Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Mohoram Sheikh Chaprasai And Anr. vs Telamuddin Khan And Anr. on 17 July, 1911

Secretary Of State vs Babu Rajendra Prasad And Ors. on 1 March, 1937

The learned Judge, relying upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Mohoram Chaprasi v. Talamuddin Khan 15 CLJ 220 : 13 Ind. Cas. 806 : 16 CWN 567, has come to the conclusion that the right was a permanent one. It appears that the Judge has based his conclusion on the presumption of a lost grant. By that I understand him to mean that the facts and circumstances of the case led to the inference that it was agreed by the landlord, when letting the land to Badrinath, that he should have a permanent lease. It is impossible to lay down any definite rule from what facts such inference could be drawn but the case upon which the learned Judge relies does not support his conclusion. In that case the facts that were established were first, the original tenant and his successor had been in occupation of the land for over 60 years; secondly, that the rent had never been varied; thirdly, that the tenancy had been treated by the landlord as heritable; and fourthly, that the land had been let out for residential purposes. Even assuming that those four facts were established, the inference would not be irresisitible, but in the case before us two facts, namely, the second and the third, have not been made out. Rent, as we have seen ii this case, has been varied from time to time. It was enhanced during Mr. Sunder's settlement, and 'he landlord in this case has treated it as liable to further enhancement by calling upon the defendants to execute leases at a higher rent. Had all the facts been established to which Mookerji, J. in that case referred, I do not agree that necessarily the inference of a permanent lease should be drawn, but in this case two at least of these four items are wanting as I have said.
Patna High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Anukul Chandra Chakraberti And Anr. vs Tufani Sheikh And Ors. on 13 June, 1919

606; 16 C. W. N. 567; 15 C. L. J. 220. was distinguishable, inasmuch as in the case before him it had not been shown that the tenancy had been treated by the landlord as heritable and also because it had been found in the case in Moharam Sheikh Chaprasi v. Telamuddin Khan 13 Ind. Cas. 606; C. W. N. 567; 15 C. L. J. 220. that the land had been let out for residential purposes. Except as above he affirmed the decision of the trial Court. He held that the case had been rightly decided on the basis of the Cess Return in which the holding was shown as an agricultural one. He is quite right in saying that if the holding was non-agricultural, it should have been entered in part 3 of the Cess Return, which refers to tenure-holders according to the definition of that term under the Cess Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Surendra Nath Roy And Ors. vs Dwarka Nath Chakrabutty And Anr. on 2 May, 1916

8. The only other question is, whether the decree appealed against, which is in affirmance of the decree of the Court immediately below, involves a substantial question of law. As already explained by the Chief Justice, the question in controversy relates to the nature of the tenancy held by the defendants under the plaintiffs; was that a permanent tenancy or a tenancy terminable by notice to quit? The District Judge has in effect accepted the findings of the Court of first instance, but he has drawn from those findings a conclusion precisely contrary to that drawn by the Trial Court. The question thus is, what inference may legitimately be drawn from the facts found, and this clearly is a mixed question of fact and law, as appears from a long line of cases reviewed in Mahoram Sheikh Chaprasi v. Telamuddin Khan 13 Ind. Cas.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Banga Chandra Pal And Syama Charan Pal ... vs Kailash Chandra Pal And Ors. on 25 June, 1920

They did not, in fact, make any such application, and as they did not do so in the Court of first appeal, we are of opinion that it is now too late for them to ask this Court to direct the framing of an issue and a remand for the purpose of enabling the parties to adduce further evidence on an issue thus framed. The facts, as found by the Court of first appeal, are that the origin of this tenancy is unknown, that the Original tenant and his successor have been in occupation for over sixty years, that during those sixty years the rent did not vary, that the tenancy was treated by the landlords as heritable and that it was a tenancy for residential purposes. The learned District Judge further finds that substantial improvements to the homestead were effected by the tenants by the formation of a valuable orchard of fruit trees. On these findings of fact, he comes to the conclusion that the tenancy is permanent and, therefore, transferable, and in support of this view he refers to the case of Mohoram Sheikh Chaprasi v. Telamniddin Khan 13 Ind. Cas. 606 : 15 C.L.J. 220 : 16 C.W.N. 567. On his findings of fact, it was clearly open to him to draw the inference that this tenancy was a permanent tenancy and we cannot say, from the facts found, that he hap, as a matter of fact, come to a wrong inference in point of law. For these reasons, these appeals must be dismissed with costs.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mohim Chandra Basak Chowdhury And Ors. vs Rup Manjari Dasi on 11 July, 1912

6. Finally, it is argued that even on the findings of fact at which the learned Judge has arrived, he should have held that the interest of the lessees is permanent, and reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Mohoram Sheikh Chaprasi v. Telamuddin Khan 15 C.L.J. 220 : 16 C.W.N. 567 : 13 Ind. Cas. 606. That case, however, is clearly distinguishable. In the first place, the period for which the land was held was half as long again, and in the second place the land in that case had been let for the residential purposes. There is nothing to show that the land in this case was let for residential purposes and it is said that the lessees do not, as a matter of fact, reside upon it. That case, therefore, is quite distinguishable from the present case and, in our opinion, is inapplicable. The learned Judge has found that the appellants have been in possession of the disputed land since 1273 at an uniform rate of rent, that the masonry buildings on the land were not erected by the defendants but by their sub-lessees and could not have cost more than a few hundreds of rupees. He finds also that they were all erected within the last few years. On these findings, we think that his finding that the appellants have no permanent right to the land in question cannot be said to be erroneous in law.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shoroshi Charan Ghose And Ors. vs Bhagloo Sah And Anr. on 3 May, 1920

1. The controversy in this case relates to the nature of the disputed tenancy. The plaintiffs-appellants maintained that the tenancy was of a temporary nature and was non-transferable. The defendants contended that the tenancy was of a permanent character and was transferable. The Courts below have found that the origin of the tenancy was unknown but that it had been in existence for at least half a century, that the land was let out for residential purposes, that it had been held at a uniform rent, and that the tenant had actually built a dwelling house thereon and lived there from the inception of the tenancy till the sale to the defendants. From these circumstances, the District Judge drew the inference that the tenancy was permanent and transferable. His conclusion is supported by a long series of decisions of recognised authority which are reviewed in the case of Mohoram Sheikh Chaprasi v. Telamuddin Khan 13 Ind. Cas.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Manmatha Nath Mitter vs Promatha Nath Chatterjee And Ors. on 13 July, 1933

5. The decisions of this Court in some cases to Which our attention was drawn in this connexion are: Monmatha Nath v. Rojeswar Roy , Jagabandhu Saha v. Magnamoyi Dasi AIR 1918 Cal 961 and Mohoram Shekh v. Tellamuddin Khan (1912) 13 IC 606, 15 C. L. J. 220, do not in any way support the extreme contention advanced in support of this appeal, and we have not been able to find anything contained in these decisions which enable me to give effect to the same. The residential purpose is a very important factor in determining the character of a tenancy whether it was permanent or precarious; but the residence cannot be confined to the case of the tenant himself, so as to exclude the idea of a sub-lease by the tenant, who had a permanent interest in the lands comprised in the tenancy, and of allowing others to use the lands, sublet to them for residential purpose, the original purpose of the tenancy. We are in agreement with the Court of appeal below in holding that the inference of permanency could be drawn in the case of the tenancy in suit, in spite of the fact that various tenants had been settled on the lands comprised in the tenancy, which was for dwelling purpose, by defendant 1, and his predecessor-in-title, for dwelling purpose. In our judgment, the decision arrived at by the Court of appeal below, in affirmance of that of the trial Court, is right, and must be confirmed. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next