Kolkata Court August 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.
Hari Charan Moulik and ors. Vs. Kalipada Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal519
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, three plaintiffs brought a suit in ejectment against certain defendants making the case that the defendants were occupying the land in suit by erection of huts and living therein by permission of the plaintiffs, that they had been in the plaintiffs' employ but that the defendants had procured an entry to be made in the Record-of-Rights in which they were recorded as tenants of defendant 3. Accordingly, it appears that the permission for continuing the occupation had been determined and the plaintiffs brought their suit for ejectment of defendants 1 and 2. The first Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit holding that the defendants had been in possession adversely for a sufficiently long period to bar the plaintiffs' claim. An appeal was taken by all the three plaintiffs to the lower appellate Court and then one of the plaintiffs died. No steps were, however, taken by the other plaintiffs-appellants to have the representatives of the deceased plaintiff added a...
KamiruddIn Mallik Vs. Sm. Bishupriya Chowdhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal240
Mukerji, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appeal which the appellant had filed in the Court below was time barred. The facts necessary to be set out for the purposes of this appeal are these : After a good deal of litigation in connexion with an application under Section 105, Ben. Ten Act, the final order was passed on 18th April 1925 by which the Revenue Officer made certain corrections in the record as against the appellant after rejecting an application which the appellant had made for an opportunity to adduce some further evidence. On 18th May 1925, an appeal was taken from this decision of the Revenue Officer to the Special Judge being Special Appeal No. 2 of 1925. This appeal was disposed of by the Special Judge on 31st October 1925. the learned Judge holding that the appeal was not competent as it had been, filed against that portion of the order of the Revenue Officer by which he had rejected the appellant's application for an opport...
Rashmoni Bewa and ors. Vs. Dhirendranath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal397
Mallik, J.1. The only point of law that arises in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs, who are 13 as. 4 gds. co-owners of the property within which the land in suit lies, wore entitled to bring a suit for enhancement of rent. The suit was based on a kabuliyat executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. We have been taken through the terms of this document. Having regard to the terms of this kabuliyat, we are of opinion that the case is governed by the, principles laid down in the cases of Gobind Chandra Pal v. Hamidulla Bhuian [1903] 7 C.W.N. 670, Darik Dhakai v. Aswni Kumar [1914] 18 C.W.N. 942 and Joghesh Prokash Ganguli v. Maniraddi [1908] 35 Cal. 417. In this view of the matter the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.2. There has been a cross-objection filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent and on his behalf it was contended that the lower appellate Court was wrong in giving to the plaintiff a decree at the rate of the talab jama after deducting the haj...
AminaddIn Sheikh and anr. Vs. Chandranath Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal120,114Ind.Cas.153
Mitter, J.1. In this appeal by defendants 1 and 2 the only question raised is that the lower appellate Court was not justified in treating the tenancy as having been abandoned as the tenant did not leave the village in which the holding was situate. It appears that the plaintiffs, now respondents, instituted the suit in which this appeal arises for recovery of possession of a plot of land on eviction of defendants 1 and 2 who are described as principal defendants after establishment of their jamai right to the same. There is no dispute with regard to the plaintiffs' title before me but it is said that the findings of the lower appellate Court (i) that defendants 3 and 4 who are under-raiyats under the plaintiffs are not in possession of any portion of the disputed land and (ii) that they have made no arrangement for the payment of rent are not sufficient to constitute abandonment within the meaning of Section 87, Ben, Ten. Act and in support of this contention reliance has been placed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›