Kolkata Court May 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.
Jabeda Khatun and anr. Vs. Mohommad Mozaffar Ali Musani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal322
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by Defendants Nos. 1-4 against a decision of the Officiating Subordinate Judge of Dinajpur.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was originally instituted by the Receiver of a wakf estate for a declaration that the father of the defendants had no right to enjoy the property in suit which consisted of 1440 bighas of nishkar land, at a permanent and invariable rent, for a declaration that neither Syed Sadaruddin-Al-Musari or any other mutwalli of the wakf estate had any right to permanently settle the land in suit and that if Syed Sadaruddin had so settled it the plaintiff is not bound by the settlement and asked that it should be set aside, that the defendants might be ejected and the plaintiff given khas possession and a decree for mesne profits. There was an alternative prayer for enhancement of rent if a decree for ejectment was not passed.3. The plaintiff became mutwalli of the wakf subsequent to the institution of the suit in the year 1325 and ...
Nrisinha Charan Nandi Choudhuri Vs. Batasi Dashi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal106,90Ind.Cas.602
1. These tour appeals arise out of four suits for enhancement of rent of an occupancy holding. The Trial Court held that there was no ground for enhancement and refused the enhancement and this finding was upheld in appeal.2. In the appeals before us one point has been taken namely that the plaintiff was not allowed to put in evidence certain collection papers. Admittedly these papers were not filed in the First Court at the first hearing. Order XIII, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. provides. 'The parties or their Pleaders shall produce at the first hearing of the suit all documentary evidence, etc.' As already stated these documents were not produced at the first hearing of the suit. Order XIII, Rule 2 of the C.P.C. provides that, 'no documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of Rule 1 shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction o...
G.L. Sitaram Vs. R.M. Redden
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal529,91Ind.Cas.760
1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Midnapore granting the insolvent a conditional discharge under Section 41 of the Provincial Insolvency Act V of 1920. The insolvent in this case R.M. Redden is a guard employed in the Bengal Nagpur Railway. At the time of his application in, insolvency that is on the 27th October, 1919 his total pay with allowances was Rs. 248. His total debts, as shown in the application were Rs. 3,619. Except his pay and allowances he had no other assets. On the 21st February 1920 the Court made an order directing him to pay Rs. 25 a. month. This amount was paid more or less regularly up to July 1923. In the meantime he made two applications for his discharge. The first was refused on the 29th August 1922. His second application, on which was passed the order against which this appeal is preferred, was made on. the 10th April 1923. The order that is passed was that he should get a conditional discharge on condition that he pays the credi...
Gour Routh Vs. Digamber Giri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal790,96Ind.Cas.669
1. This was an application by a judgment-debtor under Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C., to set aside a sale, in execution of a rent-decree on the ground of irregularity. It was resisted by the decree-holder and by the auction-purchaser.2. The purchase price was Rs. 50, though the value is found to be about Rs. 1,000. The learned Munsif set aside the sale on the ground that the processes were not properly served and the lands had been sold at an extremely inadequate price. On appeal to the District Judge it was held upon the facts that the application was barred by limitation; and upon the merits also the Judge found that there was no fraud or irregularity as regards the proclamation or in publishing and conducting the sale. Consequently the appeal was allowed and the application dismissed.3. Before us on second appeal it is contended that the decision, of the learned District Judge cannot, stand because no appeal lay from the judgment of the Munsif. It has been shown to. our satisfaction tha...
Matta Majhi Vs. Gopi Nath Karmakar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.951
1. This appeal arises out of a certain application under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to fix a fair and equitable rent of a certain holding.2. The case of the plaintiff was that in the finally published Record of Rights the holding in question was recorded in the Khatian No. 45 of Mouza Simulberia No. 53 Thana Chhatna and that the defendant was recorded as a tenant of the plaintiff and he is liable to pay rent to the plaintiff for the land in question, that he has not paid any rent and, therefore, the plaintiff asked the Court to fix a fair and equitable rent.3. The case of the defendant was that he did not hold the land in question under the plaintiff but he held the land in question under one Shyama Charan Karmakar at a fixed rent of Rs. 5-1. The Assistant Settlement Officer held that the defendant held the land in question under the plaintiff and he fixed a fair and equitable rent at Rs. 23 4-9.4. The defendant appealed to the District Judge and on appeal he did not contest...
Manmatha Nath Choudhury Vs. Choudhury Jamini Nath Mallik Represented b ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal246,90Ind.Cas.768
1. The petitioner in this Rule was the plaintiff in a suit in which a Commissioner was appointed to make a local enquiry. After the Commissioner had submitted a report he was directed to make a further enquiry and submit a fresh report, and the petitioner was directed on the 3rd July 1924 to deposit Rs. 60 within three days of that date as Commissioner's fee, etc., and the hearing of the suit was adjourned to the 21st July. On the 21st July it appears that this sum had not been paid and the plaintiff's explanation was not accepted by the Court and his application for time was rejected. Thereon the plaintiff's Pleader stated that he had no further instruction, and the suit was dismissed for plaintiff's default. The plaintiff then applied to the Trying Court under Rule 9 of Order IX, C.P.C. for revival of the suit. That application was rejected. On appeal to the District Judge the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the order passed by the Subordinate Judge was not in a proceeding co...
Chengtu Sarkar Vs. JaheruddIn Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.669
Chakravarti, J.1. These are two appeals by the plaintiff who brought two suits for rent for two holdings against different defendants. Both the suits were, by consent of parties, tried together by the Court below and governed by one and the same judgment. The facts shortly stated are these. The plaintiff alleged that one Jadav granted adarputni of 4 annas share in the year 1315. On the death of Jadav, his son granted to the plaintiff a darputni of the remaining 12 annas by a potta dated the 24th Falgoon 1321. It is further alleged that the defendant Jaharuddin Mondal and another defendants in one of the suits executed a kabutiyat in favour of the plaintiff acknowledging the plaintiff to he the landlord of the 16 annas. The defendants in both the suits have, since the plaintiff became the owner of the 16 annas of the property, paid him rent. It appears that one Ananda Ohaki brought a 4-annas share of the putni to sale as having belonged to one Mohi Pal and that the plaintiff in order to...
Hem Chandra Sen and ors. Vs. Girish Chandra Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal710,92Ind.Cas.107
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs and arises out of an application made by the landlord under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The question with which we are concerned is whether the landlords are entitled to an enhancement of rent under Section 30(6) of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The defence of the defendants was that the tenancy was held at a permanent fixed rent; and the tenants in order to establish their claim relied upon the presumption under Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer in the Court of first instance found that as regards the khatians which are now before us that is Khatian Nos. 17 and 25, the presumption was rebutted because it was shown that additional land was added to the holding at a time subsequent to the Permanent Settlement. In that view the Trial Court held that the tenants were not entitled to the presumption under Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.3. On appeal by the defendants the learned Special J...
Hari Barman Vs. Khatijan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.737
Chakravarti, J.1. We think this appeal ought to succeed. The plaintiff brought a suit for a declaration that the sale of the tenure at the instance of the landlord in execution of a decree for arrears of rent was brought about by fraud. The defendant No. 6 purchased the holding at that sale. The plaintiff alleged that such a sale had affected prejudicially his right as a usufructuary mortgagee under a mortgage executed by the tenants in his favour in the year 1324, by virtue of which he had been in possession of the land in suit. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for an order directing the sale to be set aside and also for a declaration to the effect that the sale was vitiated by fraud and, therefore, was of no effect so far as he was concerned.2. The defence of the defendants, amongst others, raised the question that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief on the ground that he had no interest in the holding as against the landlord.3. The Court of first instance found that the sal...
Andoru Akanda and ors. Vs. Nasir Akanda and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.1010
Panton, J.1. The only question for decision in these second appeals is whether the first part of Section 1 of Regulation XI of 1825 applies to land forming from the bed of a small and shallow river where bed is recognized as the property of an individual. The learned Munsif found that it did; in appeal the learned Subordinate Judge has expressed the contrary opinion.2. The form in which the question presents itself in the present case is that the appellants are the owners of occupancy holdings to which holdings the disputed land has accreted: the respondents are lessees of the zemindar to whom the bed of the river belongs. It is important to notice that the appellants do not pretend that the land in dispute was at any time part of their holdings before its recent emergence. The principle, then which applies to the case is the same as that which would apply in a contest between the 'recognized proprietor' of the bed of the river on the one hand and a different riparian proprietor.3. For...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »