Kolkata Court August 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.
Durga Prosad Sen Vs. Kali Charan Aich Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.742
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a promissory note. The suit was decreed by the Munsif, but on appeal, the Additional District Judge of Tipperah dismissed it. The note on which the plaintiff sued is worded as follows:Handnote on condition of payment at sight. To Babu Durga Prasad Sen son of late Gura Prosad Sen inhabitant of Sacbar Pergannah Singair. On the 29th Bhadra 1324. I borrowed Rs. 2,000 for cloth business of you and others at Sachar Bandar. Afterwards owing to non-payment of that amount you have instituted Suit No. 445 of 1910 in the first Court of the Subordinate Judge at Comilla. Now by amicable settlement with you on behalf of the said business (or firm) Rs. 2,000 is settled as due. Not being able to pay this amount in cash I again to-day take this loan of Rs. 2,200 for that business. I will pay interest on this at the rate of 1 per cent. per mensem up to date of re-payment. finis, dated 16th Poush 1317 B.S. Sd. Kali Charan Aiah Roy son of Jagat Chandra Aich Roy of Jo...
Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria Vs. Hem Chandra Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal520,62Ind.Cas.925
Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money. The plaintiff is the proprietor of two taluks which be holds under the Government; the defendant holds a putni taluk under him created on the 2(sic)th May 1888.2. It appears that proceedings were taken by the Local Government under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and an assessment was made of the cost of the Cadastral Survey and Settlement in accordance with Section 114. The case for the plaintiff is that he was sailed upon by the Government to pay Rs. 988-7 annas as his proportionate share of the cost. The sum was paid in two instalments, on the 8th August 1916 and 4th October 1916. The present suit was instituted on the 7th January 1918, on the allegation that under the terms of the putni contract the sum paid by the plaintiff to the Government was recoverable by him from the defendant.3. The defendant denied liability and stated that he himself had paid to Government Rs. 1,442 as his pr...
Bhagirath Molo and ors. Vs. Annada Prosunna Mukhapadhaya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.778
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for declaration of a patni right to what is described in the plaint as the disputed Sashikhali khal and for recovery of possession on eviction of the defendants.2. The plaintiff is patnidar of an estate known as Perganna Rangdia, which beara No. 235 on the Revenue Roll of the Jessore collectorate, and No. 163 on the Revenue Roll of the Khalna collectorate. His Base is that the disputed khal was settled with the Zemindar at the time of the Permanent Settlement and that the defendants have unlawfully exercised a right of fishery therein.3. The defendants repudiated the claim and asserted that the disputed khal wad a public navigable river, wherein they had a right to fish, either on the basis of prescription or by immemorial custom.4. The Trial Court found that the river Sashikhali belongs to the plaintiffs as appertaining to the Perganna Rangdia, and made a decree in his favour for ex-elusive possession of a ...
Deb Kumar Roy Choudhury Vs. Debnath Barna Bipra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.738
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of immoveable property upon declaration of title. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit as barred by the proceedings in a previous suit. The Subordinate Judge has affirmed that decree on the ground that the suit is not maintainable. In our opinion, the decision of the Subordinate Judge cannot be supported.2. It appears that in the previous suit instituted by the plaintiff, he prayed, on the 24th August 1916, for withdrawal of the suit with leave, as it is put in the order-sheet, and the following order was then recorded; 'He is allowed to withdraw with leave to bring a fresh suit on his depositing the costs of the defendant within a fortnight.' The costs were not deposited within a fortnight, but the present suit was instituted on the 8th January 1917. Thereafter, on the 18th January 1917 the costs were deposited as directed in the order in the previous suit, and the money ...
Laloo Karikar and ors. Vs. Jagat Chandra Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal572,62Ind.Cas.428
Mookerjee, Actg., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of possession of land upon declaration of title. The land admittedly formed the occupancy holding of one Niamat Karikar, a Mahomedan, who had three sons and four daughters. One of these sons, Nabu, died during the lifetime of his father, and, consequently never acquired an interest in the disputed land by inheritance. Three of the plaintiffs (Nos. 6, 7 and 8) are descendants of Nabu, namely, a daughter and two sons by another daughter. These plaintiffs have clearly no title to enforce. The other five plaintiffs claim through Nagar, one of the surviving sons of Niamat Karikar. The first three plaintiffs are the sons of Nagar, the fourth is his daughter, and the fifth his widow. It is indisputable that they did acquire title to a share of the holding. The first three defendants, who have successfully contested the claim, base their title on a sale which was made in their favour by the widow of Nagar (the ...
Govinda Sundar Singh Chowdhury and on His Death His Heirs and Legal Re ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.504
1. This appeal arises out of a suit which has been described as one for contribution. The fasts out of which the suit arose appear to be these:--The defendant, becoming the purchaser of an occupancy jote, was recognised as the tenant and paid the rent to the present plaintiff as his landlord. A rival landlord brought a suit against both for recovery of possession of the land comprised in the jote, on the ground that the said land did not belong to the present plaintiff or appertain to his Zemindari; but on the contrary appertained to the Zemindari of the plaintiff in that title suit. The suit was contested by both the present plaintiff and the present defendant; resulting in a decree in favour of the then plaintiff. His successor-in-interest next brought a suit and obtained a decree for mesne profits in the sum of Rs. 107. The decree was against both the present plaintiff and the defendant. When the decree-holder put his decree in execution, the plaintiff paid the sum of Rs. 107 and sa...
Sayrat Saha Vs. Sader Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.241
1. This appeal arises out of a suit; on a mortgage. The mortgage was admitted, but the defence set up was that there had been an adjustment and a full payment of the amount found due after the adjustment. The lower Appellate Court has found that there was an adjustment as alleged but that the appellant had left Rs. 375 unpaid, and that Court gave the plaintiff a mortgage decree with interest at 12 per cent. per annum from the date of suit to the date of the decree.2. Two points have been taken on behalf of the plaintiff appellant. The first is, that the proof of this raja or adjustment was inadmissible under Section 92 of the Evidence Act, and, secondly, that the plaintiff was entitled to interest at the contract rate up to the date fixed for payment in the mortgage decree.3. As regards the first point, we think that the defendant was entitled to prove the re as an adjustment of account. The finding is, that the plaintiff agreed to accept the sum of Rs. 1,775 in full settlement of his ...
Nagendra Nath Ghose and anr. Vs. Lawrence Jute Company Limited and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal197,61Ind.Cas.544
1. This is an appeal against a judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge of Hooghly, dated the 4th March 1919, reversing the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Howrab, dated the 22nd February 1&17, in a suit for declaration of the plaintiffs title to an one fifth share in a patni mehal known as Mouza, Chakkesi, and for a declaration that their right, title and interest in the raid share had not in at y way been affected by an execution sale held at the instance of the defendant Company. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the plaintiffs ought to deuced in the suit but, as pointed out above, the lower Appellate Court was of a contrary opinion. On appeal before us, it has been contended on behalf of the plaintiffs appellants that the lower Appellate Court was in error in admitting in evidence, as against the plaintiffs, the deposition of the defendant No. 6 in a previous suit, being Suit No lit.7 of 1919, and that, in the circumstances, the appeal ought to b...
Surendra Nath Singh and ors. Vs. Giridhari Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.633
Mookerjee, Actg., C. J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for establishment of their right to irrigate their crops with the water of the disputed tank, which is situated on the land of the defendants.2. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. Upon appeal that decree has been set aside by the District Judge.3. It appears that in a previous litigation the plaintiffs asserted a right of ownership to the disputed tank, but the claim was dismissed as unfounded. The Courts on that occasion made an observation that although the ownership of the tank was not established, still it was clear that the plaintiffs had enjoyed the right to take water there from for the purposes of irrigation. In the present case, the plaintiffs seek to establish their right to take water for the purposes of irrigation. The defendants contend, and this contention has been accepted as well founded by the District Judge, that inasmuch as the plaintiffs, in the previous suit, asserted ownership, thei...
Hosenjan Choudhuri Vs. Mirza MahafeduddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.619
1. This is an appeal against a decree dismissing a rent-suit on the ground that it was bad for defect of parties. The plaintiff sued on a kabuliyat which was executed by two defendants. Various defences were raised that the kabuliyat had been taken by coercion and that the provisions of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act were contravened. Both these points were decided in favour of the plaintiff.2. It appears that there were several holdings which belonged to the defendants and also to the defendants' mother and sisters. These holdings, it is found, were combined into one holding, and then the defendants executsd a kabuliyat agreeing to pay a rent enhanced by annas two in the rupee in excess of the total rent of all the original holdings, It is also found that the landlord wished to join the defendants' mother and sisters in the kabuliyat, but he did not do so in order to avoid expense and trouble in getting the kabuliyat registered by them. In our opinion the learned Subordinate Jud...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »