Kolkata Court July 1921 Judgments
Purna Chandra Dutt Vs. Indra Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal397,69Ind.Cas.978
Ghose, J.1. This is In action for specific performance of an agreement to sell the divided portion of premises Nos. 1 and 2, Gopal Chandra's Lane, in the town of Calcutta for a sum of Rs. 45,000.2. The facts, shortly, are as follows : On the 20th January 1920, the defendant banded to two brokers, Bhupendra Kumar Datt and Ghosto Behari Das a letter in these terms:Dear Sirs,I authorise yon to procure a buyer of my divided portion of the above premises' (meaning promises 1 and 2, Gopal Chandra's Lane) 'for Rs. 45,000 and on your sending same I shall pay you as remuneration at 1 per cent, on the purchase money. The same will be paid at the registration of the conveyance, otherwise not. This letter will remain in force for a week.On the 27th January 1920, the offer contained in the said letter was accepted by the plaintiff and thereupon the fact of such acceptance was communicated to the defendant through the said brokers and also by a letter written by the plaintiff's Attorney, Mr. B. P. C...
Tag this Judgment!Ratanchand Dharamchand Vs. Gobind Lall Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal328,66Ind.Cas.484
Greaves, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit asks for (a) leave under Clause 12 of the Charter, (b) for judgment for a named sum, and (c) for an order on the defendant to execute and register a mortgage in his favour, and for ancillary reliefs in respect of these prayers.2. The land in respect of which relief is Bought under Clause (c) of the prayer is situate outside the jurisdiction of this Court, and the defendant urges that this is not a case in which the court can give leave under Clause 12 of the Charter, I think this contention is to treat and that a suit for specified performance of an agreement to mortgage lands outside the jurisdiction, even if the title is accepted, is a suit for land within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Charter, and accordingly that leave cannot be given. I have been referred to the case of Sreenath Roy v. cally Lois Ghose 5 C. 82 : 2 Ind. Deo. (n. s.) 665. That decision seems to me to cover the present case and with the decision 1 respectfully agree. In the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhubaneswar Bhattacharjee Vs. Dwarakeswar Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal77,66Ind.Cas.876
Richardson, J.1. This is a second appeal in a suit for rent. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant No. 3 are co-sharer landlords under whom defendants Nos, 1 and 2 are' tenants in respect of a certain holding:, The plaint concludes with the following prayers (a) That a decree may be passed against the principal defendants (meaning defendants Nos. 1 and 2) for Rs. 213 14 annas in claim and all costs of the suit together with interest op to the date of realization ; and (6) that in case it be proved that the pro forma defendant No. 3 has realized any paddy, etc., due to the plaintiffs from the defendants, then a decree may be passed for the said sum together with damages and costs as against the pro forma defendant No. 3 on placing him in the category of principal defendants by amending the plaint.2. There is a farther prayer for general relief with which we are cot concerned.3. The rent claimed directly from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and indirectly from defendant No. 3 was due for the year...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Shyam Sardar Bhum ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal106,71Ind.Cas.367
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Local Government against the acquittal of eleven persons, of whom all were charged with having conspired to commit dacoity, and all but one were charged with having committed a dacoity. The trial took place before the Sessions Judge of Bankura and a jury. The Jury returned a unanimous verdict of acquittal with which the learned Judge agreed. We are asked to reverse this verdict and order a re-trial on the ground that there has been serious misdirection by the learned Sessions Judge in his charge to the Jury. We accept the contention on behalf of the Crown that the learned Judge was not as impartial as he should have been in those portions of the charge in which he discussed allegations made on behalf of the defence against the investigating Police Officers. He did not point out to the Jury, as he should have done, that the witnesses who accused the Police were, on their own showing, untruthful, as they were contradicting their statements made on oa...
Tag this Judgment!Sasti Charan Chakerbutty Vs. Akubjan Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal243,64Ind.Cas.591
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for khas possession of a holding which the plaintiff purchased at a sale held in execution of a decree for arrears of rent obtained by the landlords against the defendants Nos. 1 to 14.2. It appears that the defendants Nos. 1 to 14 held an occupancy holding under the defondants Nos. 15, 16 and their co-sharers. The defendants Nos. 15 and 16 had an 8 annas share in the landlord's interest. They brought a suit for rent against the tenants in respect of their 8-annas share for the years 1314 to 1317 B.S., obtained a decree and in execution of that decree put up to sale only an 8-annas share of the holding, and it was purchased by the defendant No. 25 on the 30th July 1912. She obtained a certificate of sale on the 28th September 1912 and has been in possession of the 8-annas share since then.3. Some of the landlords other than defendants NOS. 15 and 16 then brought a suit for the entire rent of the whole occupancy holding for the years 1316 to 1319 agai...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Porai Vs. Swarna Bewa and ors. and Gopal Hari Ghose Choudhuri an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.611
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs in order to have a certain ex parte decree made against them set aside as fraudulent and also to have the sale held in execution of the decree set aside. In the Court of first appeal on the finding that the decree had been fraudulently obtained, the learned Subordinate Judge set aside both the decree and the sale. When the appeal first came before this Court, this Court directed a remand in order that the Court below should come to a clear finding on the question whether the auction purchaser, who is a stranger to the suit, was a party to the decree-holder's fraud or became apprised of it before he paid his money. After remand and after taking additional evidence the Court of first appeal has come to the conclusion that the auction-purchaser was no party to the fraud and knew nothing of it before he paid the money. On that finding the present appeal, which is by the auction-purchaser, defendant No. 10, must succeed.2. We, th...
Tag this Judgment!Satindra Nath Banerji Vs. Siva Prasad Bhakat and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.713
1. The question raised in this Bale is whether an ad valorem Court fee is parable upon the plaint in a suit by a person who had preferred a claim to properties attached in execution of a decree, which was rejected by the Court.2. The petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit, paid a Court fee of Rs. 10 for a declaration of his title to the properties and annas 12 for an injunction.3. It appears that when certain properties of the judgment debtor were attached in execution of a decree for money by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 8, the petitioner preferred a claim on the ground that the properties were purchased by him, and did not belong to the judgment debtor. The 26th February 1921 was fixed as the date for bearing the claim. On that day a petition was put in on behalf of the claimant for time to enable him to produce his kabala. The decree-holder opposite party was present with his witnesses. The Court was of opinion that the petition was not a bona fide one and rejected it, From a...
Tag this Judgment!Rung Lal Kalooram Vs. Kedar Nath Kesriwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal613
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of my learned brothel Mr. Justice Ghose.2. The main object of the suit was to set aside an award which it was alleged by the plaintiffs was void, unenforceable and in no way binding upon them and they asked that the award should be cancelled.3. The facts to which it is necessary for me to refer for the purpose of my judgment are as follows: The plaintiffs and the defendant agreed to submit a dispute about some bales of goods to two persons. The agreement was in writing and it was signed by Rung Lal on behalf of the plaintiffs and by Goberdhone Khemkar on behalf of the defendant. The document is set out at page, 24 of the paper-book. It was an informal document but it wag not disputed in this Court that it was an agreement to refer the matter in dispute to the arbitration of the two individuals. These two persons made an award, and it was endorsed upon the document which contained the submission to arbitration. It was signed...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Nath Saha Chaudhury and ors. Vs. Mahraja Jagadindra Nath Roy ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal577,67Ind.Cas.170
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. The subject matter of the litigation which has culminated in this appeal is a large tract of land known as Mauzi Edalair Kandi otherwise called Khairaddi Kandi. The plaintiff-respondent, the Maharaja of Natore, claims the disputed property as comprised in his Zemindari which formerly bore Touzi No. 419 of the Collectorate of Rajshahi and now bears Touzi No. 2166 of the Collectorate of Pabna. In 1910, in the course of Cadastral Survey proceedings under the tenth Chapter of the Bengal Tenancy Act, a dispute arose between the plaintiff and the defendants, who claimed that they were in possession of the land now in suit as comprised in a patni taluk known as Goalnagar Maldah held by them under the Maharaja of Natore. The objection taken by the defendants under Section 103. A of the Bengal Tenancy Act was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer on the 5th September 1911. The Record of Rights drawn up on this basis was finally published on the 1st August 1914. On ...
Tag this Judgment!The India Provident Company Limited Vs. Gobinda Chandra Das and Anothe ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.318
1. The defendants who are the appellants before us obtained a decree in the Small Cause Court, Calcutta, for Rs. 1,200 odd on the 1st March 1916. The suit was decreed ex parte. After obtaining the decree, the defendants got it transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sylhet within whose jurisdiction the present, plaintiffs resided and applied for execution of the decree against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs thereupon instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sylhet for a declaration that the ex parte decree obtained by the defendant in the Calcutta Small Cause Court was obtained by fraud, was void and not fit to be executed. They also applied for the issue of an in junction against the defendant No. 1 restraining him from executing the said' decree.2. The plaintiffs alleged that, as a matter of fact, no summons was served upon them in the suit brought in the Small Cause Court, that there was no adjustment of accounts although the suit was brought, on the a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »