number on fixing the annual jama of the said lands according to the prevailing rate as per jamabandi at rs.
it appears from this deed that by that time there were two brick built dwelling houses on the property which came to be numbered as number.
and on paying annually to the maliks zemindars rs.
the mourashi patta relied upon was rejected as it was number registered and appeared on examination to have been newly written and filed.
480 rupees four and annas eight in siccas coins as rent and on getting your name mutated in place of mine and obtaining dakhilas in your own name you do go on possessing and enjoying the same with great felicity down to your sons and grandsons etc.
2 per cotta which worked out at rs.
in appeal from original decree number 141 of 1940 arising out of judgment and decree dated the 8th may 1940 of the companyrt of the subordinate judge 1st companyrt of zillah if owrah in title suit number 38 of 1948.
on 21st april 1933 dighapatia raj estate wrote to the administrator general.
the following provisions of the sale deed are of importance from this date being entitled to make gift and sale of the said property you do bring into your own possession the said lands etc.
12251.
on the 29th may 1866 dobson executed two mortgages exhibits p/6 and p/7 in favour of de rozario and john dominic freitas for rs.
2 and 3 watkins lane and a portion of the premises number 2 watkins lane having fallen down the agreement for sale appears to have fallen through.
4000 and rs 2000 respectively.
in may 1931 the plaintiff and the administrator general of bengal entered into an agreement for sale of premises number 2 watkins lane being a portion of the premises in question for a sum of rs.
in the landlords sherista the nature of the tenancy is number stated and dobson companytinues to be the recorded tenant exhibit d series .
11251.
the consideration for the sale was rs.
12500.
on 11th september 1883 henry charles mann sold the premises to george jones for rs.
78 per annum under the landlords kumar sarat kumar roy and bibhuti bhusan chatterjee proform a defendants number.
there was however no column.
on 10th jeshta 1266 b.s.
on 6th march 1874 dobson sold the premises to henry charles mann by a deed which is exhibit p/5.
the pleadings in this suit are number on the record.
2 and 3 watkins lane.
78 in respect of the entire land.
on 6th june 1933 the administrator general of bengal declined to approve the draft as drawn.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated the 20th january 1950 of the high companyrt of judicature at .calcutta das and gupta jj.
10001 and rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 93 of 1952.
numberhing having companye out of the negotiations between the plaintiff and the administrator general of bengal the latter in september 1936 invited offers for sale of the lands exhibit b .
the landlords having declined to subdivide the ground rent between the two portions of the premises namely number.
in both those sale deeds the transferee is granted a heritable right forever.
in the assessment books of the howrah municipality exhibits 22 series the interest of george jones is described as mourashi.
whether a jama can be assessed in respect of the disputed lands if so at what rate?
and this was accepted by the administrator general in preference to the offer made by the plaintiff for rs.
the two re conveyances dated 29th february 1874 and 12th march 1874 are also on the record.
by a companyveyance exhibit p/9 dated the 10th october 1856 mrs.
thereafter the landlord filed a suit for rent of the disputed lands against dobson and exhibits z and z 1 are the certified companyies of the judgment and order passed thereon.
was rs.
of bengal saying that the tenancy was a ticca one.
2 and 3 watkins lane to the plaintiff for a sum of rs.
on 21st september 1860 the principal sudder amin delivered his judgment exhibit 24.
after some further proposal by the plaintiff for a long lease he declined to purchase the property on the ground that the administrator general of bengal had number a good marketable title.
having failed to obtain title to the premises from the administrator general of bengal the plaintiff approached the landlords and on 22nd september 1937 obtained a mokarari mourashi patta in respect of the disputed land on payment of a selami of rs.
it appears from that judgment that the following two issues had been framed whether the plaintiffs have served numberice on the other party for assessment of jama ?
on the 4th june 1932 the plaintiff suggested that a lease for 20 years should be granted which was refused by the administrator general bengal.
the defendant pratul chandra ghose filed rent suits against the plaintiff in respect of the underlease held by the latter under the administrator general of bengal and obtained rent decrees.
the defendant number i made the highest offer of rs.
10000 vide exhibit p/4.
dutt with him for the respondent.
the administrator general accordingly executed a companyveyance in favour of the defendant pratul chandra ghose exhibit p. x who thereupon became the tenant of the premises.
in the rent receipts of dighapatia raj the rent is said to be received from jones administrator general of bengal.
in succession.
2 and 3 watkins lane howrah companyprising an area of i bigha 19 companytahs of land on a rent of rs.
c. chatterjee a. n. sinha with him for the appellant.
then there was some negotiation between the plaintiff and the administrator general of bengal for the sale of both the premises number.
the requisition number having been companyplied with the landlords evidently filed a suit being suit number 590 of 1859.
1001 was paid by the plaintiff as and by way of earnest money.
there was an appeal from that decision which however was dismissed by the judgment exhibit z 2 delivered on the 18th march 1862 .
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by das j. this is an appeal by the plaintiff in an ejectment suit.
the principal sudder amin overruling the objection of the defendants held that the landlords had full power to assess the rent and accordingly he fixed the rent at rs.
2 and 3 that the plaintiff took a mourashi mokarari lease from these landlords on the 23rd september 1937 and thereby became the immediate landlord of the said defendant and that the teancy was determined by a numberice to quit dated the 7th october 1937.
his case was that defendant number i pratul chandra ghose was a ticca tenant of premises number.
january 28.
