Kolkata Court June 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.
Banga Chandra Pal and Syama Charan Pal and ors. Vs. Kailash Chandra Pa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.189
1. These appeals arise out of two suits Brought by the respective plaintiff each to recovers 4-anuas share in a certain homestead. It appears that the plaintiffs, the defendant and the plaintiff in third suit in which no appeal has been preferred to this Court are four brothers and hold the superior interest in the land in suit in four equal shares. The homestead in suit adjoins their partitioned homestead. It belonged originally to one Annoda Charan Sen and his tenancy right therein hits been purchased by the defendant Kailash. Plaintiffs then brought these suits 'in order to recover joint possession with Kailash each in 4 annas share. The suits succeeded in substance in the first Court. By the decrees of the first Court the plaintiffs were each required to pay to the defendant a one fourth share of the value of the homestead, In the Court of first appeal it has been held that the tenancy of Annoda Charan Sen in transferable and that the plaintiffs are, therefore, not entitled to take...
Moharaj Bahadur Singh Vs. PulIn Mal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.386
1. This appeal arises onto a suit brought for recovery of possession on establishment of title to a piece of land measuring 1 bigha in area. It appears that his 1 bigha was formerly a strip of laud abutting on a tack belonging to the defendant on its north and east banks. It has been found by (be Court of first appeal that this strip of land is within the plaintiff's Mauza, but it has next come to the conclusion that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation, and has, therefore, dismissed the sail. In this appeal it is contended before us by the learned Vakil for the appellant that the finding arrived at by the learned District Judge is insufficient and he hopes his contention on the fast that, when in possession of the plaintiff, this land was lying waste. In the plant the allegation of the plaintiff was in substance that the defendant by re excavating the tank and by depositing upon the land in suit the earth removed from the tank had dispossessed him. The question then, in subst...
Durga Charan Acharjee Vs. Khandakar Enamol Huq and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.762
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition and is preferred by the third defendant. The plaintiffs are the owners of one fifth share in a certain town and Karim Bux, the predecessor in interest of the appellant, owned one tenth share of the same touch. In 1903, the plaintiffs and Karim Bax and other of sharers joined in bringing: a suit to recover some lands from, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and they obtained a decree and were put in possession of the land. After possession bad been delivered, Karim Bux sold his interest in the touzi to defendant No. 3, the present appellant. The plaintiffs have now brought this suit for partition of the decretal lands. They say that in addition to their share in the whole towzi which extends over the decretal land they have acquired a farther share of 11 annas-4-srawias in the decretal land making their total interest in that portion, 4 grandas, and that the defendant No. 3 as the successor in-interest of Karim Bux owns the remaining Lanna-12-Grand...
Kumud Nath Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Ajoo Pramanik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.915
JUDGMEMT1. This Rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the order directing the prosecution of the petitioners under Section 188, Indian Penal Code, should not be set aside.2. It appears that the petitioners are the Ijaradars under certain Zamindars, who had a hat at Lakhipur, and there is a rival hat at Pirgacha belonging to certain other Zamindars. On a Police report the Sub-Divisional Magistrate made an order on the 13th February 1920 forbidding the petitioners from holding any hat at Lakhipur on particular days, directing them to abstain from taking vendors and stall-keepers by force from Pirgacha hot to their own hat and not to take any other measure to the detriment of the old hat at Pirgacha. This order was made under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code. Subsequently on the 9th April 1920 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate went to the locality and advised the officers of both parties to amicably settle the matter, but there was no amicable settlement, ...
Robindra Deb Manna Vs. Jogendra Deb Manna
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1920
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.459
Rankin, J.1. This suit was brought in 1915 on the 24th of March. It is an administration and partition suit between brothers as regards the family estate descending to them from their grandfather and under their father's Will. Jogendra, the first defendant, may be said to be the main defendant as his intromissions with the joint estate are apparently the main object of attack. Nogendra, defendant No. 2, appears to side with him: the other brothers support the plaintiff. A Receiver of the estate has been appointed by the Court at an early stage of the suit.2. By order, dated 27th July 1917 and made on the plaintiff's application, the matters in difference in the suit were referred to two arbitrators under the second schedule to the Code. The order provided that the arbitrators should make their award in writing within six months from the date on which an office-copy of this order of reference be served on them or within such further time as they may allow themselves by endorsement on th...
Kassim Hassan Vs. Hazra Begum
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.165
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has led up to this appeal is a dargah (mausoleum or shrine of a Moslem saint) situated, in clive Street in this City. The case for the plaintiff is that she was in possession as mutwalli for many year?, till the defendant, her son-in-law, after the death of his wife, wrongfully interfered with the performance of her duties on or about the 18th May 1918, She accordingly instituted the present suit on the 30th May 1918, for declaration that the defendant was in wrongful possession of the dargah, for recovery of possession from him, and for incidental reliefs. The defendant resisted the claim on the allegations that the plaintiff had renounced the mutwallship it favour of her husband who had been installed as the soaiianashin, and had performed his duties as such till his death in 1911, that thereafter the defendant had been installed as sajjadanashin; and that he wag lawfully in possession of the dargah at the da...
Mahommed AyejuddIn Mia and ors. Vs. Maharajah Bahadur Sir Prodyot Kuma ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.503
1. In there appeals the defendants appeal from a judgment Additional Sub-ordinate Judge of Mymensingh, dated the 31st July 1917. The subject matter of Appeal No. 67 is 203 bighas of land within Mouza Bamna and 10 bighas 11 cottas of land within Mouza Gilibari, both these Mouzas being in the Biatrial of Mymen--singh in Sub-Division Jamalpore; the subject-matter of Appeal No. 22 is 432 bighas 3 cottas of lend within Mouza Chinaduli in the game District and Sub--Division. Mouza Bamna, Gilibari and Chinaculi are situate in Perganna Batiladaha which is within the Touzi of the Collectrate of Zillah Rungpur the Zemindari right in which tet gonna is vested in Maharajah Sir Prodyct Kumar Tagore subject to a mortgage in favour of the Secretary of State. The kids in dispute were formerly in the possession of one Makhanlal Pandey as a jotedar but after his death they were settled with his grandsons (daughter's sons) Hari Charan and Hari shebak Bajpai. Hari Shebak died in 1888, leaving two sore Cha...
Kasiram Pania Vs. Hurnundroy Fulchand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal809,58Ind.Cas.396
Asutosh Mookerjee, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Buckland in a suit for damages for breach of a contract for the sale of goods. The terms of the written agreement between the parties made on the 9th August 1918 were a follows:This is written to Bhai Hurnundroyjee Fulchand by Kasiram Pania with their compliments. Further, we have bought from you 45 bales, of Grey Shirtings No.B5-456-15-15 of Madadeo Company at Rs. 26-8-annas, ready goods; gown due 90 days from the 29th July; allowance and all conditions are according to the outside (co interest and) (that is, contract with European firm), the inside customs(i.e., the customs prevailing amount the Indian merchants). Broker Meghrajee Ramkumar Serowgee.2. The case for the plaintiffs is that as the due date of delivery, namely, the 27th October 1918), was a Sunday, the contract could be performed on the following day, according to a well-known usage in the market which was described in the following terms:There i...
Surendra Nath Ghosh and anr. Vs. Keshab Lal Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal559,59Ind.Cas.778
1. This appeal is directed against an order of the Additional District Judge of Khulna, dated 10th September 1919. In this case it appears that in execution of a decree aggregating, with interest and costs, a sum of about Rs. 2,000 the judgment-debtor was arrested and Imprisoned. He was thereafter released on furnishing security for a sum of Rs. 500; the surety undertaking to produce the judgment debtor in Court in the event of his not applying to be adjudicated an insolvent within a month. The judgment debtor, in fact, did not apply for adjudication as an insolvent and the surety further failed to produce him. It is not disputed on these facts that the conditions of the surety-bond have not been fulfilled and that the sum of Rs. 500 has become payable by the surety. That sum has, in fact, been paid by the surety. The question before us is, whether the Rs. 500 should be appropriated or credited against the decretal amount or should be taken by the decree-holder as a solatium for the de...
Entazuddi Sheikh Vs. Ram Krishna Banik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.745
1. This appeal is 'directed against an order made by the District Judge of Faridpur on 15th July 1919, by which he confirmed the sale of certain occupancy holdings being the property of an insolvent vested in a Receiver under the provisions of Section 18 of the Provincial Insolvent Ast. In the Court below the District Judge dealt at great length with the sale ability of occupancy holdings without the consent of the raiyat. That matter has been concluded by the decision of a Special Bench in the case of Chandra Benole Kundu v. AlaBux not yet reported. The result is that before us nothing has been said on that point, and the contentions advanced by the learned Pleader for the insolvent are these, (1) that the insolvent is only a part-owner of these occupancy holdings; (2) that some of the properties sold are not occupancy holdings, but under raiyat holdings; (3) that there is no evidence that the landlord gave ascent to the sale, (4) that no sale proclamation was issued, and (5) that the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »