Kolkata Court April 1921 Judgments
JoynaraIn Sen Ukil Vs. Suchitra Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.8
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to a village called Udaipore in the District of Bankura. The plaintiff and the defendants are descended from a common ancestor, Jugal Kishore Sen Ukil, who had two sons, Kesab and Matiram. Kesab had three sons, Prasad, Sridhar and Nilmohan; Matiram also had three sons, Damodar, Srinivas and Adwaita. The plaintiff represents the branch of Nilmohan. The first defendant is the widow of Prankrishna, the descendant of Prasad. The second and third defendants represent the branch of Srinivas, while the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants represent that of Adwaita. The case for the plaintiff is that in the disputed property, which admittedly belonged to the common ancestor, his share is one-third, while the first defendant owns one-twenty-fourth and the remaining defendants fifteen-twenty-fourths. The first defendant asserts, on the other hand, that the share of the plaintiff is one-fourth, her own sha...
Tag this Judgment!Lichiram Motilal Vs. Radha Charan Poddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal267,66Ind.Cas.15
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. The appeal arises out of a suit commenced by the appellants for declaration that two mortgages for Rs. 5,000 each taken by the first two defendants, Radha Cbaran Poddar and Radhabailav Poddar, one from Lalbihari Saha (now deceased) on the 30th January 1914, and the other from Sukh Lal Saha, Matial Saha and Nrityaial Saha on the 7th February 1914, had been made gratuitously with intent to defeat their creditors and were consequently voidable under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiffs are creditors of the Sahas end instituted this suit on the 9th Match 1918 on behalf of themselves and the other creditors whose names were set out in a schedule appended to the plaint, The mortgagors as also the mortgagees were made defendants; and as the Sanas bad been adjudicated insolvents on the 23rd July 1914 by this Court in the exercise of its Insolvency Jurisdiction, the Official Assignee also was joined as a defendant. The suit was thus constituted .is ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Ramanuja Das Mohant Vs. Sarat Kamini Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.273
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a Bait to enforce a mortgage-security, executed in his favour on the 14th September 1906, by the first defendant, Raja Balabhadra Singh Deb, in respect of what is known as the Raipur Zamindary. Besides the mortgagor, 85 other persons were made parties to the suit in the Court below, on the allegation that they were subsequent encumbrancers. They filed twelve separate written statements and raised numerous questions which were embodied in fourteen issues. We are now concerned with only one set of defendants, namely, defendants Nos. 8 to 19, who have been described in these proceedings as the Rathis and the Dutts. They set up a mortgage for Rs. 75,000 executed by the first defendant in their favour on the 28th January 1908. They contended that the security held by them, though subsequent in point of time, had priority over the mortgage in suit, by the application of the doctrines of subrogation and lis pendens. The Subordinate...
Tag this Judgment!Sarojini Das Vs. Haridas Ghosh-defendant
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal12,66Ind.Cas.774
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. The subject matter of the litigation which has resulted in this appeal is the estate left by one Rajanimani alias Rajanibala Dasi, a Hindu lady, who died on the 21st March 1917. She left a son Nitai, a grandson Anil, by a predeceased son, and three married daughters. The relationship of the several members of the family is indicated on the following genealogical table:RAJANIMANI, CR RAINIBALAM. ABINASH CHANDRA GHOSESatish Nitai Ranibala Kalibala PrabhasiniChandra Chandra M. Nagen- M, Krish- M. Satyes- Ghose, Ghose. dra Nath na Chandra war Pal.died 1906 Pal, Ghose. Widow Sarojini,(Propounder)Anil ChandraGhose.2. The case for the appellant is that, three days before her death, Rajanimani made a testamentary disposition of her properties. On the 20th August 1917 an application for Probate was lodged in the Court of the District Delegate by the present appellant, Sarojini, the widowed daughter in law of the deceased, but it was returned as objection was filed. An ap...
Tag this Judgment!Prasannamayi Debi Vs. Baikutha Nath Chattoraj and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal260,66Ind.Cas.782
Asutosh MooKerjee, J,1. The subject matter of the litigations which have culminated in these two appeals is the estate left by one Mandakini Debi, a Hindu lady, who died on the 16th September 1918. On the 1st October 1 18 Baiknntha Nath Chattoraj, the surviving brother of her deceased husband, Brahmananda Chattoraj, made an application for Letters of Administration to the estate It ft by her. On the 28th July 11H9 her sister, Prasannamayi, the widow of Rajballabh Chattora, another brother of her husband, applied for Probate of an unregistered Will alleged to have been excepted by her on the l4th September 1918, two days before her death. Tbe relationship of the members of the family is set out in the annexed genera-logical table: MAUHUSUDAN CHATTORAJ. Badkaballav, Brahmananda., Rajballabh, Baiknntha died 1900 died 1903, died 1902, Nath, widow Mandakini widow (Caveator). Asutosh (Testatrix) Prasanna. mayi, Jamini, (Propounder)2. By Consent of parties, the Administration land Prostate p...
Tag this Judgment!Kshitindra Mohan Roy and ors. Vs. Nawab Khajeh Habibulla Bahadur and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.724
1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Munsif disallowing an application under Order XXI, Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code, made by the petitioners before him should not be set aside.2. The circumstances of the case are as follows:In 1911 the petitioners brought a suit against Nawab Salimulla of Dacca for recovery of possession of certain lands. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance in 1912 and the decree of that Court was affirmed by the Subordinate Judge on the 28th February 1914. There was a second appeal to this Court by the petitioner. Pending the second appeal, Nawab Salimulla died and his son Nawab Habibulla and the other heirs of Nawab Salimulla, represented by the Manager, Court of Wards, were substituted in his place. On the 19th July 1913 there was a remand by this Court and ultimately there was a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff. An application for execution (by delivery of possession) was made in 19...
Tag this Judgment!Baroda Prosad Dey, Chairman, Serampore Municipality Vs. the Secretary ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal386,66Ind.Cas.846
MocKerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against an award made under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of a piece of land in the town of Semaphore acquired by the Government for the residence of the Assistant Superintendent of Police. The land covers an area of 1 cottah 2 chattack 40 square feet (that is one-fiftieth of an acre) and at the time of acquisition was used by the Sarampore Municipality as a public drain for the discharge of water from the locality into the river Hooghly. The Collector made an award for Rs. 407-4-8, that ie, Rs. 354-2-8 as the value of the land and Bi. 53 2 0 as the statutory allowance. In the statement of grounds on which the amount of compensation was determined, it was stated that ' the land had been valued at Bs. 300 per cottah, that is, at the same rate as the adjoining land, inasmuch as the drain was shallow.' The Chairman of the Municipality objected to the award as inadequate and claimed the costs for the construction of two-culverts over a new drai...
Tag this Judgment!Rajani Kanta Shaha Vs. Idris Thakur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal259,64Ind.Cas.280
1. This Rule is directed against an order of acquittal made under the provisions of Section 494, Clause (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The accused, opposite party, one Idris Thakur, and one Abila Bewa were committed to the Court of Session to take their trial on charges of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 366 and 344 of the Indian Penal Code. Idris Thakur is a Muhammadan, while the woman Ujjalmani, whom he is alleged to have abducted and confined, is said to be the lawfully married wife of a Hindu neighbour Rajani Kanta Shaha.3. When the case came on for trial, the Public Prosecutor, acting under the instructions of the District Magistrate, applied for permission to withdraw from the prosecution. The Sessions Judge gave his consent and thereupon followed the acquittal now in question.4. For his order giving consent to the withdrawal from the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge has recorded no reasons.5. Now in the case of Umesh Chandra Roy v. Satis Cha...
Tag this Judgment!Sadhu Charan Pal and anr. Vs. Indra Mohan Mistari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.90
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiffs' right of way over the defendants' land.2. One of the defendants was a minor and he was not properly represented in the snit. The Court of first instance held that a right of way could not be declared over the land of the defendants when one of them was not represented in the suit. That Court accordingly held that the snit most fail on that ground apart from any other consideration, though the snit was dismissed on other grounds also. This question does not appear to have been discussed in the Court of Appeal below. That Court concurred with the Court of first instance in dismissing the suit.3. The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.4. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the Court cannot make a decree declaring a right of way in the absence of defendant No. 4 who was one of the owners of the servient tenement, as in the circumstances such a decree would be infructuous.5. We think that this contentio...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chandra Bandyopadhya Vs. Benode Behary Roy Mandal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.82
1. No one appears to show cause in this Rule.2. It appears that the plaintiff applied for leave to withdraw from a part of his claim, namely, with respect to plot No. 19 of Schedule 'Kha' with liberty to bring a fresh suit. This was on the 23rd July and the Court ordered that the petition be considered in the judgment. In the judgment the learned Subordinate Judge considered this question in connection with Issue No. 5 and he same to the conclusion that there would have been no misjoinder of causes of action and parties if the claim with regard to plot No. 19 in Schedule 'Kha' had been prosecutcd. We understand that that was the main ground upon which the application for have to withdraw with liberty to bring a fresh suit was made on behalf of the plaintiff. If, however, the claim would not have been bad for misjoinder of causes of action and partier, as the learned Subordinate Judge says, we do not see why the plaintiff was allowed leave to withdraw. No ground appears to have been sta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »