Kolkata Court May 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.
Dhirendra Kumar Roy Choudhury and ors. Vs. Radha Charan Roy Choudhury ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.758
1. This appeal arises out of a suit primarily for the ejectment of the defendants as trespassers. In the alternative the plaintiffs prayed that if it should be held that the defendants were not trespassers but tenants, an injunction should be issued restraining the defendants from raising pucca structures on the plot in question. They further prayed for an order directing the defendants to remove those constructions in so far as they had been erected.2. It has been found by both the Courts that the plot of land in question is an accretion to the occupancy holding of the defendants under the plaintiffs and that, therefore, by virtue of Regulation XI of 1825 this plot as an accretion to their occupancy holding has become a part thereof. Now what the defendants have done is that for the purposes of a public cremation ground they have built on this plot of land a pucca plinth, tin shed and also a cremation Ghat. It has been held that they have thereby misused this portion of the holding an...
Kartic Chandra Chakravarty and anr. Vs. GossaIn Protap Chandra Gir and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1920
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.894
1. In this suit plaintiff claiming to be shebait of the Idol Khubaneswar Mahadeb prayed for declarations that properties ka, kha, ga and gha described in the schedule to the plaint belong to the said idol; and that the plaintiff was its shebait, his predecessor, the defendant No. 1, having been removed from his office owing to misconduct and the plaintiff appointed in his place by the Punch of the act, in whom authority for the purpose was vested by custom and the constitution of the endowment.2. Plaintiff further prayed that two patni pottas, dated the 5th May 1913, granted by the defendant No I to defendant No. 2 in res peat of properties kha and kha after his removal from office be declared void and inoperative. The date of the defendant's removal by the pur.ch and the plaintiff's appointment in his place is alleged to be the 31st July 1912. On the 23rd December 1914 defendant No. 3 was impleaded on the ground that the defendant No. 1 had on the 5th Kartic 1321 (22nd October 1914) s...
Bhushan Chandra Pal Vs. Narendra Nath Koor and on His Death His Heris ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.280
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for damages for wrongful attachment of moveable property. The appeal had been referred to a Full Bench, Sorendra Nath Koer v. Bhusan Chandra Pal 67 Ind. Cas 375 : 31 C.L.J. 496 (F.B.) and has now come up for final disposal.2. The defendant obtained a decree for money against the father and the brother of the plaintiff, in execution of that decree, he caused an oil mill to be attached which be alleged was the property of his judgment-debtors. The attachment was effected on the 22nd January 1911. The oil mill was taken to pieces and was brought into Court. The plaintiff thereupon preferred a claim on the allegation that the oil mill was his property, had been purchased with his separate funds, was in his possession and was not liable to be attached in execution of the decree obtained by the defendant against his judgment-debtors. The claim was 'duly investigated with the result that on the 1st April 1911 it was...
Emperor Vs. Anant Kumar Banerji and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.417
Walmsley, J.1. The accused persona were placed on their trial with four others before the Sessions Judge of Howrah upon charges of forging, and conspiring to forge, currency notes. The Jury was unanimous in acquitting all the accused persons, and the leaned Judge accepted their verdict in regard to the other four, but referred the case as against these two men to this Court under the provisions of Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code.2. A abort account of the incidents leading up to the trial will' help to make the case more intelligible. On March 18th, 1918, a forged currency note for Rs. 5 was tendered and accepted at Bagnan Railway Station, a station on the Bengal Nagpur Railway. When it was found that the note was spurious, it was sent to the Railway Police, and, later, Sub Inspector Panna Lal Roy of Bagnan Thana took up the enquiry. On April 1st, 1918, Panna Lal searched the house of the accused Anant at village Chandbag and found two five-rupee notes, one of which was forged, A m...
Virjibun Dass Moolji Vs. Bissesswar Lal Hargobind and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.406
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This appeal raises an important question of the namely, who there Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Code of civil Procedure, 1908, applies to Bales in execution of mortgage-decrees on the Original Side of this Court.2. Mr. Justice Greaves has stated in the order now under appeal that if the matter were res integra, he would be inclined to answer the question in the affirmative. But in view of the long established practice of the Court and the decision of Mr, Justice Woodroffe in Surendra Kristo Ran v. Gooroo Prasad Ghose 59 Ind. Cas. 432 : 24 C.W.N. 538, he felt constrained to answer the question in the negative, and to dismiss the application of the mortgagor.3. The question raises two issues: First, Whether Order XXI, Rule 89 applies to sales held in execution of mortgage-decree and, secondly, if it does so apply, whether the rule is applicable on the Original Side of this Court.4. As regards the first point, Mr. chakravarty has contended that Rule 89 is appl...
Kumar Arun Chandra Sinha Bahadur Vs. Jogendra Lal Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.391
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. It appears that under the original Zamindari of the plaintiff the defendants or their predecessor-in-interest held a tenure of which the jama was originally 1,002 rupees, and at the time of the resent Cadastral Survey and record of Bights in respect of the District of Faridpur it was found that accretion has taken place to the Zemindari which bore No. 3756. The newly accreted lands were separated from the parent estate and formed into what is spoken of as the Deara Mahal bearing Touzi Mahal No. 6633. Proceeding under the provisions of Act IX of 1847 and Act XXXI of 1853 and the Bengal Tenancy Act, the Settlement Authorities similarity split up the defendant's tenure into two. In so far as it was comprised within the Deara Mahal No. 6633, the Settlement Authorities assessed upon it as payable by the tenure-holders a rent of Rs. 287-6-3 pies while for the remaining portion comprised within the original estate a rental of Rs. 130-8 annas was f...
Profulla Nath Tagore and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal429,58Ind.Cas.902
Richardson, J.1. These two appeals arise out of proceedings taken by the Revenue Authorities under Act IX of 1847 for the assessment to revenue of lands which, at the time of the Thak and Revenue surveys, of 1859 and 1860, formed portion of the beds of certain rivers.2. By decisions, dated the 14th November 1914, the 2nd January 1915, and the 11th March 1915, the Board of Revenue found that the lands were liable to assessment under the Act and disallowed the objections of the proprietors. The proprietors, who are the executors of the estate of the late Babu Kally Kishen Tagore, then brought two suits to contest these decisions, Suit No. 537 of 1915 and Snit No. 195 of 1916. Both suits were dismiss-by the Subordinate Judge and the proprietors have appealed to this Court. Appeal No. 143 relates to Suit No. 195 and Appeal No. 144 to Suit No. 537. In both appeals the Secretary of State is the respondent and it will be convenient to deal with them by one and the same judgment.3. The lands h...
Binayak Das Acharja Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Saminuddi Alias Saki Matbar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.209
1. These eight appeals arise out of eight suits for enhancement of rent under Section 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The suits have been dismissed by both the lower Courts on the ground that the interest of the tenant in the land in respect of which enhancement is claimed are not holdings as defined by Section 3 Clause (9) of the Bengal Tenancy Act The suits have been dismissed solely on this ground and other suits brought by the same landlord and heard together on the same evidence were decreed in part.3. The nature of the tenancies found is as follows:4. The Settlement Khatians show that the defendant's tenancies comprise undivided parcels of homestead land forming parts of agricultural holdings. A statement has been given to us, which is not disputed, showing that the lands held by the defendants in undivided shares form part of each tenancy and each of the defendants holds as part of his tenancy a separate parcel of agricultural land. There is abundant authority to support the vie...
Nagendranath Sen Vs. Sadhu Ram Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.992
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent.2. The only question is whether a portion of the claim is barred.3. In the suit, rants ware claimed for the Bengali years 1309 to 1321. A decree was granted for the years 1318 to 1321 and it is admitted that the claims for 1309 and 1310 are barred. The rents in dispute are, therefore, for 1311 to 1317.4. The defendants in this suit are lessees from Radhamani, widow of Gokul Chandra Acharya. Gokul had a son Ram Chandra, who was a minor when the lease was granted. After Ram Chandra attained majority, he on the 29th January 1908 brought a suit to cancel the lease and eject the defendants. He was successful in the first Court, but on appeal his suit was dismissed and a further appeal to the High Court was also dismissed. On the 21st September 1911, that is to say, after the dismissal of his suit by the first Appellate Court, Ram Chandra granted a putni lease to the plaintiff. On the facts, the plaintiff claimed to exclude from limitat...
Jagannath Khan and ors. Vs. Bajrang Das Agarwala
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal208,62Ind.Cas.97
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage-bond.2. The first Court gave the plaintiff a money-decree only. On appeal, the District Judge gave him a mortgage decree.3. The only point that arises in this case is whether the mortgage bond was attested as required by Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act.4. According to the plaintiff's case, there were two attesting witnesses, Hawai Bashunia and Kali Nath Sircar. As to Hawai Bashunia, there is no dispute. He was present when the document was executed and signed as an attesting witness. Kali Nath Sircar was the writer of the bond. He signed the bond in two places, but not in the place set apart for the signature of witnesses. It is found by the lower Appellate Court that be wrote his name as a writer and not as an attesting witness, but that he was present at the time of the execution of the deed and actually saw it. Whether this amounted to attestation within the meaning of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, is a point...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »