Kolkata Court February 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.
Karuna Krishna Chaudhury Vs. Rakhaldas Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal292,68Ind.Cas.721
1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, sued the two defendants on a mortgage deed admittedly executed by them. The first defendant was the plaintiff's gomosla for four years tip to Ashin 1318 B. Section The second defendant is the first defendant's brother The first defendant was alleged to have embezzled a sum of Rs. 400 belonging to the plaintiff and was criminally prosecuted under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. The finding of both the lower Courts is that the bond in suit was executed on an agreement on the part of the plaintiff to abandon the prosecution of defendant No 1. On this finding it has been held that the bond sued on is void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. So far as the second defendant, is concerned this decision has not been attacked in second appeal, But it is contended that the plaintiff can recover the sum of Rs. 400 from the first defendant since the first Court found that the amount for which the bond was executed was really due from the def...
Amulya Sundari Dassya Vs. Syama Sundar Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal316,68Ind.Cas.607
1. This Rule was granted at the instance of the plaintiff, who is a widow, to vacate the order of the Subordinate Judge directing her to give security for costs in a sum of Rs. 500. The suit is for dissolution of partnership, for accounts and for recovery of the plaintiff's stridhan property. The only question that arises for our consideration in this Rule is whether this is a suit for payment of money within the provisions of Order XXV, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code. Apart from the partnership, properties consist of immoveable properties. On behalf of the opposite party it is stated that any decree that results in the plaintiff's favour must be a decree for money and that, consequently, the suit must be deemed to be one for payment of money within Order XXV, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code. There is no doubt that in this Court a suit for ornaments has been held to be a suit for money within the meansing of Order XXV, Rule 3. We have also been referred to the case of Sonabai v. Tribhowanda...
Asmatullah Pramanik Vs. Gamir Pramanik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1929Cal672
Pearson, J.1. The facts here are as follows: The land in suit was a non-transferable occupancy holding belonging to one J.N. Moitra and held under him by two brothers Jadab and Madhab in equal shares. The holding was brought to sale by the landlord for arrears of rent and purchased by himself in 1915. In 1916 Jadab mortgaged his 1/2 share to plaintiff. In February 1917 the two brothers sold a portion of the jote to defendant 1 and defendant 2 in the present suit. In 1918 plaintiff sued on his mortgage against Jadab making defendant 1 and defendant 2 also parties: the suit was decreed in March 1919 on compromise against Jadab and ex parte as regards defendant 1 and defendant 2. On 22nd June 1921 Jadab's half share was brought to sale in execution and purchased by the plaintiff. Upon his going to take possession he was resisted by defendant 1 and defendant 2 on the ground that they had taken a settlement from the landlord in January 1918. Hence the present suit. This settlement has been ...
Jetha Bhulchand and anr. Vs. F.C. Grace
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal227,70Ind.Cas.494
Buckland, J.1. This is a suit for ejectment and for damages. The defendant, under a lease dated 13th August 1918, was a tenant for three years of the upper floor of No. 24, Camac Street, from the 7th June 1918 at a monthly rental of Rs. 300. The lease expired; the plaintiff required the defendant to leave, but the defendant is still in occupation of the premises.2. The only defence on behalf of the defendant is a plea under the Rent Act as to whether or not the plaintiff bona fide required the premises for his own occupation. But, as has been pointed out more than once in cases in this Court, where the benefit of the Rent Act is claimed the defendant must show that he has paid arrears within three months of the Rent Act coming into force, and subsequently paid his rent regularly within the time fixed in the contract with his landlord, or, in the absence of any such contract, by the 15th day of the following month, or in the event of the landlord refusing to accept rent, by depositing i...
Nasir Khan Mistri Vs. Fyaz Hossain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal57,72Ind.Cas.348
Walmsley, J.1. The petitioner has teen convicted under Section 403, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 125.2. The case for the prosecution is that an arrangement had been made for the accused to give his two daughters in marriage, one to the complainant's son and the other to his brother-in-law, and that complainant accordingly went to the accused's house with sweets, ornaments and clothing to perform the betrothal ceremony, and that the accused, pretending that the gilts were not as good as they should be, broke off the negotiations, and that afterwards the accused instead of returning the presents kept putting off the complainant with evasive answers and finally refused altogether to return the articles.3. The accused tells a different story: He says that the negotiations broke down because the parties could not agree about the dower, and he appears to think that, because, according to him, the fault lay at the door of the complainant, he has a right to retain the a...
Mohammed Hyder Ali Khan Pani and ors. Vs. Mohammed Wajid Ali Khan Pani ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1922
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.285
1. These 19 appeals arise out of the decision of the lower Appellate Court in the same number of appeals heard by him against the decision of the Munsif, Second Court, Tangail. In the First Court there were 19 suits which were tried jointly. Against the decision of these 19 suits 20 appeals were preferred, some by the plaintiff and tome by the defendants. In one of these, Suit No. 2751 of 1917, no second appeal has been preferred as the findings of fact in the first appeal relating to that suit are conclusive. All these suits were brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who are their co-sharers for joint possession of certain lands. In 13 of these eases the first Court gave decrees for joint khas possession which were reversed by the lower Appellate court. In the remaining six cases both Courts refused khas possession, one of these six being Suit No. 2751 already referred to.2. The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are co-sharers in estate No. 10 of the Mymen...
Srimati Johara Banoo and ors. Vs. Ganga Chandra Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal222,77Ind.Cas.1044
1. These three appeals Nos. 178, 390 and 397 arise out of two connected suits. Appeal No. 178 arises out of Suit No. 2548 of 1916 and Appeals Nos. 390 and 397 arise out of Suit No. 2547 of 1916. The two connected suits were brought to recover possession of a tenure which had been purchased by an auction-purchaser at a rent sale and he claimed to have annulled some incumbrences subsisting in the land, namely a howla and a raiyati interest The First Court dismissed both the suits, but the Second Court decreed the suits. In Appeal $0. 178, there are two sets of appellants, namely, defendant No. 6, the howladar and defendants Nos. 15, 16 and 17 whom I may describe as the holders of a raiyati at a fixed rate subject to that contention urged on their behalf that they do not in fact hold at a fixed rate. Appeal No. 390 is preferred by defendant No. 9, a raiyat and Appeal No. 397 is preferred by the howldar.2. Four or rather five questions have been urged before us in these appeals. First, it ...
Dwijendra Mohan Sarma Vs. Monorama Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.990
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Huda in a suit for recovery, of possession of an one-third share of a homestead upon declaration of title and for incidental reliefs. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge reversed that decision. On second appeal, to this Court, Mr. Justice Huda has set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restored that of the primary Court.2. The disputed property belonged to an infant, Kandrapa Kumar Sen, whose father, Kamini Kumar Sen, was appointed as guardian of his property by the District Judge. The root of the title of the plaintiff is a conveyance executed by the guardian on the 14th January 1906 with the sanction of the District Judge, and registered three days later. The foundation of the title of the contesting defendant is a prior conveyance executed by the guardian on the 4th April 1905 and registered six days later. This conveyance like the one ...
Rekhab Chand Doogar Vs. J.R. D'cruz
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal223
1. This is a suit to eject the defendant from certain rooms in the plaintiff's house and premises No. 39, Lower Circular Road, and also for damages.2. The defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff, the rent alleged in the plaint as payable being Rs. 90 a month. On the 30th November 1920 the plaintiff through his Attorney gage the defendant one month's notice to quit, that is to say, on the 31st December 1920. The defendant did not quit the premises and the plaintiff has/there-fore, brought this suit.3. This is one of four suits all standing on the same footing, in which the relations between the parties were the same, but the other three have failed because the parties have unsuccessfully pleaded the Rent Act, as they had not complied with the provisions with which they had to comply before they were entitled to the benefit of the Act In this case also the defendant has pleaded to be entitled to relief by reason of the Calcutta Rent Act, and the following issues were settled:1...
Ambika Debi Add ors. Vs. Swarnamayidasi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal135,68Ind.Cas.425
1. This is an appeal by the defendants Nos. 1 and 5 against a decision of the subordinate Judge of Midnapore modifying a decision of the 4th Munsif at Tamluk. The plaintiff is the suit was a usufructuary mortgagee. The mortgage was executed in his favour by defendant No. 7. The appellant, defendant No. 6, is the landlord and the first defendant is a new tenant with wham defendant No. 6 ourports to have settled the lands. The holding, which is as non-transferable occupancy holding, was sold for nonpayment of rent and was purchased by defendant No. 6, the landlord. The lower Appellate Court has passed a decree for possession of the land in suit in favour of the mortgagee, the plaintiff, on condition of his paying to the landlord, the appellant, defendant No. 6, a cam of Rs. 45, the amount of fie arrears of rent for which the holding was brought to sale.2. Two points have bean urged before us in this appeal. First, it is said, that the plaintiff cannot maintain she suit inasmuch as the ex...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »