Kolkata Court August 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.
Girish Chandra Sanyal and ors. Vs. Secretary of State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal55
1. The only question in this rule is whether the Court-fees paid on the plaint are adequate.2. The plaint, in substance, challenges the validity of the imposition which purports to have been made under Sections 15 and 15-A, General Police Act (5 of 1861) and the mode in which the amounts are about to be realized, namely in accordance with Sections 386 and 387, Criminal P.C., which is one of the modes provided for in Section 16 of the said Act. The prayers are for certain declaration and a permanent injunction restraining the realization of the amounts by the said method.3. The Subordinate Judge is of opinion that Rs. 1,682 and Rs. 18,301 are the amounts of tax and compensation that remain unrealized, and the suit, therefore, relates to the plaintiffs' liabilities which should be assessed at the sum total of these two amounts. He thinks that the reliefs sought for in the plaint involve declaration in respect of liabilities and an injunction restraining the realization of the said amount...
Durga Sankar Sarma Roy Vs. Kamini Kumar Sarma Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal535
Page, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sylhet, affirming a decree of the learned Munsif of Habiganj. The suit was brought by one cosharer in order to obtain joint possession of what was admitted to be joint property from another cosharer, upon the ground that the defendant cosharer bad excluded and ousted the, plaintiff from his right to joint possession of the land in dispute. It appears that the plaintiff and the contesting defendant were two of three cosharers entitled as, tenants-in-common, to certain ejmali land. On a portion of the joint property there was a person in occupation who was possessed of a nontransferable occupancy title, and the, tenant used to pay rent to the three co-sharers. The contesting defendant, now the appellant, purchased the tenure, and after the purchase the tenant abandoned his holding. Thereupon, the appellant went into possession of the land, and has been cultivating it in khas possession. The purchase of the hol...
BasiruddIn Sarkar Vs. Sahebulla Pramanik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal966
1. The plaintiff who had been unsuccessful in an action in ejectment in both the Courts below has preferred this second appeal. The plaintiff's case was that he was a ryot and the defendants are under-ryots, and he sued; to eject the defendants on service of notices to quit in compliance with the provision of Section 49, Clause (b), Bengal Tenancy Act.2. Two questions have been raised on behalf of the appellant, of which the first relates to the onus of proof. The Subordinate Judge has held that it was for the plaintiff to prove that the defendants were under-ryots and that the plaintiff has failed to discharge this burden. It is said that it was for the defendants to prove that their status was higher than what the plaintiff alleged.3. In support of the contention aforesaid reliance has been placed upon the principles underlying the decisions of the Judicial Committee in the cases of Sethuratnam Iyar v. Venkatachala Goundan A.I.R. 1920 P.C. 67 and Nainapillai Marakayar v. Ramanathan C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›