Kolkata Court January 1922 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.
Emperor Vs. Biseswar De Alias Bisweshar Raj and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal217,71Ind.Cas.497
1. Five accused persons were put on their trial before the Sessions Judge of Noakhali and a special Jury. They were all charged with conspiracy to murder Bipin Behari Shaba; one of the accused, Biseswar Rej, alias Biseswar Raj, was charged with having actually committed the murder; two of them, Jatindra Mohon Das and Satish Chandra Shaha, were charged with having been present abetting the murder, and Jotindra Mohon Das was further charged with having abducted Bipin Behari Saha in order that he might be murderer, the remaining two, Kshetra Mohon Saha and Maharani, were charged with abetment of the murder. Alter a trial held for 28 days the Jury returned a unanimous verdict stating that the case against the first four accused was doubtful and they gave them the benefit of the doubt, and that Maharani was not guilty. The Sessions Judge agreed with the verdict as to Maharani and acquitted her. In respect of the others he disagreed with the verdict and held it to be perverse and thought it ...
Mohini Kanta Saha Choudhury and ors. Vs. Preo Nath Neogy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal141,67Ind.Cas.381
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of this Court in an appeal preferred under Section 109A of the Bengal Tenancy Art, in the course of a proceeding under Section 103.2. It appears that in 1915, a Record of Rights was prepared which contained an entry to the effect that the defendants respondents were occupancy raiyats. The landlords appellants thereupon instituted the present proceeding for enhancement of rent on the ground that the prevailing rate was higher than that paid by the tenants. The tenants resisted the claim on the ground that they held at a rent or rate of rent which was fixed in perpetuity and that their rent was consequently not liable to enhancement, The Settlement Officer gave effect to the contention of the landlord and allowed the claim for enhancement. Upon appeal, the Special Judge upheld the defence and dismissed the claim for enhancement. On appeal to this Court. Mr. Justice Teunon held that the judgmen...
Tuka Meah and anr. Vs. NabIn Chandra Mazumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal292(1),65Ind.Cas.701
1. In this suit the plaintiff sued for recovery of possession of 1 kani 14 gandas of land on declaration of his raiyati title to 6 annas 8 gandas share and of his under-raiyati title by purchase at a sale for arrears of rent due by the under-raiyat. The suit was dismissed in the First Court but has been decreed by the lower Appellate Court.2. The plaintiff's cause of action arose on the defendant Tuka Meah succeeding in an application under Order XXI, Rule 100. Code of Civil Procedure. The first point argued in this appeal is, that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 11A of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Though on examination of the dates at first this objection appears to be sound, we now see that, allowing for the closing of the Court for Puja vacation and the time allowed to the plaintiff to file deficit Court-fee, the plaint was filed within time.3. The second point relates to a question of fact on which the two Courts differed. The first Court held that Nayantara, ...
Tejendra Chandra Dhar, Executor to the Estate of Late Ram Dhan Dhar Vs ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal324,67Ind.Cas.398
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for khas possession of the lands in dispute by the purchaser of an estate at a sale for arrears of revenue. The defendants pleaded that by reason of an agreement between the defaulter and the purchaser the latter was not entitled to the benefit of a revenue sale, and that the defendants had a protected interest in the land which could not be annulled. The Courts below found that the defendant's interest was that of a tenure-holder, and was not a protested interest, but that the sale in essence was a private sale, and the plaintiff, therefore, could not get khas possession of the land. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court.2. It is found that the former proprietor Purno was heavily indebted, and that he purposely defaulted in the payment of Government revenue in order that the property might fetch a higher price than at a private sale. He had already twice done this, but his object had been frustrated by the tenure-holder depositing the arrears of ...
U.M. Chowdhury and Co. Vs. Jiban Krishna Ghose and Son
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal447,69Ind.Cas.995
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by U.M. Chowdhury and Company from the judgment of my learned brother Greaves, J. The decision was given in respect of an application by J. K. Ghose and Son for an order that six awards made be an arbitrator on the 7th October 1920 might be set aside or remitted and that the attachments male in execution of the awards might be removed. The learned Judge decided that the a wards should be remitted to the arbitrator, and M(SIC)s. U. M. Chowdhury & Co. have appealed from that decision.2. The respondents, Messrs. J. K. Ghose & Son, have filed objections contending that the learned Judge should have set aside the awards.3. It appears that the reference to arbitration related to the alleged liability of Messrs. J. K, Ghose & Son to Messrs. U.M. Chowdhury & Co. in respect of certain contracts, which were specified in the awards, whereby U. M. Chowdhury and Co., had bought certain jute from J. K, Ghose and Son and in respect of certain Home arbitrat...
Annada Chran Desarkar and ors. Vs. Nawab Kha(Sic)eh Habibulla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal283,65Ind.Cas.598
1. The facts of the case are set out in the judgments of the lower Courts and need not be recapitulated. The only point we have to decide in this appeal is the meaning of the word 'kar' used in a document (Exhibit 11), a deed of partition and exchange. The claim of the plaintiffs in this suit is based on paragraph 10 of that document in which these words appear, 'In respect of the same the second party will not have to pay to any one any kar (?) whatsoever should any body ever recover any kar from them, then the first party should reimburse them'. The question is, whether the word kar in this sentence includes cesses as well as rent. We find in Haughton's Dictionary the meanings of this word are as taxes and revenue and also on a reference to Sen's English to Bengali Dictionary we find the word 'kar' is given as a translation of the word cess; also the road cess recoverable under the Cess Act is commonly spoken of in Bengali as Pathkar. It seems, therefore, that there is no doubt that ...
Dinanath Das and on His Death His Heirs and Legal Representatives Krip ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal309,67Ind.Cas.90
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs-respondents have obtained a decree directing removal of a wall. The finding is that the wall must be removed on two grounds; partly by reason of its encroachment on the land in the possession of the plaintiffs and partly because it is built on the land leased to the defendant from the plaintiffs under a lease which prohibits them from creating a pucca wall on the land.2. The main point in this case is the question of the construction of the lease. The portion of the lease which governs the defendants' right to build is as follows: 'You shall not be competent to make big excavations but you shall be competent to construct pucca wall, pucca privy and pucca plinth of the tin ghur.' In the lower Courts the only contention that appears to have been raised on this point was that the Bengali word which has been translated as plinth also meant wall. Here it is contended that these words do not prohibit construction of a wall and that ...
Gour Chandra Goswami and anr. Vs. the Chairman of the Commissioner of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal1,80Ind.Cas.192
1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Munsif, first Court of Krishnagar, allowing the defendant, opposite party to file an additional written statement and to let it be treated as a cross-plaint. The suit between the parties is one for declaration that certain property was not liable to assessment to house tax.2. The Code of Civil Procedure provides in Order VIII for dealing with set-off but makes no provision for counter-claims. In English Law the modern counter claim is the creation of the Judicature Act. Order VIII only provides for set off in suits for recovery of money. It is quite clear that there could be no set off in a suit like the present one. The Munsif was not justified in introducing the principle of English Law in the trial of a suit in this country. There would be no hardship on the defendant in requiring him to file a separate suit to obtain what he claimed as relief in his additional written statement. The usual procedure of trying two cross-suits together ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›