Kolkata Court May 1921 Judgments
Sitala Das Mukerjee, Minor, by Ris Mother and Next Friend Biraj Lakshm ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.688
1. This appeal and the Rale connected with it arise out of proceedings taken upon an application under Order XXI, Rule 90, for setting aside the sale of certain immoveable property.2. While the application under Order XXI, Rule 90, was pending, the judgment-debtor made an application to the Court to the effect that the case had been compromised between the petitioner and the decree-holder, who was the purchaser. On the 20th February, the latter put in a petition repudiating such compromise.3. The Court of first instance by its order, dated the 27th Marsh 1920, held that there was no adjustment or compromise as alleged on behalf of the petitioner, and accordingly refused to record the compromise. There was an appeal and the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal, differing from the view taken by the Munsif, held that there was a compromise and gave certain directions in the matter.4. The decree-holder purchaser has preferred this appeal at d obtained a Rule.5. The main contention raised on...
Tag this Judgment!Dinanath Mahish and ors. Vs. Nabakumar Hajra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal792,70Ind.Cas.542
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit instituted by them for declaration, that a mortgage-decree is not fit for execution, for partial redemption by payment of proportionate shares of the mortgage dues and for incidental reliefs, The events which have led up to this litigation are not in controversy and may be briefly stated. On the 9th February 1:907 Rani Mrinalini, wife of Raja Narendra lal Khan of Narajole, obtained a consent decree in a mortgage suit against the plaintiffs. There were various proceedings in execution which need not be recited for our present purpose. On the 15th February 1915 Nagendra Bala Dasi, the second defendant in this suit, applied to the Execution Court to have her name substituted in the place of the decree-holder, on by allegation that she had taken an assignment of the decree on the 7th February 1915. On the 29th February 1915 the original decree-holder intimated to the Court that she had transferred the decree and had no o...
Tag this Judgment!Mohini Mohan Banerjee and ors. Vs. Secretary of State for India in Cou ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal193,67Ind.Cas.25
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. There ten appeals are directed against five awards made by the Land Acquisition Judge of Howrah in five references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector made his award in each case on the basis of the condition of the land at the time of the declaration, He adopted a three-fold classification, namely, homestead land at Rs. 400 per bigha, garden land at Rs. 100 per bigha and tank at Rs. 40 per bigha. The claimants applied in each case for a reference to the Court under Sub-section (1) of Section 18 and formulated the ground of their objection to the award of the Collector in these terms; 'The land acquired is locate just by the side of a brick-field; it could have been a brick-field in future and the value of the land should consequently be assessed at not less than Rs. 1,500 per bigha.' Thus the substantial question for consideration on the reference was, whether the land should be valued on the basis of its actual condition at the ti...
Tag this Judgment!Trailokya Nath Banerjee Vs. Radharanjan Alias Bonomali Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1921
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.204
1. In this case sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner has been granted to the opposite party, The prosecution for which sanction has thus been granted is with reference to a written statement in which in a certain suit brought against the petitioner he denied the execution of a certain hand-note. This written statement was filed on the 18th July 1919. On the 6th November of that year a co-sharer with the opposite party in a certain property purchased by the petitioner brought against the opposite party criminal proceedings alleging misappropriation by the opposite party of her share in the purchase money. In these proceedings the petitioner was examined as a witness and there be admitted that, as a matter of fact, he had executed this hand-note and that the sum of Rs. 250 in respect of which the hand-note was executed had not been, as he had alleged in his written statement, paid with the rest of the consideration money in cash. The sanction given for his prosecution is under ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Shaikh Vs. Jamatulla Tarafdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.335
1. In this case it appears that on the 3rd January 1921, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Howrah made a conditional order under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, directing the removal of a certain wall as an obstruction to a certain public path. On the application of the person against whom the order was made a Jury was appointed on the 13th January 1921, under the provisions of Section 135 of the Code, Of the five Jurors one, it appears, never aa,ted, with the result that the report made by the other four on the 12th February 1921 could not be acted upon. Thereafter, apparently on an application made by both parties, the ease was referred to a fresh Jury consisting of three persons only. In the application to which we have just referred these three persons are spoken of as arbitrators, but in the appointment order and in the subsequent orders referring to them the Magistrate treats them as Jurors. If they are to be regarded as Jurors, it is obvious that in referring this matter to...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Saha Vs. Pryanath Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.362
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for joint khas possession of an 8-annas share of the land in dispute by ejecting the defendant, who had purchased a non-transferable holding.2. The landlord representing the other 8-annas share has recognised the defendant as tenant. The defendant says that the plaintiff's agent, one Guno Chandra, recognised him as the tenant after his purchase and that he had authority to do so on behalf of his principal.3. The Court of first instance found that the agent had authority to recognise the transfer; but on appeal that decision has been set aside.4. It has been contended before us that the onus of proof had been wrongly thrown upon the defendant to show that the agent had authority, and reference is made to the case of Sudaman Jamalar v. Behari Mahton 10 Ind. Cas. 456 : 15 C.W.N. 953. In that case it was observed that there is no infexible rule of law that a gomasta has no power to recognise a transfer, that the question must be decided upon the facts of...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Nath Sen and ors. Vs. Toriantnessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.685
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration that the decree for rent passed ex parte was fraudulent and for setting aside the said decree and the sale held thereunder on the ground of fraud. There was originally also a prayer for recovery of possession. That, however, was subsequently struck out.2. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge has remanded the ease for decision on the question of fraud.3. The defendants have appealed to this Court.4. The first contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the suit is not one for a declaratory decree within the meaning of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. That is so, but consequential relief was claimed, as the plaintiffs prayed for an injunction.5. That being so, the only question would be whether ad valorem Court-fee was paid or not.6. If the suit be held to have been valued at Rs. 57 annas 5, then ad valorem Court fee was paid.7. The second contention is that the suit ough...
Tag this Judgment!Profulla Nath Tagore Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.892
1. These appeals arise but of suits for declaration of the plaintiffs' tenancy right to the lands mentioned in the plaints in these suits, and for settlement of fair rents in respect of the lands under the following circumstances.2. The plaintiffs' predecessors in title held, under a temporary settlement from Government, a certain Dearah Mahal, which was a contiguous accretion to their permanently settled estate, and during the time that it was so held, the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-title purchased these tenancies in execution of decrees for arrears of rent. One of these tenancies consisted of about 700 bighas of lard, and the finding is that it was a tenure. The other two tenures were raiyati holdings.2. Now, in the proceedings under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenacy Act, the Revenue Officer ignored the existence of these tenancies and treated the persons in possession of the land as raiyats and settled the rent on the basis of the rent payable by them to the proprietor. Thereupon these...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Bose Vs. Biswarup Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal632,64Ind.Cas.603
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for accounts against an agent.2. The defendant acted as the agent of the plaintiff and his brother (who is the pro forma defendant No. 2 in the present case) up to the year 1319, and from that year upto 1322, the defendant acted as the gomasta of the plaintiff alone.3. It appears that in the year 1916 a suit was instituted by the pro forma defendant, the brother of the plaintiff, for accounts against the defendant. The present plaintiff was made a party to that suit as pro forma defendant No. 2. That suit was decreed on compromise as between the plaintiff and the principal defendant in that suit.4. In the present suit the principal defendant pleaded that the compromise decree in the suit brought by the plaintiff's brother operated as res judicata. The lower Appellate Court has given effect to that contention,5. We are of opinion that the decree cannot operate as res judicata on two grounds. The first is that there was no conflict of interest and no d...
Tag this Judgment!Niladrinath Mukherjee and anr. Vs. Sarojnath Mukherjee, Minor, by His ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.681
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is a second appeal from the appellate judgment and decree of Mr. Roy, the District Judge of Hooghly, affirming the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Babu Hem Chandra Bose.2. The question arises on the construction of the Will, dated the 2nd February 1894, of the late Bejoy Krishna Mukherjee. The Will is in Bengali and we have been furnished with a translation.3. It appears that the testator left him surviving seven sons and several daughters. With the daughters we are not concerned. As regards the sons, by his Will the testator divided his estate into seven shares or portions of unequal value and allotted one portion to each of his sons. Among the properties allotted to the two eldest sons was a property known as Lot Darbasini, bearing Touzi No. 6 in the Revenue Roll of the District. The two eldest sons each obtained a moiety of that property.4. Clause 2 of the Will recites that 'the profits from the Lot Darbasini are much larger than those fro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »