Kolkata Court December 1935 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.
(Rai) Kiran Chandra Roy Bahadur and ors. Vs. Brajendra Nath Chatterjee ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1937Cal26
R.C. Mitter, J.1. These two appeals are by the plaintiffs and arise out of two suits to recover cess from the defendants, who are niskardars, under the provisions of Section 56, Bengal Cess Act. They claim also as penalty an equal amount payable as cess. The plaintiffs came to Court on the basis that the rent free lands which are the subject-matters of these suits, were included in their return and that they are entitled to recover cess under Section 56. The substantial defence is this: The defendants stated that no notice under Section 54 of the Act was published by the plaintiffs and therefore they were not entitled to recover cess and penalty. It is quite clear that if such a notice is required to be published the plaintiffs' suit cannot be maintained, as the finding of both the Courts is that notice has not been published. Section 56 is quite clear on the point: that the proprietor of the estate will be entitled to recover cess from the niskardars only on the publication of notice ...
Dinabandhu Gan Vs. Makim Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal93
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff who is appellant before me, instituted a suit to recover four anna share of the rent from defendant 1, Makim Sardar, who is respondent 1 before me. His case is that the remaining defendants Chandra Kumar Gan and others who are respondents 2 to 6 are the landlords of the remaining twelve anna share. The plaintiff came to Court with the case that he, Barada Prosad Gan, Chandra Kumar Gan and Jogendra Kumar Gan inducted defendant 1 as tenant on the land and that thereafter defendant 1 executed in favour of himself, the aforesaid Barada, Chandra Kumar and Jogendra a Kabuliat on 21st September 1909. Chandra Kumar and Jogendra are pro forma defendants in this suit and are respondents 2 and 3 in this appeal. Barada has no interest in the property, and it is admitted that his interest in the property has passed to the pro forma defendants. The defence that was taken was as follows: The defendant 1, said that the plaintiff was the benamidar of one Sarada Prosad Ga...
Rai Kiran Chandra Roy Bahadur and ors. Vs. Tarak Nath Gangopadhyay and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal456,166Ind.Cas.460
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The subject matter of the suit out of which this appeal arises are settlement plots Nos. 58 and 63. In the Record of Rights published in 1922 the Narail Babus, who are the appellants before me, and the contesting defendants in the lower Court, are recorded as proprietors. There is a further entry in the settlement record that defendants 1 and 2 are occupancy raiyats under the Narail Babus, and that the plaintiffs are Korfa raiyats under defendants 1 and 2. On 23rd December 1927 certain persons, whom I may call the Chakraburtties, as plaintiffs instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises. In the plaint they stated that the said two plots were their Niskar Brahmatter lands, that defendants 1 and 2 are tenure-holders under them and the plaintiffs are under-tenure-holders under defendants 1 and 2. They further stated that the settlement record in rendering the lands as the mal lands of the Narail Babus had cast a cloud upon their title and for that purpose they wa...
Sashi Bhusan Ghose and ors. Vs. Bhupendra Nath Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal112
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This suit was instituted by the plaintiffs against six defendants stating that they had wrongfully deprived them of certain bricks which they had bought in a Court execution sale, that the bricks should be returned to them or in the alternative that they should be given adequate compensation for the loss of the bricks. The facts in short are these: Defendant 6 was a manufacturer of bricks. He became involved in debts and could not pay them off. Many suits were instituted against him in the year 1928. The first suit was instituted by defendants 3 and 4 on 19th April 1928 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly. That suit was decreed on 21st May for Rs. 1,830 and further that of the two kilns of bricks, the kiln No. 10 should remain subject to a first charge for the decree. The second suit was instituted by the plaintiffs on 23rd, May 1928 in the Court of the Munsif of Serampore. This suit was decreed ex parte on 26th July for Rs. 830. The third suit was institu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›