Kolkata Court June 1927 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.
Dinanath Kundu and ors. Vs. Janaki Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal392,110Ind.Cas.368
B.B. Ghosh, J.1. These two appeals by the defendants arise out of two actions in ejectment which were decreed by the Subordinate Judge. The plaintiffs brought the suits on the ground that the defendants were in possession of the leaseholds in temporary right under two leases evidenced by two kabuliyats, dated 21st September 1900 and 4th August 1903, respectively. The suit, out of which appeal No. 135 of 1925 arises, relates to the kabuliyat of the 21st September 1900. The parties to the two suits are the same. The questions on which the decision of the two appeals depends are also the same. There were two suits, only because there were two separate leaseholds under two separate leases. Notices were served, dated 20th Bhadra 1329 B.S., corresponding to 6th September 1922, and it was alleged that the notices were to terminate the lease at the end of the Bengali year on 30th Chaitra 1329 corresponding to some date in the middle of April 1923. The suits were brought on 20th September 1923....
Promatha Nath Mukherji Vs. Bhabataran Ganguly
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal829
Cammiade, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit on a handnote, dated the 15fch March 1916. The suit was filed on the 14th March 1919, and it was dismissed by the trial Court on 10th August, 1920. The decree was signed on the 16th August 1920. The applications for copies of the decree and judgment were filed on 12th August and copies were delivered to the plaintiff on 17th August. The appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the decree on the 17th September 1920. The Seristadar reported to the learned Judge that the appeal was out of time and on 20th September the Judge recorded an order : 'Heard pleaders; appeal admitted.' When the appeal came on for hearing on the 9th March 1922, an objection was taken by the respondent that the appeal had been filed out of time but that objection was overruled and the learned Judge decided the appeal on the merits and decreed it and also decreed the suit. This was on the 21st March 1922. An appeal was filed in this Court against the lear...
Khemadananda Kumar Vs. Rashamya Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal388
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case a suit in ejectment was brought against the defendant alleging that he was an under-raiyat and that notice had been given under Section 49, Ben. Ten. Act. The defendant, by his written statement, claimed to be an occupancy-raiyat, and, having: claimed to be an occupancy, raiyat he contends that by Section 111, Ben. Ten. Act, the proceedings against him should in effect be stayed until three months after' the final publication of the record of rights.2. The Court below has refused this contention and said that the suit is one for recovery of khas possession and Section 111 does not apply to the case.3. I am of opinion that the Court below is right in the view is has taken of Section 111. I do not think that it can be imputed to the section as to its meaning that in any case, in which the defendant chooses to raise a question as to status, the landlords is presented from taking action under the ordinary law in such matters.4. We have been referred, to, a judgm...
Re Fazoo Mia Vs. Sultan Ahmed Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal817
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an application by a decree-holder who is at the same time the auction-purchaser of a nontransferable occupancy holding and the landlord. The landlord obtained a rent decree and has purchased the holding at the execution sale. Thereupon the opposite party, who claimed to have purchased the entire holding from the tenant, but who has been found by both the Courts below to have purchased a part only of the holding from the tenant, seeks to exercise the right given by Rule 89, Order 21, Civil P.C. The Courts below have both held that he is entitled to exercise that right and the landlord applies in revision to us to hold that the purchase of a part of a noon-transferable occupancy holding is not within the language of Rule 89. The matter is a very important one and it is difficult not to have recourse to a comparison with Section 170, Bengal Tenancy Act.2. At first the course of decisions under Section 170 appears to have tended in favour of a purchaser of the non-tr...
Khetro Mohan Mitter Vs. Nalini Bala Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal867
Page, J.1. This is a very simple case. The appellant challenges the validity of an order passed by the learned District Judge of 24-Pergannas of the 20th May 1925. The learned advocate who appears for the appellant conceded and contended that the order under review was made by the learned District Judge, and could only have been made by the learned District Judge, in the exercise of the inherent powers which he contended the learned Judge possessed under Section 151, Civil P.C. We are asked to interfere with the order under review. It is to be borne in mind that the learned Judge would only be entitled to reverse the two orders of the 20th July and 5th September 1923, if in his opinion those two orders amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court or it was necessary for the ends of justice that those two orders should be reversed. The learned District Judge, after considering the matter, came to the conclusion thatit cannot be contended that a disclosure of the order passed by the ...
Sabirer Ma and ors. Vs. Behari Mohan Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal23
1. The plaintiffs appeal against the decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing their suit on the ground of non-joinder. In the suit the plaintiffs-claimed the right of pasturage on their own behalf as well as on behalf of the residents of the village of South Enathabad against the defendants on the ground that the defendants had wrongfully obstructed the right which they were in the enjoyment of, with the permission of and amounting to an implied grant by the mirasdar for over 100 years. Defendants 1, 2 and 3, who are now the respondents before us, contended that the portion of the land in suit with which we are now concerned appertained to' their taluk and that they were in possession of it. They further denied the plaintiffs' right of pasturage over this, land. As regards the objection on the ground of non-joinder of parties the written statement filed on behalf of these defendants refers to the objection in two paragraphs. In para. 3 the objection is taken that the suit is bad ...
Radha Binode Mandal Vs. Surendra Nath Ghosal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.377
B.B. Ghose, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal depends upon the effect to be given to a contract contained in a maurasi mokarari lease, dated the 8th April, 1889. Two persons, the appellant before us and his brother, granted a maurasi mokarari lease in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent at a rent of Rs. 21 per year. A provision was contained in the lease which may be translated in these words, 'In future, if only for the purpose of the Government, the land is acquired, then, out of the compensation awarded we shall get 8 annas as the malikani right, and you shall get 8 annas of the compensation in your maurasi right.' The land had been acquired for a public purpose by a declaration, dated the 16th November, 1920. It was for the purpose of constructing what is called the new main sewer Road from Chetla to the Ballygunge Railway Station. The brother of the appellant, Gopi Kristo, sold his 8-annas interest of the malikani right to the lessee in the year 190...
Secretary, Cantonement Committee Vs. Satish Chandra Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal786
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal seems to me to raise a very simple point. A certain quantity of land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act with a house standing on it. The land and the house were separately valued. The compensation allowed for the land was Rs. 9,510-10. It is needless to refer to the previous proceedings before the land was valued. The Land Acquisition Collector was of opinion that the claimant Sitish Chandra Sen was not entitled to any compensation for the land which belonged exclusively to Government. There was a reference under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, at the instance of that claimant to the Court. The learned district judge was of opinion that the claimant Satish Sen was the owner of the land and was entitled to the compensation awarded for it. From that judgment of the learned judge the Secretary of State has preferred this appeal.2. The argument on behalf of the Secretary of State advanced by the Government pleader is that the whole of the cantonment ...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Sheikh Keamuddin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal802,103Ind.Cas.533
Page, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes passed under Section 141, Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. It appears that on the 17th of January 1923 the executive officer of the corporation, pursuant to the power with which he was invested under Sections 127 to 138, Municipal Act, assessed the property in suit, No. 6, Raj Mohan Street, Calcutta, for the consolidated rate of Calcutta at an annual value of Rules 14, 310. Under Section 139 of the Act the assessee lodged an objection to the amount of the annual value which had been assessed upon his property. Under Section 140 the executive officer investigated the assesee's objection, and passed an order reducing the amount of the original assessment from Rs. 14,310 to Rs. 10, 278. The assessee, being dissatisfied with the order of the executive officer, appealed to the Court of Small Causes pursuant to Section 141 of the Act. The learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes further re...
Ram Sundar Saha and ors. Vs. Kali NaraIn Sen Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal889
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of certain immoveable properties embodied in a bainapatra dated 4feh December 1920, executed by Kali Narain Sen Chowdhury who was the original defendant in the suit, and who will be referred to as the defendant henceforth. Kali Narain died during the pendency of the suit on 29th July 1922, and his Iegalfrepre3entatives have been substituted in his place. The suit was instituted on 30th June 1921. After service of summons, Krishna Kumar Sen, the second of the surviving sons of the defendant, and another person serving as manager under the defendant, presented a petition in Court on 29th July 1921, that the defendant, by reason of unsoundness of mind and mental infirmity was incapable of protecting his own interest and a guardian ad litem should be appointed for him. Thereupon the Subordinate Judge held that though the defendant was not mentally deranged and could fully und...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »