Kolkata Court June 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.
Lakshan Chandra Mandal and ors. Vs. Narim Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal508,138Ind.Cas.545
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is an appeal by the landlords arising out of proceedings under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, in which they claimed enhancement of rent under Section 30 (b), Ben. Ten. Act, on the ground of rise in the price of staple food-crops and also under Section 52, Ben. Ten. Act, for increase in the area of the holding. The tenancy in question in this appeal was created by a kabuliyat executed by the tenant in March 1911. The case we are now concerned with was Suit No. 2343 of 1925 in the trial Court and Appeal No. 797 of 1927 in the lower appellate Court. The defence was that under the terms of the kabuliyat the plaintiffs were not entitle to claim any enhancement under Section 30(b), Ben. Ten. Act, as the rent was mukarrari. The trial Court did not accept this plea and on a reading of the kabuliyat was of opinion that the rent was not fixed and allowed enhancement under Section 30 (b), Ben. Ten. Act, at the rate of 2 annas, in the rupee. The learned Munsif also allowed enhan...
Kshitish Chandra Acharjya Choudhry and ors. Vs. Raja Janakinath Roy an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal194,137Ind.Cas.127
1. This is an appeal by certain defendants judgment-debtors from an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of 24-Pargannas passed on 9th August 1930, appointing one Babu Sudhindra Nath Mukerji, receiver in respect of the properties of the defendants judgment-debtors which had been mortgaged to the respondents.2. The properties are extensive and are situated in several districts, namely, 24 Porgannas, Mymensingh, Rangpur Rajshahi and Noakhali.3. The respondents instituted a suit on the mortgages on 10th March 1926, their dues having come up to over Rs. 3,00,000 of which the amount of interest itself in arrears amounted to over Rs. 1,00,000. They applied for the appointment of a receiver in respect of the mortgaged properties, alleging that there was apprehension that the security would be lost by reason of nonpayment of Government revenue, that the value of the securities was being diminished as interest was accumulating so that the mortgaged properties would not be sufficient to sat...
John Carapret Galstaun Vs. Syed Mahammad HusaIn Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal627,140Ind.Cas.732
1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder, auction purchaser, from an order setting aside a sale, held in execution of his decree, under Order 21, Rule 90 and Section 47 of the Code. The decree was a money decree for Rs. 14,000 odd passed on 28th January 1921, and at the date of the execution, namely 5th October 1926, amounted to over Rs. 16,000. The sale in execution took place on 17th May 1927, the price fetched being Rs. 8,200. On 30th August 1928 the judgment debtor applied under Order 21, Rule 90 and Section 47 of the Code to set aside the sale. In the application it was alleged that none of the requisite processes were served, that they had all been fraudulently suppressed, and that by means of such fraud, the decree holder had succeeded in purchasing the properties which are valued at Rs. 25,000 for the inadequate price mentioned above. The Subordinate Judge arrived at the following findings. That the properties sold were worth not less than Rs. 25,000 and that the price fetched...
In Re: Nanda Lal Mukherji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal353
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, the plaintiff brought his suit alleging that he and defendant 1 were brothers. As regards the property of Schedule 1, it was alleged that that was their ancestral property and that the two brothers were in possession thereof in equal shares. That property was said to be of the market value of some Rs. 16,000. 'As regards the second schedule property, the plaintiff's case was that it was acquired by the joint family fund when defendant 1 was the karta. This appears to be a residential house in the suburbs of Calcutta and its value is put down as Rs.84,000. The plaintiffs case is that he had been actually living in that house when the events which I am about to mention happened. He says that defendant 1 mortgaged the whole of the second schedule property-- I omit all reference to the property of the first schedule--to defendants 2 to 4 on the footing that defendant 1 was the sole owner of the house and he also executed a subsequent encumbrance in favour of de...
Jagatdwiptendranarayan Bhup Vs. Bilash Ray Agarwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal427,137Ind.Cas.860
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of. a suit brought by him through the Regency Council, Cooch Behar, for assessment of fair and equitable rent for 5 acres and 14 decimals of lands which have been recorded in Khatiyan No. 2197 of Mauza Tetulia. The case of His Highness the Maharaja Jagatd wiptendranarayan Bhup Bahadur is that the suit land lies within the ambit of his zamindari and in the Record of Eights, which was finally published in 1914, he has been recorded as the landlord in respect of the suit lands and the lands are shown as being liable to enhancement of rent. The defendants contend mainly, first, that they and their predecessor-in-interest were in possession of the lands in suit for nearly 100 years or more under a rent-free title and secondly, they contend that the suit is barred by the statute of limitation as the defendants and their predecessor have been exercising right over these lands openly with the knowledge of the plaintiff as rent-free...
Sm. Kamala Mayee Dasi Vs. Nibaran Chandra Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal431
Suhrawardy, J.1. This case has been placed before the Division Bench as it is said to involve a question of law on which there has been a divergence of opinion. The facts on which the question turns are that one Dukhimoyi Dasi had a tenancy under the defendant in respect of a piece of homestead land from before the Transfer of Property Act. She was succeeded by her daughter Basanta Kumari who sold it to the plaintiff in 1924. The plaintiff having been dispossessed by the defendant who is the landlord brought the present suit for declaration of his title and for possession of the land. The defence pleaded that Dukhimoyi had no right to the land as she was allowed to live there as a mere licensee. The trial Court gave a decree to the plaintiff holding that on the pleadings the defendant could not raise the question of transferability of Dukhimoyi's tenancy which he held was rightly transferred to the plaintiff. The learned Subordinate Judge in the appellate Court held that the defence su...
Gosta Behari Pramanik and ors. Vs. Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal207,136Ind.Cas.606
Suhrawardy, J.1. The only question of importance to be determined in this case is whether Section 109, Ben. Ten. Act, before its amendment bars the plaintiff's suit or whether the section as amended in 1928 has retrospectively removed the bar. There were other questions raised, such as limitation, which have all been decided in favour of the plaintiff by the Court of appeal below. The trial Court found two main issues against the plaintiff and held that the suit was barred by limitation and also by the operation of Section 109 before its amendment.2. The suit was instituted on 14th April 1927. The decision of the first Court was pronounced on 16th April 1928. The amended Bengal Tenancy Act came into force on 21st February 1929 and the judgment of the lower appellate Court was delivered on 21st March 1929, that is, after the new Act came into operation. The decision of the trial Court was undoubtedly correct according to the law as it stood at the date it was pronounced. The learned Dis...
Sm. Kalyani Dassi Vs. Ganesh Chandra Sreemany and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal259,137Ind.Cas.353
Buckland, J.1. This is an application to amend the plaint. When the suit came on for hearing on a former occasion several objections wore taken to the form of the plaint, and Mr. H. D. Bose asked for an opportunity to make an application to amend in such a way as to make it clear that what his client seeks is a declaration of title to the whole area of land on which in other proceedings to which his client was not a party it was alleged by the defendant Sreemany that the plaintiff's tenant Surendra Nath Dey had encroached.2. In para. 12 of the plaint an entirely different encroachment said to have been made by the defendant Sreemany himself upon the plaintiff's land, is alleged. As to that Mr. Pugh then objected that there was no statement in the plaint as to when the cause of action arose. On the application of Mr. H. D. Bose on behalf of the plaintiff I adjourned the hearing in order to enable an application to amend the plaint to be made, and this has now been done.3. In the course ...
Lakshmijan and ors. Vs. Nazumia and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal678,140Ind.Cas.601
Graham, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for khas possession of certain land on establishment of title. The plaintiff's case was that Taluks Nos. 400 and 401 were advertised for sale under the Patni Sale Law and that on 16th May 1921 he purchased Taluk No. 401 for a sum of Eh. GO. The Collector how. over by mistake entered the sale against Taluk No. 400 which was not sold at all. The plaintiff subsequently applied to the Collector for rectification of the error, but was referred by the Collector to the civil Court on the ground that the matter was beyond his jurisdiction. Thereupon this suit was instituted. The defence was that what was sold was Taluk No. 400 and not 401; and that if the latter taluk was in fact sold, the sale was void on account of certain irregularities in the procedure. The trial Court on a consideration of the evidence found that Taluk No. 401 and not 400 was sold and gave a decree accordingly. That decree was confirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge of Ch...
B.N. Ry. Co. Ltd. Vs. Moolji Sicka and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal70
Mitter, J.1. This rule was obtained at the instance of the B. N. Ry. Co. Ltd. for the revision of a judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court Judge, Sealdah, granting a decree to the plaintiffs-opposite party's firm-for a certain sum of money as compensation for damages to certain consignment of biri leaves and biris for carriage by the B. N. Ry. Co., from different stations to Shalimar. Five consignments were sent: one from Champa to Shalimar, one from Sakti to Shalimar, one from Ganga Jhir to Shalimar, one from Gondia to Shalimar and one from Kelzure to Tirora. With regard to some of the consignments the plaintiffs suit has bean dismissed. With regard to the others the plaintiff has been given a decree. Several grounds have been taken on behalf of the petitioner challenging the correctness of the judgment of the Small Cause Court Judge. It 'is said that there is no proof in this ease that there was any defect in the waggons carrying these biris at the starting station. Consequentl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »