Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)Arun Chandra Singh vs Kamini Kumar on 10 December, 1913
In the case of Arun Chandra Singh v. Kamini Kumar Bardhan [1913] 41 Cal. 683, where lands forming part of the putni taluk had been washed away and had again re-appeared and the putnidar had obtained abatement of rent in respect of lands submerged, it was hold that the putnidar, by obtaining remissions of rent in respect of land washed away, had not abandoned his right to the land when it was re-formed in situ, and that the ohur formed part of the tenure created by the kabuliyat. The suit was brought by the zamindar to eject the putnidar from certain chur lands which formed part of the putni taluk but which had been washed away by the river and had subsequently re-appeared and re-formed in situ. The defendants who were putnidars had obtained abatement of rent in respect of lands which had been washed away by the river and that the plaintiff zamindar contended that these lands were accretions to his zamindari within the meaning of Reg. 11 of 1825.
Tikait Thakur Narayan Singh vs Nawab Saiyid Dildar Ali Khan And Anr. on 8 May, 1924
In 1874 in the case of Hursahai Singh v. Lootf Ali Khan [1874] 2 I.A. 28, the Judicial Committee re-affirmed the principle laid down in Lopez's case [1870] 13 M.I.A. 467, in the following words:
Surendea Narain Sinha vs Hari Mohan Misser on 26 June, 1906
This view seems to be in accordance with the decision of this Court in Surendra Narain Sinha v. Hari Mohun Misser [1906] 33 Cal. 1201.
Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885
Khubi Mahton And Ors. vs Mahant Lachmi Das And Ors. And Musammat ... on 25 July, 1921
20. With great respect it seems to me to be difficult to reconcile this view with the Privy Council decisions referred to above. If land is "gained," that is to say, if it is in the true sense of the word an accretion - something that is added whether from the river or the sea which had no previous existence - it can readily be understood that such an accretion would be for the benefit not only of the landlord but also of the subordinate tenure-holder. But where lane merely re-forms on its old site, and there is no addition to that which already existed, no increase of the property by gradual natural additions, then the position is different.
1