Kolkata Court August 1921 Judgments
Sukhlal Karnani Vs. the Official Assignee of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.890
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Mr. Justice Greaves, directing the appellant to produce before the Registrar in Insolvency the rokurs and ledgers kept by him for the years 1974 and 1975 Sambat.2. The fasts material for the determination of the question raised before us lie in a (sic)nanow compass and may be briefly recited. One Seldana was adjudicated an insolvent on the 2nd July 1920. Seldana had carried on business in partnership with Sukhlal Karnani, the appellant before us, and the firm had transactions with the Munitions Board. On the 18th August 1920, a complaint against Seldana was filed by the Munitions Board charging him with cheating, conspiracy to cheat and forgery. On the 26th August 1920, a complaint was lodged against Karnani charging him with conspiracy to cheat. On the 29th November 1920, the Official Assignee made an application before the Registrar in Insolvency in the matter of the insolvency of Selda...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Molla Vs. Baru Bibi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal21,64Ind.Cas.704
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould in an appeal from appellate decree in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights.2. The first defendant Barn Bibi was married to one Erfan. On the 12th May 1916 Erfan executed and registered a deed of divorce in her favour. On the 20th May 1916 Erfan saw the lady, pronounced the legal formulas, made over the document to her and Went away. On the 12th August 1916 she went through a ceremony of marriage with the third defendant. On the 3rd September 1916 she went through another ceremony of marriage with the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the third defendant are, consequently, the rival claimants. The case for the plaintiff is that no valid marriage took plate between her and the third defendant on the 12th August 1916 inasmuch as the period of iddat had not expired at that time. If this view is maintained, there is no bar to the validity of the marriage between her and the plaintiff. The de...
Tag this Judgment!Panna Lal Biswas Vs. Panchu Ruidas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal419,65Ind.Cas.200
1. This appeal arises oat of a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the land in dispute, and for recovery of possession of the same with mesne profits.2. It appears that in consequence of disputes between the plaintiff's predecessor and the defendant the land was attached under the provisions of Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code, on the 10th June 1904. The plaintiff's mother brought a suit in 1904 for declaration of title to the land, but that was dismissed on the ground that she was benamdar for, her husband. The plaintiff's father subsequently brought a suit in 1907, but it was withdrawn with liberty to bring a fresh suit. The plaintiff then brought the present suit on the 2nd May 1916, alleging that the cause of action arose on the 10th June 1904, the date of the attachment.3. It was found by the Court of first instance that the plaintiff had proved his title to the land, but that he was dispossessed in April 1904, i.e., some time before the date of attachment by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sarat Chandra Maiti and ors. Vs. Bibhabati Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal584,66Ind.Cas.433
1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has resulted in this appeal is a large tract of what is called Jalpai laud of the abolished Salt Department, situated in the district of Midnapur within the Zamindari of the Raja of Mahisadal. On the 8th July 1864 one Sunder Narain Maiti obtained a settlement from the Zemindar in respect of an estimated area of 400 bighas within specified boundaries. After the death of the original grantee, his son Taraprosad Maiti, on the 10th November 1874, took a confirmatory lease of 513 bighas, approximately, for the benefit of the family whereof he was the senior member. The relationship of the members of this family may be gathered from the following genealogical table: Sundar Narain Maiti Haimabati defendant No. 6, M. Sibnarain.Taraprosad, Ratmnarain, Lachminarain, Haraprosad,died 1897, defendant defendant (dead)m. Anand- No. 1, No. 2, m. Bimolamoyee, died m. Surno- m. (1) (dead).1893 moyee, Reshmoni, defendant defendant No. 10. No. 9, m. (2) Matang...
Tag this Judgment!Kumudini Ray and ors. Vs. Kamala Kant Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal247,68Ind.Cas.575
1. This appeal is directed against an order of dismissal made on an application for execution of a decree against a surety. The decree was made by this Court on the 23rd January 1917 in a first appeal in a suit valued at more than Rs. 5,000. It is plain that an appeal against an order in execution of such a decree lies not to the District Judge but to this Court. The order of the Subordinate Judge was made on the 3rd March 1920, and an appeal was presented to the District Court on the 1st April 1920. The District Judge dismissed the appeal on the 10th July 1920. Thereupon the present appeal was lodged in this Court on the 11th September 1920 against the order of the District Judge whereby he had affirmed the order of the Subordinate Judge. No preliminary objection was taken to the appeal presented to the District Judge and nobody discovered that the appeal was' incompetent. Indeed, in this Court also, the point was not mentioned till the respondent was called upon to answer the argumen...
Tag this Judgment!YasIn Ali Mirdha and ors. Vs. Radhagobinda Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1921
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.814
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration that an order fur partition of an estate made by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Sunamgunj on the 15th April 1913, and confirmed successively by the Deputy Commissioner of Sylhet on the 14th July 1913, by the Commissioner on the 9th December 1913 and by the Chief Commissioner on the 22nd November 1914, was without jurisdiction and was consequently inoperative in law. The case for the plaintiffs is that they objected to the applications for partition presented by the defendants to the Revenue Authorities on the ground that some of the lands of the estates sought to be partitioned were joint with the lands of other estates and the Revenue Authorities were not competent under the Assam Land and Revenue Ragulation, 1886, to effect a partition of lands included in several estates. This objection was overruled as untenable. The substantial matter in controversy in the present litigation, 19 the question of the legality of the ord...
Tag this Judgment!Annada Mohan Roy Choudhury Vs. Nilpamaru Loan Office, Limited and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal549,65Ind.Cas.245
1. The lands in dispute in this case originally belonged to two ladies. They executed a kobala in favour of one Anandamoyee, the wife of one Krishna Nath Ghose, in January, 1898 Shortly after Krishna Nath died leaving Anandamoyee his widow and a daughter Rohini, who is no party to the suit.2. The plaintiffs, who are the respondents before us, took a mortgage of the lands in dispute from Anandamoyee, the widow of Kristo Nath Ghose, and their daughter Rohini Dassi, on the 23rd June 1902, and at a sale held in execution of the decree obtained upon the mortgage purchased them on the 6th November 1913. In the meantime the lands were attached in execution of a money-decree at the instance of a creditor of Kristo Nath. Anandamoyee preferred, a claim on the ground that it was her stridhan property, which however, was disallowed. The lands were accordingly sold in execution of the money-decree and purchased by the defendant No. 1 on the 5th June 1905. He obtained possession of the lands and con...
Tag this Judgment!Dhiro Koch and anr. Vs. Gobinda Dev Mishra Bura Satria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.204
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages for defamatory statements made against the plaintiff by the defendants in, their written statement in a suit. The plaintiff is the high priest of the Barpeta Satra. Some Pujaris of the Satra were the plaintiffs in the suit in which the statements were made the plaintiff was no party to that suit. In the written statement in that salt the defendants slated that the present plaintiff misappropriated the funds and misused the seal of the Satra, and also alleged that for a certain reason (which they did not specify) the Brahmans of Barpeta would not eat with him. The defence in the present suit was that the statements were privileged, that they were true and were necessary for the purposes of the previous suit. The Courts below did not attach any importance to the statements about misappropriation and misuse of seal, but they were of opinion that the last statement, viz., that for a special reason the Brahmans of Barpeta will not eat with the...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Sadhan Roy Vs. Shib Gopal Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal597,65Ind.Cas.746
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside a sale held in execution of a money decree on the 4th November 1919, when the properties of the judgment-debtor were purchased by the decree-holder for Rs. 415. The decree-holder was defendant in the suit instituted by the judgment-debtor which was dismissed with costs by the Court of first instance as also by this Court on appeal. The decree of this Court was made on the 3rd March 1919. On the 27th May 1919 the defendant applied for execution of the decree for costs. On the 8th July 1919 the properties of the judgment-debtor were attached. On the 25th August 1919 the Court directed a sale proclamation to be issued, fixing the 27th October 1919 for the sale. On that very date, an objection to the execution was lodged by the judgment-debtor. On the 27th October 1919 two orders were recorded. The first was in the following terms: 'Put it up on the 1st October (1st November?) 1919 which is the day for miscellaneous cases.' The second order was i...
Tag this Judgment!H. H. Maharaja or Cooch Behar and ors. Vs. Raja Mahendra Ranjan Rai Ch ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal277,66Ind.Cas.923
1. The subjcat matters of the litigations which have led up to these two appeals are two tracts of land in the District of Jalpaiguri. The rival claimants are the Roja of Kakina and the Maharaja of Cooch-Behar. The lands, which have been formed by the recession of the river Shaniajan, are claimed by the former as included in his village Sibram and by the latter as comprised in his village Jamgram. The first suit was instituted in the Court of the Munsif of Jalpaiuari and the second in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of the same District; but the former suit was transferred, for the sake of convenience, to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, and the two suits were tried together on the same evidence. The suits were ultimately decreed in part on the basis of a report made by a Civil Court Amin. The decrees made by the Subordinate Judge have been assailed in this appeal, substantially on four grounds, namely, first, that the suits were barred by the three years rule of limitation under...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »