Kolkata Court March 1945 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.
Jogendra Lal Ghosh Vs. Manik Lal Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal401
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule has been obtained in connexion with an application for pre-emption under Section 26F, Ben. Ten. Act. The petitioner is the vendor. He only transferred a portion of his interest and the question for determination is whether he is entitled to join in the application under Sub-section (i) made by another cosharer. It is obvious that the vendor could not make an original application of his own. Prima facie there is no reason why a person not so entitled should be allowed to join. There is, however, an express provision allowing a transferee to do so. The omission of the transferor is, therefore, significant. There would be an inherent absurdity in allowing a vendor to pre-empt and I can find nothing in the section to suggest that such was the intention of the Legislature. The rule is discharged. I make no order as to costs....
Province of Bengal Vs. Midnapore Zamindari Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal341
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the Province of Bengal and is directed against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia, dated 31st July 1940, made in a suit commenced by the plaintiff-respondent under Section 104H, Bengal Tenancy Act. The facts lie within a short compass and may be stated as follows: There is a temporarily settled estate known as Sarkarpara-Naluapara bearing Touzi No. 893 of the Nadia Collectorate. The lands comprised in this estate were once a part of Bhabananda Deara and were resumed under Regn. 2 of 1819 some time in 1828. After resumption, a separate estate was formed which is being held in temporary settlement from time to time, the first settlement being made in the year 1842. At that time, the proprietor of this estate was Raja Ram Chandra Roy of Nashipur, and as the Raja refused to take settlement the estate was settled with Robert Watson & Co., the predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiff. In 1852, the proprietary right to the estat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›