Kolkata Court March 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.
Rai Narayan Hazari Vs. Bejoy Singh Hazari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal73,129Ind.Cas.875
Mitter, J.1. The suit in which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff now respondent, for a declaration that certain properties which had been attached by one Chattan Kumari in a previous execution case arising out of Suit No. 90 of 1912, and which have bean released from attachment on a claim having been made by defendant 2 (now appellant) through defendant i are properties which belonged to one Kanta Prosad Hazari and are liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree in Suit No. 90 of 1912 aforesaid.2. It is not disputed that the properties now in suit belonged to Kanta Prosad Hazari who died on 25th September 1904 leaving behind him his widow Chattan Kumari. Prior to his death Kanta Prosad executed a will by which he provided inter alia that his widow Chattan Kumari should receive Rs. 1,000 yearly for her maintenance from his estate and that this maintenance was to be a charge on his estate. After the death of Kanta his estate was managed by his nephew Ramdin. T...
Haridas Modak Vs. Ramdas Modak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal205
Rankin, C.J. 1. In my opinion, the order made by the lower appellate Court must be set aside. The position is that the plaintiff brought a suit for partition of his homestead against the defendant who was his brother. After a certain amount of evidence had been taken apparently it appears that the parties came to an agreement which is contained in a joint petition presented to the Court on 20th November 1925. It states that the parties have decided to settle the suit or the parties have determined to dispose of the suit on certain terms, butas it is necessary to have some time in order to complete all that is to be done according to the settlement, it is prayed that the suit may be postponed to-day and may come up for hearing Thursday next.2. So the only order that was to be made by the Court was an order of adjournment and the case was to come before the Court on Thursday next. Why was it to come before the Court on Thursday next It appears that, apart from certain declarations upon m...
Nilabjabarani Dasi Vs. Nandarani Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal478
Rankin, C.J. 1. In this case, the defendant appeals from a decree, whereby a certain kabala has been set aside. It appears that the consideration and bona fides of the document were attacked unsuccessfully before both the Courts below; but, in the end, the plaintiff succeeded in getting a decree, setting aside the kabala on the ground that the registration thereof under the Registration Act had been invalid. It seems that, at Berhampore, there was a Sadar Sub-Registrar, whose office has been amalgamated with that of the office of the Registrar, and there is another Sub-Registrar at Berhampore, who is under the same Registrar, but in a different sub-district. There were 33 plots in this document and the first plot was in the jurisdiction of the Sadar Sub-Registrar, whose office was amalgamated with that of the Registrar of the district. Upon evidence, it has been held that this plot has no real existence and the other plots, being really situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Regis...
Nirode Basini Mitra Vs. Sital Chandra Ghatak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal577
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, plaintiffs appeal from a decree of the Special Judge who has refused their claim for additional rent for additional area. It appears that the first Court, that is to say, the Assistant Settlement Officer decreed the suit and when the matter was taken on appeal to the Special Judge the learned Judge refused the relief asked for because he rejected a dowl kabuliyat as being insufficiently stamped, although it had been admitted in the first Court. The Judge then held that as there was no evidence as to what the original area was, no case had been made out for additional rent.2. In this appeal it is objected, first of all, on behalf of the respondents that, under Section 109-A, Bengal Tenancy Act, no appeal lies and the decision in Nafar Chandra Pal Choudhury v. Nur Ali : AIR1928Cal496 has been cited to us. In my opinion the present is not a case in which the prohibition of Section 109-A applies at all. There is no question here of settlement of fair and equita...
Farey HosseIn Mir Vs. Nagendra Kishore Roy Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal533
Page, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff is the landlord of certain lands in a village in two plots of which the defendants are the tenants. In respect of the plot in suit the plaintiff brings a suit for rent at Rs. 45-1-9 per annum including cesses on the basis of a decree obtained against all the defendants under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act. The defendants contend that they are not bound by that decree under Section 105, because two of the defendants at the time were minors and were not duly represented in that proceeding. The lower appellate Court has held that at the time of the Section 105 proceedings the two defendants who were alleged to be minors were majors, and gave a decree for the plaintiff at the rate which he claimed against all the defendants. It was contended in the lower Courts and also on this appeal that the question whether at the time of the Section 105 proceedings the two defendants were majors or minors was determined by the previous suit between the same parties in ...
Birendra Nath Mitra and anr. Vs. Mt. Begum Jan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal40
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an application by certain respondents in a first appeal for an order for security for costs. It appears that the suit was instituted in 1923. The plaintiff is the wife of defendant 2 and her case is that certain mortgages which have been executed over the properties by her husband are invalid as against her in respect that the properties are not her husband's properties but are really her own. The suit was brought on the footing that the lady was in possession of her properties and required a mere declaration from the Court. It appears that large sums of money have been advanced on these properties and that the lady and her husband have had certain remarkable transactions one with the other. The case is that she had a large fortune in the shape of ornaments, gold coins and cash when she married defendant 2; that this defendant induced her to advance money to him and that she became a co-partner with him in a business named Bhagat & Company and then became the sol...
Abdul Razak Vs. Sreenath Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal93
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, defendants 1 and 2 have each 8 annas interest in a revenue paying estate and defendant 2 has granted to the plaintiff a putni lease of his undivided half share in this revenue paying estate. Thereupon, on 14th July 1926 the plaintiff brought a suit for partition against both the defendants. Defendant 1 by his written statement took the point that the partition should not be done by a commissioner in the civil Court because the civil Court in that way would not sever the total revenue demand upon the estate as a whole. He pointed out that, if the plaintiff got separate possession of certain land-- the revenue remaining a burden upon the whole of the lands and if the plaintiff made default in paying his share of the revenue, the lands which had been given in severalty to defendant 1 would be liable to be sold for default of revenue. At the same time and on the same day, namely, 31st August 1926 on which he filed the written statement, defendant 1 tendered a p...
Nagendra Nath Ghose Vs. Mohini Mohan Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal131
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The plaintiff sues for declaration of title to and recovery of khas possession of lands on the following allegations. On 12th November 1919 he purchased the suit lands for a sum of Rs. 400 from the husband and certificated guardian of the minor Sudhanbala with the permission of the District Judge and obtained possession. But in 1922 he was dispossessed by the principal defendants, who claimed to have purchased from the husband of Sudhanbala on 18th July 1919. This latter purchase was without the permission of the District Judge. The defence is that the defendants' kabala was only voidable, and that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial Court held that the plaintiff's kabala was genuine, but that the defendants' kabala was voidable, and the suit was barred under Article 91, Lim. Act. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge did not decide the question of limitation, but he held that at the time of the sale to the plaintiff, the certificated guardian having already ...
Gulab Chand Bangur Vs. KabiruddIn Ahmad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal27
Lort-Wllliams, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C.2. The facts are extremely simple.3. The defendant is the plaintiffs' tenant under the terms of an agreement embodied in a consent decree of this Court dated 13th May 1925, of which the following is the only relevant term:After the repairs of the said premises are completed the defendant will be entitled to occupy his former rooms but will pay in respect thereof such sum as will be found payable upon a calculation being made at the rate of rent paid by other tenants at the same floor. In case of any difference, the amount of rent will be settled by Mr. Susil C. Sen, Solicitor.4. In accordance therewith the plaintiff claimed a rent of Rs. 160 upon the basis of the rent paid by other tenants. The defendant refused to pay, contending that there were no bona fide tenants on the same floor upon the basis of whose rent the rate could be fixed.5. Thereupon in July 1926, Mr. Sen settled the rent at Rs. 150. Subsequently Mr...
Mir Belayet Ali Vs. Radhikalal Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal547a
ORDERRankin, C.J.1. In my opinion this Rule must be discharged. In appears that the transferee paid money into Court on the footing that he had taken transfer of an occupancy holding. In these circumstances, it appears to me that the landlords' right arose under the new clause in the Bengal Tenancy Act and that, if the transferee has gone to expense in putting masonry buildings in the meantime upon the property he has done that at his own risk. This case cannot be treated as a case of encumbrance nor is it possible for the Court to go outside the language of Section 25(f)(2). Ben. Ten. Act, and to order compensation which is not authorised thereby. The Rule must, therefore, be discharged with costs. Hearing fee one gold mohur....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »