Kolkata Court July 1921 Judgments
Baranashi Koer Vs. Bhabadeb Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal456,66Ind.Cas.758
1. This is an appeal from an order made under sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the Provincial Insolvency Act of 1907. The events antecedent to the order may be britfly stated.2. On the 3rd October I9O7 the respondent obtained a decree against tbe appellate in a mortgage suit. The decree directed that the available proceeds of the sale to be held there under be paid in satisfaction of the derstal debt, but that if the amount due to be plaintiff was not satisfied by the sale of mortgaged properties, the balance be realised from the other property and person of the defendant. The decree has been executed and the hypothecated properties have been sold, but a large cum is still due under the decree. In the case of a decree of this character, the period of limitation applicable rors not from tbe date of the tale of the mortgaged property, but from the date of the decree as fixed by Order XX, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code; Khulnct Loan Co., Limited v. Jnanendra Nath Eose (1). The same principle ...
Tag this Judgment!Gobindnath Choudhuri Vs. BasiruddIn Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal606,64Ind.Cas.594
1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder from an order for partial cancellation of a sale of four properties held in execution of a mortgage-decree on the 16th April 1917, The validity of the sale was challenged on the ground that at the time when the application for execution was made, the decree had become extinguished by limitation and could not consequently form the basis of a valid sale. The Court of first instance dismissed the application. On appeal the District Judge has cancelled the sale in respect of three of the properties. We are of opinion that the order made by the District Judge cannot be supported.2. The fasts material for the determination of the question argued before us may be briefly stated. On the 1st August 1910, the appellant obtained a mortgage-decree against the respondent, which directed the sale of the four properties included in the security. The first application for execution was made on the 30th July 1913. Shortly after this application had been made, a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Babu Jnanendra Kumar Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.417
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a reference which was made by the learned Munsif of Danton to the High Court, and it was submitted, as is the usual practice, through the District Judge. By the reference it was submitted that the conduct of the Pleader concerned justified an order of dismissal or suspension within the meaning of the Legal Practitioners Act.2. The learned Judge who forwarded the reference, for the reasons, which he stated in his letter, came to the conclusion that be was unable to support the learned Munsif's recommendation for dismissal or suspension of the Pleader in question he being of opinion that the warning given by the Munsif by his first order in final disposal of the matter was sufficient.3. It appears that a rent-decree had been obtained against one Isof Khan and the holding in arrears had been sold by auction and purchased by the decree holders who were the 16 annas landlords. On the 19th of August 1920, the Pleader accepted a vakalatnama purporting to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Beni Madhab Roy and ors. Vs. Krishna Kamini Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal395,70Ind.Cas.177
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a second Appeal from the judgment of the learned District Judge of Pabna.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover rent in respect of a putni lease for a period from May 1912 to August 1915. There was a lease at a fixed rate of rent of Rs. 300 per annum of 12 items of property; but when the defendants, the tenants, went into possession it was found that they could not get possession of 2 items of property which were referred to in the judgment as mehals Nos. 7 and 8, and it turned out that these two mehals were the subject-matter of another putni which had been granted by one of the plaintiff's predecessors, the plaintiff herself being a purda-nashin lady. Both the Courts have found that it was purely a mistake and that the plaintiff intended bona fide to grant a lease of the 12 items of property and she sued for the full amount of the rent reserved by the lease. She succeeded in recovering in the First Court a reduced amount of rent: The le...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Krishn Nath Vs. Hari Nath Kapurth
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal565,66Ind.Cas.766
1. This is an appeal by a judgment debtor against an order for ejectment passed in execution of a decree. The decree was made by consent of parties on the 30th September 1919. A petition of compromise was filed on that date and a decree was drawn up on the basis therefore, Most, but not all, of the terms of the petition were incorporated in the decree. Under what circumstances some of the terms were omitted does not appear from the record. Under the decree, the plaintiff, now the respondent, settled with the defendant, now the appellant, an os / raiyatl interest in 2 annas 5 gandas share of the lands.then in dispute, at an annual rent of Rs. 40, and for a period of 9 years from 1326 to 1334 B. S The defendant undertook to execute a registered oats ratyati kabuliyt in favour of the plaintiff within two months from the date of the decree and also to pay rent in accordance with law. The decree further provided that the defendant would pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 150 as rent for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Jote Kumar Mukerjee and anr. Vs. Jadu Nath Bose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.693
1. This is an appeal from an order of remand made by the lower Appellate Court in a suit for ejectment and mesne profile. The subject matter of the litigation is the right of fishery in a tank let out by the plaintiff to the defendants on an yearly rent of Rs. 18, The kabuliyat executed by the tenants stated that the tenancy would last for a term of 9 years from 1316 to 1324 (san). The plaintiff instituted this suit on the allegation that the tenancy had terminated and yet the defendants were in occupation. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. Upon appeal the Subordinate Judge has reversed that decision, on the ground that evidence legally admissible had been erroneously excluded by the Trial Court. It appears that in the sixth paragraph of the written statement the defendants allege that the year in. respect of jalkars begins from the commencement of the rains, that is, from the month of Asarh, that the term of yearly settlement subsists till then, that old fishes are caught ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopeswar Banerjee and anr. Vs. Braja Sundari Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal353,67Ind.Cas.40
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is Rule which was granted, at the instance of the plaintiff, by my learned brothers Mr. Justice Richardson and Mr. Justice Cuming calling upon the opposite-party to show cause why the judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court Judge of Birbhom complained of in the petition should not be set aside.2. The plaintiff sued to recover a certain sum of money which be alleged he had paid on behalf of a widow called Brojo Sundari Devi, and he claimed to be reimbursed in respect of that sum of money. I take the facts as to which there is no dispute from the judgment of the learned Small Cause Court Judge. The learned Judge said, 'Brojo Sundari has 6-annas share in Lot Bakulia as heir of her husband. On account of that share has to pay Rs. 29 odd as road cess in each kist; she defaulted in making payments for kist and her share was advertised for sale under the Public Demands Recovery Act. The plaintiff who is the reversionary heirs of her husband paid the amount...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prosad Chimonlal Vs. Anundji and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal408,69Ind.Cas.885
Ghose, J.1. This it an application on behalf of the infant defendant, Jogjiban Anundji, for an order that this sail, so far as the said defendant is concerned, may be dismissed with costs. It has arisen under the following circumstances : On the 7th February 1920, this suit was instituted under Order XXXVII, Civil Procedure Code, for the recovery of a sum of Rs, 1,005 alleged to be due to the plaintiff firm on a hundi drawn by one Meghji Bhimji and accepted by the defendant-firm of Messrs. Anundji & Co, of which, it is alleged, the sole proprietor was one Anundji, the father of the applicant. On the 20th February 1920, Anundji obtained leave to defend this suit. He died on the 9th June 1920, In February 1921, the plaintiff-firm made an application for an order that the plaintiff firm may have leave to continue this suit against Jogjiban and Govindji, both of them infants under the age of 18 years, sons and legal representative of Anundji deceased, the alleged sole partner of the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Paban Khan Vs. Badal Sardar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal276,66Ind.Cas.906
1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a mortgage bond.2. The defendant admitted the execution of the bond but pleaded payment and satisfaction of it. He also raised the defence that the bond should not be regarded as a mortgage bond.3. The Court of first instance held that the execution of the bond not being challenged, the necessity of its proof did not arise. That Court overruled the other pleas of the defendant and gave a decree to the plaintiff.4. On appeal by the defendant, the learned Additional District Judge was of opinion that the provisions of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act had not been complied with. He held that the scribe having executed the deed on behalf of the appellant was not competent to attest his own signature, and there being no other evidence, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.5. It has been contended on behalf of the plaintiff who is the appellant before us that, having regard to the provisions of Section 70 of the Evidence Act, there was ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Kader Sarkar Vs. Shaikh Lal Mahomed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal775,84Ind.Cas.25
1. The only substantial question of law which arises in this appeal relates to the true construction of Article 3 of Schedule 111 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That Article provides that a suit to recover possession of land claimed by the plaintiff as a raiyat or an under raiyat must 'be instituted within two years from the date of dispossession. It is now well-settled, as was first ruled in the case of Ramjanee Bibee v. Amoo Beparee 15 C. 317 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 795 that this Article relates only to a suit brought by a raiyat or under raiyat against his landlord and does not govern a suit by a tenant against third parties who are trespassers. This view was approved in Ramdhan Bhadra v. Ram Kumar Dey 17 C. 926 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1162 and was reiterated in the following terms in Parameswar Nomasudra v. Kali Mohan Nomasudra 4 C. W.N. 801 at P. 803 : 28 C. 127: 'The rulings of this Court are to the effect that when a landlord dispossessed his tenant, the two years' rule is applicable and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »