Kolkata Court November 1921 Judgments
Lalit Mohan Moitra Vs. Raja Sasi Sekhareswar Roy Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal73,70Ind.Cas.300
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit by the plaintiff based on an award which was made a decree of Court for declaration of title and for possession of certain lands set put in Schedule Kha to the plaint. The plaintiff is owner of lands in Touzi No. 197. The owner of Touzi No. 13 is the defendant-appellant. Schedule Ka to the plaint contains the joint and undivided lands of the two touzis of which the parties were in possession. Disputes having arisen as regards these lands in Schedule Ka, the matter was referred to the arbitration of the Magistrate of Malda. He, on the 10th June 1905, made an award, allotting to the plaintiff the lands 1-5 and half of No. 14 which are set out in Schedule Kha, and lands 6-13 and half of No. 14 set out in Schedule Ga were given to the defendant. The award was made a decree of Court on the 17th March 1906.2. The plaint alleges, that the plaintiff got possession of properties Nos. 1, 5, 6 in Schedule Ka but not of lands appertaining to Mouzahs ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandi Charan Chowdhury and on His Death His Heir and Legal Representa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1921
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.113
1. The appeal arises out of a suit for redemption.2. The defendant No. 9 executed a deed of sale in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the father of defendant No. 7 on the 5th May 1899. There was a stipulation in the kabula that if the vendor paid the purchase-money within three years from the date of the execution of the document, the property would be given up by the vendee. The question which is involved in the appeal is whether the transaction was a deed of sale with a condition for re purchase or a deed of mortgage by conditional sale.3. The Court below held that it was the latter and accordingly gave a decree for redemption in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have appealed to this Court.4. It is stated in the deed that the vendor was selling absolutely the lands after receiving Rs. 800, the real price. It then states: 'Becoming entitled to my rights in the above-mentioned lands sold to you and having possessed them through tenants or in khas possession as in my case and...
Tag this Judgment!Sailendra Mohan Dutt Vs. Dharani Mohan Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal402,69Ind.Cas.823
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Sailendra Mohan Dutt against the judgment of my learned brother, Mr. Justice Greaves. Sailendra Mohan Dutt was acting as the Attorney for one Dharaui Mohan Roy who was the defendant in the suit and by an order of the 7th of April 1920, there was a change of Attorneys; the material part of the order being: 'it is ordered that upon the defendant paying to the said Mr, S. M. Dutt the sum of rupees six thousand on account of costs doe to him in this suit, including the costs of this application, to be taxed by the Taxing Officer of this Court as between Attorney and client and upon the said Mr. S. M. Putt undertaking to refund any excess amount; that may appear to have bean paid to him after taxation of such costs as aforesaid and the defendant by his Raid Attorneys, Messieurs Kali Nath. Mitter and Sarvadhicary, undertaking to pay to the said Mr. S. M. Dutt any earn that may be found due to him upon taxation in excels of the said sum of rupee...
Tag this Judgment!Basarat Sarkar and anr. Vs. Hiru Pramanik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal287,65Ind.Cas.353
1. The question involved in the suit out of which this appeal arises, was whether the property in dispute was the self acquired property of one Julfat, father of the plaintiff, or whether it belonged to the family of which Julfat was a member.2. The Court of first instance tame to the conclusion upon the evidence that the property was acquired by Julfat alone. The learned Subordinate Judge on appeal tame to a different conclusion and accordingly gave a decree to the plaintiff in respect of only 1-12th share of the property.3. The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the consideration for the kobala in favour of Julfat consisted of money due under a mortgage-bond to the family and a sum of Rs. 40 which was paid on behalf of the family to the vendor, The learned Subordinate Judge, therefore, comes to a finding that the consideration was paid by the family. He further goes on to consider certain other documents which contain some statements ...
Tag this Judgment!BipIn Behari Bose and ors. Vs. Mr. K.S. Bonnerjee and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1921
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.104
John Woodroffe, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that a certain rent-decree dated the 13th February 1919, obtained by the defendant as Receiver against the, plaintiffs is invalid and inoperative. The defendant was appointed Receiver of the estate of Kumudini Dasi, one of the widows of Gopal Lal Seal, on the 7th January 1918. The defendant instituted a rent suit as Receiver. It is alleged that during the pendency of that suit, he was discharged as Receiver and thus unable to maintain and continue the suit, and that such discharge took place on the 28th January 1919. He was not, it is said, reinstated until the 17th February 1919, and that the decree passed in the rent-suit on the 13th February 1919 in favour of the Receiver is invalid. It is alleged that the Receiver purposely withheld this information from the Court, namely, that he was discharged, and thus induced the Court to believe that he was Receiver and he thus obtained a decree in his favour. It is said t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahamed Warish Sadagar Vs. Rahman Ali Meah and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal430,70Ind.Cas.123
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the sale held in execution of an order was without juris diction and illegal and for other reliefs.2. It appears that the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, cited Rahman Ali (the respondent) as a witness in another suit, and the Court directed the plaintiff to pay him Rs. 15 as his expenses. Rahman Ali executed that order and in execution put up certain immoveable property of the plaintiff to sale and the property was purchased by the defendant No. 2.3. The Courts below overruled the contention of the plaintiff that the sale of the immoveable property was illegal land the plaintiff Has appealed to this Court.4. It is contended that under Order XVI, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code, the Court, in default in payment may order the expenses of a witness to be levied by attachment and sale of only the moveable property of the party obtaining the summons.5. The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that Order XVI, Rule 4 provi...
Tag this Judgment!Gobinda Chandra Mullik Vs. the Chairman of the Hooghly and Chinsura Mu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal99,65Ind.Cas.518
1. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants in this appeal, brought a suit against the Hooghly and Chinsura Municipality for a declaration that the action of the Municipality in levying a licence-fee from them and realising the same by distress was ultra vires and for a permanent injunction restraining the Municipality from levying the fee in future.2. The plaintiffs have a Rice Mill within the Municipality and the latter imposed a fee under Section 261 of the Bengal Municipal Act(III of 1884).3. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. That decree has been set aside by the Court of Appeal below.4. Two contentions have been raised before us; the first is, that there is no clear finding as to whether it was a manufactory or place of business from which offensive or unwholesome smell arises, and, secondly, that in order to bring a case within the section, the manufactory or business must be per se offensive or unwholesome.5. With regard to the first contention, we think the findings a...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Charan Roy Chaudhuri and ors. Vs. Birendra Nath Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal749,70Ind.Cas.541
Cuming, J.1. The facts of this case ate as follows: The present petitioner obtained' a decree for. Rs. 286-3-9 against opposite party Nos. 4 and 5. On 2nd September 1920 in Execution Case No. 1203 they applied for execution of the decree arid attached, certain immoveable properties of the judgment-debtor. The 9th March 1921 was fixed for the sale. On the day of sale the judgment-debtor deposited the entire decretal amount in Court and. the sale therefore did not take place. Meantime, on 3rd February 1921, opposite party Nos. 1-3 and taken out execution of another decree and claimed to share rateably in the assets which would be realised by the sale tri Execution Case No. 1203.2. The Court, in spite of the objection of the petitioner, allowed the opposite party Nos. 1-3 to share rateably in the amount deposited in Court in Execution. Case No. 1203.3. Against this order the petitioners, the decree-holders in Execution: Case No. 1263, have now moved this Court.4. Their contention is that ...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Chand Chamaria Vs. Banwari Lall Rakshit and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal404,69Ind.Cas.808
Rankin, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Suit No. 820 of 1920 to have filed of record in this suit a certain award dated the 1st day of August 1921.2. There are three defendants who are sued by name as carrying on a certain kind of business at No. 27, Darpanarain Tagore Street in Calcutta.3. The applicants' case is that there was an informal agreement of reference t6 arbitration of all the disputes in this suit made between the parties in or about Jane 1921. He says also that the arbitrators have made their award, which would appear to be dated 1st August 1921.4. The original drafting of the notice of motion would lead one to suppose that the provisions of Order XXII, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code were not in the mind of the draftsman. However that may be, learned Counsel for the applicant rests his case entirely upon Order XXIII, Rule 3. He asks me to record the award as being an adjustment by lawful agreement or compromise within the meaning of that...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Sarashibala Dassi, Administratrix to the Estate of Her Husband ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal53,65Ind.Cas.219
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for accounts against, an agent, and the question involved in the appeal is whether the claim for accounts from 1301 to 9th Sraban 1319 corresponding to 25th July 1912 is barred by limitation.2. The-defendant acted as gomasta under the plaintiff's husband Jotindra until his death, which took place on the 25th July. 1912, He then acted as the plaintiff's agent. The suit having been brought more than three years after the death of Jotindra, the claim for accounts for the period before the death of Jotindra has been held to be barred under Article 89 of the Limitation Act. As provided by Section 201 of the Contract Act, an agency is terminated by either the principal or agent dying, and a suit against the agent for the period during which he acted as agent under the deceased must, therefore, be brought within three years of the death, as laid down in Article 89 of the Limitation Act. See Madhusudan Sen v. Rakhal Chandra Das Basak CO Ind. Cas. 697 : 48 C....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »