Kolkata Court June 1928 Judgments
Nazar Ali Vs. Indra Kumar Sutar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal462,118Ind.Cas.895
1. The plaintiffs alleging that they are raiyats and that the defendant holds under them as an under-raiyat sued the latter in ejectment on service of a notice to quit under Section 49, Ben. Ten. Act. The defendant denied the service of the notice and pleaded that the plaintiffs are not entitled to evict him. He rested his case upon a decree passed on the basis of a solenama in a previous suit for rent which the plaintiffs had instituted against him. By the solenama, the plaintiffs in consideration of an enhancement of rent,--his case being that the rent previously payable was Rs. 17 and it was enhanced to Rs. 25 and odd,--consented to allow him to hold this land permanently. The trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that service of the notice was not proved and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to ignore the solenama. The Subordinate Judge on appeal has reversed that decision and decreed the suit. The defendant has appealed to this Court. The Subordinate Judge has found for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Hemanta Kumari Devi Vs. Prasanna Kumar Datta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Cal32
1. These five appeals arise out of as many suits that were instituted by the appellant for enhancement of rent under Section 30, Ben. Ten. Act. The Courts below have dismissed the suits on the ground that they were not maintainable in view of Section 109 of that Act.2. The plaintiff had previously filed applications under Section 105 of the Act. She was then a cosharer landord, her share amounting to 14 annas. She made her cosharers pro forma opposite parties to her applications but prayed for enhancement of the rent due to her share. The defendants, who were the principal opposite parties in the proceedings, contested the maintainability of the application, and the trial Court, as well as the Court of first appeal, upheld the objection and ruled that the applications did not lie. She then preferred second appeals to this Court, which held that under certain conditions and circumstances the applications might lie - notably, if there were separate contracts between the parties. As the f...
Tag this Judgment!Prodip Singh Jamadar and anr. Vs. Ramani Mohan Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal591,114Ind.Cas.94
Mitter, J.1. This Rule was issued on the Chairman of the Muktagacha Municipality to show cause why the decree of the Small Cause Court of the Second Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh for recovery of Rs. 105 from the defendants who are petitioners before me should not be set aside. Two grounds are urged in support of this rule. It is said that the Municipality had no right to levy this personal tax as the defendants were not persons who were occupiers of holdings within the meaning of Section 85, Bengal Municipal Act. It is argued in the second place that, in any event, the assessment of the Municipality is ultra vires seeing that the assessment was a joint assessment against both the defendants who are petitioners before me. It appears that the petitioners who are the servants of the Maharaja, obtained an ijara of a certain place which is described as a cattle market within the Municipality and they make their collection of rent and carry on their business on holding No. 282 in respect o...
Tag this Judgment!Bhudeb Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Asutosh Gangopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal705
1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was for partition. The Courts below have concurrently decreed the suit. Some of the defendants have then preferred this appeal. Shortly put, the plaintiffs are the descendants of one Mathura who happened to be one of 'the sons of Mangala Devi, daughter of one Lafchi Kanta Tapadar, the original owner. The defendants are the descendants of Ram Bishnu, another son of Mangala. The plaintiffs claimed an 8 annas share of the properties which had originally belonged to Likhi Kanta and had descended to them through Mathura from Mangala. The Courts below held that Mathura predeceased Mangala and that therefore the plaintiffs failed to prove the title which they had set up in the plaint. The said Courts, however, proceeded on the basis of a hissanana which was a document dated 1269 B.S. and which purported to record the fact that the predecessors of the plaintiffs, namely the three sons of Mathura, had an 8-annas share in the property. Two argument...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chandra Biswas and ors. Vs. Guru Charan Kirtania and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal141,117Ind.Cas.701
ORDERMitter, J.1. The question raised by this rule relates to the amount of Court-fees which is payable on an applioation under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, for settlement of fair and equitable rent and for a declaration that the rents of the assessed lands were liable to be enhanced and that the tenants are not mokararidars as recorded in the finally published Record-of-Bights. The said application was treated as a plaint and the petitioners before me valued the claim for declaration at Rs. 5 and the claim for enhancement of rent from Rs. 57-15-6 to 123-9 per year bore a stamp of annas twelve.2. The Assistant Settlement Officer held that the application claiming enhancement bore the proper Court-fee but in regard to the declaration that the tenancy was not a mokarari one he demanded ad valorem Court-fee on the value of the subject matter in dispute. The value of the subject matter in dispute was directed to be ascertained by the Head Quarters Assistant Settlement Officer of the settlem...
Tag this Judgment!Shibnath Singh Ray Vs. SaberuddIn Ahmed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal465
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a second appeal by defendant 1 from the concurrent decisions of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia and the Munsif of Ranaghat. The plaintiff's suit was for a declaration of title to certain land, for ejectment of defendant 1 and for setting aside the purchase of the suit land by defendant I on 12th May 1922, in execution of a decree against defendant 2. The plaintiff's claim is rested on a prior purchase made by him at a private sale on 29th September 1921, from defendant 2. The question between the parties turns upon whether or not, on the date of the plaintiff's purchase, the property was under attachment. The material dates are as follows:The property was attached before judgment on 10th August 1919; a decree was passed on 10th June 1920; an appeal from the decree was dismissed on 9th February 1921; the decree-holder applied for execution on 14th June 1921; and took out a fresh attachment on 24th June 1921; this execution proceeding was ultimately dismissed for de...
Tag this Judgment!Dudu Bhuiya Vs. Duman Bhuiya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal586
1. This appeal is by the plaintiff against the dismissal by the Courts below of his suit, which was for declaration of his raiyati interest in five1 plots of land and for recovery of1 possession. The plaintiff was a cosharer in a. certain taluk and in addition to this he acquired the raiyati interest in the five plots of land in suit. One Peari Poddar sued the plaintiff for money, and obtained a decree, in execution of which he brought the plaintiff's taluki interest to sale. That interest was sold in execution of the decree and was purchased by Peari Poddar. Defendant 1 is a transferee from Peari Poddar. Possession was taken some time in the year 1917. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's suit but the learned Court of appeal below dismissed the suit, holding that it was barred by the special rule of limitation laid down in Article 3, Schedule 3, Ben. Ten. Act. In appeal it is contended that the rule of limitation applied by the learned Additional Judge is not applicable...
Tag this Judgment!Bhabani Charan Sarkar Vs. Kadambini Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal304
Garlick, J.1. The facts found by the lower appellate Court are these:2. On 1st Jaistha 1325 defendant 1 borrowed Rs. 300 from the plaintiff and executed an usufructuary mortgage bond of some 28 bighas of land, stipulating that the plaintiff should possess the land in lieu of interest and should return it on repayment of the principal. The bond also contained an agreement that if the mortgagee failed to get possession, he should be entitled to realize his dues, after deducting receipts by a suit for sale of the property, and that interest should be calculated at Rs. 112-8-0 per annum. In pursuance of the agreement the plaintiff was put in possession of 13 bighas of land, but not of the whole mortgaged property. On 15th Kartik 1326 defendant 1 sold the whole property to defendant 2. The purchaser took possession of 13 bighas of land after plaintiff had been in possession for two years. He tendered the principal money Rs. 300 to the plaintiff, but plaintiff refused it because he claimed i...
Tag this Judgment!Pyari Lal Mullick Vs. Jugal Kishore Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal425,118Ind.Cas.365
Page, J.1. This suit is brought to determine the construction of the will of Haridass Dutt, a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga law, who died on 30th September 1875. Haridas Dutt duly executed his will on the day upon which he died, and the clause in the will that the Court is now invited to interpret has already on three occasions been construed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I am informed that the parties are determined once more to obtain the opinion of the Privy Council as to the meaning and effect of these provisions. It may be so, but to my mind this is a very plain case, and I have no doubt as to the interpretation that ought to be put upon the clause under consideration.2. The following genealogical table shows how the parties are related to each other:(For genealogical table see p. 426) Haridas Dutt (died 30th September 1875) =Srimati Surnamani Dasi (died 14th August 1904) | ________________________________________________________ | |Srimati Ranimani Srimati(die...
Tag this Judgment!Taher Sheikh Chowkidar and ors. Vs. Otaruddi Howladar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal475
1 There are two plaintiffs in this suit, which is for khas possession of land on the ground of abandonment and transfer of a non-transferable occupancy holding by the original tenant. The trial Court found that so far as plaintiff 1's interest was concerned there was an abandonment and unauthorized transfer. As to plaintiff 2, it found that he had recognized the transferee as a tenant and accordingly it passed a decree in favour of plaintiff 1 for joint; possession with the defendant and dismissed plaintiff 2's suit. The defendant appealed and plaintiff 2 cross-appealed or to be more precise filed a cross-objection. On 26th August 1925, the appellate Court passed an order that the pleaders must get ready on the date fixed, namely, 9th September 1925. On 9th, the following order was passed:The respondent's pleader does not appear, though he was assured that the appeal would be heard to-day. The appellant heard. Judgment to-morrow.2. On 10th, judgment was postponed till the next day, and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »