Kolkata Court February 1922 Judgments
Shaikh Jamal Vs. Shaikh Chand and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal79,70Ind.Cas.289
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the First Additional, District Judge, of Dacca, affirming the decision of the Fourth Munsif of Dacca, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, the appellant before us. The suit was for recovery of a share of the costs of the litigation and of money due for the redemption of a mortgage in which the plaintiff and the defendants were jointly interested. Both the lower Courts have held that the suit failed on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The payment in redemption of the mortgage was made as far back as 1907 and the litigation terminated on the 29th May 1913. The Article of the limitation Act applicable to the suit has been held by the lower Appellate Court to be Article 61, and if that Article applies there can be no doubt that the suit is barred. Article 61 applies to a suit for money payable to the plaintiff for money paid for the defendant. The period of limitation is three years, which runs from the date when the money is paid. A...
Tag this Judgment!Saroda Prosad Banerjee and ors. Vs. Gosto Behari Hazra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal542,70Ind.Cas.385
1. In This appeal the defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the appellants and the appeal is directed against a decision of. The Subordinate Judge of Midnapore modifying a decision of the Munsif. The suit was commenced by one Sridhar for possession of 20 pots in Schedule Ka and for confirmation of possession of 11 plots in Schedule Ga. One Shyama Charan was the owner of one-fifth share of the plots comprised in Schedule Ka. He was also entitled to a similar share of the plots comprised in. Schedule Ga. Shyama Charan died leaving three sons, Sridhar, Srinath and Saroda. Srinath died leaving a daughter Kusum Kumari and Saroda died leaving a widow Sasimukhi. The joint family formed by these persons was in straitened, circumstances and Sridhar and Sasimukhi joined in borrowing on mortgage a sum of money, as both Courts have found, for family necessities from one Kali Prosad andthey executed in favour of Kali Prasad usufructuary more age in the year 1898 of plots No.1 to 6 in Schedule Ka, repre...
Tag this Judgment!Kedarnath Paramanik Vs. Hem Nath Karmakar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal176,70Ind.Cas.841
1. This is a Reference under Order XLVI, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, made by the Munsif of Basitha, Second Court, for decision of the question whether the Provincial Small Cause Court under the present Code of Civil Procedure can attach before judgment any immoveable property. This Bench has already decided in the case of Kumttd Behary Pal v. Hart Charan Sardar 53 Ind. Cas. 814 : 46 C. 717 : 31 C.L.J. 179 that a Provincial Small Cause Court has power.to attach movables before judgment. Under the present Code of Civil Procedure no distinction can be drawn between the power of the Provincial Small Cause Court to attach immoveable property before judgment, and for the reasons given by us in the case cited, we answer the point referred by saving that the Provincial Small Cause Court can attach before judgment any immoveable property....
Tag this Judgment!Satyabhama Sundari Wife or Chandra Sekhar Majumder Vs. Mohamed Esahak ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal268,68Ind.Cas.497
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Noakhally modifying a decision of the Munsif. The plaintiff's suit, was brought on a simple mortgage bond, the principal was Rs, 150. The defendant, agreed to pay interest on the money lent at; the rate of Rs. 3 2 0 percent, per mensem, that he would pay off the, money together with, interest within the month of Bhadra 1317, that he would pay interest for every 3, months within 3 months, otherwise the arrears of every 3 months' interest would, be, regarded as the principal and the defendant would pay interest there on at the rate mentioned in the bond. The date of the bond is the 2nd Sravan 1317. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 1.000, deducting Rs. 362,13 which he reliequished out of the compound interest.2. Ths first Court decreed the suit in part allowing simple interest on the principal at 31/2th percent per month from the date of the bond up to the period allowed for re-demotion and thereafter at...
Tag this Judgment!Sarbo Mussalmani Vs. Safar Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal269(1),68Ind.Cas.730
1. This is a reference under Order XLVI, Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure made by the Munsif of Meherpur and forwarded by the District Judge of Nadia.2. In a certain claim ease the claimant filed a security bond executed by one Tad Ali Ahmed who agreed to be liable for Rs. 10 in case be failed to produce certain attached' goats. The question referred is, whether this bond had been rightly engrossed on a non-judicial stamp paper of 2 annas, or whether it is governed by Article 6, Schedule II of the Court Fees Act in which case it would be liable to be stamped with Court-fee stamp of 8-annas. Article 15 of the First Schedule to the Indian Stamp Act gives the stamp duty payable on bonds not being otherwise provided for by the Court Fees Act. Article 6 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act applies to instrument of obligation given in pursuance of an order made by a Court under any section of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The same point arose in a reference made under Section 60 of...
Tag this Judgment!Udoy Kumar Dass Shebait of Idols of Lakshmi Janardan and anr. Vs. Srim ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1922
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.126
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. These two appeals have been preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgments of this Court in two suits for rent, inacmuah as the Judges of the Division Bench were equally divided in opinion. The suits were instituted by the appellant for the recovery of arrears of rent from the defendant, in respect of a tenure, for two consecutive periods. The grounds put forward by way of defense included a claim for abatement of rent on the allegation that the defendant was not in possession of the lands in Mouzah Daskati comprised in the tenancy. The Trial Court gave effect to this contention. On appeal to this Court Mr. Justice Woodroffe held that the view taken by the Court of first instance was well-founded Mr, Justice Caming held, on the other hand, that the claim for abatement could not be sustained in respect of the lands of Mouzah Daskati. The result was that under Section 98, Sub-section (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the decrees made by...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Hari Bhabini Debi and anr. Vs. Narendra Nathroy, Pleader and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal317,67Ind.Cas.883
1. This Rule was granted at the instance of the petitioners, the appellants, against an order of the Additional District Judge of Howrah of the 21st July 1921 refusing to restore an Appeal. Shortly, the material facts are as follows: The present applicants were plaintiffs in a suit to set aside a sale by them of a certain house property to one Narendra Nath Roy, their allegation being that they executed the document conveying the house to Narendra thinking that it was a mortgage and not a conveyance. The suit was heard and the Court disbelieved the story of the present petitioners, the plaintiffs in the suit. The present petitioners preferred an appeal against the decree dismissing their suit, and thereupon the respondents applied for an order that they should give security for costs. An order was made directing security to be given by the petitioners for costs in a sum of Rs. 300. We are satisfied from the order-sheet that on this occasion the petitioners were represented by a Pleader...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Jogendra Kishore Roy Choudhury Vs. Sheikh Aktar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal278,67Ind.Cas.998
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Special Judge of Mymensingh reversing the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer of that District. The main point arising in this appeal is whether the learned Judge has rightly held that the plaintiff appellant is not entitled to excess rent for excess area. The Assistant Settlement Officer found that the areas of the holdings in certain khatians were larger at the time of the Survey and Settlement than the measurements shown in the landlord's papers, and on this basis granted the landlords additional rent for additional area. This decision has been reversed on the finding that there is nothing to show that at the inception of the tenancies rents were settled or that it was understood that rents should be settled by assessment on areas.2. This finding is not sufficient for the disposal of the question. The learned Judge appears to hare fallen into the error similar to that pointed out by a Division Bench of this Court in the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Narapat Singh Vs. Raja Bhupendra Narayan Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.440
1. These appeals are preferred by the plaintiff against decisions of the District Judge of Birbhum affirming decision of the First Munsif at Rampurhat.2. The suits were brought to recover khas possession of certain resumed chaukidari chakran lands together with mesne profits. The plaintiff claimed these lands as included in the putni taluk granted to his predecessors in interest by the first defendant, who is the Zemindar, by a putni patta of the year 1833, the Bengali date being the 29th Kartik 1260. It is not disputed that the lands in question were included in the putni patti but it is said that these lands were not taken into account in settling the rent payable under the patta and that consequently the Zamindar, the respondent, is entitled to a share of the rent derived from settling the resumed lands with tenants. No dispute arises with regard to the payment of the Government revenue which has been assessed on the resumed lands and which, under the terms of the putni, patta, is p...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Nath Misra Vs. Ramranjan Misra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.866
1. On the 9th February 1920 an application was made under Schedule II, paragraph 20, of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Munsif at Asansol to file a private award dated 22nd Aswin 1325. The Munsif hold that there was no arbitration in the case by all the arbitrators jointly and he refused the application. It appears that there were five arbitrators and that they were to act jointly under the submission. One Rakhal Upadhya, the Munsif says, was present one day for a short time, but did not hear the evidence or take part in the deliberations of the arbitrators and the Munsif states that there was no evidence to show that Rakhal Upadhya signed the award after actually going through the papers and considering them. Against the Munsif's decision an appeal was preferred to the Subordinate Judge and the Subordinate Judge framed this issue 'whether the defendant waived his right to have his case tried by the continuous presence of Rakhal Upadhya during the judicial portion of the arbitration...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »