Kolkata Court December 1926 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.
Khetra Mohan Saha Sardar and ors. Vs. Akhil Chandra Das Bhowmik and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal431
Mukerji, J.1. The first party defendants are the appellants in this appeal. The appeal arises out of a suit which purports to have been instituted as one under Section 149, Sub-section (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. A suit was instituted by the appellants, the first party defendants against the second party defendants for recovery of arrears of rent. The latter denied relationship of landlord and tenant in that suit and contended that the money payable by them was payable not to the first party defendants but to a third party, namely, the plaintiffs, and-they deposited the money under the provision of Section 149, Sub-section (1) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Notice of such deposit was served upon the plaintiffs and the latter then instituted the present suit out of which this appeal has arisen. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below and the substantial ground upon which the decisions of the said Courts have been challenged before us m that if the suit be treated as one under ...
Sutu Howladar and ors. Vs. Alep and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal576,101Ind.Cas.792
1. The plaintiffs have appealed against the decree of the District Judge of Bakargunj dismissing their suit for declaration of their title to the lands in suit and for confirmation of their possession. They succeeded in the first Court. The lower appellate Court has found against them on the question of title.2. Three points have been argued before us on behalf of the appellants. The first is as regards the admissibility of certain chittahs. These chittahs were prepared some 50 years ago by the Government of its khas mahal within which admittedly the lands in dispute lay. It is contended that these chittahs were prepared by the Government not under its sovereign authority but as a private landlord and, therefore, are not admissible either under Section 36 or Section 83 of the Evidence Act. The point in dispute between the parties is as to whether the lands in suit appertain to a koli jote under jote Pitambar Mirdha which is subordinate to the taluk owned by the Defendants Nos. 4 to 10....
BepIn Behari Dandapat and ors. Vs. Trailakya Nath Dandapat and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal933
Mukerji, J.1. The principal defendants are the appellants in this appeal. The appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title' and confirmation of possession. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below. Plaintiffs' case shortly stated was that the land in suit had been purchased by them under a kabala, dated 1294, from a person who in his turn had made a purchase in respect of it in 1290. The plaintiffs alleged that after their purchase they were in possession of the land through a tenant named Haru, that thereafter they were in possession thereof through another tenant named Mahipati, and that the latter surrendered in 1317 corresponding to 1910 and that since then they wore in khas possession. In 1916 the lands were recorded in the record-of-rights in the names of the defendants and as the plaintiff's title and possession were thereby jeopardised they instituted the present suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession.2. In support of the plaintiffs' case...
Munshi Safar Ali Vs. Khosh Banu (Koshban in Petition) on His Death Her ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.614
Mitter, J.1. These two appeals arise out of one suit commenced by the plaintiff for khas possession of plots Nos. 1158 and 1159 of the Cadastral Survey from the defendants on the allegation that he took settlement of the lands from Waliulla in osat raiyati right of plot No. 1158 which was in his khas possession and of plot No. 1159 which was let out to one Arif Meah in meadi osat raiyati right and that after his death it came into the khas possession of the landlord as it was an under raiyati right and was neither heritable nor transferable. The defence is that she acquired an interest in the land in suit with reference to both the plots by virtues of her kobala from her husband Arif Meah in consideration of her dower. The first Court held that plot No. 1158 was outside the kobala and that in plot No. 1159 Arif had only a meadi right and was holding the land from year to year and that the defendant was never recognized by the superior landlord. The first Court decreed the suit with reg...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Fakir Mahammad Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.349
B.B. Ghose, J.1. All these appeals are on behalf of the Secretary of State against the judgment of the Special Land Acquisition Judge of Alipore in a number of cases which were heard by him on reference made under the Land Acquisition Act. The reference was with respect to the valuation of the property made by the Collector.2. Appeal No. 57 should be taken up first as it involves a question of law with reference to the interpretation of the Bengal Sanitary Drainage Act VIII of 1895 (B.C.). The land in question in all these cases was acquired for the purpose of constructing a drainage under that Act. The land in connection with Appeal No. 57 was in the bed of a watercourse and the Collector purporting to act under the provisions of Section 16 of Act VIII of 1895 allowed no compensation for the land in question. The appellant asked for reference on the ground that the land was within his Zemindari and was valuable, and having regard to its advantageous position he ought to be allowed Rs....
BepIn Behari Dandapat and ors. Vs. Trailokya Nath Dandapat and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1926
Reported in: 102Ind.Cas.398
Mukerji, J.1. The principal defendants are the appellants in this appeal. The appeal arises out of a, suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below. Plaintiffs' case shortly stated was that the land in suit had been purchased by them under a kabala, dated 1294, from a person who in his turn had made a purchase in respect of it in 1290. The plaintiffs alleged that after their purchase they were in possession of the land through a tenant named Haru, that thereafter they were in possession thereof through another tenant named Mahipati, and that the latter surrendered in 1317 corresponding to 1910 and that since then they were in khas possession. In 1916 the lands were recorded in the Record of Rights in the names of the defendants and as the plaintiffs title and possession were thereby jeopardised they instituted the present suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession.2. In support of the plaintiffs' case,...
Chuni Lal Dutt and ors. Vs. Gopiram Bhotica
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal275
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case two questions have been argued on behalf of the appellant. It appears that the plaintiff and the defendant appellant were in treaty for letting out to the defendant certain premises 176 Harrison Road belonging to the plaintiff. The first document with which we have to deal is a document which came into existence on the 22nd March 1922 and it is contended by the appellant that the learned Judge should have excluded that document from evidence altogether. It is also contended by the appellant that the agreement founded on by the plaintiff is not proved and that the parties have not shown to have been ad idem as to the question whether or not anything in the way of carrying on business was to be allowed to the defendant on these premises.2. The question arose by reason of the fact that although according to the plaintiff the defendant was in possession having taken these premises for three years he suddenly vacated them altogether and refused any further to car...
Mayeuddi and ors. Vs. Mahammad Razzab Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal457
1. The plaintiffs who are the lessees from one Kiran Babu, the purchaser of an estate at a revenue sale, brought the present suit for recovery of possession of the lands in suit on the ground that they formed parts of the estate. The defence was that the lands were not part of the estate purchased by Kiran Babu, namely, Estate No. 3842 of the Backergunj Collectorate but of the 'Remainder' as shown in the thak map. They also pleaded limitation. There were various other points raised which need not be considered in this appeal as they have not been pressed. It appears that the estate was sold in 1888. In 1899 Kiran Babu sued the Defendants Nos. 1 to 19 and others for khas possession and took delivery of possession through Court on the 9th April 1907. It has been found by the learned District Judge that Kiran Babu remained in possession thereafter for a period of 15 days and was then dispossessed by all the defendants in this suit.2. This suit was brought on the 10-4-1919, and it is, ther...
JamiraddIn Ahmed Vs. Mt. Sahera Khatun Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal579,101Ind.Cas.760
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by a husband for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife. Several defences were taken on behalf of the wife, one being to the effect that there was a talak by reason of which the plaintiff was not entitled to claim restitution of conjugal rights any further. Various allegations were made against the husband in the written statement alleging inter alia that he had got no means, and that there was cruelty on his part. Both the Courts below have refused to grant the plaintiff the decree asked for in the suit. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the story as to talak was altogether unfounded. The Court of first instance towards the end of its judgment observed that the alliance between the husband and the wife was, an unhappy one unhappy from the side of both of thorn that the husband's only fault was that he was poor and foolish and that the wife was too intelligent to be under his protection. It observed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›