LawCite Search | LawCite Markup Tool | Help | Feedback Law Cite

Kumar Prativa Nath Roy v Bonomali Sarkar    

Cases and Articles Cited

Case Name	Citation(s)	Court	Jurisdiction †	Date	Full Text		Citation Index
Air 1922 Cal 152	AIR 1922 Cal 152		India - West Bengal	circa 1922			1
(1915) 80 IC 414	(1915) 80 IC 414		United Kingdom	circa 1915			1
30 IC 414	30 IC 414		United Kingdom				2
[1931] Gal 303	[1931] Gal 303		United States	circa 1931			2
25 Gal 917	25 Gal 917		United States				4
[1931] Cal 303	[1931] Cal 303		United States - California	circa 1931			1
I 'Judge from the decrees of the trial Court relied were not cases under S 105, but jin those cases by the tenants we do not the question in those cases was with |think that the learned Judge had any reference to the applicability of 3 188, |jurisdiction in the matter and his order Ben Ten Act That may be so, but in Ivarying the decrees of the trial Court in Safaraddis case (3), the tenant of a co those cases allowing additional rent for sharer landlord had executed a kabuliyat ^additional area to the plaintiff must be in favour of that landlord in respect of his iheld to be wrong and the appeals in share of the land in the holding That ithose cases should be allowed to that cosharer applied under S 105 for settle extent No one appears in Second Ap ment of fair rent in respect of his eight peals Nos 511 and 514 but Dr Pal ap annas share covered by the kabuliyat of pears for the respondents in No 516 and the tenant No doubt objection taken he has fairly conceded that he cannot there was that the application was support this portion of the order of the barred under S 188, Ben Ten Act But learned Judge that objection was overruled and the Then with regard to the general ground cas9 was sent back to the trial Court for taken in all the appeals, namely, the decision on such question on the merits lower Courts were wrong in holding that as might arise The only question that under S 105, enhancement under S 30, could be determined on retrial was whe could not be allowed because the tenan ther the landlord was entitled to en cies did not constitute entire holdings, hancement of rent either under S 30 or we have been addressed at length and S 52 So it cannot be said that that1 2 3 very ingeniously by Mr Sen who has tried to induce us to hold that ``land" in (1)	(1898) 25 Cal 917		United States - California	circa 1929			1
[1929] Cal 153	[1929] Cal 153		United States - California	circa 1929			2