Kolkata Court June 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.
Golam Rahaman Mondal Vs. Srimati Sabekjan Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.762
1. In this case we are of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to put his own valuation of the suit. The suit is not with regard to any land or interest in land. The sole object of the suit was to get a certain documant registered. It was brought under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act. The plaintiff valued the suit at the value of the property as mentioned in the document. Under the circumstances we are of opinion that the learned Munsif had full jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The Rule is, therefore, made absolute and the case is sent back to the Court of first instance for hearing on the merits.2. The petitioner is entitled to his costs of this Rule Hearing-fee, two gold mohurs, costs of the lower Courts will abide the final result....
Golam Rahman Mondal Vs. Sm. Sabekjan Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1091
1. In this case we are of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to put his own valuation of the suit. The suit is not with regard to any land or interest in land. The sole object of the suit was to get a certain document registered. It was brought under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act. The plaintiff valued the suit at the value of the property as mentioned in the document. Under the circumstances we are of opinion that the learned Munsif had full jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The rule is therefore made absolute and the case is sent back to the Court of first instance for hearing on the merits.2. The petitioner is entitled to his costs of this rule. Hearing-fee, two gold mohurs, costs of the lower Courts will abide the final result....
Ashutosh Lahiri Vs. Chandi Charan Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal179
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiff who is the appellant before us for recovery of khas possession in respect of a piece of land ejecting the defendant who had been holding the same. The suit was instituted after service on the defendant of a notice to quit on the footing that the tenancy which forms the subject-matter of the suit was a tenancy-at-will or a tenancy from year to year. The suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below. It is necessary to state quite shortly some of the facts relating to this case in order to appreciate the contention that has been urged on behalf of the appellant in this appeal.2. The plot of land belonged to one Uma Charan Majumdar who transferred his rights therein to one Chandi Charan Ray Choudhury in 1313 B.S. and Chandi Charan Ray Choudhury in 1319 in his turn transferred the rights which he had acquired to one Ashutosh Lahiri who is the plaintiff-appellant before us. Prior to the transfer in favou...
Raja Promode Nath Roy and ors. Vs. Secretary of State for India and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal182
Cuming, J.1. These two appeals arises out of certain execution proceedings.2. It would appear that so long ago as 1904 two suits were brought by the two decree-holders Kumar Basanta Kumar Roy and Bibi Jaroa Kumari Saheba for recovery of khas possession of their respective 5 annas share in certain char lauds.3. The suits were brought against the Secretary of State for India in Council, Srish Chandra Sanyal and a number of other persons among whom may be noted the parties who may be described as the Kundu defendants. With regard to the suit of Kumar Basanta Kumar Roy the suit was decreed with costs and mesne profits against the principal defendants and the defendants added, which included Defendants Nos. 1-15 and 18. A similar decree was passed in the suit of Bibi Jaroa Kumari against the same defendants. Both suits were fought up to the Privy Council with varying success in the different Courts. The decision of the Privy Council was in favour of the plaintiffs in both suits.4. In these ...
Saroda Prosad Pakrasi and ors. Vs. Umasankar Sanyal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal168
Sanderson, C.J.1. In this matter there are sis appeals arising in six rent suits, which were disposed of in the first Court and in the lower appellate Court by one judgment in each Court. The plaintiffs are three batches of co-sharer landlords and the tenants defendants are the same in each suit. The remaining co-sharer landlords are the pro forma defendants. The plaintiffs claimed rent and a right to enhance the rent in each case. In the trial Court the plaintiff's succeeded and the learned subordinate Judge of Pabna decreed the suits and assessed the rent at double the existing rent in the respective cases.2. The tenants defendants appealed to the Additional District Judge and the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the rent was not enhanceable but that it was fixed in perpetuity and consequently he allowed the appeals. The plaintiff landlords appealed to this Court.3. The first point to which it is necessary for me to refer is the argument which was addressed by the learned ad...
Nanda Kumar Das Vs. Emdad Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal49
1. The Defendant No. 6 has preferred this appeal which is limited to Plots Nos. 655 and 656. It is argued on his behalf that the estimate of facts by the lower Court is not correct, that the Court has not given proper value to the presumption arising from the record of rights and that the suit is barred by limitation.2. Admittedly the plaintiffs are the nimbhowladars within whose nim howla are included the disputed Plots Nos. 653 to 658. The defendants' case is that they are the holders of osat nim howla under the plaintiffs' nim howla and that the tands in suit are included within their nim osat howla. The lower appellate Court has found on an examination of the evidence and a consideration of the Ameen's map that these plots fall within the nim howla of the plaintiffs. On this finding the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree. But then the learned Subordinate Judge goes on to determine the question of limitation to find whether the plaintiffs' right in all these plots was barred. On an...
Satish Chandra Bose Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1138,97Ind.Cas.666
George Claus Rankin, J.1. In this case, application is made to this Court in connection with an order made by the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta authorising the Corporation to demolish two unauthorised corrugated iron sheds at No. 54 Corporation Street at the expense of the owner,--namely, the present petitioner--under Section 363 of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923. It is contended on behalf of the applicant in revision that that order should be set aside. The facts out of which the case arises are admitted. The two corrugated iron sheds in question are said by the petitioner to have been completed in 1922 and it is said on behalf of the opposite party that for the present purpose it will be sufficient to say that they were completed before the new Act came into force on the 1st of April, 1924. It appears that before this new Act came into operation, a notice was served on the petitioner to appear before the Roads and Buildings Sub-Committee of the General Committee of the Corpora...
Bhupendra Narayan Sinha Vs. Chandramoni Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal277
Page, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought to recover damages for negligence. The father of the first defendant, Maharaja Ranjit Sinha, was the executor of the estate of the plaintiff's husband and the certificated guardian of her property. During the period in which he bore this relationship towards the plaintiff he lent out of the estate of, the plaintiffs' husband a sum of Rs. 2,000 upon the security of a promissory note. In substitution of that note a new promissory note was executed by the parties to the previous note for Rs. 2,500 on the 14th March 1914. No steps were taken by the Maharaja to recover the amount of this promissory note which was payable on demand, the result being that on the 14th March 1917 the cause of action upon the promissory note became barred, by limitation. On the 3rd May 1918 the Maharaja died, and was succeeded by his son the first defendant. Between 1918 and 1920 when the plaintiff reached her majority the Defendant No. 1 was her ce...
Kumar Sarat Kumar Roy Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal998,96Ind.Cas.702
Cuming, J.1. This is a Rule on the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal, to show cause why he should not state a case for the opinion of the Court.2. The facts appear to be these:The applicant tiled certain returns relating to his income with a view to assessment of income-tax before the Income Tax Officer at Rajshahi. That officer finally made an assessment. This was objected to by the assessee and lie appealed to the Assistant Commissioner. The appeal was decided on the 18th September, 1925. On the 9th December, the applicant filed an application for review under Section 33 of the Income Tax Act. He also prayed, in the alternative that the Commissioner would refer certain points of law to the High Court. The Commissioner rejected the application so far as it regarded the prayer for a reference of the case to the High Court on the ground that it was time barred. He, however, appears to have considered the case and refused to interfere in review. Mr. Rupendra, Mitter who has placed the c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›