Kolkata Court July 1921 Judgments
Haridasi Dasi and ors. Vs. Bidhumukhi Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal38,68Ind.Cas.795
1. This appeal is directed against an order of dismissal made on an 'application to revoke a Probate under Section 50 of the Pre bate and Administration Act. Priya Nath Ghose, the alleged testator, died on the 13tb November, 1907. He left a widow, Bidhumukhi Dasi, a daughter, Haridasi Dasi, and two sons by her Pramatha Nath and Anadinath, On the 16th July 1908 the widow applied for Probate of a Will said to have been executed by the deceased on the 26th October 1907. The application, which was supported by the affidavits of two of the attesting witnesses, did not mention that the testator had left a daughter or two sons by her who would successively take the estate in the event of intestacy. A general citation was thereupon issued but no special citation was or could be served upon the relatives of the deceased. As there was no opposition, the Prelate was granted on the affidavits on the 21st August 1908. On the 21st May 1919, the present application for revocation of the Probate wag m...
Tag this Judgment!ishan Chandra Diasi and ors. Vs. Ram Prosad Aich and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal209,65Ind.Cas.656
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J. 1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decree of the Special Judge of Midnapore complained of should not be set aside, or why such other or further order should not be made as to this Court might seem fit and proper.2. The matter arose in respect of certain applications which were made by the landlords for the settlement of, fair rents under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.3. The Revenue Officer found that the defendants in these cases were ordinary occupancy raiyats. He also found on a comparison of the prices of staple food crops that the maximum enhancement under Section 32(b) was 4 annas in the rupee. He, however, refused to allow the landlords any enhancement on the ground that the lands were subject to inundation as there was no embankment on the river Cossaye and that the crops were damage and the rents were already high.4. The Special Judge who heard the, appeal, after reciting what the Revenue Officer...
Tag this Judgment!Nasiran Bibi and anr. Vs. Salim Akanda and ors. and Jaffar Ali Sarkar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.572
William Teunon, J.1. These two Rules arise out of two suits brought under the provisions of Section 9 of the Specific Belief Act. It has been found by the Court below that the plaintiffs were in possession of the lands in question within six months before the institution of the suit and accordingly a decree was made in their favour. The question that is raised in the present Rules and that was raised in the Court below is, what effect is to be attributed to an order made by a Magistrate under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code. By an order made under that section by the Sub-Divisional Officer having jurisdiction over the area in question, the Sub-Divisional Officer directed the plaintiffs to abstain from entering upon the lands now in question for the period of two months next after the date of the said order, the said date being the 23rd March 1920. The dispossession alleged by the plaintiffs was on some date between the 23rd March and the date on which the suit was filed, the 25th ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Prashad Singh Vs. Nogendra Nath Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal479,68Ind.Cas.271
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Rule granted by my learned brother and myself calling upon the opposite party to show cause why a certain order should not be set aside. The order in question is an order of the 27th of November 1920 made by the learned Subordinate Judge. The fasts of this case, which it is necessary for me to state, are as follows: It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner purchased the property in question on the 30th of November 1915 at a sale in execution of a decree for rent and obtained possession through the Court. It is then alleged that the judgment-debtor borrowed money from the decree holder; and, it now appear that the money was borrowed before the sale of 1915 on a promissory note; and it is else stated that there was an equitable mortgage. The decree-holder obtained his decree on the 17th of January 1917 for the sale of the above mentioned property and for the realization of the money. There was an application for execution in March 1918 and th...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kanai Pal and ors. Vs. Purna Chandra Alias Joneswar Poddar and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.650
1. This appeal is against an order directing the respondents to be substituted as attaching decree holders under the following circumstances.2. It appears that one Mathura Nath Poddar obtained a preliminary decree in a suit brought by him for partition against his co-sharers, Under the judgment in that case, the plaintiff, Mothura Nath, obtained certain immoveable properties in his share, and was held entitled to certain sums of money (as owelty money) from five persons. This judgment was passed on the 18th December 1917. There was considerable delay in drawing up the decree. As a matter of facts the decree was not drawn up and signed until the 9th December 1918. After the judgment had been delivered, the respondents applied for attachment of the money portion of the decree, and notice of attachment was issued on the 2nd October 1918. It was returned on the ground that the decree had not been prepared at that time. An application was made again on the 25th November 1918 by the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Chandra Saha Vs. Pran Nath Chakraverty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal405,69Ind.Cas.910
Panton, J.1. This is an appeal by a defendant against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tippera affirming in appeal those of the Munsif of Comilla. The suit was one for the declaration of a right of way and for a mandatory injunction on the present appellant to remove certain obstructions on the pathway in question. The suit was decided in the plaintiff's favour.2. It is argued, in the first place, that the learned Subordinate Judge is wrong in his finding that the plaintiffs have suffered special damages. The plaint sets out that the way is a public way and plaintiff seeks relief for himself and his fellow villagers of Balerabad. The trial in the Court of first instance was on the footing that the right of way claimed was a public one and not one peculiar to the plaintiffs. The learned Munsif observes: 'The point; for trial would, therefore, be whether the portion of the suit land covered by stations 66-69 to 18-25 is the public Gopat or not' and he decides that 'it ...
Tag this Judgment!Hemanta Kumar Sen Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1923Cal135,62Ind.Cas.577
1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 18 of the Calcutta Suburban Police Act (II B.C. of 1866) and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5. The petitioner has a stall on the Kalighat Road, where from he sells soda-water and other aerated waters and non-intoxicating beverages. The only question that arises in this Rule is whether that place is a place of public resort and entertainment' within the meaning of Section 18 of Act II (B.C.) of 1866. In Section 51 of the Act, 'a place, of public entertainment' is defined as 'a place, whether enclosed or open, to which the public are admitted, and where any kind of food, drink or drug is supplied for consumption on the premises for the profit or gain of any person owning or having an interest in or managing such place and shall include a refreshment room, eating house, coffee house, tea-shop, liquor-house, boarding house, lodging-bouse, hotel, restaurant, tavern, wine-shop, beer-shop, spirit shop, arras-shop, toddy-shop, ganja-shop, bhang ...
Tag this Judgment!Satis Chandra Ghosh Vs. Kalidasi Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal203,68Ind.Cas.577
Asutosh Mokeerjee, J.1. The subject matter of the litigation which has culminated in the pre. Rent appeal is an estate of considerable value left by one Kedar Nath Ghose who died intestate on the 7th October 19(sic)5. The foundation of the fortune of the family was laid by his father, Govinda Chandra Ghosh, who executed a Willon the 21st August 1905 which was registered, but was not probated alter his death on the 9th November 1913. The relationship of the members of the joint family composed of the descendants of Govinda Chandra Ghose will appear from the following genealogical table:GOVINDA CHANDRA GHOSEdied 9th November 1913. Ambika Kedar Nath Moti Lal Satis Chandra Charan Ghose, Ghose, Ghose, Ghose, died 1886 died 7th died 1885. defendant. Musammat October Kusum 1915, Kumari. Musammat Kalidasi, Nagenbala plaintiff Nalinibala. Chinabala. Radharani. Umasasi.2. Govinda Chandra Ghosh had four sons, Ambika Charan and Moti Lal who died in his lifetime, and Kedar Nath and Satis Chandra wh...
Tag this Judgment!Baisnab Charan Taran Vs. Rai Sukhamoy Chaudhuri Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal388,62Ind.Cas.825
Newbould, J.1. The petitioner, who is a Mukhtiar, laid a criminal complaint alleging that he had been wrongfully confined by an Honorary Magistrate. The Magistrate to whom the complaint was made dismissed it under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground that the case was covered by Section 77, Indian Penal Code. An application was made to the Sessions Judge to direst a farther enquiry and he refused that application on the ground that Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, applied and that, in the absence of any sanction under that section, no further enquiry could be ordered. I think that the learned Sessions Judge was right. The allegations against the Honorary Magistrate are clearly in respect of acts committed by him in the exercise of his judicial capacity. Whether the Honorary Magistrate acted illegally or not is not a matter on which we need express an opinion. But it is obvious that he acted solely as a Judge in the matter. Our attention has been drawn to th...
Tag this Judgment!Fani Bhushan Bhuian Vs. Surendra Nath Das, Minor by His Brother in Law ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal476,64Ind.Cas.25
Richardson, J.1. This second appeal arises out of an application made by the respondent No. 1 before us, Surendra Nath Das, to set aside an execution sale.2. The relevant facts are as follows:--The respondent No. 2, as landlord, obtained on the 9th February 1915 a decree under the Bengal Tenancy Act for arrears of rent in respect of a holding of which three adults, Dinu Das, Thakardas Das, and Rupai Das, and a minor, Surendra Nath Das, were co-tenants. It appears that these parsons were members of the same family, though their precise relationship is not apparent on the record. I will say at once that Surendra Nath Das was at all material times a minor and still appears as such on the record, though he may now have attained his majority. He was represented in the suit by his mother as his guardian ad litem, and it is not disputed that the decree was a good and valid decree as well against the infant as against the adult defendants. The mother of the infant died on the 9th October 1916....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »