Kolkata Court February 1928 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.
Sasi Mohan Saha and ors. Vs. Hari Nath Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal459,110Ind.Cas.60
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal by the defendants arises out of a partition suit. The facts are that the plaintiff Hari Nath, Madhu Sudan and Radha Charan (father of the appellants Sasi Mohan and others) were three brothers living jointly in the common ancestral house. In 1916 the present plaintiff Harinath instituted a suit for partition of their family properties against his two brothers. In that suit a Commissioner was appointed who proposed a partition of the homestead of the parties in a certain way. The matter came up before the Court which accepted the Commissioner's report with a slight modification with which we are not concerned at present. The decree passed in the suit was in effect thatthe suit be decreed the Commissioner's report and map form parts of the decree, and the allotments made by the Commissioner subject to the modification noted above be the basis of the partition.2. By that decree the residential portion of the homestead was partitioned but some portions were left...
Sarat Chandra Deb and ors. Vs. Dharani Mohan Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal508,113Ind.Cas.240
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the appellants are interested in each of the 29 tenancies under the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought his suit for extra cesses due to him from the defendants in the following circumstances : It appears that the plaintiff made a return as required under Section 17, Cess Act, and in that return he described the defendants on the footing that they were cultivating raiyats within the meaning of the Cess Act. Thereupon that return having been scrutinized by the Collector, the Collector issued a notice under Section 24 upon the defendants requiring them to make a return. They said that they made a return and I am satisfied that thereupon action was taken by the Collector to put the defendants' names on the Cess Valuation Boll in part 3. It appears that they were described as tenure-holder 84 and to that number the names of the defendants were supplemented. On that basis the plaintiff brought his suit, because the plaintiff having hitherto got cesses from the defen...
Deb Narayan Bhakat and ors. Vs. Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal684
Mukherji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of re it from the defendants, representing the difference between the rents as they stood before enhancement and the amounts at which they stood after enhancement.2. After the final publication of the Record-of-Rights the plaintiff instituted proceedings under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act for assessment of fair rents. The Settlement Officer enhanced the rents to the amounts stated in the present suit, but on appeal by the defendants the Special Judge reversed that decision. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal and the case was as a result thereof remanded for a fresh decision. While -this litigation was pending and after the decision of the Special Judge dismissing the plaintiff's claim for enhancement, the plaintiff instituted a suit for rent at the old rate, for the years 1326 to 1329 B.S. and obtained a decree. The proceedings under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act eventually ended in a dec...
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Radha Moni Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal826,110Ind.Cas.644
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiffs sought for a declaration of title to and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from taking sand from the bed of the river Tumni. Their case briefly was that a certain property was sold for arrears of rent in 1886. One Fulkumari Debi who was a dar-patnidar under patni deposited the amount due and obtained possession of the patni as girbidar under Section 13 Regn. 8,1819, on 29th September 1886. The plaintiffs' case was that by various transfers and devolutions the girbi right and interest had passed to her and that aha was in possession of the patni. The main contention of the defendants was that they bad taken a lease of the underground coal and other minerals from the zemindar, Maharaja of Burdwan, and also from the patnidars in 1918; and, therefore, they had a right to the sand. They denied the plaintiff's girbi or possession and alleged that the plaintiffs were not girbidars but were merely benam...
Radha Kanta Dass Vs. BaerleIn Bros. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal97,117Ind.Cas.540
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by a learned Judge on the original side whereby he stayed the plaintiff's suit under Section 19, Arbitration Act. It appears that the suit was brought by the plaintiff for breach of an agreement to supply certain goods, one term of the agreement being that the goods which the plaintiff was to receive were to be goods of which he would have in some sense a monopoly so far as India was concerned, and the plaintiff's suit was for damages for the defendant's wrongful conduct in sending other goods of the same kind to other ports in India in breach of their agreement. The defendants are a limited Company, Baerlein Bros. Ltd., incorporated in the United Kingdom and carrying on business at Manchester in England.2. The plaintiff Radha Kanta Dass who carries on business in Calcutta being minded to get goods from England approached a person called M.N. Dutta and signed what is called an indent form. This is a common method of doing business whe...
Deb NaraIn Bhakat and ors. Vs. Raja Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.395
Mukerji, J.This appeal arises out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of rent from the defendants, representing the difference between the rents as they stood before enhancement and the amounts at which they stood after enhancement.After the final publication of the Record of Rights, the plaintiff instituted proceedings under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for assessment of fair rents. The Settlement Officer enhanced the rents to the amounts stated in the present suit, but on appeal by the defendants the Special Judge reversed that decision. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal and, the case was as a result thereof remanded for a fresh decision. While this litigation was pending and after the decision of the Special Judge dismissing the plaintiff's claim for enhancement, the plaintiff instituted a suit for rent at the old rate for the years 1326 to 1329 B.S. and obtained a decree. The proceedings under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act eventually ...
Shriram and Mahadeo a Firm of Merchants Vs. Mukh Ram Agarwala
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.432
The appeal is not properly constituted as the plaint was brought by three persons as members of a firm and the decree was made in their favour. The appeal to the lower Appellate Court was against one of the members of the firm. It was not properly constituted there. But the objection does not appear to have been taken and the lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the merits. Here the defendant has appealed making only one of the members of the firm as respondent. The appeal is infructuous, for even if a decree in favour of the person who is made respondent here is set aside the other plaintif s would be entitled to execute the decree to its full extent.The appeal, therefore, is dismissed as improperly constituted with costs....
Kanta Mohan Mullik and ors. Vs. Gopi Nath Santra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal355
Mullick, J.1. This suit out of which this appeal arises was one for recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiffs claimed rent on the allegation that the annual jama of the holding was Rs. 45-13-6`. The defence inter alia was that the rental of the holding was not Rs. 45-13-6 as alleged by the plaintiffs, but Rs. 34-13-9 only. The trial Judge gave effect to this defence and decreed the plaintiffs' suit in part on the basis of the rate admitted by the defendants. The matter was then taken to the lower appellate Court by the plaintiffs but with no better success there, The plaintiffs have come up to this Court in second appeal.2. To establish their case that the rental was Rs. 45 odd the plaintiffs filed an ex-parte decree obtained by another cosharer landlord who had claimed rent on the allegation that the rental of the holding was Rs. 45-13-6. The learned Subordinate Judge held that this decree obtained by a cosharer landlord was not admissible in evidence, and, finding also that even if...
Madhab Chandra Mandal and ors. Vs. Tilottama Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal751,110Ind.Cas.445
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiffs sued for a declaration of their title and confirmation of possession and for a declaration that a certain entry in the record of rights was incorrect.2. This entry in the record of rights refers to Dags Nos. 1053 and 1057. In the record-of-rights these dags are recorded as being held by the Gramya Thakurani through the shebait Madhab Chandra Mandal as a tenant under plaintiff 3 rent-free. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the widows and plaintiff 3 is the daughter of one Birkishore Manna. Their case was that the dags in dispute were in their khas possession. The case of the defence was that the lands in suit never belonged to the plaintiffs alleged landlords and were never included in the plaintiffs jote but that they belonged to the idols Sitala, Kali and Mahainaya who were the village goddesses of Mauza Golabari, that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the same but that defendant 2 possessed them on behalf of th...
Makhan Lal Modak Vs. Bejoy Gopal Nundy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal892,114Ind.Cas.481
1. This is an appeal by defendant 1. The plaintiff sued the defendants in ejectment on the ground that he had taken a settlement of the land in question from the landlord who had purchased the holding in execution of his own rent decree. The plea of the defendant shortly stated was that he had obtained a decree in execution of a mortgage created on the holding by the previous tenant and after enforcing his mortgage he obtained a decree and purchased the property in question. He cannot therefore be ousted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's suit was decreed by the lower appellate Court. Defendant 1 appealed to this Court and on the previous hearing a Division Bench sent down an issue for trial on the question whether or not the landlord had knowledge of the circumstance more than one year before the date of the application under Section 167, Ben. Ten. Act for service of notice. The notice was served by the landlord after the institution of the suit out of which this appeal, arises. The ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »