Kolkata Court July 1947 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.
Charu Chandra Vs. Snigdhendu Prosad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal150
Gopendranath Das, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for apportionment of rent and for possession of C.S. Dag No. 1326 on declaration of the plaintiff's title thereto and for an in-junction. There were two holdings held by Sashi the father of defendants 2 and 3, namely a 'holding of 9 bighas 13 cottahs bearing a rental of Rs. 47-4-3 and a holding of 8 bighas 2 cottahs tearing a rent of Rs. 40-0-9. Both these holdings were held under defendant 1. On 5-9-1933 the plaintiff alleges to have purchased 7 bighas 5 cottahs and 8 chattaks of land out of the first holding and 7 bighas and 8 chattaks out of the second holding. In the kobala which was marked as Ex. 1, proportionate rentals of the first and second holdings were stated to be Rs. 85-7-9 and as. 34-10-3. The plaintiff claimed, therefore, to have acquired by purchase from Sashi 14 bighas and 6 cottahs of land at a proportionate rental of as. 70-1-14 gandas. The plaintiff's allegation is that he obtained a kharij o...
Gour Chand Basak and ors. Vs. Khirode Nath Basak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal73
Biswas, J.1. The short point which arises in this appeal is whether Section 4, Partition Act (4 [IV] of (1893) applies. The plaintiffs are the purchasers of an eight annas share in a holding, which is referred to in the plaint as holding No. 3, being C.S. Plot No. 275 of map, Ex. 2, from two members of an undivided Hindu family, who owned that share. The defendants, who are the other members of the family are the owners of the remaining eight annas share. After purchase, the plaintiffs brought a suit for partition and the only defence which was put forward in answer to it was a claim under Section 4, Partition Act to buy out the plaintiffs on a valuation to be made by the Court as prescribed in that section. That raised the question whether the interest, which had been purchased by the plaintiffs, could be described as 'a share of a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family' within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of that section.2. The facts relevant to the point under considerati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›