Kolkata Court August 1933 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.
Jogesh Chandra Mukherjee Vs. Rai Beharilal Mitra Bahadur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal799
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possessions of the lands specified in Schedule (gha) and for confirmation of possession of the lands of Schedule (ga) of the plaint, on declaration of his title to the same. The plaintiff's claim in suit was based upon the solenamas in terms of which a previous suit, No. 63 of 1913, was disposed of as between the plaintiff's father and the two sets of landlords, representing the entire interest in the lands in suit. The contesting defendants, defendants 1, 4 and 5 in the suit, resisted the claim of the plaintiff as made in the suit. Defendant 1 was the landlord, while defendants 2, 4 and 5 were persons claiming to be in possession of the lands in suit, holding the same under the landlords. The solenama on which the plaintiff's title was based, and under which the plaintiff claimed howla right in the lands in suit, were characterised by the defendants as documents fraudulently obtained by the plaintiff's father; they were n...
Jogesh Chandra Mukerjee Vs. Rai Beharilal Mitra Bahadur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1933
Reported in: 153Ind.Cas.313
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possessions of the lands specified in Schedule (aha) and for confirmation of possession of the lands of Schedule (ga) of the plaint, on declaration of his title to the same The plaintiff's claim in suit was based upon the solenamas in terms of which a previous suit, No. 63 of 1913, was disposed of as between the plaintiff's father and the two sets of landlords, representing the entire interest in the lands in suit. The contesting defendants, defendants Nos. 1 4 and 5 in the suit, resisted the claim of the plaintiff as made in the suit. Defendant No. 1 was the landlord, while defendants Nos. 2, 4 and 5 were persons claiming to be in possession of the lands in suit, holding the same under the landlords' The solenama on which the plaintiff's title was based, and under which the plaintiff claimed howla right in the lands in suit were characterised by the defendants as documents fraudulently obtained by the plaintiff's father t...
Srish Chandra Ganguly Vs. Esom Mussalli and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal280
Bartley, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Additional District Judge, Jessore, reversing the decision of the Munsif, First. Court, Jhenidah. The case in the plaint was that defendants 1 to 4 in the suit held an agricultural jama of Rs. 7.8-0 carved out of an original jama of Rupees 18-8-0. This jama included a plot of homestead land, plot No. 1720, on which the defendants lived. They went to-live elsewhere, and in 1434 B. S. erected a hut on the plot, and allowed the Mahomed an public to use it as a mosque. Further, they attempted to collect money by subscription to build a pucca mosque. The suit was brought under Section 25, Ben. Ten. Act. In the first Court, the substantial defences were that no notices under Section 155, Ben. Ten. Act, had been served on the defendants ; that the suit was barred by waiver and acquiescence as the landlord knew of, and assented to the erection of the hut for the specific purpose indicated; that the plot on which it stood...
Naku Sheik and ors. Vs. Harish Chandra Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal411,150Ind.Cas.374
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for declaration of plaintiffs' title to land which had accreted to their holding, for ejectment of the defendants from the same, and for recovery of mesne profits and damages. The plaintiffs obtained settlement of C. Section Dag No. 471 and a portion of Dag No. 465, and later on a bigha of land accreted to this land and they were in possession of this accretion when (they alleged) the defendants dispossessed them from the land of Sen. (kha) of the plaint. The contesting defendants maintain that they obtained settlement of the land of this schedule of the plaint from the Zemindars. The plaintiffs claim settlement from the Dar-patnidar under the same zamindar. The trial Court decreed the suit in part dismissing the plaintiffs' claim to the accreted land and also the claim for mesne profits and damages. The lower appellate Court decreed the suit in its entirety. Hence this second appeal by the defendants.2. The land in suit was originally in...
Shivaprasad Singh Vs. Prayagkumari Debee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1935Cal39
1. Durgaprasad Singh succeeded to the gadi of the Jharia Raj in 1899, on the death of his elder brother Raja Joymangal Singh. The family is governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. By custom the raj is impartible, and succession to it is governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture. Raja Durgaprasad died on 7th March 1916(=24th Falgun 1322 B.S.), leaving three widows, Ranee Prayagakumari, Ranee Subhadrakumari and Ranee Hemkumari, but no issue. The three Ranees were the plaintiffs in this suit; and one of them, namely, Ranee Subhadrakumari having died since the suit was commenced, the other two are now on the record as plaintiffs, in their own rights and also as her heirs and legal representatives. Raja Durgaprasad had, on 27th August 1915, made a will, purporting to dispose of some of the properties in dispute; but no detailed reference to its particulars are necessary because although its genuineness is beyond question, the parties have not, at any stage of this litigation, sou...
Jnanendra Bhusan Bakshi Vs. Chairman Municipal Commissioner, Naihati M ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal501
Mitter, J.1. The appellant is the plaintiff in an action brought against the Naihati Municipality for refund of a certain sum of money as also for damages. Both the Courts below have agreed in dismissing his suit; hence the present appeal. In order to appreciate the points which fall for determination in the present appeal the following relevant facts may be briefly stated. The plaintiff is a tenant under one Asutosh Haldar who defaulted in the payment of municipal taxes; the plaintiff wrote a letter to the Municipality informing the Chairman that Asutosh lives in a separate portion of the building but notwithstanding such letter the Municipal Daroga went inside plaintiff's house by a khirki door, attached his cycle and thus subjected him to humiliation; plaintiff paid Rs. 17-3-0 for the release of his cycle. He maintains that the action of the Municipality was illegal and ultra vires and claims the refund of the said sum. He maintains further that the action of the Municipal Daroga in...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Luchmi Narayan Sa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal776a,145Ind.Cas.773
Henderson, J.1. This is an appeal by the Local Government under Section 417, Criminal P.C., against an order of acquittal passed by a Special Magistrate appointed under the provisions of Act 12 of 1932 of the Bengal Legislative Council. A preliminary objection has been taken to the effect that the appeal is incompetent. Mr. Khundkar has argued that the wording of Section 417 is sufficiently wide to cover the present case. It is quite clear that an accused person convicted by a Special Magistrate could have no appeal apart from the special provision. Section 404 provides that no appeal shall lie, except as provided by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force. There are no special Magistrates under the Code and there is no provision in Ch. 7 for an appeal against the conviction by such a Magistrate; for example, it would not be possible to say whether such an appeal, would lie to the District Magistrate, to the Court of Session or to this Court Mr. Khundkar has therefore ...
Dwarkanath Das Sarkar Vs. Prasannakumar De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal413
Mallick, J.1. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether in a proceeding under Section 158, Ben. Ten. Act, started at the instance of the landlord, the Court has any jurisdiction to decide a dispute as to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On behalf of the appellant, the decision in Peary Mohun Mukerji v. Ali Sheikh (1898) 20 Cal 249 was relied upon. But in a later decision of this Court, in the case of Kailash Chandra v. Meheruddi Sheikh : AIR1927Cal51 , it was held that, in an application under Section 158, Ben. Ten. Act, it is open to the Court to determine whether the relationship of landlord and tenant does exist between the parties. Mr. Lahiri for the appellant would have me follow the decision in Peary Mohun Mukerji v. Ali Sheikh (1898) 20 Cal 249, contending that this decision is supported by some observations in the Full Bench decision in Debendro Kumar Bundopadhya v. Bhupendro Narain Dutt (1892) 19 Cal 182...
Asutosh Pramanik and anr. Vs. Jibandhan Ganguly
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal822,147Ind.Cas.209
1. (S.A. No. 729 of 1931).-This is an appeal in a suit for ejectment after service of notice to quit. The father of defendant 1 held the land in suit under a registered lease for nine years, and, on the expiry of the term of the lease, was holding over till his death. The defendant, after the demise of his father, has been in possession as a lessee, on payment of rent. The ground on which defendant 1 was sought to be ejected was that he had, in contravention of the term of the lease, cut down trees standing on the land. The claim for eviction as made by the plaintiff was resisted by defendant 1 whose defence, so far as we are concerned with the same in this appeal, was that his father had acquired the right of occupancy in the land in suit, and that the claim for eviction was not maintainable. The Courts below have decided all the questions arising for consideration in the case, as indicated by the various issues raised in the trial Court against defendant 1 and the defendant has appea...
Bhagaban Das Mahesri Vs. Prosanna Dev Raikot and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal433
1. This appeal has been preferred by defendant 4 in a suit which was instituted against him and some other defendants for recovery of khas possession of certain lands, it being alleged in the suit that the other defendants were tenants-at-will under the plaintiff and that defendant 4 was a subtenant under them. The order from which this appeal has been preferred is an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Jalpaiguri by which the learned Judge, having set aside the decision of the Munsif dismissing the suit has remanded the suit for decision on the merits on the evidence in the record and on such further evidence which the parties might like to produce in the suit. The Subordinate Judge has also given a direction that if an opportunity was asked for by any of the parties to adduce any further evidence the trial Court should give him that opportunity. In order to understand the contentions which have been put forward in this appeal it is necessary to set out a few facts.2. In 1922, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »