Case Law - Judgment Search Results
Rishee Case Law Vs. Golam Ali Mirdha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal548
abatement to which the defendant was entitled. From that decree the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.2. The case was argued exhaustively before us, and we have no doubt what our decision should be. It is conceded … that this is not a suit to which the Bengal Tenancy Act applies, and that under the general law the respondent is entitled to claim proportionate abatement. We are of opinion that Section 52, Ben. Ten. Act,
Reshee Case Law Vs. Ambika Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal399
2, 14 and 28 consist of bastus, dobas, nalas, patits, &c.;, growing no agricultural crop. So in these cases no enhancement under Section 30 (b) is allowed at all.' The learned Special Judge on appeal observes, it … rent of the tenancy. The authority for this view is to be found in the case of Reshee-Case Law v. Chintamoni Dalai A.I.R. 1922 Cal. 510. This case has been followed in several subsequent cases. As the
Raja Reshee Case Law Vs. Satish Chandra Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal397
Suit No. 27. The appeals will have to be dealt with separately as the facts of the two cases are different.2. I will take Appeal No. 114 first. In this case the tenure was created by a … the intention of depriving the tenant of the engagement of demised premises amounts to evictioncannot be sustained in law. This is so. If this finding had stood alone that judgment could not be supported, but' the District
18-section briefs on any result in this list
Raja Reshee Case Law Vs. Jarilal Mahapatra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Cal293
Rule 100, must be by the purchaser of the property sold in execution of a decree. In this case the dispossession was by the landlord who was put into possession under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act. Under
Raja Rishee Case Law Vs. Manik Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.64
: 3 Sar. P.C.J. 818 : 2 Ind. Jur. 426 : 1 M.W.N. (N.S.) 1097 (P.C.). In that case an auction-purchaser sought to recover the purchase price which he had paid for property that was purported to … of the Code of 1908 a purchaser of property at an execution sale may have possessed under the law and apart from the Code to recover the purchase price of the property which he purported to have
Raja Reshee Case Law Vs. Kedarnath Marik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal849,95Ind.Cas.971
Greaves, J.1. The short point that arises in this appeal is with regard to the construction to be put on certain words appearing in Section 108 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That section provides that any...
Reshee Case Law Vs. Bhuban Mohan Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal361
rent was fixed in perpetuity. The case now before us bears some resemblance to that of Raja Reshee Case Law v. Satish Chandra Paul A.I.R. 1922 Cal. 123. There, as here, the document was written in Ooriya character, … This conclusion is reached without reference to the words 'thicca mokra.' Those words, as interpreted in Raja Reshee Case Law v. Satish Chandra Paul A.I.R. 1922 Cal. 123 only strengthen the view we take. The word, 'thicca' is
Raja Reshee Case Law Vs. Trailokhya Mohata and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal370,76Ind.Cas.492
only with regard to lands in serials Nos. 12, 15, 37, 38, 55 and 56 and send the case back to the Revenue Officer for a finding as regards the status of the tenants as to these
Satish Chandra Pal Vs. Reshee Case Law
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal290
was said with special reference to an observation made by this Court in the judgment passed in Reshee Case Law v. Satish Chandra Pal : AIR1931Cal397 . The parties to it were the same as those in the
Surendra Nath Alias Kartick Chandra Ghose and ors. Vs. Raja Reshee Cas ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal139
The main defence was that the suit was barred by limitation. The Court of first instance disbelieved the case set up by the defence, but also disbelieved the case of the plaintiff as regards payments made by
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »
Hover bars for counts · use +/− or drag to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free