Kolkata Court May 1932 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.
Jagat Kishore Acharya Vs. KamaruddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal175
Guha, J.1. These appeals have arisen out of suits for realization of arrears of rent, brought by Raja Jagat Kishore Acharyya Chowdhury. The claim was made by the plaintiff in the suits for additional rent for excess area in the possession of the tenant defendants in the suits, on the basis of area recorded in the last cadastral survey, under Ch. 10, Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff also claimed enhancement of rent on the grounds of a rise in the average prices of staple food crops, as also on the ground that the productive powers of the land held by the tenants have been increased by fluvial action. The points raised for determination in the suits, on the averments made in the pleadings of the parties, so far as the main controversy between the parties was concerned, were the following: Are the defendants holding any land for which they do not pay rent, and are they liable to pay additional rent for the same What was the standard of measurement when the lands in suit were settled? 'Wh...
Probadha Gaolini Vs. Banka Behari Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal196
Patterson, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises purports to be one for registration of usufructuary mortgage bond, but certain other alternative reliefs were also prayed for, namely, that the defendant should be directed to execute and cause to be registered a bond identical with the bond in suit, or to refund the money said to have been advanced by the appellant together with interest. The main facts admitted and found in the course of these proceedings are as follows:The plaintiff's mistress, Probashi Baishnabi sued the defendant for recovery of a certain sum of money said to have been advanced on a mortgage bond. In that suit the bond was said to have been lost. In fact it was alleged by Probashi that it had been stolen from her by the defendant's son. The defendant denied liability and produced the bond before the Court, bearing endorsements of payments, but in spite of these endorsements and in spite of the fact that the bond was produced from the defendant's custody, the...
Mahommad Wasir Vs. Sk. Majid and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal319
Jack, J.1. These two appeals have arisen out of two suits in which the plaintiff claims paddy rent. The defendants in the suits maintain that the plaintiff is not entitled to paddy rent and that money rent only is payable. The trial Court in both cases decreed the suits for paddy rent. But on appeal the decrees were set aside and the suits were decreed at the money rent which the defendants claimed to have been payable. In Appeal No. 648 it is urged that the Court below was wrong in taking additional evidence without assigning any sufficient reasons therefor, and without giving sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff to rebut the evidence. Under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil P.C., wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. There is no provision that the Court must give an opportunity to the plaintiff to rebut the evidence. We are concerned in the present case with the admissions in evidence by the appell...
Muhammad Wasir Vs. Sheikh Majid and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1932
Reported in: 143Ind.Cas.507
Jack, J.1. These two appeals have arisen out of two suits in which the plaintiff claims paddy rent. The defendant's in the suits maintain that the plaintiff is not entitled to paddy rent and that money rent only is payable. The trial Court in both cases decreed the suits for paddy rent. But on appeal the decrees were set aside and the suits were decreed at the money rent which the defendants claimed to have been payable. In Appeal No. 648 it is urged that the court below was wrong in taking additional evidence without assigning any sufficient reasons there for and without giving sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff to rebut the evidence. Under Order XLI, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code, wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the court shall record the reasons for its admission. There is no provision that the court must, give an opportunity to the plaintiff to rebut the evidence. We are concerned in the present case with the admission in evidence ...
Hatu Naik and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal3
Panckridge, J.1. A point of some importance is raised by this Rule. That point is indicated by ground 3 which is in the following terms:For that in the absence of any evidence as to the original height of the bundh the conviction is bad in law.2. It appears that petitioner 23, Pulin Behari Dutt is one of the owners of an embankment called the Taladiha zamindari embankment which is situated in an area in respect of which a notification has been made under Section 6, Bengal Embankment Act, 1882. The date of this notification is 11th March 1901. In 1926 there were floods of exceptional gravity in the District of Midnapur; as a result of these floods the embankment was breached at several places. Petitioner 23 and also some of his tenants applied to the Collector for permission to repair the bund up to the old level. The Collector on 5th April 1928, gave permission to repair the breaches up to the level of 19'. A further application was made on 4th January 1929 to the Collector asking him ...
Ram Prasad Agarwalla and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal11
Panckridge, J.1. The question in this case is whether the complainant at the time he is said to have been wrongfully confined by the petitioners was protected from arrest by reason of Section 135, Sub-section 2, Civil P.C. It appears that the first petitioner had a civil Court decree outstanding against the complainant. On his application the Munsiff issued a warrant for the complainant's arrest and made over the warrant for execution to petitioner 2 who is a Court peon. It is a common ground that the petitioner was arrested on his way from the Munsif's Court at Tejpur to the Tejpur Local Board Office at 4 p.m. on 27th June 1931. It appears that on that day two civil suits to which the complainant was a party were on the list for hearing in the Munsiff's Court at Tejpur. The complainant had accordingly gone to the Court in connexion with the suits and had a consultation with his pleader. The 27th June was a Saturday and the latest hour at which it is suggested the Court was actually si...
(Sri Sri) Gopal Sridhar Mahadeb and ors. Vs. Sashi Bhusan Sarkar and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal109
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Faridpur, decreeing a suit for specific performance of a contract of lease. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 are the appellants. The case of the plaintiffs, who were eleven in number, was the following: There is a jalkar mehal which is the debuttar property of defendant 1, a group of deities, of whom the shebait is defendant 2 who is the mother of defendant 3, her only son. The jalkar was under an ijara lease with defendant 4, for a period of four years and a half which was to expire in Chaitra 1336 (=April 1929). On 16th Ashar 1335 (=30th June 1928) defendant 3 on behalf of defendant 2 having announced at Goalundo Ghat that on the expiry of the said lease the jalkar mehal would be again let out in ijara for a term of five years, there was a verbal contract between him and the first four plaintiffs to the effect that the said plaintiffs would be granted the said lease at an annual rent of Rs. 6,998; that they would pay de...
Radhu Ray and ors. Vs. Raja Jyoti Prasad Singh Deo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal21
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal brought by certain persons who claim a permanent interest under the name of jagirdars under the respondent Raja Jyoti Prosad Singh Deo-the zamindar in respect of certain land which has been compulsorily acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The purpose of the acquisition was for providing land for the offices of the Engineering and Telephone Staff of the Bast India Railway at Asansol and the date of the declaration is 4th August 1923. The amount of land that has been acquired appears to be 1861 acres. The land under acquisition has been divided into some eleven plots and in addition to the zamindar there are a number of persons claiming to be intermediate tenure holders of jagirdars as well as a number of persons who are tenants in occupation of the land. The present appeal is brought by some of these intermediate tenure holders. They originally asked for a reference both against the amount of the Collector's valuation of the land as well as against ...
Bhupendra Narayan Sinha Vs. Maharaj Bahadur Sinha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal54
1. This is an appeal from a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad, setting aside a putni sale. The plaintiff held the mehal which formed the subject matter of the suit, eight annas in patni right and the other eight annas in durpatni right, the patnidars in respect of the latter share being the pro forma defendants 5 to 7. The principal defendant, the Raja of Nashi pur, is the zamindar. The patni was originally created in 1854. The plaintiff and the pro forma defendants 5 to 7 acquired it in 1902 and executed the usual security bond in respect of it and got their names recorded in the zamindar's sherista on payment of nazar. It comprises lands of three touzis, namely, Nos. 434 and 523 of the District of Murshidabad, and No. 1152 of the District of Birbhum. It goes by the name of Mehal Sail Mail and bears an annual jama of Rs. 12,350. For arrears of rent for the first half year of 1331 B.S. the defendant, the Raja, on 1st Kartick of that year, applied for sale of the pat...
Secy. of State Vs. Madhu Sudan Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal260
1. These appeals arise out of certain suits which were instituted by the Secretary of State for India in Council for ejecting the defendants on service of notices to quit. The suits having been dismissed by the Court below, the plaintiff, the Secretary of State for India in Council, has preferred these appeals. Except as regards one of the suits which has given rise to F.A. No. 277 of 1928 the facts of the cases are very similar. In each of these other suits the facts are the following: The defendants were in possession of their respective plots for a long series of years under annual leases. In 1914 the plaintiff introduced a form of lease designating it as a license to receive which the defendants objected but they were told that the form would make no difference and they would be allowed to hold the plots as they did before under the leases. They held under the licenses the last of which expired on 31st March 1917. On 1st June 1917, the plaintiff gave them notices calling upon them ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »