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.
Jitendra Nath Roy Vs. Abejannessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1207,97Ind.Cas.753
Cuming, J.1. These five appeals arise out of live suits for enhancement of rent under Section 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act on the ground of rise in the prices of the staple food crops and also for increase of rent for increase in area under Section 52 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. With regard to increased rent for increased area both the Courts below have found that there has been no increase in area. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to any increase of rent under this section.3. With regard to enhancement of rent under Section 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act on the ground of rise in the prices of the staple food crops both the Courts below have held that the tenants hold at a fixed rate of rent and, therefore, their rents are not liable to enhancement under Section 30. In the Court below the tenants relied upon the presumption under Section 50, Clause (1) of the Bengal Tenancy Act and the case of the plaintiff who is now the appellant was that this presumption had been rebutted by c...
Kadar Sheikh Vs. Najamuddi Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.556
Cuming, J.1. The plaintiff sued the defendant, for Rs. 5-80 as the price of the paddy which he alleged was cut and misappropriated by the defendant.2. The first Court dismissed the plaintiff's. suit. On appeal this finding was reversed, the appeal was allowed and the plaintiffs suit was decreed with costs. Against this decree the defendant has appealed to this Court. A preliminary objection is raised by the respondent that no appeal lies He contend) that Section 102 of the C.P.C. is a bar because this is a suit of a nature cognizable by the Court of Small Causes and under the value of Rs. 500, hence no second appeal lies to this Court.3. The appellant contends that the suit falls within the exception set forth in Section 35, Clause (ii) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.4. I am of opinion that the contention of the respondent is correct. The plaint itself does not make out any criminal offence. Nor is it the case of the defendant that he committed any criminal offence. In the ci...
Jitendra Nath Roy Vs. Banku Behary Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1177,96Ind.Cas.565
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for settlement of fair and equitable rent under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The facts are these the landlord brought a suit for increase of rent on the grounds stated in Section 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. He alleged that he was entitled to increase of rent on the ground that the rent was below the prevailing rate and that there has been rise of price of staple food crops as well as on the ground of increase of area. The defendants pleaded that they had been paying rent at a uniform rate for more than 20 years' and relied upon the presumption of fixity of rent under Section 50, Sub-section 2 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and alleged that this rent was not liable to be enhanced. They also denied that there was any increase of area in this jote. The Assistant Settlement Officer held that the presumption of Section 50 arose in the case of these defendants; and the present rate of the jama was held to be fair and equitable...
Bhutnath Deb and ors. Vs. Sashimukhi Brahmani (Alias Deby) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.474
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal arises in connection with execution proceedings and the main question considered in the Court below was whether the execution was time-barred.2. The decree was passed on the 21st of December, 1918, It was a personal decree against judgment debtors Nos. 1 and 2 passed under Order XXXIV, Rule 6, C.P.C. Respondent No. 3 is a transferee from the other two judgment-debtors.3. The decree-holder's case is that on the, 26th of January, 1919, Rs. 6 was paid by respondents Nos. 1-2, the judgment-debtors, on the 26th of October, 1919, another sum of Rs. 3 was paid by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, on the 2nd of November, 1920, a sum of Rs. 2 was paid by the second respondent alone, on the 20th of December, 1921, a sum of Rs. 2 was paid by the first, respondent alone and on the 17th of January, 1922, Rs. 33 was paid by the second respondent only. The first application for execution was made on the 10th of November, 1922, and notice under Order XXI, Rule 22 on the judgment-d...
Kader Sheikh Vs. Najumaddi Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1230
Cuming, J.1. The plaintiff sued the defendant for Rs. 280 as the price of the paddy which he alleged was out and misappropriated by the defendant. The first Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal this finding was reversed, the appeal was allowed and the plaintiff's suit was decreed with costs. Against this decree the defendant has appealed to this Court.2. A preliminary objection is raised by the respondent that no appeal lies. He contends that Section 102 of the Civil P.C., is a bar, because this is a suit of a nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes and under the value of Rs. 500, hence no second appeal lies to this Court. The appellant contends that the suit falls within the exception set forth in Section 35, Clause (ii) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.3. I am of opinion that the contention of the respondent is correct. The plaint itself does not make out any criminal offence. Nor is it the case of the defendant that he committed any criminal offence. In the ci...
Sailaja Nath Guha Roy Vs. Charu Bala Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal943,96Ind.Cas.384
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, the plaintiff sued for recovery of khas possession of a certain plot or plots of land on eviction of the defendant therefrom and after establishment of his title. In the First Court, the suit was decreed with costs against the defendant. The defendant appealed to the District Court. The District Court on the 21st of June 1923 decreed the appeal in a modified form and varied the decree of the trial Court and against the decree that followed on this judgment, the plaintiff appealed to this Court. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent as to the competency of the appeal. The facts appear to be these: The decree now appealed against was signed on the 26th June, 1923, the judgment having been delivered on the 21st June, 1923. On the 2nd October, an application for review was made to the learned Subordinate Judge. Notice was issued on the opposite party and the opposite party appears to have filed objections. Th...
Manik Chandra Dhali and ors. Vs. Hari Mistri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1148,96Ind.Cas.557
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiffs sued for arrears of rent. Their case was that they were entitled to additional rent for additional area because 38 bighas were originally leased to the defendants at the rate of Rs. 1-4-0 per bigha and that the defendant at the time of the Record of Rights was found to be in possession of 44 bighas and they were; entitled to additional rent for additional area at the kabuliyat rate. The main contention of the defendant was that the plaintiffs had dispossessed the defendant from a portion of the land leased out and consequently there should be a suspension of entire rent. This argument found favour with both the lower Courts. 'On the ground that, plaintiffs had dispossessed the defendant from a portion of the demised property,' the two Courts held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover any rent whatever from the defendant: In appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs the learned Advocate has argued that dispo...
Dinonath Ghose Vs. Official Trustee of Bengal, Trustee Estate Manik La ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.574
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. The defendant prefers this appeal against a decree making him liable for a share in the cost of erecting an embankment.2. The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff is zemindar to the extent of nine annas in Mousa Kamdebpur and the remaining seven annas belong to the pro forma defendant. The village is let in patni and the defendant bought the patni in 1912. The costs of erection were ascertained and apportioned in 1909 and 1910, that is before the defendant acquired his interest, under the provisions of Part VI of the Embankment Act (II B.C. of 1882). The plaintiffs share was realized in 1918, and in 1920; he brought this suit to recover from the defendant the amount which he was authorised to recover from the patnidar.3. The defendant's contention is that the amount should be realized from the former patnidar who owned the interest at the time when the apportionment was made.4. The question turns upon the terms of Section 74 of the Act. Ins. 72 the liability of t...
Dinonath Ghose Vs. Official Trustee of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1158
Walmsley, J.1. The defendant prefers this appeal against a decree making him liable for a share in the cost of erecting an embankment. The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff is zemindar to the extent of nine annas in Mouza Kamdebpur and the remaining seven annas belong to the pro forma defendant. The village is let in patni and the defendant bought the patni in 1912. The costs of erection were ascertained and apportioned in 1909 and 1910, that is, before the defendant acquired his interest under the provisions of Part VI of the Embankment Act (II B.C. of 1882). The plaintiff's share was realized in 1918, and in 1920, he brought this suit to recover from the defendant the amount which he was authorized to recover from the patnidar. The defendants' contention is that the amount should be realized from the former patnidar who owned the interest at the time when the apportionment was made.2. The question turns upon the terms of Section 74 of the Act. In Section 72 the liability of the...
Sir Wasif Ali Meerza Khan Bahadur Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.568
B.B. Ghose, J. 1. This appeal is by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and it arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of about 50 biqhas of land situate within Salu Mouza. This mouza appertains to two towzis, No. 253 appertaining to defendant No 1's estate and No. 254 appertaining to the plaintiffs' estate. The facts found are that these lands were included within a mourasi tenure belonging to a lady named Muktakeshi from whom the plaintiffs had acquired their mourasi interest. The two towzis were subject to different an Survey and Settlement proceedings. There was a Record of Eights with regard to the defendant No. 1's estate. The record was finally published with regard to that estate in 1908 In that Record of Eights the disputed lands were recorded m belonging to the estate of defendant No. 1 and as being in possession of two sets of tenants--defendant No 2 with regard to a half share and defendants Nos. 3 to 72 with regard to the other half share In 1914 partition proceedings were ins...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »