Kolkata Court August 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.
Radhanath Das and anr. Vs. Sadhan Chandra Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal245,155Ind.Cas.725
1. This appeal in our opinion, must succeed. The decree in the present case was one for possession of a plot of land which was described therein as settlement plot No. 612, consisting of one bigha and odd of land, and tank lying within certain boundaries. It was executed as a decree for khas possession. The writ issued was in accordance with Order 21, Rule 35 and that writ being executed, a receipt was given on behalf of the decree-holder stating that possession to the exclusion of others had been received. No objection to the delivery of possession was taken either by the decree-holder or by anybody else and the Court made the following order:Possession delivered on 10th May 1931. No objection put in. No other steps taken. Order that the execution case is dismissed on part satisfaction.2. Part satisfaction was recorded because the decree as to costs was yet unrealised. Thereafter the present execution has been started by the decree-holder in respect of the same decree, and the substan...
Kanta Mohan Mallik and ors. Vs. Basudeb Ghora and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1934
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.319
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5 and arises out of Suit No. 172 of 1929. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5 are admittedly the zemindars of Pargana Mandalghat having 3-5ths share in the said zemindary. The plaintiffs Nos. 6 and 7 are also zemindars of the said pargana having the remaining 2-5ths share. In this suit the plaintiffs prayed for assessment of rent in respect of 12 plots of land. The defence is that two of the plots, namely 91 and 101 had already been assessed to rent as parts of another jama which they held under the plaintiffs. Regarding the 10 other plots their defence is that they are nishkar lands. In the Record of Rights all the 12 plots have been recorded as not paying rent but liable to pay rent. Both the Courts have found that plots Nos. 91 and 101 had already been assessed to rent. This being a finding of fact based on evidence, the plaintiffs' appeal to this Court with regard to these two plots must necessarily fail. Regarding the o...
Jogesh Chandra Roy Vs. Sm. Sachchhanda and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal282,155Ind.Cas.833
Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendant it arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for declaration of their right of way from their homestead over the bank of the defendant's tank to a public highway farther south and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from putting obstructions. The plaintiffs alleged that they had acquired the right of way by prescription and alternatively they say that the way is a way of necessity. Although the lower appellate Court has given a decree to the plaintiffs also on the footing that the way is a way of necessity, that part of the judgment is not sought to be supported before me. The plaintiffs and defendant hold under different landlords and the plaintiff's' homestead and the tank of the defendant's tank had never been held under a common title. The only question therefore in this appeal is whether the findings arrived at support the claim based on prescription.2. The defendant took the defence that the plaintiff...
Rajani Kanta Pattadar Vs. Kazi Saiyed Golam MahiuddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal99
1. The facts of this case are quite simple. The appeal is by a judgment-debtor who alleges that a decree which is being sought to be executed against him is barred. The decree was passed on 17th February 1926 by the Court of the Additional Sub-Judge of Alipur. On 21st January 1929 it was transmitted to the District Court at Ranchi and was executed in Execution Case No. 2 of 1929 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ranchi. Thereafter the said execution case was dismissed on part satisfaction on 30th April 1930. On 5th April 1933 the present application was filed by the decree-holders in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Alipur. On 12th April 1933 the Subordinate Judge of Alipur wrote to the District Court at Ranchi enquiring about the decree, but got a reply which was wrong; and thereafter wrote again, and then on 19th June 1933 received a reply dated 17th June 1933 in which it was stated that Execution Case No. 2 of 1929 had been dismissed on part satisfaction on 30th April 19...
Krishna Chandra Das Vs. Purna Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal195,155Ind.Cas.987
Nasim Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for joint possession of certain lands after declaration of title. The plaintiffs' case, as stated in the plaint is as follows: The disputed lands comprising a Bastu and a small tank formerly belonged to the two brothers Kailash Nath Adhikari and Bhairab Nath Adhikari in equal shares. Kailash used to possess exclusively the northern halt portion of the Bastu land, the southern half portion of the western bank of the tank and five palm trees on the western bank and another one on the south-western corner. Bhairab used to possess the southern half of Bastu land, the northern half of the western bank of the tank and six palm trees to the south of the tank. The tank was in joint possession of both the brothers. Kailash made a gift of his moiety in favour of defendant 2 and his brother Ananda Gopal Das by a deed of gift, dated 9th Saraban 1289 B.S. Ananda left home about 25 years ago relinquishing his interest in favour of defendant 2. Defenda...
Brojendra Nandan Saha and anr. Vs. Nekunja Behari Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal174,154Ind.Cas.775
1. This is an appeal preferred by certain creditors from an order adjudicating three persons as insolvent. The three persons so adjudicated are brothers, who alleged that they had been carrying on a business in silk which proved a failure involving them in a heavy debt to the extent of Rupees 44,000 odd in consequence of which they had been compelled to close the business. The debts were set out in a schedule annexed to their petition, and it was stated that some of the creditors had obtained decrees and that in respect of some such decrees some of the properties of the three brothers had already been attached, while in respect of others execution would shortly be applied for Schedules of joint properties, movable as well as immovable, and of joint claims against some debtors not already barred were also appended to the petition.2. The substantial point urged in the appeal is that a joint petition by the three brothers was not maintainable. Reliance in this connexion has been placed up...
Hari Pada Dutta Vs. Gobinda Chandra Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal193
Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for recovery of produce rent for the years 1333-1335 B.S. The plaintiff claimed at the rate of 5 maps of paddy and 8 pans of straw per year. It appears that the lands in suit belonged to two persons Gosai Das and Hriday Nath Das in equal shares. In execution of a money decree against them the Ratis purchased their interest but this purchase was after Hriday Nath had executed a mortgage in respect of his half share in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued upon his mortgage, got a decree and in execution of the same purchased the mortgagor's shares. He took possession through Court on 5th October 1923. The case has proceeded on the footing that the plaintiff has got 8 annas share to the lands in suit, the other 8 annas being with the Ratis. It appears that some persons called the Lohars were in possession at least from the year 1910 of the lands in suit as tenants under the Ratis. In the year 1926, the ...
Tulsi Bibi Vs. Farrak Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal273,155Ind.Cas.815
D.N. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of 24 Parganas, dated 27th Nov. 1929 by which he dismissed the plaintiff's suit on her failing to put in ad volorem Court-fees for her share within a fortnight of the date of the judgment. The suit was one for partition and was instituted by Tulsi Bibi who is the appellant before us. It is stated in the plaint that one Golam Jalani Khan, a Peshwari Mohamedan, who was a wealthy land-holder and a brick manufacturer of Topsia in the District of 24 Parganas and was governed by the Kakezai custom of inheritance prevailing in his clan died on or about 23rd day of March 1927 leaving considerable movable and immovable properties, that upon the death of the said Golam Jalani Khan the plaintiff, now appellant, and the defendants Furokh Bibi and Najibunnessa Bibi jointly and absolutely inherited the estate left by the said Gulam Jelani Khan by virtue of such special custom of inheritance prevailing in the Kakezari clan b...
Abdul Jalil Vs. Asraf Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal180,155Ind.Cas.201
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 15, Letters Patent, against the decision of my learned brother, Patterson, J., who reversed the decision of the Courts below and has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted the suit in which this appeal arises for a declaration of his alleged taluki title to an undivided 2/3rd share of the lands described in the schedule to the plaint and for recovery of possession of the same jointly with defendant 8. There was a further prayer in the plaint that the sale of the land held under the patni regulation on 18th November 1918 was void and did not affect the interest of the plaintiff in any way. Amongst the several defendants to the suit defendant 7 alone contested the suit. It is to be noticed that although the sale under the regulation took place on 18th November 1918, the present suit was not instituted till nearly ten years after, on 7th February 1928. The facts on which this suit is based, lie within a narrow compass. It...
Gopi Krishna Saha Vs. Surendra Nath Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal210,155Ind.Cas.154
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 15, Letters Patent, from a judgment of my learned brother S.K. Ghose, J. The suit in which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff who is the appellant before us for additional rent for excess area. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court gave a modified decree to the plaintiff granting additional rent for an excess of 70 bighas odd only. On appeal to this Court, S.K. Ghose, J., has allowed the appeal and has restored the decree of the Munsiff, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. Hence this present appeal under Section 15, Letters Patent.2. The plaintiff's case is that he has purchased the Putni and Dar Putni rights of mouza Chatiani in the year 1334 B.S. The defendants are said to be the holders of a jote bearing rent of Rs. 34-10-8 per year. The case made by the plaintiff in the plaint further is that this rent was assessed with reference to an area of 78 bighas odd without specific boundaries on a st...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »