Kolkata Court June 1929 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.
Promotha Nath Mazumdar Vs. Nagendra Nath Mazumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1929
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.603
George Clause Ranikin, C.J.1. In my opinion, this appeal must fail. There are three points that are taken in this appeal. The defendant-appellant is a purchaser of the land in suit in the year 1912 at an auction-sale held in pursuance of a money-decree. The plaintiff is a person whose mother got a decree in 1912 upon a mortgage of 1909 and in 1914 bought the said land at an auction-sale under the mortgage-decree. The mortgage-bond comprised several items of property. It was executed by one Arnbica Kanta Majumdar for Rs. 500 and it comprised three lots of property specified in different schedules. The plaintiff when he brought his suit claimed certain land describing it in a particular way and there can be no doubt, if one looks simply to the description in the plaint, that the defendant is in possession of the land which the plaintiff is claiming.2. The first question which we have to consider is whether it is properly shown by the plaintiff's title-deed that the land which he has beco...
Sheikh Abdul Rabbani and anr. Vs. Shyam Lal Thapa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1929
Reported in: 128Ind.Cas.194
Mukerji, J.1. The petitioners who have obtained this Rule were the defendants in a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 475-10-0, Rs. 364 being the amount of principal and the remainder of the interest due at the rate of one anna per rupee per mensem. On account of the loan there was a promissory note which was not properly stamped and so not admissible in evidence. The defence was that only Rs. 64 had been taken as loan on the aforesaid rate of interest The suit having been decreed in plaintiffs' favour the defendants have obtained this Rule.2. Two of the grounds on which the Rule was issued contain allegation as to refusal on the part of the learned Judge to receive evidence that was tendered by the petitioner. The allegations have been denied by the learned Judge and are false. In such circumstances the petitioners can no longer legitimately expect that this Court would exercise its revisional jurisdiction, even if the decision of the trial Court be not strictly in accordance with law....
Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Rajjab Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal238
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of my learned brother Mitter, J. sitting on second appeal. This appeal is brought by the plaintiff. The suit was brought in the Court of the Munsiff at Comilla for recovery of arrears of rent due in respect of 'the years 1332 to 1332 T.B. with cesses and damages. There was a claim for enhancement of rent on the ground of the rise in the price of staple food crops.2. It appears that the defendants were holding certain agricultural land under the plaintiff and were also holding an undivided share of the homestead land. According to various decisions of this Court, it is now well settled that, where the land let to a tenant comprises an undivided share in certain land, the letting is not the letting of a holding within the meaning of of the definition in the Bengal Tenancy Act. On that ground, the Courts below have unanimously refused to give effect to the prayer for enhancement of rent under Section 30(b) Ben. Ten. Act.3. T...
Giris Chandra Kit Vs. Ram Saran Majumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal591
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This appeal must be dismissed and for the following reasons. The appeal arises out of a suit for enforcement of a mortgage. The original mortgagor was one Ramdayal Majumdar. The mortgagees were two in number and they were Ajodhyanath and Pareshnath Biswas. It is said that the mortgage moneys were advanced on behalf of three brothers viz., Ajodhyanath, Paresh Nath and Gopinath Biswas. There is no finding either in the judgment of the first Court or in the judgment of the lower appellate Court that Gopinath was interested in the mortgage or in the moneys which were advanced on mortgage. Now, Ajodhyanath died leaving a widow and without issue, Gopinath died leaving a widow and without issue and Paresh Nath died leaving a widow and four sons. The plaintiff purchased the mortgage-bond from the widows of Ajodhyanath and Paresh Nath and from Hemangini, the widow of Gopi Nath. Defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of Ram Dayal, the original mortgagor who is now dead. Defendant 4 is t...
Narendra Nath Mandal Vs. Sannyasi Charan Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1932Cal398,137Ind.Cas.658
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These four appeals arise out of a decision of the learned President of the Tribunal under the Calcutta Improvement Act with regard to the compensation awarded for acquisition of land in which there was a dispute between the landlords and the tenants as regards the apportionment of the compensation. The lands were acquired out of two promises: 3 Chittaks 9 Sq.ft. out of premises No. 6 Circular Garden Reach Road and 3 Chittaks out of No. 3 Circular Garden Reach Road. The landlords are two sets of persons with regard to each property, one sot representing the secular interest in a half-share and the other representing the debutter interest in the other half-share of both the properties. The tenants held under both sets of landlords. It is not necessary in the appeal to state the nature of the proceedings between the two sets of landlords. They have adjusted their differences and it is now admitted) by them that one-half of the property is debutter and the other half secul...
Jogesh Chandra Roy Vs. Sasi Kumar De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal321
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of a piece of land. The land was recorded in the Record-of-Rights as comprising a tenancy held by the defendants. The certified copy of the Record-of-Rights which has been filed on behalf of the defendants shows that the area of the land is 113 acres and that it consists of a homestead, some ditches and a tank. In the column provided for recording the present rent there is a word which the learned Subordinate Judge felt considerable difficulty in reading. According to him, it may be read as binakar nishbar or ninakar though the last word is not one that is to be found in the dictionary. The learned Judge also says that the word may as well be read nankar or service tenure as was suggested on behalf of the plaintiff. From the plaint, however, it appears that the plaintiff's case was that the tenancy was a binakar chakran tenancy, that is to say, a chakran tenancy held withou...
HamiduddIn Khan Vs. Ramani Kanta Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1933Cal321
M.N. Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for rent. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the appellants. Rent was claimed in the suit for the years 1327 to 1330 B.S. and the whole controversy in this appeal is with regard to the interest that has been awarded by the Courts below. The said Courts have decreed interest at the rate of 6 per cent per mensem which was the rate agreed to be paid and mentioned in an unregistered kabuliyat dated 1861. The defendants challenge the validity of the decrees passed by the Courts below as regards interest upon two grounds. The first contention that has been advanced on behalf of the appellants is to the effect that the decree as to interest should be set aside, inasmuch as, by reason of the amendment of Section 178, Ben. Ton. Act, introduced by Act 4 of 1928, the plaintiff is no longer entitled to recover interest at anything more than that allowed by Section 67 of the Act. It is conceded that, at the date on which the suit was instituted, there ...
Raj Chandra Datta Vs. Habij Mohamed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal572
Jack, J.1. This application has arisen out of an order of the munsif holding that the petitioner as a usufructuary mortgagee is not entitled to make a deposit under Section 52 of Act 8 of 1869 for the purpose of staying execution of a decree for ejectment for non-payment of arrears of rent. It turns on the question whether a mortgagee of a non-transferable occupancy holding is entitled to make such a deposit under Section 52, Act 8 of 1869 for the purpose of staying execution of a decree for ejectment of the tenants on account of non-payment of arrears of rent. It has been held in the case of Kali Kishore v. Gopal Ram [1919] 23 C.W.N. 132, that a transferee of a portion of a nontransferable occupancy holding is entitled to make such a deposit. On the other hand it has been held in the case of Baneswar Singh v. Abdul Hassan : AIR1927Cal752 that the purchaser of a non-transferable occupancy holding is not entitled to make such a deposit and again in the case of Shailaja Sundari Bai v. Su...
Monohar Das Mohanta Vs. Tarini Charan Nandi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal612
Graham, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant and arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract. The land to which this contract related has an area of six cottahs situated at Chinsurah and was formerly in the possession of Madhusudan Das, Mohunt of Asthal, Burdwan. Plaintiff alleged that the mohunt leased out the land permanently to him on his paying a sum of Rs. 155 as selami and agreeing to pay rent at Rs. 11-8-0 per annum. Subsequently, a patta and a kabuliyat were executed but were not registered. In the meanwhile, the mohant died and was succeeded by the defendant Monohar Das Mohunt.2. The defence to the suit was that the land was not the personal property of the former mohunt but that it was debuttar, that the defendant was not the successor and heir of the former mohunt, that, therefore, the suit did not lie against him, and that, inasmuch as the land was debuttar property and not personal property and contract for a permanent lease of the land was not binding upon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›