Kolkata Court December 1934 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.
S.M. Bose and ors. Vs. Hafiz Md. Fateh Nasib and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal390
Bartley, J.1. This Rule was issued on the opposite party, calling on them to show cause why two orders made by the learned Subordinate Judge, one allowing the application of the opposite party 1 to continue the prosecution of a title suit in forma pauperis, which application was amended, at the hearing itself, into a prayer for permission to sue in forma pauperis, and a second order restoring to file the said application which had been dismissed for default, should not be set aside. The facts underlying the matter now in question are not in dispute. A title suit No. 144 of 1931 brought by the opposite party las plaintiff was ultimately dismissed by an order of this Court, dated 22nd January 1934. In November 1932, however the plaintiff had filed another application to continue title suit No. 144 of 1931 in forma pauperis, which was numbered as pauper case No. 7 of 1932. This application, which had been di missed for default on 11th November 1933, came up for final disposal on 19th June...
Nirad Chandra Sinha Sarma and ors. Vs. Sankar Chandra Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1936Cal176
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Mymensingh by which their suit for ejectment has been dismissed. It appears that three plots of land constituted a holding formerly held by two persons, Raghunath Garo and Labanga Garani under the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 30-11-9 per year, The area of the three plots is 7.18 acres. It is admitted that Raghunath Garu and Labanga Garani had occupancy rights in these three plots of land and that there is no custom of transferability of occupancy holdings in the locality. On 30th Sravan 1325 B.S. Raghunath and Labanga sold the entire holding to the defendant but the plaintiffs refused to recognise this transfer. The defendant remained on the land from the date of his purchase till the year 1334 B.S., the landlord refusing to do anything with him. In Baisakh 1335 B.S., the defendant executed a kabuliat in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of a portion of the lands of the holding ...
Raijaddi Shaikh and ors. Vs. Sarjan Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal706,159Ind.Cas.611
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is in a suit instituted by the plaintiffs-appellants for recovery of khas possession. Their case is that one Kaem Biswas held under them and their predecessors the lands in suit in under-raiyati right, and on his death the defendants, who are his heirs, are trespassers inasmuch as under-raiyati interests are not inheritable in law. The main defence is that the defendants are entitled to remain on the and as tenants as they are under-raiyats with the right of occupancy and as a heritable right had been conferred on their predecessor, Addas Biswas, by the predecessor of the plaintiffs, Aber Muhammad by a registered patta (Ex. C) dated 24th Assar 1303. Both the Courts have dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.2. The said patta described the status of the grantor, Aber Muhammad, as that of a raiyati at fixed rates and on that footing a heritable right was conferred on the grantee, Addas Biswas. The position therefore is that even if the status of the grantor Aber Mu...
Mir Golam Kibria Vs. Raja Promatha Bhusan Deb, Rai Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1934
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.367
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is in a suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant for recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants hold a jama of Rs. 32 under him in Movza Anupampore. The defendant contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue for arrears of rent as he had dispossessed him from a portion of the demised lands. Both the Courts below have found on the evidence the plea of dispossession not made out and decreed the suit. In both the Courts the defendant raised a plea of res judicata which also has been negatived. The appellant urges before me only one point, namely that the decision of the lower Courts on the point of res judicata is erroneous. The facts bearing upon this point are these: In 1926 the respondent instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent against the appellant (Rent Suit No. 2660 of 1926). The appellant pleaded for suspension of rent, basing his plea on the same act of dispossession wh...
Surendra Nath Majumdar and ors. Vs. Haripada Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1934
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.440
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is in a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the defendants are occupancy ryots and not ryots at fixed rent as recorded in the khatian prepared and finally published under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The khatian has recorded the defendants as ryots at fixed rent holding under the plaintiffs at the rent of Rs. 14-6 per year. The plaintiffs succeeded before the Munsif but the Subordinate Judge has dismissed their suit.2. It appears that before the Record of Rights was published, the plaintiffs instituted a suit (No. 988 of 1915), against the defendants for recovery of arrears of rent which they claimed at the rate of Rs. 14-6 per year. The defendants disputed the rate of rent which they alleged was Rs. 14-1 per year. In Paragraph 6 of the written statement filed in that suit they stated that they were holding the lands on the terms of an unregistered kayemi mukarari patta executed by the predecessors of the plaintiffs in favour o...
Banamali Das Vs. Kamala Kanta Majumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1934
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.55
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal in an action for ejectment under Section 44, Clause (c) of the Bengal Tenancy Act-The Courts below have decreed the suit. The facts of the case so far as they are relevant for the purposes of the present appeal and which are not in dispute now are as follows:The plaintiff is the landlord of the holding. The defendant came upon the land as a non-occupancy raiyat after executing a kabuliyat in plaintiff's favour on Chaitra 18, 1325 B.S. The material portion of the kabuliyat is as follows:I will be your tenant in respect of 15 gds. of land at an annual rent of Rs. 15 for a period of five years. I will pay the stipulated rent to you every year and take dakhilas signed by you. Without such a dakhila I will not be entitled to claim exemption from payment of rent. After the expiration of the term I will take a fresh settlement. I will preserve the boundary of the land. If the area of the land be found to be more, I will pay additional rent and if i...
Radha Sundar Ray and anr. Vs. Saktipada Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1934
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.367
ORDERD.N. Mitter, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act and I have been appointed by the learned Chief Justice as a Judge to decide on this reference.2. The questions referred to are : (1) what is the court-fee payable on a plaint or memorandum of appeal in a suit for adjudging a document void or voidable under a. 39 of the Specific Relief Act with a prayer for cancellation of the document in question and (in the case of registered document), for notification to the Sub-Registrar; and (2) does it make any difference whether or not the prayers for cancellation and notification to the Sub-Registrar are expressed or not. The second question referred need not be answered and it is sufficient for the purposes of the present appeal to answer the first question referred to above for in this case it appears clear that the plaintiff now respondent, brought the suit in respect of a deed of relinquishment purported to have been executed by him in favour of the defendants ...
Kartick Chandra Ray Vs. Asharam Agarwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1934
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.423
ORDERD.N. Mitter, J.1. This is a Reference made under Section 5 of the Court Pees Act and I have been appointed by the learned Chief Justice to decide on this Reference.2. The question which arises is whether or not ad valorem court-fees are leviable on a memorandum of appeal against a personal decree in a mortgage suit. It appears that the mortgagee obtained a preliminary mortgage decree directing the sale of mortgage properties. Against that decree an appeal has been preferred to this Court and ad valorem court-fees have been paid on the same. Subsequently after the obtaining of a final decree the mortgaged properties were sold and it appears that the sale proceeds of the mortgage properties are insufficient to liquidate the mortgage debt. Consequently, the mortgagee applied under the provisions of Order XXXIV, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, for a personal decree and he was successful in obtaining such a decree. Against that decree the present appeal has been filed by the mortgagor on...
Nirad Chandra Sinha Sarma and ors. Vs. Sankar Chandar Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1934
Reported in: 162Ind.Cas.138
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Mymensingh, by which their suit for ejectment has been dismissed. It appears that three plots of land constituted a holding formerly held by two persons, Raghunath Garo and Labanga Garani under the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 30-11-9 per year. The area of the three plots is 7.18 acres. It is admitted that Raghunath Garo and Labanga Garani had occupancy rights in these three plots of land and that there is no custom of transferability of occupancy holdings in the locality. On Sarvan 30, 1325 B.S. Raghunath and Labanga sold the entire holding to the defendant but the plaintiffs refused to recognise this transfer. The defendant remained on the land from the date of his purchase till the year 1334 B.S. the landlord refusing to do anything with him. In Baisakh 1335 B.S., the defendant executed a kabuliyat in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of a portion of the lands of the holding ...
Amirennessa and ors. Vs. Ananda Chandra Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal356,159Ind.Cas.299
Nasim Ali, J.1. The appellants who are the plaintiffs prayed the Court (1) for a declaration that a decree obtained by the principal defendants against the plaintiff's and the pro forma defendant 12 in Rent Suit No. 1194 of 1919 on 23rd June 1919 was obtained by fraud and was liable to be set aside (2) for a declaration that the sale which was held in execution of the said decree and at which the defendants purchased the plaint lands belonging to the plaintiffs was fraudulently effected, and (3) for confirmation of plaintiffs' possession of the said lands.2. The trial Court held that the decree was obtained by fraudulent suppression of summons and the auction sale was also fraudulent as the sale processes were suppressed. The trial Court further held that the sale was void as no notice under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P.C., was served on the judgment-debtors. The trial Court was also of opinion that the suit was maintainable under law and was not barred by limitation. In the result it de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »