Kolkata Court June 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.
Ram Ballav Marwari Vs. Mriganka Lal Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal660,91Ind.Cas.715
1. This is an appeal against a decision of the District Judge of Bankura confirming a decision of the Subordinate Judge of that place. The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover possession of a plot of land about 1 bighq, in area. The plaintiff, claimed the land as a portion of the land which he had been granted under a lease dated the 12th Magh 1285 from the then patnidar Ali Zamin. The defendant purchased the patni right at a patni arid rent sales in the years 1913 and 1914. The dispute between the parties is whether the land in suit is included in the land which was leased to the plaintiff. The lease has not been translated or put forward before us but from the judgment it appears that the land is described as measuring 2 bighas from, north to south and 16 cottas from east to west. At the trial the main issue was as to the position of the line towards the south from which this 2 bighas to the north should be measured. In Aswin 1286 B.S. the plaintiff's father had taken a settlement...
iswor Sant and ors. Vs. Torendra Nath Kuila
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.981
1. This is an appeal against a decree in ejectment. The predecessor of the defendants was an under-raiyat under the plaintiff.2. The main question in this appeal is whether that under-raiyati tenancy descended to the defendants by inheritance. The first Court held that the defendants, predecessor was an under-raiyat with right of occupancy, and that the defendants had succeeded to that right. The lower Appellate Court has held that the defendants had no right of occupancy and were mere trespassers on the land and that the plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to a decree for khas possession of the same. We think that the learned Subordinate Judge who decided the case in the lower Appellate Court was in error so far as he held that the question whether the defendants had a right of occupancy in the disputed land was res judicata. In a previous suit in ejectment which was inter partes the Munsif who tried the suit held that the defendants had no right of occupancy but he dismissed the suit ...
iswar Sant and ors. Vs. Torendra Nath Kuila
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal163
1. This is an appeal against a decree in ejectment. The predecessor of the defendants was an under-raiyat under the plaintiff.2. The main question in this appeal is whether that under raiyati tenancy descended to the defendants by inheritance. The first Court held that the defendants' predecessor was an under raiyat with right of occupancy and that the defendants had succeeded to that right. The lower appellate Court has held that the defendants had no right of occupancy and were mere trespassers on the land and that the plaintiff was therefore entitled to a decree for khas possession of the same. We think that the learned Subordinate Judge who decided the case in the lower Court was in error so far as he held that the question whether the defendants had a right of occupancy in the disputed land was res judicata. In a previous suit in ejectment which was inter partes the Munsif who tried the suit held that the defendants had no right of occupancy but he dismissed the suit on the ground...
Shiekh Rasak Ali Alias Rased Ali Mandal and ors. Vs. Sheikh Hazi Abdul ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.610
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for declaration of their 14-annas share in certain immoveable properties and also for partition, the plaintiffs' case shortly stated was this: the properties in suit belonged originally to two brothers Moshim and Basiruddin each had an 8-annas share in the properties. Moshim died leaving a widow Atta Bibi, a son and a daughter. It appears that in 1881 Atta Bibi for herself and as guardian of her two minor children sold a 6-annas share of Moshim's property to her brother-in-law Basiruddin. Basiruddin in his turn sold this 6-annas share purchased by him together with the 8-annas share which belonged to himself in his own right aggregating to 14-annas share in the properties in suit to one Golam Nasraf, that subsequently Pairannessa Bibi widow of Basiruddin executed in 1892 a deed of release in favour of Golam Nasraf renouncing her interest in the properties sold by her husband. Now th...
Abbas Sheikh and ors. Vs. Neyamatennessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal540,91Ind.Cas.662
1. This is an appeal by the defendants against the decision of the District Judge of Murshidabad reversing the decision of the Munsif of Lalbagh. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for declaration of title and for khas possession on the ground that the defendants had denied the plaintiffs' title and possession. The defence put forward by the defendants was that the plaintiffs held the property benami for them. The First Court dismissed the suit holding that the transaction was a benami one and the plaintiffs were the benamidars of the defendants. The second Court set aside this finding and the suit was decreed with costs.2. The point raised before us on behalf of the appellants is that in view, of the statement contained in the plaint the decree for ejectment should not have been passed. Now, in para. 4 of the plaint the plaintiffs made the following allegations that the defendant took an under-raiyati settlement of the half share of Mobarak Hossain of the land described ...
Radha Nath Dutta and ors. Vs. Chandra Kumar Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal523,91Ind.Cas.718
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of the First Court, Backergunge, confirming a decision of the Munsif of Barisal. The plaintiffs sued for establishment of their title to and for khas possession of Dags Nos. 329, 358 and 359 of the Settlement Survey and claimed them as part of their howla and as accretions to Dag No. 300. Their case, was that in diara proceedings in 1913, the dags in suit were resumed by Government, assessed for revenue, and settled as a separate estate with the zemindar under whom the plaintiffs hold their tenure. In the Record pf Rights which was published in 1907, the dags in suit were found in possession of the defendants but the appellants contend that the defendants are bound by the diara proceedings and the dispute in this appeal is whether this is so or not.2. The Munsif has found that the defendants were not parties to the diara proceedings and that no notice was served on them and that the suit...
Rasak Ali Alias Rased Ali Mandal and ors. Vs. Hazi Abdul Rasid and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal524
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for declaration of their 14 annas share in certain immovable properties and also for partition. The plaintiffs' case, shortly stated, was this: the properties in suit belonged originally to two brothers Moshim and Basiruddin; each had an 8-annas share in the properties. Moshim died leaving a widow, Atta Bibi, a son and a daughter. It appears that in 1881 Atta Bibi, for herself and as guardian of her two minor children sold a 6-annas share of Moshim's property to her brother-in-law Basiruddin. Basiruddin in his turn sold this 6-annas share purchased by him together with the 8-annas share which belonged to himself in his own right, aggregating to 14-annas share in the properties in suit to one Golam Nasraf, that subsequently Pairannessa Bibi, widow of Basiruddin, executed in 1892 a deed of release in favour of Golam Nasraf renouncing her interest in the properties sold by her husband....
The Secretary of State for India in Council and Vs. Nemai Chand Mukher ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.752
Graham, J.1. These appeals are from decrees of the District Judge of Hooghly confirming decisions, of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Hooghly, and arise out of three suits brought, by the plaintiffs-respondents for declaration of their title to certain heels on the allegation that they form part of their jalkar Bankipore, and for recovery of possession thereof.2. The plaintiffs claimed that the said jalkar of the river Hooghly with all its heels, canals, water-courses, waterways, etc., appertaining to, connected with, and forming part thereof formed one of the mouzahs of the permanently settled estate known as huda barabahorkuli, being Touzi No. 46 of the Burdwan Collectorate, that they, and their predecessors had been in possession thereof since the time of the Decennial Settlement, and that they had been dispossessed by the defendants in these suits on certain dates, in the years 1914 and 1915. They claimed title both by virtue of settlement as well as by adverse possession.3. T...
Madhusudan Chakravarti and ors. Vs. Satish Chandra Nag and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal512,91Ind.Cas.620
Mukherji, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the defendants Nos. 27 to 31 from the decree of the learned Additional District Judge of Dacca, dated the 28th November 1922 by which he allowed the appeal of the defendant No. 1 in the suit and which appeal had been preferred agains the decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the 23rd August 1921.2. The facts out of which this appeal arises are these. The suit was originally instituted by plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 against two sets of defendants: one set being the tenants and the other the pro forma defendants who were the co-sharers of the plaintiffs. By an order passed on the 2nd June 1921 some co-sharer defendants, namely, the defendants Nos. 27 to 31 who are the appellants in this appeal were transferred to the category of the plaintiffs. On the 9th August 1921 a petition of compromise was put in, in the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs and some of the defendants namely, defendants Nos. 1, 33, 34 and 35. On the 23rd August 1921 ...
Maniraddi Molla Vs. Ambica Charan Karmakar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal734,91Ind.Cas.668
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 1 againest a decision of the Subordinate Judge, Khulna reversing a decision of the Munsif of the First Court of Bagerhat.2. The fact are as follows: The plaintiff is a Uduqdar and under him was raiyat named Felu. In execution of a decree obtained. by the plaintiff in a rent suit brought against Felu the plaintiff on the 19th August 1907 purchased the raiyati. He then proceeded to let out the land to defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 3 by a document Ex. B purported, to create an under-riuyoti in defendant No. 1 in March 1908. It is admitted that this document is inadmissible in evidence and that it is not valid as against the landlord. A rent suit was brought by the plaintiff against defendants Nos. 3 and 1 and in execution of the decree which he obtained therein the plaintiff purchased the holding on the 23rd April 1919 and this suit for khas possession was subsequently brought. The First Court held that as no notice under the Bengal ...