Kolkata Court April 1920 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kiransashi Debi Vs. Ananda Chandra Mukherjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.841
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould, in a suit for recovery of possession of what at one time constituted Chaukidari Chakran lands.2. On the 20th May, 1806, one Chandra Mohan Banerjee, the predecessor in interest of the defendants, executed a patni kabuliyat in favour of Maharani Kumal Kumari of Burdwan. Under that document the patni was granted in respect of 17 villages for a premium of Rs. 10,000 and an annual rent of Rs. 12,687. The general words in the kabuhyat make it abundantly clear that all the lands included in the villages were intended to be demised to the patnidar. Prima facie, then, the Chaukidari Chakran lands, which, according to the decision of the Judicial Committee in Ranjit Singh v. Kali Dasi Debi 40 Ind. Cas. 981 : 44 C. 841 : 44 I.A. 117 : 25 C.L.J. 499 : 21 C.W.N. 609 : 32 M.L.J. 565 : (1917) M.W.N. 459 : 6 L.W. 101 : 2 P.L.W. 1 : 22 M.L.T. 489 : 15 A.L.J. 390 : 19 Bom. L.R. 462 (P.C.) formed part and ...
Ram Gopal Das and ors. Vs. Jogendra Nath Maity and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.980
1. The only matter which has been discussed before us relates to issue No. 4, There was a suit in the Court of the second Munsif at Diamond Harbour numbered 1387 of 1909, in which the landlord defendants set up a paramount title, contending that the decree which they had obtained against their tenant Shibchunder Das was a rent-decree and not a money decree. Defendants Nos. 3 to 5, purchasers, now contend that the right, title and interest of the mortgagor, defendant No. 1, was purchased by them and, therefore, they have a right to redeem the mortgage. In the suit referred to, the defendants repudiated such right and set up a title adverse to that of the mortgagor and the mortgagee. It is now argued that although upon the assertion of such paramount title they were dismissed from that suit, yet the case was not decided in their presence and that it cannot be held that it is binding upon them and that both the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court were wrong in applying the Privy Cou...
Chandra Kanta Chakrabarty and ors. Vs. Adinath Shom and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.565
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for rent. The defendants resisted the claim on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Courts below have found this allegation well founded in substance, but still they have decreed the claim.2. In 1824, the predecessor of the plaintiffs transferred to the predecessors of the defendants a share of the lands. The result of the transaction was that the parties thereupon became co-owners, and it is inconceivable that the plaintiffs can treat the defendants as their tenants. Mr. Justice Newbould has found that the plaintiffs and the, defendants are co-ordinate owners in possession, but nevertheless, he has made a decree for rent in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants as if plaintiffs were superior holders and the defendant held a subordinate position. The plaintiffs-respondents, have conceded that neither law nor logic can justify this view, bat they have taken refuge in the conte...
Raja Peary Mohan Mukherjee Vs. Arunodoy Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal349,58Ind.Cas.581
1. The plaintiff in the suit cut of which this appeal arises sought to recover possession of 6/7th share of a certain holding, which was sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent obtained by the landlord defendant No. 1, Raja Peary Mohan Mukherjee, against the recorded tenant and was purchased by the defendant No. 1 on the 12th June 1802.2. The suit was directed against the defendant No. 1 as the principal defendant and certain other persons defendants Nos. 2 to 32, who are described as pro forma defendant. It was alleged that the defendant No, 1 bad dispossessed the plaintiff at the time of obtaining symbolical possession. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance. On appeal that decision was reversed by the lower Appellate Court, and the defendant No. 1 appeals to this Court.3. The case was referred to a Full Bench by Fletcher and Walmsley, JJ. The question before the Full Bench was whether the special rule of limitation contained in Article 3 of Schedule III to t...
Sorman Fakir and ors. Vs. Molla Abdul Aziz and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.949
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of certain lands on declaration of title.2. It appears that at one time these lands were held by the predecessor of the defendants under the predecessor of the plaintiffs as an under raiyati holding. The decision of the suit turns on the question whether that under-raiyati had been surrendered and abandoned. The tenancy of the defendants predecessor, one Musabdi Fakir, was evidenced by a registered kabuliyat executed on the 10th Assar 1293. The case of the plaintiffs was that the holding was relinquished in Chait 1297 and in proof of that allegation they adduced in evidence inter alia the deed of relinquishment Exhibit 3. This document is unregistered. The defendants denied the alleged relinquishment of their predecessor in-title and in. support of their case produced inter alia a certain number of dakhilas. Of these dakhilas only two marked Exhibits E and E1 were admitted in evidence by the Court ...
Brojendra Chandra Sarma Vs. Prosunna Kumar Dhar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.589
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould, is a suit brought by the appellant to recover possession of a property conveyed during his minority by his mother and uncle on the 23rd August 1904.2. The case for the plaintiff is, that the property belonged to his father, and that there was no occasion for its transfer by his mother who was his natural guardian. The case for the purchasers is that the property belonged to the joint family and that there was legal necessity for the alienation.3. The Court of first instance and the Subordinate Judge have concurrently found that the property did not belong to the family but was owned exclusively by the father of the plaintiff. The Courts have also found that there was no necessity for the sale. In this view, the Subordinate Judge, in affirmance of the decree of the Court of first instance, has decreed the suit.4. Upon appeal, Mr. Justice Newbould has held t...
Sashi Bhusan Bera Vs. Raghunath Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.785
1. In this case the Court below refused to hear an application for review on the ground that an appeal was filed.2. The application for review appears to have been made on the 28th September 1918 and the appeal was filed on the 1st October 1918. That appeal has not yet been heard.3. The subsequent presentation of the appeal did not take away the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the application for review.4. The order of the lower Court, therefore, must be set aside and that Court must proceed to hear the application for review.5. The petitioner, however, must apply to the lower Appellate Court for stay of the hearing of the appeal until the disposal of the application for review.6. Let the order be sent down without delay....
Mohim Chandra De and ors. Vs. Mohendra Kumar De Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.905
1. In this case it appears that on the 31st August 1905 a decree was made in favour of the decree holder, who is the respondent before us, for about Rs. 1,000. The final decree in appeal is dated 20th July 1906. After a succession of comparatively unsuccessful applications in execution such proceedings were again instituted on the 22nd April 1918. These proceedings were continued from the 22nd April 1918 to 16th December 1918. In this interval a sum of Rs. 15 was realized. On the 16th December 1918 in the absence of the decree-holder who had also taken no steps after the return on the 13th December of an in fructuous process, the proceedings were dismissed in default. On the 13th January 1919 the decree holder then made an application which purported to be one under Order IX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this application the decree holder explained how it came about that the warrant of attachment of the moveable properties returned on the 13th had become infructuous and al...
AsimuddIn Sardar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.204
Walmsley, J.1. A dacoity was committed on the night of February 25th, 1919, in the house of Kali Das Lahiri of Namkani, a large quantity of property of various kinds was taken away, and Kali Das was killed. The Police made a few arrests during March and on April 1st, a man, named Jaba Sardar, appeared before the investigating officer and made a statement, as the result of which numerous arrests were made. In the end twenty two men were placed on their trial before the Court of Session, and the jury were unanimous in finding fourteen of them guilty under various sections. These fourteen appealed and the appeal was admitted in the cases of four of them, viz.--Asimuddin Sardar, Abjan Sardar, Sobandi Paramanik and Mofizuddin Paramanik, and in regard to sentence only in the cases of Jamin Sheikh and Jadulla Sardar, while it was dismissed summarily as regards the other eight.2. It is convenient to deal first with the case of Abjan Sardar; he is brother of Jaba Sardar, the man who made a stat...
NewajuddIn Mondal and ors. Vs. Raja Sashi Kanta Acharjee Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.883
1. This appeal is against an order rejecting an application for setting aside a sale under Order XXI, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code.2. The sale was sought to be set aside on the ground that the sale proclamation and other processes bad been suppressed and that in consequence the property had been sold at a grossly inadequate price. The appellant, however, failed to produce any evidence that the property had been sold for an inadequate price and the lower Appellate Court practically found that there was no suppression of the sale proclamation, nor was the price realized really very inadequate. The findings, therefore, on these points cannot be challenged and the appellant has not sought to challenge these findings before us.3. The only point, however, which the appellant pressed before us was that there was no notice under Order XXI, Rule 22, of the Code and that all the proceedings consequently were void.4. The objection was not, however, specifically raised in the Court of first insta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »