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.
Biswambhar Das Boral Vs. AmiruddIn Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.298
Cuming, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a sun to eject the defendant alter giving him notice to quit the facts are shortly these: The defendant held two leases one of 4-annas share in Mouza Chak. Bhabani and the other of 8-annas share of Mouza Debagram. These two leases were granted to the defendant by the zemindar of the village in 1300 B.S. The plaintiff got from the zemindar a paini lease of 16-annas share of these two villages in 1305 and 1306. In 1311, the plaintiff served the notice to quit on the defendant. The defendant disregarded this notice to quit and apparently the plaintiff took no further steps. Notice was again issued on the defendant but with similar result; and hence this suit.2. The case of the defendant was that he got two permanent leases of the land in question. Both the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court held that the defendant had a lease for life of the properties in question; and, therefore, the plaintiff vas not entitled to eject him.3. The plainti...
Becharam Choudhuri and ors. Vs. Purna Chandra Chatterji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal845
Walmsley, J.1. These appeals are preferred by the defendants and they arise from suits brought by the landlord for rent and for enhancement of the existing rents. The landlord's claim was made under Section 7 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. In the record-of-rights the tenures were described as permanent, but gar mokurari. The defendants asserted that the latter part of the entry was erroneous and that their rents were really fixed.3. After the publication of the record-of-rights the landlord presented an application under Section 105 of the Tenancy Act for settlement of a fair rent on these tenures: But he withdrew the application and obtained from the Settlement Officer an order permitting him to institute civil suits for the same purpose.4. Both the Courts below have held that Section 109 of the Tenancy Act does not bar the suits, on the ground that the application under Section 105 was withdrawn with permission to bring civil suits. On the merits, however, they disagreed, that is so fa...
Purna Chandra Chatterjee Vs. Narendra Nath Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal894
Walmsley, J.1. The question referred is as follows: 'When an application under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for settlement of rent is withdrawn with liberty to bring a fresh suit, whether a suit for enhancement of rent is barred by the provisions of Section 109 of the Bengal Tenancy Act?'2. There have been several conflicting decisions on the question, but I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to discuss them or even to enumerate them. It is enough to say that one set of decisions favours the view that an application under Section 105 (or Section 106) of the Tenancy Act, if withdrawn by permission of the Court, is to be regarded as not having been made, while the other set proceeds on the footing that the making of an application under either of those sections, whatever be its fate afterwards, brings into operation the prohibition contained in Section 109 of the Tenancy Act.3. The words of Section 109 are these 'subject to the provisions of Section 109A, a Civil Cou...
Becharam Choudhuri and ors. Vs. Puran Chandra Chatterji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.637
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. The question referred is as follows: 'When an application under: Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for settlement of rent is withdrawn with liberty to bring a fresh suit, whether a suit for enhancement of rent is barred by the provisions of Section 109 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.'2. There have been several conflicting decisions on the question but I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to discuss them or even to enumerate them. It is enough to say that one set of decisions favours the view that an application under Section 105 (or Section 105) of the Tenancy Act, if withdrawn by permission of the Court, is to be regarded as not having been made, while the other set proceeds on the footing that the making of an application under either of those sections, whatever be its fate afterwards, brings into operation the prohibition contained in Section 109 of the Tenancy Act.3. The words of Section 109 are these: 'Subject to the provisions of Section 109A a Civi...
(Hafez) Ahmed Yar Khan Vs. Dina Nath Sadhukhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1148,90Ind.Cas.40
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal arises out of a sale of a holding situated in dihi Panchanagram. The plaintiff was the owner of a portion of the Holding No. 166. The share of rent which he had to pay was Re. 1-3-9 per annum. The kabuliyat executed in respect of the whole Holding No. lot) is dated the 6th February 1873 According to that, the tenant undertook to pay the agreed rent annually on or before the 28th day of June into the Collectorate. Now, it would be tedious to narrate the facts of the case of Haji Elahi Buksh which led to an alteration in the notification passed under Section 3 of Act XI of 1859. It is enough to record the fact that there has been a change made. 'I he question of what is the latest data has been considered by the learned Judge, but, for the present purpose, I think the only point which we have to consider is what was the date on which the rent of each year was payable to the Collector. It has been urged before us that the stipulation in the kabuliyat means that ...
Naresh Chandra Bose Vs. Krishna Bhabini Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal505,94Ind.Cas.997
1. This appeal by the judgment debtor is directed against an order of the lower Court, dated the 2nd March 1923. The decree-holder obtained a decree in respect of maintenance due to her from the estate of the judgment-debtor's father. The decree was for a certain sum but there was no mention in it that the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the sum decreed. The lower Court on the application of the decree-holder allowed her interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum on the arrears from the time they fell due and has also directed the maintenance to be calculated from the 1st Chaitra 1322. The maintenance was fixed at Rs. 275 a month. The judgment debtor had already before suit paid Rs. 200 on account of the month of Chaitra. The execution, therefore, related to Rs. 75 for that month. The appellant contends that the order of the lower Court allowing interest on the decretal amount and allowing maintenance from the beginning of the month of Chaitra is bad in law.2. With regard to t...
Mahammed Ismail and ors. Vs. Sharfatullah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.763
Chakravarti, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit brought by them for redemption and after redemption for recovery of possession of the mortgaged property. The facts shortly stated are these:2. It appears that the predecessors of the plaintiffs gave a mortgage or the properties in suit in favour of the predecessors of defendants Nos. 1 to 12. The plaintiffs alleged that the mortgage was an usufructuary mortgage and that under the conditions of that mortgage the mortgagees were to enjoy possession of the properties in lieu of interest and that the mortgage would be redeemable on payment of the principal money which was a sum of Rs. 188. It is not stated that there was any date fixed for the re-payment of the money and as it would appear later on no such date was fixed at the time of the original mortgage transaction. The plaintiffs now want to redeem the mortgage of 1854 on payment of the principal amount which was paid under the mortgage. It was further allege...
Srimati Jamila Khatun and ors. Vs. Gour Mohan Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal979,91Ind.Cas.675
1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Noakhali affirming the order of the Munsif, First Court, Noakhali, dismissing an application under Section 47 of the C.P.C. The petitioner who is the appellant was examined on commission from 9-30 A.M. till 1 P.M. She then refused to answer any more question put to their in cross-examination on the ground that her head was puzzled. The commission then closed the examination and submitted his report and the Munsif held that she deserved examplary punishment as a witness for her conduct and thought that the mere discarding of her evidence would be sufficient punishment. The learned District Judge has held and we agree with him that this order of the Munsif was wrong and the evidence should not have been discarded. He has held, however, that the Munsif was right in rejecting the application on account of what subsequently happened. At a subsequent date when the case came up for hearing the petitioner had some witnesses presen...
Sri Sri Newal Kishore Jew Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal187,89Ind.Cas.671
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in the suit, who is an. idol Sri Sri Newal Kishore Jew, appearing by his shebait Panchu Gopal Seal, against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of the Second Court of Hooghly. On the 27th June 1922 a certain touzi which was the property of the idol was sold for arrears of Government revenue. The arrears amounted to a sum of Rs. 155 and after deduction of this amount a sum of Rs. 9,344 remained as the balance of the sale-proceeds of the touzi. Panchu Gopal claiming to be the shebait of the idol asked that this amount should be paid over to him on behalf of the idol. This was refused on the ground that Panchu was not registered as a shebait of the idol and that his father Dwarika who died in the year 1918 still remained on the register, no mutation having been effect. As a Result, this suit was commenced for the. establishment of the shebaitship of Panchu and of his consequent right to the surplus sale-proceeds on behalf of the idol....
Baikuntha Chandra Dhupi and ors. Vs. Prahlad Chandra Dhupi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.583
Cuming, J.1. The facts of this appeal are as follows: The appellant obtained an ex parte, decree against the respondents in a certain Title Suit No. 3 of 1917. The respondents then sued the appellant to set aside this ex parte decree on the ground that it was obtained by suppression of processes, by adducing false evidence and by wrongly including certain land within his tenancy which did not belong to the tenancy. The Court of first instance found that there had been no suppression of processes and that the respondent was fully aware of the progress of the suit. He further found that the appellant's suit was wholly false and that the decree was obtained by the production of false evidence and by the practice of fraud on the Court and decreed the respondent's suit. On appeal to this District Court this decision was upheld. The learned Judge there held agreeing with the Court of first instance that the respondent was fully aware of the suit and that processes have been served upon him. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »