Kolkata Court February 1930 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.
Keshab Lal Goswami Vs. Bhola Nath Gangoadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal402
Mallik, J.1. The facts which have given rise to the present appeal are briefly these; one Kinu mortgaged 13 bighas of land to Sheik Jamit and Sheikh Chhakori in usufructuary mortgage in 1293 B.S. for Rs. 120. There was a sub-mortgage of this property to two persons Ananta and Doyal in 1295 and Ananta and Doyal were put in possession of the property. Kinu sold 8 bighas out of the 13 bighas to Ananta and Doyal in 1299 for Rs. 179 out of which Rs. 120 was paid to the mortgagee and the balance was taken by the mortgagor. Kinu had a sister Umeda by name and Umeda sold the disputed property, namely, 13 bighas to the plaintiff in 1327 B.S. On the strength of this purchase from Umeda the plaintiff brought the suit for declaration of his title to the property and for recovery of possession thereof. The plaintiff's claim was resisted on the allegations that there had been a sale of 8 bighas out of the 13 bighas to Ananta and Doyal and a subsequent sale of the remaining 5 bighas by an oral arrang...
WazuddIn and ors. Vs. Abu Sayed Zahoorul Ashraf and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal327
Page, J.1. This case has pursued a long and weary course, and comes before me as the sixth tribunal by which it has been considered. In 1925 the appellants applied under Section 40, Ben. Ten. Act, for commutation of rent which was payable in produce into a money rent. The application was made to the Collector who is also the Settlement Officer, and it has been found by the learned Munsif (and that finding has not been reversed by the lower appellate Court) that the application was transferred by the Collector as the Settlement Officer to an Assistant Settlement Officer. The Assistant Settlement Officer duly determined the application and commuted the produce rent into a money rent. There was an appeal from the Assistant Settlement Officer to the Collector and a further appeal from the Collector to the Commissioner. But in neither of these appeals was any objection raised by the landlord that the Assistant Settlement Officer had no jurisdiction to commute the rent under Section 40. The ...
Keshab Lal Goswami Vs. Bhola Nath Gangopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.414
Mallik, J.1. The facts which have given rise to the present appeal are briefly these: one Kinu mortgaged 13 bighas of land to Sheik Jamit and Sheikh Chhakori in usufructuary mortgage 1293 B.S for Rs. 120. There was a sub mortgage of this property to two persons Ananta and, Doyal in 1295 and Ananta and Doyal were put in possession of the property. Kinu sold 8 bighas out of 13 bighas to 'Ananta and Doyal in 1299 for Rs. 179 out of which Rs. 120 was paid to the mortgagee and the balance was taken by the mortgagor. Kinu had a sister Umeda by name and Umeda sold the disputed property, namely, 13 bighas to the plaintiff in 1327 B.S. On the strength of this purchase from Umeda the plaintiff brought the suit for declaration of his title to the property and for recovery of possession thereof. The plaintiff's claim was resisted on the allegations that there had been a sale of 8 bighas out of the 13 bighas to Ananta and Doyal and a subsequent sale of the remaining 5 bighas by an oral arrangement ...
Mahendranarayan Ray Chaudhuri Vs. Janakinath Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal417,129Ind.Cas.780
Rankin, C.J.1. This is the defendant's application for a certificate that the case is a fit one to be taken on appeal to His Majesty in Council. The suit was brought in 1926 for possession of certain land and ejectment of the defendant therefrom, on the footing that the defendant purchased the tenancy right of certain persons who had only a nontransferable jama. The defendant's contention was that the tenancy in question was a permanent tenancy at fixed rate and therefore transferable. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit and the defendant appealed to the Additional District Judge, who allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Upon a second appeal to this Court, that decree was reversed and the judgment of the trial Court restored. so that the plaintiff succeeded in ejectment.2. Upon the affidavits before us, there is a dispute as to the value of the property, which is the subject matter of the suit, and in the ordinary course we would call for a report from the trial Court up...
Mohitkrishna Kundu Vs. Mahendranath Guha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal468
S.K. Ghose, J.1. Plaintiffs sue to recover arrears of rent in respect of a jama of Rs. 27-12 0 in cash and 10 arhis in gula paddy. The defence is that, under the terms of the kabuliyat, plaintiffs are entitled only to a consolidated rent of Rs. 37-12-0. The Courts below have construed the kabuliyat and agreed in holding against the defence. They have held that the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 27-12-0 and 10 arhis of gula paddy, according to the current market value, which is found to be Rs. 50 a bish. The present second appeal is by the defendant.2. The decision will turn on the construction of the patta, Ex. A, which is of the year 1905. It describes the holding as consisting of an area of 23 bighas 10' cottas, with an annual cash rent of Rs. 27-12-0 and (according to a certain measure) 10 arhis of gula paddy, 'the price of which is Rs. 10.' The total, including the price of the paddy, is fixed' at a jama (dharya) of Rs. 37-12-0. The document further recites that the lease, which is...
Sudhirendra Deb Manna Vs. Ranendra Deb Manna and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal539
Rankin, C.J.1. The original plaintiff in this suit was one Sudhirendra, the fourth son of Jogendra. Jogendra was the eldest son of Debendra and Debendra was the eldest son of Mohesh. The parties are governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law. Mohesh, the plaintiff's great-grandfather, died in 1874 having left his property to be divided, after the death of his wife and upon the youngest of his grandsons who should be living at the time of his-decease attaining full age, among his grandsons in equal shares. Pour grandsons were born in the lifetime of Mohesh of whom the plaintiff's father Jogendra was one. There is a quests as to the fifth grandson-whether, allowance being made for the period of gestation, he too is not to be considered as having been born a the lifetime of his grandfather. Debendra was the executor to the Will of Mohesh, probate having been granted to him on 10th July 1874. Debendra died in 1901 having by his will appointed Jogendra to be his executor. He dedicated al...
Mohitosh Dutta Vs. Satish Chandra Chaudhuri and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal92,129Ind.Cas.880
Cuming, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised by the opposite party to this rule that Mukerji, J., had no jurisdiction to issue this rule. The facts would appear to be these: The plaintiff sued the defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,332 odd. The suit in question was heard by the Munsif at Sealdah exercising powers up to Rs. 2,000 and it was decreed for the whole amount plus costs in all for Rs. 1,584. The plaintiff then took out execution for a sum of Rs. 1,611 being the amount of the decree and interests. A certain property was put up to sale and sold for Rs. 550. Meanwhile the defendant in that suit had been declared an insolvent and the receiver in insolvency made an application to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground that the property at the time of the sale was vested not in the defendant but in the receiver and therefore could not be sold in execution of the decree. The learned Munsif who heard this application set aside the sale. The plaintiff then applied to the Munsi...
Jiban Chandra Dutta and ors. Vs. Ahladini Debya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal52,129Ind.Cas.628
Costello, J.1. This is an application for an order setting aside the order dated 8th June 1929 made by the Subordinate Judge of Bankura in Title, (partition) Suit No. 4 of 1921. The applicants are some of the defendants in that suit and the opposite parties are the plaintiffs in that suit and the rest of the defendants. It is said that the order of 8th June 1929 was made by the learned Judge without jurisdiction and accordingly this application was made under Section 115, Civil P.C.2. It is necessary to consider briefly how it came about that that order was in fact made. It appears that there had been a previous partition suit between these parties and certain properties had been dealt with under orders made in that suit. Then on 8th September 1922 the Subordinate Judge of Bankura made a preliminary decree in the present suit acceding to the plaintiff's claim for partition of certain lands which had not been partitioned in the previous suit; and he further directed that two chaks calle...
Barboni Coal Concern Ltd. Vs. Paricharak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal526
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of royalty, interest and cesses from the defendant from 14th April 1918 to 13th April 1924 under a mining lease executed in favour of the predecessor of the latter on the 24th May 1901. The lease was granted by four persons as sbebaits and servitors of a deity Gopinafch Jiu Thakur. The plaintiff is one of them and claimed a fourth share of the dues making the other three cosharers pro-forma defendants in the suit. The suit has been decreed for the amount claimed with a very small deduction. The principal defendants are the appellants.2. To deal with the contentions that have been urged in this appeal a few facts have to be stated. The deity Gopinath Jiu Thakur is the family deity of the plaintiff and the pro-forma defendants. They jointly gave a lease and in the kabuliyat thereof the following recitals appear : the translation of the recital as it appears in the paper-book is not quite happy, a...
Nigendra Chandra Sen Vs. Mohendra Hari Nag and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal96,129Ind.Cas.851
1. This appeal has arisen out of a decision of the Additional District Judge of Dacca, dismissing an application for Letters of Administration with a copy of a will annexed. The will is said to have been executed by one Brindaban Chandra Nag, who died on the 9th Bhadro 1330 B. S., leaving a widow Kunja Mohini, a son Mohendra Hari Nag, a widowed daughter Kristo Manjuri and two grandsons Nigendra Chandra Sen and Ashuram Sen, sons of the said Kristo Manjuri.2. In 1309 (=1903) the testator had 'executed and registered a will in which he stated that his son Mohendra was disobedient and disrespectful to him and was giving him trouble and living separately from him. Amongst other provisions the testator by that will gave his. moveablas and his money-lending business absolutely to his wife Kunja Mohini, and a life-interest to her in his immovable property which consisted of a house he had inherited from his own maternal grandfather, and further provided that on Kunja Mohini's death the said im...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »