Kolkata Court December 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.
Hemangini Devi and anr. Vs. Bejoy Singh Dudharia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal438
Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration of the plaintiff's right to a pathway, and for a mandatory injunction for the removal of an over-bridge, which the defendants had constructed over the pathway, on the allegation that the pathway was a private pathway belonging to the plaintiff, and that the defendants had no right to construct the overbridge.2. The defendants, among other things, denied the plaintiff's right, and also pleaded that the plaintiff was precluded, by reason of acquiescence in the construction of the overbridge, from having it demolished.3. The Court of first instance declared the title of the plaintiff to the disputed pathway, but refused the mandatory injunction to demolish the overbridge, and gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 100 as damages.4. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned District Judge directed the removal of the overbridge.5. The defendants have appealed to this Court.6. The first contention raised is that a certain letter ...
Munwar Sultan Vs. Shamsunnessa Begum
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal658
Rankin, J.1. I am of opinion that the course taken in the Court below affords not a little just grievance to the lady against whom the proceedings were taken, but it affords none whatever to the present Appellant. The smallest attention to the words of the Indian Lunacy Act whether they be the words of Section 62 or the words of Section 38 shows this, that the Legislature appreciates that to have an inquisition into the state of health, the state of mind, the the state of property and general capacity of a person is a thing which affects that person so prejudicially that it ought not to be taken except it be first ordered upon a careful consideration of evidence. It was said in a case, which is, I think, the case to which some reference is made in the judgment of the Court below Muhammad Yaqub v. Nazir Ahmad (1920) 42 All. 504. 'It is true that nothing is contained in the Act itself to direct or guide a Judge as to how he shall consider applications for an inquisition and probably no r...
Rajendra Lal Saha Vs. Abdul Karim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal572,76Ind.Cas.455
1. These appeals arise out of proceedings in execution of decrees.2. The decrees were obtained on the 22nd May 1908 and the 13th June 1908 respectively. It is unnecessary to refer to the previous execution proceedings. The last execution proceedings were started on the 27tn November 1916. On the 17th April 1917 the judgment-debtor put in Claims which were registered under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code. On the next date of hearing (28th April 1917), the decree-holder put in a petition to the following effect:--'Judgment-debt or No. 3 having raised objection to the attachment, it is necessary to file written statement and cite witnesses after obtaining copy of the objection. It is accordingly prayed that a month's time may be granted to me the decree-bolder for adducing evidence against the objections of judgment-debtor No. 3.' The case was adjourned to 26th May 1917 along with the miscellaneous cases (the casts under Section 47). On the 26tn May 1917 it was again adjourned to 23rd Ju...
Hemangini Devi and anr. Vs. Raja Bejoy Singh Dudharia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1922
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.223
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration of the plaintiff's right to a pathway, and for a mandatory injunction for the removal of an over-bridge, which the defendants had constructed over the pathway, on the allegation that the pathway was a private pathway belonging to the plaintiff, and that the defendants had no right to construct the overbridge.2. The defendants, among other things, denied the plaintiff's right, and also pleaded that the plaintiff was precluded, by reason of acquiescence in the construction of the overbridge, from having it demolished.3. The Court of first instance declared the title of the plaintiff to the disputed pathway but refused the mandatory injunction to demolish the overbridge, and gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 100 as damages.4. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned District Judge directed the removal of the overbridge.5. The defendants have appealed to this Court.The first contention raised is that a certain letter...
Emperor Vs. Nritya Gopal Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal317,75Ind.Cas.145
1. This is a Reference under the provisions of Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Sessions Judge of Hooghly with reference to the case of ten accused persons, now before us, who along with eight others were tried before a jury. With regard to the latter, the verdict of the jury has been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. The accused persons were tried on charges under Sections 147, 304 read with Sections 149, 325 read with Section 34 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge disagreed with the verdict of the jury with reference to the ten accused persons before us and has, under the provisions of Section 307, referred the case of the ten accused persons to this Court for its orders.2. The facts have been very fully and exhaustively set out in the learned Sessions Judge's charge to the jury and also in the letter of reference to this Court and, therefore, it will not be necessary for us to repeat the same in detail. Briefly stated, ...
Rash Bhari Karuri Vs. NaraIn Das Dorilal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal182,80Ind.Cas.485
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Buckland, dated the 26th January 1922. The facts of the case may be taken from his judgment at pp. 268 and 269 of the paper-book, which are as follows:The plaintiff firm carry on business at Chandusi in the United Provinces. The defendant carries on business as a ghee and sugar merchant in Calcutta, The goods were consigned to Joy Gopal Joy Kisssen, a firm formerly carrying on business in Calcutta.In the latter part of April 1920 Joy Gopal Joy Kissen sent their gomostha Ram Charan to Chandausi where ghee was purchased. A consignment consisting of 457 tins of which the value is stated to be Rs. 18,815-9-9 was despatched by rail to Calcutta under Railway receipt No. 19818. The Railway receipt was handed over to Ram Charan who brought it to Calcutta to his employers where it was received in the usual course of two or three days later. It is alleged that on or about the 30th Ap...
Annadamoyi Debi and ors. Vs. Saudamini Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.719
1. The only question involved in this appeal is, whether the plaintiff-landlord is entitled to interest tip overdue instalments at the rate of 75 per cent, per annum.2. The Court of Appeal below has found that interest at 75 per cent, is an unusual and exorbitant rate and that it was an unconscionable bargain at its inception. It accordingly followed simple interest at 12 1/2 per cent, per annum.3. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court and it is contended that as the kabuliyat was executed in May 1882 before the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the defendant is liable to pay interest at the rate stipulated in it.4. No doubt, the kabuliyat having been executed prior to the passing of the Bengal, Tenancy Act, the provisions of Section 67 are not applicable to the case; but the defendant purchased the holding at a sale for arrears of rent held at the instance of the landlord, the plaintiff. As a purchaser at the rent sale, the defendant purchased it with the ordinary incidents of a t...
Priyanath Ghose and ors. Vs. Surendra Nath Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal511,69Ind.Cas.992
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Beachcroft in a suit for ejectment.2. The controversy between the parties is limited to one question, namely, whether the disputed tenancy was or was not transferable. On the 2nd January 1872, the lands in suit were included in a mourasi mukarrari lease granted by one Digamber Pandit to Rap Chandra Das. It is not disputed that the tenancy so created was intended to be transferable. The tenancy was also permanent; in other words, heritable and not, held for a limited terra. The rent was fixed in perpetuity at Rs. 11. It appears that one Amar Nath Roy purchased the interest of Digamber Pandit at a sale for arrears of rent held at the instance of the superior landlords. The purchaser there after brought a suit for arrears of rent against the representatives of Rup Chandra Das on the allegation that by agreement of parties the rent had been fixed at Rs. 16 annually. On the 7th September 1876 a decre...
Jogendra Nath Banerjee Vs. Khoda Buksha Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal380,72Ind.Cas.554
1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a registered bond for a money debt bearing compound interest at 18 per cent, per annum.2. The Court of first instance was of opinion that the stipulation as to the payment of compound interest was a hard and unconscionable bargain, though not penal. It allowed simple interest at 18 per cent, and directed the decretal amount to be paid in three instalments with costs of the suit, costs to be paid by Jaista 1326, and the principal and interest in two equal instalments in Aswin and Chait 1326.3. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned District Judge held that there was no plea of undue influence or fraud, and that the plaintiff would, under ordinary circumstances, have been entitled to get the stipulated rates of compound interest, having regard to the decisions of the Judicial Committee in certain cases referred to in the judgment, but he disallowed the compound interest on the grounds that the plaintiff had subsequently agreed not to charge compo...
Debi Prosad Bhakat Vs. Official Trustee of Bengal, Executor (Trustee i ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal333,72Ind.Cas.1013
1. The hearing of this appeal has taken considerable time, a fact which, however, need not be regretted by any body for we have had the pleasure of listening to an elaborate and earnest argument on behalf of the defendants-tenants and nothing which the ingenuity and industry of the learned Vakil for the appellant could discover in support of the position taken up in the grounds of appeal has teen omitted. But, notwithstanding his forcible argument, we have come to the conclusion that this second appeal must fail on all the points that have been urged before us. At the outset, it may be remarked that there are no merits in this appeal and the question argued before us really turn upon discussion of points of law which are well-understood. The facts, shortly stated, are as follows. The tenants-defendants were putnidars of a village under the plaintiff's predecessor up to the year 1291. In execution of a rent-decree against the defendants, the putni right was sold and purchased by a perso...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »