Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)
Mathura Prasad vs Tota Singh on 1 August, 1912 cites

Krishna Chandra Sen And Ors. vs Sushila Soondury Dassee And Ors. on 5 May, 1899

In the case of Krishna Chandra Sen v. Sushila Soondury Dassee (1899) I.L.R. 26 Calc. 611 the tenant had agreed in addition to a cash payment, to deliver jack' fruit, bamboos and fish. This agreement was contained in a clause different from the one in which the rent was assessed, and the Court held that the imposition was an abwab. In this case, there was the additional feature, which does not exist in the present litigation, that, whereas the rent was payable quarterly, the value of the articles deliverable was payable only annually. The decisions mentioned thus all clearly tend to negative the contention of the a appellant.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Radha Charan Ray Chowdhry vs Golak Chandra Ghose on 25 April, 1904

Much reliance, however, has been placed in support of the appeal upon the case of Hadha Charan Fay Chowdhry v. Golak Chandra Ghose (1904) I. R. L. 31 Calc. 834. But that case is clearly distinguishable. There the amount sought to be recovered as collection charge was not only expressly made part of the rent and consolidated therewith, but the aggregate amount was distributed into various instalments expressly stated to be payable as instalments of rent. In the case before us, even if there were, upon the terms of the contract, any doubt as to the true nature of the sum sought to be recovered, that doubt would be "completely removed upon an examination of the plaint. In the fourth paragraph of the plaint, the plaintiff" allows a deduction of Rs. 28-6 for uncultttrable land and seeks to recover arrears at an annual rate of Rs. 231, besides the husk; in the sixth paragraph, he asks for the principal amount of rent with cesses thereon, and the price of the husk. These two paragraphs plainly indicate that in the opinion of the plaintiff, at any rate, the price of the husk claimed is not an integral part of the rent. The matter, however, is placed beyond all doubt when we find that the plain-tilt claims cesses only upon the amount stated to be rent, and not upon the amount claimed as price of husk. If the latter amount had borne the character of rent, the plaintiff would have been entitled to claim cesses thereon, and what is more, he would have been, liable to pay to the State cesses on the basis of the rent thus realised. In our opinion, the terms of the contract, as also the interpretation put thereon by the plaintiff himself, leave no room for serious controversy that the sum claimed as the value of the husk does not form part of the consolidated rent, but is an independent item falling within the description of an imposition in addition to the actual rent, though it may not have been specifically described in the contract, or claimed in the plaint under the denomination of abwab, as was done in some of the cases in the books.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1