so, ought to have been recorded as tenures. The kabuliyats in these cases are described as sarasari jimbadari kabuliyats. The whole argument of the learned advocate for the appellant centres round the meaning of the word 'jimbadari'. We have been referred to the definition of the word 'zimmadar' in Wilson's Glossary, where it is stated that in Eastern Bengal it means a tenure or an under-tenure; and we are asked to hold that the tenancies created under these kabuliyats were all tenures. There is no doubt that in one parti of Eastern Bengal, namely, in the District of Backerganj or in portions of that district the expre...
Basanta Kumar Kapali and ors. Vs. Satindra Mohun Tagore and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.377
Suhrawardy, J.1. These appeals are by the tenants against the decrees of the Special Judge of Tipperah from which the appeals we have just disposed of, namely, S.A. Nos. 2277 to 2280 of 1921, arose. It is argued on behalf of the tenants that certain tenancies which were recorded in the Record of Rights as raiyati holdings and which the learned Special Judge has found to be so, ought to have been recorded as tenures. The kabuliyats in these cases are described' as sarasari jimbadari kabuliyats. The whole argument of the learned Advocate for the appellant centres round the meaning of the word 'zimmadari.' We have been referred to the definition of the word' zimmadar' in Wilson's Glossary where it is stated that in Eastern Bengal it means a tenure or an under-tenure; and we are asked to hold that the tenancies created under these kabuliyats were all tenures. There is no doubt that in one part of Eastern Bengal, namely, in the District of Backerganj or in portions of that district the expr...
The Jagadishpore Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Mcleod and Co. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal606a
Suhrawardy, J.1. This case raises the same question which came up before us for consideration in Order No. 1091 of 1924. There we held that applications under the Indian Companies Act relating to Companies doing business in the mofussil should be made in the Original Side of this Court. After we had pronounced our judgment this matter came up before another Bench of this Court which issued notices to the Incorporated Law Society and the Vakils' Association probably with the view that the question should be re-argued. This case has come up before us for hearing and the Incorporated Law Society and the Vakils' Association are represented before us. Since on the previous occasion we fully heard the argument on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society and the Vakils' Association we do not think that we should allow them to argue the point over again. But as the Petitioner has expressed a desire to have the questions reargued we have allowed Dr. Basak to place before us further materials so t...
In Re: George Nash (Deceased)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal606,94Ind.Cas.994
2. I agree with the Registrar in Insolvency in the view he has taken....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »