Kolkata Court February 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.
Hara Prasad GaIn and ors. Vs. Gopal Chandra GaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal315
Suhrawardy, J.1. These appeals arise out of a suit by the appellants for recovery of possession of one-half share of the plaint lands on declaration of their alleged title therein and setting aside the sales of the properties under the Public Demands Recovery Act (3 of 1913, B.C.). It will be necessary to mention a few dates in order to understand fully the contentions raised by the parties in these cases. The properties are four in number, and are described in Schedules ka, kha, ga and gha of the plaint. The Schedule ka. property was sold under a certificate issued by the certificate officer under the Public Demands Recovery Act and purchased by Defendant No. 1 on the 28tb October 1918. The sale was confirmed on the 3rd January 1919 and delivery of possession was given to the purchaser on the 23rd August 1919. The sale of 'kha' property was held on the 23rd December 1918 and confirmed on the 24th February 1919 and delivery of possession made to the purchasers, Defendants Nos. 2 and 3,...
Naturam Barman Alias Nutu Adhikari Vs. Ulluk Chand Barman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1041,95Ind.Cas.700
1. The decision of the learned Subordinate Judge in this case is clearly wrong. The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of the earnest money paid to the defendants for an agreement to sell certain land. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants did not agree to perform their part of the contract and on that ground he Drought the suit for recovery of the earnest money and Rs. 320 by way of damages as stipulated in the agreement. The Munsif gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 400. The defendants appealed. On appeal the learned Judge by curious misreading of the case in Amma Bibi v. Udit Narain Misra 1 Ind. Cas. 890 : 9 C. L. J. 512 : 31 A. 68; 11 Bom. L. R. 525; 19 M. L. T. 89; 36 I. A. 41 (P. C.). held that as the plaintiff was entitled to sue for specific performance of the contract he is not entitled to sue for damages or for recovery of the earnest money. This is clearly erroneous. If the defendants were not willing to perform the contract the plaintiff might very well say that he ...
Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Bhola Mia Majumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal15
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1920 to 1922 at the rate of Rs. 22-8-0 per year with cesses and damages and also for enhancement of rent under Sections 7, 52 and 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plea of the defendants was that they held the land in mokurari mourasi interest, no kabuliyat had been executed by their predecessor as alleged by the plaintiff and that some of the lands alleged by the plaintiff as within the tenure were their lakheraj lands. The Munsif found that the lands held by the defendants constituted a tenure and that the defendants' predecessor had executed a kabuliyat in favour of the plaintiff's predecessor for some time in 1853. Then he found that under the terms of the kabuliyat the rent is liable to enhancement and upon the evidence he enhanced the rent by certain amount which it is not necessary now to state. The defendants appealed against the decision of the Munsif and the Additional District Jud...
Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Bhola Mia Majumdar and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.385
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1920 to 1922 at the rate of Rs. 22-8-0 per year with, cesses and damages and also for enhancement of rent under Sections 7, 52 and 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plea of the defendants was that they held the land in mokurari mourasi interest, no kabuliyat had been executed by their predecessor as alleged by the plaintiff and that some of the lands alleged by the plaintiff as within the tenure were their lakheraj lands. The Munsif found that the lands held by the defendants constituted a tenure and that the defendants' predecessor had executed a kabuliyat in favour of the plaintiff's predecessor for some time in 1853. Then he found that under the terms of the kabuliyat the rent is liable to enhancement and upon the evidence he enhanced the rent by certain amount which it is not necessary now to state. The defendants appealed against the decision of the Munsif and the Additional District Ju...
Nagendra Nath Singha Vs. Srimati Nagendra Bala Chowdhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal988,97Ind.Cas.200
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. The set two appeals maybe dealt with, together, for they are both directed against the same judgment. In a suit for damages, a decree has been made directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 7,071-5-0 with the result that defendant has preferred an appeal (No. 170) in which he asks us to hold that he is not liable at all, or, in any event, that the sum should be assessed at a much lower figure, while the plaintiff has preferred an appeal (No. 245) claiming a larger amount.2. The circumstances are as follows: The plaintiff, a lady, the wife of Baroda Prosad Rai Choudhuri, erected a large pucca building at No. 52 Beni Nandan Street, Bhowanipur, in 1915-1916. The plan of the building was prepared by a firm styled Sinha and Sarkar, of which the defendant Nagendra Nath Sinha is the working partner. In July 1915 the plaintiff engaged the defendant to watch the erection of the building, on a salary of Rs. 125 monthly, and he continued to be so employed until April 1916, w...
Gokul Chandra Ray Vs. Radha Govinda Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1210,97Ind.Cas.1013
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are these: An application was made on the 14th June, 1921,byafirm of the name of Baisnab Charan, Radha Charan Shaha and other creditors to have certain persons declared insolvent. The adjudication order was duly made on the 4th of January, 1922, and the Schedule as required under Section 33 of the Provincial Insolvency Act was prepared on the 27th July, 1922. A Receiver of the estate was appointed. On the 30th January, 1923, Gokul Chandra Ray one of the creditors whose name was already entered in the Schedule in respect of certain debt due to him applied to the Court and stated that by mistake certain other debts had not been proved by him and asked that he should be allowed to prove those debts also. The learned District Judge refused this application. He was of opinion that once a creditor has proved a debt and his name, has been entered in the Schedule it is not open to him to prove any other debt. Whether this d...
Munshi SalimuddIn Ahmad Vs. Rahim Sheik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.1038
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out o a suit for rent under the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff-landlord obtained a decree for the entire amount of his claim in the Court of first instance. The tenants-defendants preferred an appeal which was held as barred by the provisions of Section 153 of the Act. They preferred-a second appeal to this Court with the result that the decree of the Subordinate Judge has been set aside and the case has been remitted to his. Court for the appeal being dealt with on the merits. Against this judgment the present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. The judgment under appeal has held that a first appeal lay, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 153, for the decree of the trial Court decided a question of the amount of rent annually payable by the tenants. The plaintiff's case was that he bad purchased the interest of one Bepin from his sole widow Janaka Sundari. The defendants in their written stateme...
SalimuddIn Ahammad Vs. Rahim Sheik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1113
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent under the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff landlord obtained a decree for the entire amount of his claim in the Court of first instance. The tenants defendants preferred an appeal which was held as barred by the provisions of Section 153 of the Act. They preferred a second appeal to this Court with the result that the decree of the Subordinate Judge has been set aside and the case has been remitted to his Court for the appeal being dealt with on the merits. Against this judgment the present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff under Clause (15) of the Letters Patent.2. The judgment under appeal has held that a first appeal lay, not withstanding the provisions of Section 153, for the decree of the trial Court decided a question of the amount of rent annually payable by the tenants. The plaintiff's case was that he had purchased the interest of one Bepin from his sole widow Janaka Sundari. The defendants in their written stat...
Tarak Govinda Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Indu Jyoti Majumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1929Cal452
1. The appellants who are three brothers instituted a suit against the Chairman and Commissioners of the Patna Municipality for, amongst others, a declaration that the assessment of a personal tax on them of Rs. 21 per quarter was illegal and ultra vires. The suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The appellants contend, in the first instance, that the imposition of a personal tax jointly against them is illegal as has been recently held to be so by this Court. We have considered the question whether we should allow the appellants to urge this contention now when it was not urged in any of the Courts below or even in their grounds of appeal to this Court. We think we shall not be justified in doing so.2. They next urge that in assessing the tax the meaning of the expression 'according to their circumstances and property within the municipality' appearing in Section 85 (a) has been misunderstood. Now the Subordinate Judge appears to have proceeded upon the following findings:...
Debendra Nath Mitra Majumdar Vs. Sheik Sefatulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal130
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff obtained in the Court of first instance a decree declaring his title as Mutwalli to the lands in suit and entitling him to recover possession thereof from the defendant. That decree has been affirmed on appeal by the lower appellate Court and tin defendant has preferred this second appeal.2. The history of the wakf to which the suit relate is important. One Khairat Ali in 123i made a wakf in respect of a third share of his properties, and gave the remaining two-thirds share to his two grandson? Dadali and Mohamedali in equal shares the grandsons partitioned the proparties between themselves, and the property now in suit fall to the share of Dadali. The latter, by a deed dated 1265, made a wakf in respect of his properties and appointed his two wives Akbarannesa and Nujamannesa as Mutwallis the two wives acted as Mutwallis till the death of one of them, viz., of Akbarannesa, when the othar viz., Nujamannasa became the sole Mutwalli. She, in 1298 and before he...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »