Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Mohini Mohan Banerjee And Ors. vs Secretary Of State For India In Council ... on 20 May, 1921

M.S.O.S.P.V. Velayudam Chettiar And ... vs The Special Tahsildar For Land ... on 8 December, 1958

Evidence of offers is admissible: but as an offer merely amounts to an expression of opinion on the part of the person making it oral offers unsupported by any documentary evidence do not carry any weight or afford any assistance: Govt. of Bombay v. Merwanji, 10 Bom LR 907; Mohini Mohan Bannerjee v. Secy. of State, 25 Cal WN 1002: (AIR 1921 Cal 193); Khushi Ram v. Asst.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

The Collector Of Chingleput District vs Kadir Mohideen Sahib on 22 February, 1926

5. The learned District Judge has attempted to value the land as a brick-field by taking the royalty that may be properly obtained from this land if leased out to a brick-maker. The valuation on the basis of royalty is as shown by my learned brother not altogether a proper method in this case as it only gives the compensation payable to the lessor where lease rights have been created and lessees have also to be compensated in addition. Here the claimant is the sole owner of one piece of the land acquired and the kudivaramdar of the other. No interest of brick-making lessees are involved. If, However, in the absence of other methods, a royalty basis is to be taken as was done in Mahini. Mohan v. Secretary of State for India in Council (1921) 34 C L J 188, I agree that a 4 as. rate per 1,000 bricks is quite a fair rate, and that an acre may be expected to yield a royalty of Rs. 2,500 in all. The mistake that the learned Judge has made in taking that as a basis for compensation at Rs. 2,000 an acre is that he does not make a sufficient deduction for the length of time that will be required to realise the royalty from the whole of the land acquired. The evidence on claimant's side itself shows that it would take about 50 years to work the whole of the clay on the land, which is about 55 acres in extent; that means that it will take some 30 years at least to exhaust the clay on the land acquired. The proper compensation will thus be only the capitalised present value of the clay or such a sum as would when invested say in 6 per cent bonds enable Rs. 2,500 a year to be drawn for 30 years and be exhausted by the end of that time. This is so as the taking of the clay will reduce the land to a pit 12 to 15 feet deep at the end of the period, of practically no value. That land may have a little value but it is comparatively small being less than Rs. 100 an acre. It may be that that value should be added to the total sum arrived at. Taking the royalty method of valuation then, the present total value of the 33 acres and odd will not exceed Rs. 35,000 or 40,000 when worked out mathematically; that is Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 1,250 an acre. Even if we add something to this amount to represent the excess value of the land to the owner over and above the royalty he may get, the price will not exceed Rs. 1,500 an acre. The value so calculated is smaller than the value one gets by treating the land as a building site.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Kulachandra Ghosh And Ors. vs Jogendra Chandra Ghosh And Ors. on 20 July, 1932

In a later case, namely, Hushmat v. Jamir AIR 1919 Cal 325, both Sibendrapada's case (1907)34 Cal 207 and Fatik Karikar's case (1900) 4 CWN 142n, were referred to, as if the two were not in cOnflict with each other; and Walmsley,J., observed that if of two plots mortgaged to a person one is subsequently sold to him and the said person restores possession of the plot, which is not sold, to the mortgagor and retains possession of the one that is sold, that would be good evidence of delivery of possession. The present case is distinguishable from Sibendrapada''s case (1907)34 Cal 207, in that the defendant 5 was at the date of the sale in permissive possession under an arrangement with Bangshiram. I am not therefore obliged to apply that ruling to this, case. The evidence on the record satisfies me that whatever was necessary and possible in the circumstances to effect a delivery of possession was done. The details spoken to by defendant 5 amply make out that Bangshiram "made over the land of the kabala to her satisfaction," and that, after the sale, she made over the rest of the land in her possession to her father.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Midnapur Zemindari Co. Ltd. vs Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. on 1 August, 1940

In such a case, the Collector will have to value the minerals which might have been the subject of exception but were in fact included in the grant. Process (b) where there is an acquisition with exception. In such a case the Land Acquisition Collector has to value the land, and will do so according to its quality or composition, either as agricultural land, water, stone or sand. Not only does process (b) appears from the acquisitions in suit, but it is also, I think clear from the decided cases, e. g., the case in Mohini Mohan v. Secy. of State ('21) 8 AIR 1921 Cal 193 where ' the Land Acquisition Collector valued the land qua clay.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kaliram Majumdar vs Dulalram Choudhury And Anr. on 22 December, 1932

The learned Judge seems to hold that after Bhakatram's death the lands continued to be in the possession or under the management of Parbatipriya. From this it does not follow that no delivery of possession was required in order to validate the deed of sale under Section 54, T.P. Act. It has been held that in such a case, where delivery of possession is not possible, the deed in order to be valid must be registered. This view was taken in the case of Sibendrapada Banerjee v. Secy. of State (1907) 34 Cal 207 and again in the case of Hushmat v. Jamir A I R 1919 Cal 525.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Santokhi Misser And Anr. vs Siro Jha And Ors. on 4 January, 1934

1. This was a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage. The mortgagees claimed that many years ago they had entered into a contract with the mortgagors, by which on payment of an additional sum of Rs. 25, the mortgaged property was sold to them, and their names ware substituted for the names of the mortgagors in the sherista of the Darbhanga estate. The Subordinate Judge has found that the sale actually took place as describe by the mortgagees; but he considers that as the mortgagees were in possession at the time when the oral sale took place, they could not claim that transfer was made by delivery of the property, in view of the decision in Sibendrapada Banerjee v. Secretary of State for India in Council 34 C 207. He held, however, that from the date of the sale the former mortgagees held as purchasers adversary to their venders, and that as they had so held more than twelve years before the date of suit, the plaintiffs' claim was barred by limitation.
Patna High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1