SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1924 Supreme(SC) 77

LORD ATKINSON, AMEER ALI, LORD DUNEDIN, LORD SALVESEN
KATYAYANI DEBI – Appellant
Versus
UDOY KUMAR DAS – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitors for appellant:Watkins & Hunter, Solicitors for respondent: W. W. Box & Co.

Judgement

Consolidated Appeals (Nos. 134 and 135 of 1923) from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court (February 27, 1922) varying two decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Kulna (July 4).

The consolidated appeals arose out of two suits brought by the respondent in 1918 against the appellant to recover arrears of rent for the years 1916- 1917, 1917- 1918 ; the defendant-appellant pleaded, among other things, that she was entitled to an abatement of the rent on the ground that she was out of possession of certain lands included in the tenancy agreement. The defendant-appellant had purchased the tenure in 1894 at an auction sale under the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, ss. 65, 198, in execution of a decree for arrears of rent.

The facts material to the appeals appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The Subordinate Judge allowed the abatement of rent claimed.

An appeal to the High Court was heard by Woodroffe and Cuming JJ., who delivered judgment on May 31, 1891. The former learned judge held that the defendant was entitled to the abatement claimed, the latter that she was not so entitled. The decrees of the Subordinate Judge were therefore confirmed under s. 98, sub-s.2,

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top