Kolkata Court March 1925 Judgments
Sashi Mohan Tarkasastri and ors. Vs. Meajan Haji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal255,90Ind.Cas.570
1. The only question involved in this appeal is as to the rate of interest which the plaintiff is entitled to recover for arrears of rent. The kabuliyat creating the tenancy was executed by Aminuddi Meji in 1(sic)73. One of the terms of the contract was that 'In case of default in paying a kist I shall pay interest at the rate of Rs. 6 4 per cent. per mensem: If notwithstanding this I withhold the payment of rent you will be entitled to realise the arrears of rent with interest and damages by instituting a suit.' The present suit was brought by the landlord for recovery of arrears of rent with interest at 75 per cent annum for overdue instalments. He also claimed damages at 75 per cent, on arrears of cesses. The learned Munsif was of opinion that the clause was penal in its character and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover interest at such a high rate as 75 per cent, per annum. He accordingly decreed the plaintiff's claim for arrears of rent with damages at 25 per cen...
Tag this Judgment!Jogesh Chandra Ghose and anr. Vs. Sreemutty Chapala Sundari Basu and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.594
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 against a decision of the Second Additional District Judge of Dacca, reversing a decision of the Subordinate Judge of the Fifth Court. The suit was brought to enforce a mortgage-executed by one Sarat Kamini Ghose. At the time the suit was brought Sarat Kamini had died and the defendants-appellants are her sons who inherited the estate as reversioners. The mortgage was dated the 29th Sraban 1316, and the principal mortgage sued upon was one for Rs. 857 and 8 annas the claim in the suit with interest amounting to Rs. 1,747. The interest of the mortgagor Sarat Kamini was derived from her mother Barada Sundari. Barada Sundari's husband Brojo Kishore Raha died leaving a Will whereby he provided that his wife Sreemutty Barada Sundari should be the sole proprietor having power of gift and sale of the properties he left behind him after his death and the Will further provides that so long as she would be living no one would have ...
Tag this Judgment!Rahim Sheikh Vs. Munshi Salim-ud-dIn Ahammad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1925
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.138
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 1 and arises out of a suit for rent brought by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case was that he had purchased the interest of one Bepin from Janaka Sundari, the sole widow of Bepin that the defendants held a jama, at a rental of Be, 1-8 per year under Bepin and that the plaintiff by his purchase from the widow of Bepin was entitled to realize the rent payable by the defendants. The arrears claimed were for the years 1324 to 1327. The total amount of the claim, was Rs. 7-11-9. The defence of the defendants was that the plaintiff purchased, assuming his purchase to be true, only from one of the widows of Bepin, that there was another widow left by Bepin called Sukhada Sundari and that the plaintiff WPS, therefore, entitled to only 8 annas share of the rent and not to the 16 annas. The defendants further contended that if the plaintiff was entitled to an eight annas share of the rent the suit would be defective because all the landlords ...
Tag this Judgment!Rahim Sheikh Vs. Salim-ud-dIn Ahammad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1229
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by Defendant No. 1 and arises out of a suit for rent brought by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case was that he had purchased the interest of one Bepin from Janaka Sundari, the sole widow of Bepin, that the defendants held a jama at a rental of Re. 1-8 per year under Bepin and that the plaintiff by his purchase from the widow of Bepin was entitled to realize the rent payable by the defendants. The arrears claimed were for the years 1324 to 1327. The total amount of the claim was Rs. 7-11-9. The defence of the defendants was that the plaintiff purchased assuming his purchase to be true, only from one of the widows of Bepin, that there was another widow left by Bepin called Sukhada Sundari and that the plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to only 8 annas share of the rent and not to the 16 annas. The defendants further contended that if the plaintiff was entitled to an eight annas share of the rent the suit would be defective because all the landlords ha...
Tag this Judgment!Jogesh Chandra Ghose and anr. Vs. Chapala Sundari Basu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal383
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 against a decision of the Second Additional District Judge of Dacca, reversing a decision of the Subordinate Judge of the Fifth Court. The suit was brought to enforce a mortgage executed by one Sarat Kamini Ghose. At the time the suit was brought Sarat. Kamini had died and the defendants-appellants are her sons who inherited the estate as reversioners. The mortgage was dated the 29th Sraban 1316, and the principal mortgage sued upon was one for Rs. 857 and 8 annas, the claim in the suit with interest amounting to Rs. 1,747. The interest of the mortgagor Sarat Kamini was derived from her mother Barada Sundari. Barada Sundari's husband Brojo Kishore Raha died leaving a Will whereby he provided that his wife Sreemutty Barada Sundari should be the sole proprietor having power of gift and sale of the properties he left behind him after his death and the Will further provides that so long as she would be living no one would have any ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Kumar Shaha Vs. Mritunjoy Kundu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1136
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia refusing to set aside an ex parte decree passed against Ajit Kumar Sana the appellant. Ajit says that he was never served with the summons and that it had never been brought to his notice before the ex parte decree was passed. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that Ajit was aware of the service of the summons and of the suit. It appears that there were three brothers, Defendants Nos. 10, 11 and 12 who formerly lived at a place called Kumarkhali. It is established on the evidence that Ajit left Kumarkhali some 12 years ago and that since that date he had been residing and carrying on a business at Ranchi. It is true upon the evidence that occasionally he does visit Kumarkhali. that he has become a Brahmo and that as a result his visits are rare. Whether he is still interested in the joint family property I feel some doubt upon the evidence. He himself says that he has no longer a share in the joint ...
Tag this Judgment!Niranka Sashi Roy and anr. Vs. Swarganath Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal95,90Ind.Cas.121
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff Niranka Sashi Roy against an order of the lower Appellate Court passed under Section 4 of the Partition Act.2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff as a purchaser from a co-sharer of the defendant brought a suit for partition of several plots of land one of which was the homestead of the defendant. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the finding that the plaintiff and his vendor had failed to prove their title to the lands in suit. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing his title and ordered that the partition should be made. Thereupon a preliminary decree for partition was passed by the Court of Appeal below on the 28th January 1922. On the 18th April 1922 the respondent presented an application before the Court of Appeal below purporting to be one for a review of its judgment praying that an order may be passed under Section 4 of the Partition Act of 1893 enabling the defendant-resp...
Tag this Judgment!Hochanuddi and anr. Vs. Abdul Hakim Mridha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.816
Cuming, J.1. This is an appeal in a suit for rent. The material facts are briefly these: One Raseswari held an 8-annas share in certain taluq. In this taluq there was a certain karsa holding held by one Babu Khan and the defendants held an under-raiyati under Babu Khan. Raseswari obtained a rent-decree for her share of the rent and put the karsa holding to sale and purchased it herself. She then proceeded to let out the karsa right to the present plaintiffs and they have brought this suit for rent against the defendants alleging that they are the raiyats and that the defendants are their under-raiyats. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs contending that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between them and the plaintiffs. Their case was that they were raiyats and not under-raiyats and that the interest conveyed by Raseswari in the plaintiffs' favour was of the same denomination as their own and that, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to sue the...
Tag this Judgment!Janakinath Singha Roy Vs. Nirode Baran Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal175,90Ind.Cas.811
1. The plaintiff who is the appellant brought a suit for recovery of possession of a certain property and for mesne profits. He obtained a preliminary decree which directed that 'the plaintiffs do recover from the defendants wasilat from the date of dispossession to the date of recovery of possession, that the amount of wasilat may be ascertained later on upon the plaintiff's application'. This decree was passed on the 26th September 1918. The plaintiff applied for the determination of the mesne profits and at the same time he filed an application for substitution of the heirs of defendant No. 1 Bepin Krishna Roy in his place who had died before that This application of the plaintiff was (sic) as made in execution proceedings. It appears that no definite order was passed upon the plaintiff's application for substitution. But processes were issued against the heirs sought to be substituted and they entered appearance and took part in the proceedings before the Commissioner. In June 1922...
Tag this Judgment!Hochanuddi and anr. Vs. Abdul Hakim Mridha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal158
Cuming, J.1. This is an appeal in a suit for rent. The material facts are briefly these. One Raseswari held an 8 anna share in a certain taluq. In this taluq there was a certain karsa holding held by one Babu Khan and the defendants held an under-raiyati under Babu Khan. Raseswari obtained a rent decree for her share of the rent and put the karsa holding to sale and purchased it herself. She then proceeded to let out the karsa right to the present plaintiffs and they have brought this suit for rent against the defendants alleging that they are the raiyats and that the defendants are their under-raiyats. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs contending that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between them and the plaintiffs. Their case was that they were raiyats and not under-raiyats and that the interest conveyed by Raseswari in the plaintiffs' favour was of the same denomination as their own and that, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to sue th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »