Skip to content

Kolkata Court June 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.

Jun 05 1930

Chhota Murari Mohan Panda Vs. Protap NaraIn Panda and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Jun-05-1930

Reported in: AIR1930Cal745,129Ind.Cas.843

Mitter, J.1. The suit in which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff for declaration of his title to the ka schedule properties on the allegation that he had purchased a non transferable occupancy-holding in execution of a mortgage-decree against the original tenants. In the suit the plaintiff asked for a further declaration that he is entitled to a declaration of his title to an eight anna superior maliki interest in the lands of schedule ka and kha. There was also a prayer for an injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 from executing the rent decree obtained by them in respect of the lands of schedules ka and kha. The defence in the suit was with regard to the first part of the claim that as the holding was a non-transferable occupancy-holding no right passed to the plaintiff by the sale held in execution of the mortgage decree. With regard to the second part of the claim the defence was that the landlord's interest was in the defendants and that defendant 5 who is said to...


Jun 04 1930

Benode Lal Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Secy. of State

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Jun-04-1930

Reported in: AIR1931Cal239

Suhrawardy, J. 1. The suits out of which these appeals arise were brought by the plaintiffs against the Secy. of State for India in Council for a declaration of their title to the disputed land and for recovery of possession of the same with mesne profits. Their case was that the lands in the suit appertained to their permanently settled estates in which the plaintiffs claimed a talukdari and a patni right and were assessed with revenue at the time of the Permanent Settlement. Long after the Permanent Settlement a done or channel of the name of Lakshmipur Done appeared and subsequently silted up and formed the char which the defendants claimed and resumed in 1913 under deara proceedings under Act 9 of 1817. The case for the Secy. of State was that the lands did not form part of the permanently settled estates and were not assessed to revenue at the time of the Permanent Settlement. He further said that at the time of the Permanent Settlement the lands were in the bed of a public naviga...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial