Kolkata Court March 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.
Midnapore Zemindary Co., Ltd. Vs. Amulya Nath Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.649
Cuming, J.1. In the suits out of which these two Appeals Nos. 249 and 250 have arisen the plaintiffs who were some three in number sued the defendants, the Midna-pore Zemindari Co., for a declaration of their lakheraj title and for recovery of possession of the disputed lands on the ground that these lands in suit appertain to a certain Nishkar Mehal which they held and that they had been dispossessed by the defendants Company who have included some plots of their lakheraj lands in the rent lands which the plaintiffs held under the defendants. The defendants had sued them for rent both of the rent land and the lakheraj land and so dispossessed them; they, therefore, sue for declaration of their title and recovery of possession.2. The defendants Company contested the suit and their case was that the Record of Rights was in their favour, the plaintiffs had no lakheraj title to the lands in suit and the case was barred by limitation.3. The Trial Court decided all the issues against the pl...
Midnapore Zamindary Co., Ltd. Vs. Amulya Nath Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal893
Cuming, J.1. In the suits out of which these two appeals Nos. 249 and 250, have arisen the plaintiffs, who were some three in number, sued the defendants, the Midnapore Zemindari Co., for a declaration of their lakheraj title and for recovery of possession of the disputed lands on the ground that these lands in suit appertain to a certain nishkar mahal which they held and that they had been dispossessed by the defendant company who have included some plots of their lakheraj lands in the rent lands which the plaintiffs held under the defendants. The defendants had sued them for rent, both of the rent land and the lakheraj land, and so dispossessed them; they therefore sue for declaration of their title and recovery of possession. The defendant company contested the suit and their case was that the record-of-rights was in their favour; the plaintiffs had no lakheraj title to the lands in suit and the case was barred by limitation.2. The trial Court decided, all the issues against the pla...
Samiulla Vs. Nil Mamud
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal13,97Ind.Cas.564
B.B. Ghose, J.1. Two points have been raised in this appeal on behalf of the defendant-appellant. The plaintiff sued the defendant for arrears of rent at a certain rate with regard to a piece of land in the possession of the defendant. In the alternative, he claimed that, if the tenancy was not proved, he might be allowed damages against the defendant for use and occupation of the land. The defendant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and his case was that the land never belonged to the plaintiff, but was his own land. The plaintiff claimed title by virtue of an auction-purchase in execution of a decree on a mortgage alleged to have been executed by the defendant's father. The plaintiff's case was that after the auction-purchase he had been in possession of the land and that the defendant came into occupation in the year 1325 B.S. by virtue of a contract of lease. The defendant's plea was that the piece of land had never been mortgaged by his father, that assuming that it w...
Surja Kumar Roy Choudhry Vs. Kamakhya Charan Chatterji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal323,97Ind.Cas.760
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiffs sued for a declaration that a certain patni tenure had been wrongly split up in the Record of Rights and recorded under a wrong landlord and that two other holdings, of which the plaintiffs are co-sharer landlords, had wrongly been recorded exclusively under the defendants share the main contention of the defendants was that the Record of Rights was correct. The first Court dealt with the case in a lengthly judgment extending over 43 pages, found, in the plaintiffs' favour and decreed the suit. The defendants appealed to the District Court. The District Court dismissed the appeal with costs and upheld the finding of the trial Court.2. Against this order the Defendant No. 1 has appealed to this Court. He first of all contends that the judgment is not in accordance with law, because it does not fulfil the conditions required by Order 41, Rule 31. Order 41; Rule 31 requires that a judgment of the appellate Court s...
Sheikh Intaz Alias Romar Bap and ors. Vs. Dina Nath De Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal856,96Ind.Cas.72
Cuming, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of khas possession of certain land on the declaration of the plaintiffs' title thereto. The plaintiffs' case was that the property in dispute belonged to defendant No. 1 who is the father of defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4. He mortgaged this property to the plaintiffs in 1904. They brought a suit on their mortgage bond, obtained a decree, in 1918, put the property to sale in execution of this decree and purchased it and obtained possession through the Court; the defendants, however, in collusion with each other had not allowed the plaintiffs to take possession.2. Defendant No. 1 apparently did not contest the suit. Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who are the sons of defendant No. 1 contended that the lands in suit did not belong to Hanif the father of defendant No. 1 but belonged to Mohali the mother of defendant No. 1 and that she made over these lands to defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 by a heba-beel-ewaj.3. The Trial Court decreed the suit...
Radha Gobinda Dey and ors. Vs. Hara Mohan Bakshi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.584
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit for rent for the years 1325 to 1328 B.S. The plaintiffs claim 3-armas 5-gds share of the rent and urge that out of Rs. 34-12-6, the rent payable in 16-annas share to the plaintiffs they were entitled to Rs. 7-1-3.2. The defence of the defendants was that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the rent as no relationship of landlord and tenants existed. The defendants further contended that the plaintiffs' names were not registered with reference to the entire share of the rent. Both the Courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that they or their predecessors were in separate collection of the rent as was alleged by the plaintiffs. Secondly, that as the plaintiffs' names are not registered as regards 1-gd. share which is registered in the name of one Asutosh Dhar who was not a party to the suit, Section 78 of the Land Registration Act was a bar to the suit. It is ...
Fazlar Rahaman Biswas and ors. Vs. Golam Kader Mea and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.959
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These, appeals arise out of three suits brought for recovery of possession of different plots of laid. The suits were dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Subordinate, Judge has reversed the decision of the Munsif and has decreed the suits. The defendants appeal before us and the only point argued on their behalf is that the presumption under the Record of Rights under Section 103B of the Bengal Tenancy Act does not arise in these cases. What happened was this. The Subordinate Judge held that these plots of land according to the Cadastral Survey did not appertain to the defendants' holding but appertained to the holding of the plaintiffs. It was contended before him by the defendants that the plaintiffs had got other co-sharers who were necessary parties and that the plaintiffs could not claim the entire interest in the plots in question. With reference to this contention, the learned Subordinate Judge observed as follows: 'The Settlement Reco...
Fazlar Rahman Biswas and ors. Vs. Golam Kader Mia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal862
B.B.Ghose, J.1. These appeals arise out of three suits brought for recovery of possession of different plots of land. The suits were dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Subordinate Judge has reversed the decision of the Munsif and has decreed the suits. The defendants appeal before us and the only point argued on their behalf is that the presumption under the record-of-rights under Section 103B of the Bengal Tenancy Act does not arise in these cases.2. What happened was this: The Subordinate Judge held that these plots of land according to the Cadastral Survey did not appertain to the defendant's holding, but appertained to the holding of the plaintiffs. It was contended before him by the defendants that the plaintiffs had got other co-shavers who were necessary parties and that the plaintiffs could not claim the entire interest in the plots in question. With reference to this contention, the learned Subordinate Judge observed as follows:The Settlement record...
Gangadas Seal and anr. Vs. Percival and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal32
Greaves, J.1. These four appeals arise out of adjudication orders passed in insolvency by the District Judge of Chittagong on the 24th November last. Appeals Nos. 36 and 39 are appeals by one Gangar das Seal who was adjudicated on the 24th November 1925; Appeals Nos. 37 and 38 are appeals by Gurudas Seal who was adjudicated on the same date. The adjudications were made at the instance of the creditors. It appears that Gangadas, Gurudas, and Hara Gobinda were joint in estate and they carried on, as members of a joint Hindu family, a certain business. They had incurred debts; and on the 7th of September 1923 an application was made to the Court for the adjudication of Gangadas, Gurudas and Hara Gobinda, the applications for adjudication of all the three being included in the same petition. It was held that no adjudication order could be made' under the circumstances on one petition; and accordingly the names of Gurudas. and Hara Gobinda were struck out and the petition of the 7th Septemb...
Gangadasseal and Vs. Mr. Percival, Official Receiver and ors.,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.792
Willaim Ewart Greaves, J.1. These four appeals arise oat of adjudication orders passed in insolvency by the District Judge of Chitta-gong on the 24th November last. Appeals Nos. 36 and 39 are appeals by one Ganga-das Seal who was adjudicated on the 24th November, 1925; Appeals Nos. 37 and 38 are appeals by Gurudas Seal who was adjudicated on the same date. The adjudications were made at the instance of the creditors. It appears that Gangadas, Gurudas, and Hara Gobinda were joint in estate and they carried on, as members of a joint Hindu family, a certain business. They had incurred debts; and on the 7th of September, 1923, an application was made to, the Court for the adjudication of Gangadas, Gurudas and Hara Gobinda, the applications for adjudication of all the three being included in the same petition. It was held that no adjudication order could be made under the circumstances on one petition; and accordingly the names of Gurudas and Hara Gobinda were struck out and the petitioner ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »