Kolkata Court January 1922 Judgments
Ram Renu Roy and ors. Vs. Midnapur Zamindary Company, Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal111,67Ind.Cas.1001
1. This matter comes up before us by way of appeal and revision and arises out of proceedings under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for settlement of fair rent.2. So far as the present case (No. 271) is concerned, although the plaintiff applied for additional rent for additional area and also for enhancement of rent, when the matter came up before the Assistant Settlement Officer the latter claim appears to have been abandoned, The Assistant Settlement Officer states as follows: 'In Cases Nos. 271 and 54, the plaintiff claimed additional rents in the plaints but in the rest of the applications they claimed, besides additional rents, enhancement of rent under Section 30(a) and 30(b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act.' The issues framed in the case show that, so far as the present case is concerned, there was no issue as to enhancement of rent. The excess area was found by the Settlement Officer and the excess rent was calculated on a certain basis. In the result, Rs. 65-3-6 was the rent s...
Tag this Judgment!Charu Chandra Mazumdar Vs. Fanindra NaraIn Chouhdury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal310,68Ind.Cas.897
1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Pabna dismissing an application for execution of a decree on the ground that it is barred by limitation. We have not had the advantage of hearing the respondents in this case as they did not appear. The material dates which appear from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge are these. The decree which is sought to be executed was attached in execution of another decree which appears to have been obtained against the decree bolder on the 24th January 1916 and the execution of the present decree was stayed] by an order dated 25th January 1916. The order, however, was modified to this extent that the decree holder was allowed to proceed with the sale in execution of his decree, if the amount due on account of the other decree was kept in deposit out of the purchase money of the property which would he sold. The sale was held on the 26th January 1916 and the decree-holder applied for setting off the purchase mone...
Tag this Judgment!Aminulla and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal191,72Ind.Cas.355
Walmsley, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to fifteen days' rigorous imprisonment each. In addition, two of them, Nur Ahmed and Amin-ulla, have been convicted under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to fifteen days' rigorous imprisonment and Faizulla under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment. The Rule was issued on three grounds. The first relates to the conviction under Section 147, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate drew up a charge in which the common object of the unlawful assembly was stated to be to assault Akiruddin and Mokhleswar Rahaman. In his judgment he finds that three of the accused persons did assault Akiruddin and Mokhleswar Rahman. As to the other three, that is, Munirullah, Mohabat Ali and Kasim Ali, he says 'there is no positive evidence on the record that they took any serious part in the mar pit or caused injury to any person, although...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Chandra Lahiry Vs. Hon'ble Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nand ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.800
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. It appears that the plaintiff purchased a jote of 244 bighas 18 cottas 14 chitaks at a sale for arrears of rent, but found, that 225 bighas was in the possession of the defendant and the rest in the possession of one Helaluddin and others. Ha thereupon brought a suit for declaration of his title to and khas possession of the 225 and odd bighas in the possession of the defendant against him. The suit was compromised, and under the compromise the defendant took a lease of the entire land 244 bighas 18 cottas 11 chittaks at a rent of Rs. 200 from the plaintiff from the year 1321 R.S. It was stated in the solenama that the defendant would pay mesne profits for the 225 bighas of land which were in his possession for the years 1317 to 1320 at the rate of Rs. 184 per year, that being the proportionate rent payable in respect of the lands which were in his possession. A decree was accordingly passed upon the solenama. It is found that the defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Becharam Lahiry Vs. Sudebi Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal567,67Ind.Cas.874
ORDERGreaves, J.1. This Rule was granted at the instance of the plaintiff under the provisions of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiff's suit was based upon an oral agreement whereby he says the defendant engaged him as Pleader and agreed to pay reasonable and proper fees for the work done. The claim of the plaintiff extends to a claim for compensation for the termination of his services, and it would, therefore, appear, although it is not actually stated, that the agreement relied on was one for employment of the plaintiff during the entire course of the work for which he was employed. The Subordinate Judge has rejected the claim on the ground that the suit cannot succeed by virtue of the provisions of Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners Act. Section 28 provides that no agreement entered into by a Pleader respecting the amount and manner of payment for services is to be valid unless it is made in writing signed by the persons to be charged and filed in ...
Tag this Judgment!Nirode Boroni Dassi and ors. Vs. Monindra Narayan Chandra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal229,68Ind.Cas.524
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for establishment of right to, and recovery of possession of, the property in dispute from which the plaintiffs were dispossessed by the defendants Nos. 1 to 15 who purchased the property in execution of a decree which they obtained against one Baidya Nath Sarkar.2. It appears that the defendants Nos. 1 to 15 took possession of the property in dispute through Court, and the plaintiffs applied to the Court under Order XXI, Rule 100. On the day ultimately fixed for the hearing of the case, namely, on the 14th February 1914, neither the petitioners nor their Pleader appeared and the petition was accordingly dismissed for default.3. The present suit was instituted on the 27th July 1915 which was more than one year after the date of the said order.4. The question is whether the suit is barred by the previsions of Article 11A of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908).5. The Court of first instance decided both the questions of title and limitation in favour of th...
Tag this Judgment!Nanibala Dassya Vs. Jamini Sundari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.919
Rankin, J.1. In this case I am of opinion that the Rule must be made absolute. It appears that upon the terms of the Civil Procedure Code and the cases thereunder, in particular the case of Venkatanarasayya v. Achemma 3 M. 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 558 a minor who is not possessed of sufficient means within the definition of pauperism for the purpose of Order XXXIII is entitled to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis by a next friend although the next friend is not a pauper. In like manner, the wealth or other circumstances of the minor's relation in general are not material under the Code. The law of India in this respect appears to be very different indeed from the law as prevailing in the Court of Chancery in England. Under the circumstances, we have no option but to make this Rule absolute and to direct the Court below to proceed under Order XXXIII. There will be no order as to costs.B.B. Ghose. J.2. I agree....
Tag this Judgment!Sashi Kumar Sorkhel and ors. Vs. Chandra Kumar Samaddar Chowdhuri and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal204,68Ind.Cas.322
1. This is an appeal by five defendants---defendants Nos. 1,3, 12, 13 and 18. The suit in respect of whish the appeal arises is a suit by which the plaintiffs claim, as reversionary heirs of one Puma, a 4-annas share in J 3 properties jointly with the defendants Nos. 1 to 11 who are said to be the owners of the other 12-annas share. The First Court decreed the suit with regard to all the 13 properties. The lower Appellate Court upheld the decision as regards properties Nos. 1 to 9 and reversed the decision of the First Court so far as regards properties Nos. 10 to 13. The appeal concerns properties Nos. 1 to 9 : but the plaintiffs have filed a cross-objection with regard to properties Nos. 10 to 13.2. Now, it will be convenient before dealing with the points raised in the appeal to refer to the genealogical table whish will be found at page 29 of the paper book before us. One Krishna Chandra Surkhel had 4 sons---Bhairab, Rajballabh, Shib Chandra and Banga Chandra. Bhairab had a daughte...
Tag this Judgment!Nurul Guni, One of the Heirs of Late Golam Akbar Vs. A.S.A. Kazamaini ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal323,66Ind.Cas.922
1. This appeal is from an order of remand dated 11th April 1921. We refrain at this stage from dealing with the question of law discussed by the learned Judge in his judgment. It is sufficient now to gay that we cannot resist the contention urged for the appellant?, that the Trial Court having decided the suit on the merits, it was not open to the learned Judge lo remand the case under Rule 23, of Order XLI, although the suit had been decided on a preliminary point. The learned Judge should have taken the course indicated in Rule 24 or the course indicated in Rule 25.2. We may explain that we do not deal with the question discussed by the learned Judge because it is unnecessary at the present stage to do so, and at a later stage when the outstanding issues have been decided it may still be unnecessary to deal with that question.3. We may farther say that orders of remand made by lower Appellate Courts in cases which do not fall within Rule 23 of Order XLI are likely to lead to difficul...
Tag this Judgment!Subala Das Wife of Gour Mohan Bhat Vs. Indra Kumar Hazra-natabar Hazra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal315(1),65Ind.Cas.692
1. The petitioner, who is the defendant No. 6 in a suit pending in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Howrah, examined a witness--Manada Dasi--from whom the petitioner claims to have derived title to the property in dispute. Manada was examined on commission and the opposite party, who is the plaintiff in the suit, put to her the question as to whether she was made pregnant by one Hari Das Ghose. Objection was taken to this question and the matter was brought before the Court. The learned Subordinate Judge held that it was a relevant question.2. Against that order, the petitioner moved this Court and obtained this Rule.3. It is stated that the question is insulting and scandalous. But the opposite party contends that it was put because the plaintiff's case was that the witness did not inherit the property by reason of her unchastity during the lifetime of her husband.4. The form in which the question was asked does not show what period it referred to--whether the lifetime of the witness'...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »