Kolkata Court May 1931 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.
Jadu Nath Gupta Vs. Chandra Bhusan Sur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal493
Graham, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance the question involved being whether the plaintiff, now appellant, was entitled to the relief which he claimed.2. The facts which led to the institution of the suit, may be briefly referred to, Some of those are common ground, while as to others there is divergence in the versions put forward on behalf of. the respective' parties. It appears that the plaintiff appellant, who is a Kabiraj practising in Calcutta, belongs to the Noakhali District where defendant 1, Rai Raj Kumar Datta Bahadur (hereafter referred to as the Rai Bahadur) also resides. In May 1924 the Rai Bahadur went to Calcutta, and it is the case of both parties that while he was there a contract was entered into between him and the plaintiff whereby in consideration of a salami of Rs. 400 he was to give to the plaintiff lakheraj right in a tank or dighi, which the plaintiff had been holding under him at an annual jama of Rs. 52. According to the Rai Bah...
(Srimanta) Chattopadhyay and ors. Vs. the Khararia Mejozilla Zemindari ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal632
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant and it arises out of a suit for enhancement of rent of a tenure which the defendant holds under the plaintiff--The Kheraria Mejozilla Zamindary Syndicate Limited. The plaintiff claimed enhancement under Section 7, Ben. Ten. Act, from Rs. 66-7-3 to Rs. 152-3-3. There was an alternative claim for assessment of rent at Rs. 139-13-6 at 9i annas per local bigha. The Munsif granted a modified decree to the plaintiff allowing his claim partially holding that the Syndicate Ltd., was entitled to enhancement up to Rs. 125-8-0. The plea taken by the defendant with regard to payment was negatived. On appeal by the defendant and cross-appeal by the plaintiff, the Additional Subordinate Judge has affirmed the decision of the Munsif. Against this decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge, the present appeal has been brought and it is contended on behalf of the appellant that there has not been a proper trial of the appeal seeing that the lowe...
Sasi Sekhar Sen and anr. Vs. Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal267,137Ind.Cas.147
Mitter, J.1. A meticulously careful argument has been addressed to us by Mr. Bejoy Kumar Bhattacharji who appears for the defendants-appellants in these two appeals. But after listening to that argument and after hearing the argument of the respondent we are unable to agree with his contention and we can come to no other conclusion than that this appeal must be dismissed. It appears that the plaintiff, the Maharaja of Tipperah instituted two suits for arrears of embankment costs due from the defendants in the two suits respectively according to the apportionment made by the Collector under the provisions of the Embankment Act, Act 2 of 1882. The defence to these two suits was common and it was said in the first place that the defendants are not liable to pay the embankment costs as the notice provided for by Section 69 of the Act has not been proved to have been served upon them. A further defence was taken that by the terms of the engagement between the Maharaja of Tipperah and the de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›