Kolkata Court May 1921 Judgments
Jewan Ram Vs. Ratan Chand-kishen Chand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal795,70Ind.Cas.498
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Woodroffe whereby he dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the suit was not maintainable, and that the plaint did not show a cause of action.2. The original plaintiff in the suit was one Bhairodhan. His name was deleted from the suit and the present plaintiff, Jewanram, who is alleged to be the assignee of the right, title and interest of Bhairodhan, was added as a plaintiff. The defendants were Ratan Chand Kishen Chand, a firm carrying on business in piece-goods in Calcutta.3. Bhairaodhan made a contract with the defendants whereby the defendants undertook to take delivery of 8 bales of dhoti in accordance with their contract. The defendants failed to take delivery in accordance with the contract and it was alleged that thereby the original plaintiff had buffered loss and damage on the re-sale of the 8 bales of dhoti. But before the re-sale the parties, that is to say, the orig...
Tag this Judgment!Bikram Kumar Bose Vs. Mohit Krishna Kundu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.178
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent of a permanent tenure which was held by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 under the plaintiff. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 sold the tenure to the defendant No. 3 on the 4th of Assin 1322. The plaintiff also transferred his interest, i.e., the landlord's interest, to the defendant No. 3 on the 22nd Assin 1322. The plaintiff then brought this present suit for recovery pf rent for 1321 and up to Assin 1322 against the defendants or against such of them as would be found liable. He subsequently withdrew the claim for the period from 5th to 26th Assin 1322 B.S.2. So far as the claim for 1321 was concerned, there was a decree against the defendants Nos, 1 and 2. There was no appeal so far as that period was concerned. For the year 1322, the Court of first instance gave a decree to the plaintiff for rent up to 4th Assin against defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and dismissed the claim as against defendant No. 3. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 appealed and although t...
Tag this Judgment!Sarat Chunder Gupta Vs. Kanai Lal Chuckerbutty and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal786,70Ind.Cas.525
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Buckland, whereby he dismissed the suit, on the ground that it had been brought out of time. There was no investigation of facts. The case was decided upon the facts which were stated in the plaint. Having regard to those facts stated in the plaint the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the suit was barred under Article 95 of the Indian limitation Act, holding that the suit was a suit for relief on the ground of fraud. It is, therefore, necessary to refer to the plaint to ascertain the facts which were therein relied upon. It was alleged that one Nanda Kissore Gangooly died on the 2nd of June 1892; that by his Will he devised to his widow Ranganmoni Debi certain premises Nos. 27-1 and 27-2, Soorti Bagan Lane, and a life-interest in certain other premises, No. 3, Soorti Bagan Lane, and that by the Will lie left the latter property, No. 3, Soorti Bagan Lane, to his nephew Kanai Lal Chu...
Tag this Judgment!Shahabaj Mandal Vs. Bhajahari Nath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal364,75Ind.Cas.75
1. This Rule arises out of certain proceedings instituted under the provisions of Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. These proceedings refer to a tank known as Mirsagar and to a dwelling house which, we are informed, is now more or less dilapidated. It appears that in execution of a decree obtained against the predecessor of the petitioners before us, who were the, first party to the proceedings under Section 145, these properties and other properties were sold, and were purchased by the members of the second party who are the opposite parties in this Rule. It has then been found by the Trial Magistrate that on the 17th November 1918 the auction-purchasers obtained possession of the tank through the Civil Court. That possession was taken in the lifetime of the judgment-debtor, who is said to have died some five days after the delivery of possession.2. It has next been found that the auction-purchaser took possession of the residential house on the 16th May 1920. In the execution pro...
Tag this Judgment!The Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Baroda Kanta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal79,66Ind.Cas.1003
Teunon, J.1. In this case one Baroda Kanta Majumdar was placed on his trial on a charge of offering resistance to his lawful apprehension and of escaping from lawful custody, offenses punishable under Section 285 B of the Indian Penal Code. Two co accused, his son Monoranjan and one Somiran, were charged with rescuing Baroda from lawful custody. All three were further charged with assaulting the peor, Nawab Ali, whose duty it was to arrest or assist the Bailiff in arresting Baroda Kanta. Somiran was further charged with assaulting the Bailiff and with removing the peon's badge. The preterit appeal is directed against the order or acquittal made in the case of all three by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate.2. The accused Baroda Kanta Majumdar owed seme Rs. 700 under a Small Cause Count decree obtained against him by one Sarat Chandra Ghosh. In execution of this decree a warrant for the arrest of Barada Kanta was issued. On the morning of the 13th July, the decree-holder, Bailiff Nityanau...
Tag this Judgment!Harendra Kumar Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Durga Charan Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.697
1. The dispute in this case relates to a tank.2. The appellants before us claim to have purchased it as part of Howla Hurai Shaik; the defendants, on the other hand, claim it as part of Howla Golam Nabi.3. The Court of first instance held that the tank belonged to both the howlas and accordingly gave a decree to the plaintiff in respect of an eight-annas share. Both parties appealed and the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal same to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to make out his right to the disputed tank and dismissed the suit entirely. The plaintiffs have preferred an appeal to this Court.4. Three contentions have been raised before us in this appeal. The first is that the learned Subordinate Judge has failed to consider the sale-certificate, which was one of the matters relied upon by the Court of first instance in giving a decree to the plaintiff in respect of his eight-annas share. We think that the sale-certificate ought to have been taken into consideration along ...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Krishna Roy and ors. Vs. Kurpal Harshi and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1921
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.993
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for realization of rent of a godown taken on lease by the defendant, firm. The case for the plaintiffs was, that the defendant, firm came into occupation in January 1917, under the arrangement that the tenancy would last for a term of three years ending in December 1919, and that the rent payable would be Rs. 250 a month. The defendants remained in occupation till the 31st Marsh 1918, but on the 27th February 1918 the plaintiffs were served with a notice of relinquishment. They forthwith protested that the tenancy would not be surrendered in this manner; but, notwithstanding: their objection, the defendants vacated the premises, with the result that the plaintiffs re-entered with effect from the 1st April 1918. The plaintiffs accordingly claimed rent for the unexpired period of the lease. The case for the defendants was that there was neither in fact nor in law a tenancy for three years, that the states of the defend...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›