Kolkata Court April 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.
Abdul Hamid Choudhuri and anr. Vs. Brojendra Kumar Roy Choudhury and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal290,90Ind.Cas.643
1. These two appeals arise out of two suits (Nos. 35 and 36) for recovery, of possession of certain lands on declaration of plaintiff's title thereto.2. It appears that Taluk No. 130 of the Mymensingh Collectorate was partitioned in 1261 among the proprietors, and the estate was divided into 14 estates Nos. 6042 to 6054 and 130, out of which Estate No. 6049 was allotted to the predecessors of the plaintiff, and Estates Nos. 6042 and 6052 to the defendants' predecessors-in-title. In No. 1265 (1849) a batwara chitta was prepared, and Dag No. 372 was allotted to plaintiff's Estate No. 6049.3. The plaintiffs claimed the lands of both the suits, as being covered by Dag No. 372. Suit No. 35 related to Cadastral Survey Dags Nos. 186 to 195 and 203 but, the plaintiffs by a petition gave up their claim to Dags Nos. 186 to 195 in the Court below and the claim with respect to, those Dags was accordingly dismissed. Dag No. 203 was claimed by the defendants as appertaining to their Estate No. 6052 ...
Baikuntha Nath Chakravarti and ors. Vs. Umanath Chakravarti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.498
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal, has arisen the plaintiffs sued for partition of some 11 plots of land. The plaintiffs' allegation was that oat of 11 plots of land plots Nos. 1 to 4 had already been partitioned and of these plots plots Nos. 1 to 3 had fallen to the share of defendant No. 9 Mahim and plot No. 4 to defendants Nos. 1 to. 3 and the remaining plots Nos. 5 to 11 were held join as between defendants Nos. 1 to 9. The plaintiffs had purchased the share of defendant No. 9 in the property by a kobala dated 21st Sraban 1323 and on this allegation he asked for partition of the property. The First Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit holding that they had no title or possession in the property in dispute and this finding was upheld on appeal to the District Court. The plaintiffs have now appealed to this Court and their contention is that certain documents, namely, a geneology, jama-kharach and collection papers which he had desired to be produced by defendant No. ...
Ananta Dew Adhikar Goswami Vs. Joydeb Sarma and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1244
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decision of the District Judge of the Assam Valley confirming a decision of the Subordinate Judge. The suit was brought for a. declaration that certain property was subject to a religious endowment and that it belonged to an idol and that the temple formed part of the religious endowment of which the plaintiff was adhikar or shebait. The lower appellate Court has found that the plaintiff entirely failed to prove his title and his possession within 12 years of the suit.2. The main attack that has been made in this appeal is with regard to the latter finding. It is stated that on the facts adverse possession for 12 years does not bar the plaintiff's suit having regard to the provisions of Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act. So far as the question of title is concerned, we think, that the finding is sufficient to dispose of the appeal. The plaintiff sued to recover the land as and adhikar of the parent Satra at Kaliabar of wh...
Khatemy ChhaikuddIn Chaudhury and ors. Vs. Ram NaraIn Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.617
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment of the purchaser of a jote by the landlord. The plaintiff's case was that one Trailakhya Nath Chaudhury was the former tenant of the jote, that the defendants were in possession as purchasers of the whole mouza and as Trailakhya or his heirs were not in possession of any portion of the jote the defendants were trespassers although they purported to purchase the jote which was an ordinary non-occupancy holding or a non-permanent tenure which is not transferable. The defence was that the jama was a permanent tenure, that the son of Trailakhya had mortgaged it to the defendant's predecessor Khetshi Das who bought and obtained possession of the property in execution of the mortgage-decree in 1903 and that the defendants purchased the jama from Khetshi in 1907 and had been in possession since then. Both the Courts below on this pleading and the evidence in the case have found that the plaintiffs have lost their right to recover possession by...
(Khatemey) ChhaikuddIn Choudhury and anr. Vs. Ram Narayan Ghose and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal364(1)
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment of the purchaser of a jote by the landlord. The plaintiff's case was that one Trailakhya Nath Choudhury was the former tenant of the jote, that the defendants were in possession as purchasers of the whole mouja and as Trailakhya or his heirs were not in possession of any portion of the jote, the defendants were trespassers although they purported to purchase the jote which was an ordinary non-occupancy holding or a non-permanent tenure which is not transferable. The defence was that the jama was a permanent tenure, that the son of Trailakhya had mortgaged it to the defendants' predecessor, Khetshi Das, who bought and obtained possession of the property in execution of the mortgage decree in 1903 and that the defendants purchased the jama from Khetshi in 1907 and had been in possession since then, Both the Courts below on this pleading and the evidence in the case have found that the plaintiffs have lost their right to recover possession...