Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.14 seconds)
Chandrakanta Bal Munshi vs Saharali Sheikh And Ors. on 4 January, 1938 cites

Raja Nagendra Nath Sinha Sahas Roy vs Niranjan Patra And Ors. on 17 June, 1937

3. The learned Judge has not given any reason for this interpretation of the subsection. The other case referred to is the case in Nagendra Nath Sinha v. Niranjan Patra . In this case the learned Judge simply refers to the fact that R. C. Mitter J. has held that the four sub-clauses should be read disjunctively and no reason is given by the learned Judge for his opinion on this point. Now Section 146. A (3) states:
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sasi Kanta Acharjee Bahadur And Ors. vs Lechoo Sheikh And Ors. on 13 September, 1935

2. In this appeal it is urged that on the facts found by the Court below, the Judge ought to have decreed the prayer of the plaintiff for khas possession so far as the share of Jira Bewa was concerned. As regards this point, in the way I read the findings of the Court below, the Court accepted the defendants' version of possession as the learned Judge states. The defendants' version was that the plaintiff never obtained khas possession and that possession was held by the defendants all along and that when Jira Bewa abandoned the place the defendants were in possession of Jira Bewa's share. In this view of the facts, the decree against Jira Bewa cannot be regarded as a rent decree; it must be regarded as a money decree, and the plaintiff was not, in execution, entitled to possess the share of Jira Bewa. Another point raised is that the statement of the learned Judge that there is practically no evidence to prove any khas possession is incorrect, inasmuch as defendant 2 has stated that the landlord was in khas possession. On referring however to the evidence of defendant 2, I find that there is no such statement. The third point raised for the appellant is that the learned Judge is wrong in holding that under the provision of Section 146-A (3) (i) the holding is not entirely represented so as to make the rent decree effective against all the heirs of Bhulu, and in support of this the learned advocate for the appellant relies upon two separate decisions of this Court. One of them is a decision of R. C. Mitter J. in the case reported in Sasi Kanta Acharjee v. Lechoo Sheikh in which the learned Judge holds that the sub-clauses of Section 146-A must be read disjunctively. He says:
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1