Kolkata Court August 1921 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Tustu Mondal and ors. Vs. Kenaram Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal231,65Ind.Cas.22
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Huda in a suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of certain plots of land from which, he alleges, he has been disposes by the defendants and also for a declaration that the defendants have no right of way over certain other plots of land. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. Upon appeal the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit. On appeal to this Court the decree of the Subordinate Judge, in so far as it establishes the title of the plaintiff to the plots claimed by him, was not controverted. But it was argued that the Subordinate Judge had erroneously negatived the right of way claimed by the defendants. Mr. Justice Huda held that the contention of the defendants in respect of the alleged right of way was not tenable and confirmed the decree of the Subordinate Judge. On the present appeal the judgment of Mr. Justice Huda has been assailed on the ground that the princip...
Sudhanya Santra and anr. Vs. Basanta Kumar Sircar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal417,64Ind.Cas.733
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould in a suit for arrears of rent.2. The suit was tried in the Court of first instance by a Judicial Officer specially empowered by the Local Government to exercise final jurisdiction under Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and the amount claimed in the suit did not exceed Rs. 50. The suit was decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff. Thereupon the defendant preferred an appeal to the District Judge: this was summarily dismissed under Order XLI, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that no appeal lay on the authority of the decision in Baidya Nath v. Dhon Krishna 5 C.W.N. 515. A second appeal was thereupon preferred to this Court. In support of the appeal it was argued before Mr. Justice Newbould that the appeal to the District Judge was competent, inasmuch as the decree of the Primary Court had decided a question of the amount annually payable by the tenant. This contentio...
Madan Mohan Dey Vs. Bishnupada Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal580,64Ind.Cas.780
1. This is an appeal against an order in execution proceedings, which determines in substance that the decree has been satisfied by the deposits made in Court on different dates.2. The question in controversy may be formulated concisely. A holds a decree for money against B. B holds a decree for sale in enforcement of a mortgage against; C. A attaches in execution of his own decree the decree held by B against C. C from time to time brings into Court sums of money for satisfaction of the decree held against him by B. The sums deposited in Court, it is not disputed, operate, from their respective dates, as partial satisfaction of the decree as between B and C. The question in controversy is, whether the sums so deposited operate from their respective dates as partial satisfaction also of the decree held by A against B. The appellant (A) argued in the Court below that this question should be answered in the negative and that interest should run on the decree held by A against B not only ...
Agent, B. N. W. Railway Company Vs. Jagannath Agarwalla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.903
1. These appeals are directed against an order of remand made in a suit for recovery of compensation for short delivery of goods, The first defendant was the Secretary of State for India in Council representing the Eastern Bengal State Railway and the second defendant was the agent of the Bengal and North Western Railway Company. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the claim against both the defendants. As regards the first defendant he held that the loss was not due to the neglect of or theft by the servants of the Eastern Bengal State Railway. As regards the second defendant, he held on the authority of the decisions in Bam Dass Sein v. Cecil Ekphenton 10 W. B. 366., Nubeen Chunder Paul v. Cecil Stephenson 15 W. R. 534., Campbell v, Jackson, Manager of the Jokai Assam. Tea Co. Limited 12 C. 41 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N. S.) 28., and India General S. N. R, Co. v. Lal Mohan Saha 31 Ind, Cas, 35 : 32 C, L, J, 241 : 43 C, 441,, that the Agent could not be sued as such and that the suit as against him...
Jira Bibi and ors. Vs. MajiruddIn Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal594,64Ind.Cas.849
1. This is an appeal from an order directing execution to proceed on the basis of a mortgage decree. The preliminary decree, which was made on the 14th November 1906, was followed by the final decree on the 7th September 1908. There have been five applications for execution (inclusive of the one now before the Court) made successively on the 16th November 1908, 18th March 1913, 12th January 1917, 4th April 1918 and 3rd October 1918. The substantial question in controversy is whether the present application is or is not barred by limitation. As the fifth application was made within three years from the date of the fourth application, which was made within three years from the date of the third application, the points in issue reduce to two, namely, first, whether the third application was barred by limitation, and secondly, whether the second application was barred by limitation.2. The third application was made admittedly more than three years after the date of the second application. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›