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.
Mea HossaIn Khan and ors. and Vs. Sheikh Samir and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal282(1),68Ind.Cas.475
1. In this appeal several preliminary objectious have been taken, but we do not think it necessary to consider them as we hold that the appeal fails on the merits.2. On the merits the only point taken was that the lower Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal against a preliminary deiree in a partition suit after the final decree had been, passed in that spit, Reliance is placed on the case of, Baikuntha Nath Kulada Prosad v. Ramanand Patnaik 61 Ind. Cas. 923 : 25 C. W. N. 776 : 33 C. L. J, 414 : 48 C. 1036. But the facts of the present case are similar to those of the case of Nistarince Dabee v. Bai Mohun Biswas 20 Ind. Cas. 576 : 18 C. L. J. 214. In the report in Baikuntha Nath : Kulada Prosad v. Ramanand Patnaik (2) there seems to be an error in the reference to the oase of Khiroiamoyi Dasi v. Adhar Ohandra Ghose (3) Obviously the case meant to be distinguished was that mentioned above Nistarinee Dalee v. Rai Mohun Biswas (2). As pointed out in that case there is a di...
BadaruddIn Mun Hi Vs. SarapaddIn Bepari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal307,68Ind.Cas.489
1. The only point that has bean argued in this appeal is the point of limitation. The plaintiffs brought this suit for declaration that they had raiyati title in certain land and that they were not under-raiyots under the defendant as recorded in the finally published Record of Rights. It appears that during the preparation of the Record of Rights there was a dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant as to the status of the former and that it was decided on the 2nd July 1908. The Record of Bights was finally published some time in the Bengali year 1320. The suit was instituted on the 1st June 1917. The period of limitation admittedly is six years under Article 120 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Alt. Consequently, if limitation commented to run from the decision of the dispute the suit is barred, but if it commented from the final publication of the Record of Rights the suit is within time. We think that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge on this point is corr...
Kula Miah Vs. Nazu Miah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal195,68Ind.Cas.449
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Chittagong modifying a decision of the Munsif. The plaintiff, as appears from the plaint, sued for a dealaration that he had a sadar patni taluqa interest in the disputed land and he asked for khas possession of the land free from all insumbrances by virtue of the provisions of Act XI of 1859 under which the land was sold and he also asked for a declaration that the defendants had no protested interest in the disputed tauk land. Defendants Nos. 19, 23 and 24 are all taluqdars and defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 6 are raiyats under the taluqdars. We are told that the defendants Nos. 5, 12 and 22 are under-raiyats but there is no finding as to this. It is stated that these defendants Nos. 5, 12 and 22 are dead and that their heirs have not been brought on the record. Accordingly, it may be that if the plaintiff cucseeds in this appeal the heirs of these parsons may be entitled to remain on the land a...
JashimuddIn Sarkar Vs. Manmohini Dssya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal93,70Ind.Cas.308
1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor in an execution-case against a decision of the Additiona Subordinate Judge of Rajshahi. Four points were urged before us in this appeal Firstly, is stated that the approximat value of the land is not stated in the sale proclamation and that this is an irregularity having regard to the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 66, Sub-rule (2)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Secondly, it is stated that the original proclamation described the land, for sale as consisting of whole 16-annas, whereas, subsequently, it was found that only 12-annas could be brought to sale. Consequently, it is stated that a fresh, sale-proclamation should have been issued and that the sale is vitiated by the fact that there was no such proclamation. Thirdly, it is stated that the sale-proclamation was not served, lastly, it is stated that there was a deficiency in the price having regard to the figures which have been explained to us in considerable detail.2. Now, it appears...
Allen Bros. and Co. Vs. Bando and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.371
Rankin, J.1. The applicants, Messrs. Allen Brothers and Co. (India), Ltd., obtained a Rule nisi on the 4th January 1921 calling upon the respondents Messrs. Bando and Co., to show cause why an order made by the Controller appointed under the Calcutta Rent Act, 1920, should not be set aside. This Rule was issued both under Section 115 of the Code and under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. The applicants are tenants of certain premises in Hare Street and hold under the respondents. Their complaint is that an application made by them to the Controller under Section 15 of the Rent Act, for a certificate certifying the standard rent of the said premises, has been dismissed contrary to the terms of the section, which oblige the Controller to fix the standard rent and to certify the same.3. In my opinion, upon the question of merits, there is no answer to the applicants. The judgment of the Controller is before me. It appears that in Hare Street there is a large building which is numbered 3...
Rajakoti Kumar Mukerji Vs. Tincowri Chakraburti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal136,70Ind.Cas.293
1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor. He, as plaintiff, in March 1908 sued and obtained a decree in a suit against the respondent. On the 13th August 1910 an appeal was prefer red to the District Judge. He affirmed the decision of the Munsif. Against this an appeal was preferred to this Court. On the 6th March 1913 this Court reversed the decision of the District Judge and of the Munsif and dismissed the suit and allowed the defendants in the suit the costs throughout as against the plaintiff who is the present appellant before us and on the 30th April 1915 the decision of the learned Judge was affirmed in a letters Patent Appeal. The decree of the High Court allowed the defendants in the original suit the cost of the appeal to the High Court and the costs before the Munsif and the District Judge. I understood that the costs of the defendants before the District Judge and before the Munsif had been taxed or assessed in those Courts but that, owing to an omission, they had not be...
Emperor Vs. Safdar Reza
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal508,72Ind.Cas.379
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the accused Safdar Reza was convicted by the Jury of an offence under Section 363 and of an offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code by a majority of 7 to 2, which verdict I accepted, and the matter which is now for consideration arises with regard to the offence under Section 366. The offence under Section 363, in this case, consists of kidnapping from lawful guardianship--no question arises with regard to that matter. But with regard to Section 366, the material part which applies to this case, is kidnapping a woman 'in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.'2. In this case there was no suggestion of any force being used by the accused, and I left it to the Jury to say whether the girls Matabia and Bhagbania or either of them, were kidnapped by the accused in order that they or either of them might be seduced to illicit intercourse. The Jury by their verdict found that the accused kidnapped the two girls with ...
Emperor Vs. Jhabbar Mull Lakkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal179,72Ind.Cas.973
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In December 1921 J.M. Lakkar, the accused, was tried at the Criminal Sessions by my learned brother Mr. Justice Walmsley, and the Jury in respect of three alleged offences under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The charges were that on or about three dates, viz., 25th April 1921, 2nd May 1921 and 13th May 1921, he being the cashier of Messrs. Radhakissen Sewdut Roy and entrusted with three sums, viz., Rs. 5,000, Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 2,000, committed criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating the said sums.3. The Jury unanimously found him not guilty in respect of each of the three charges.4. J.M. Laakkar is now charged again in respect of the same three matters but is a different form. It is now alleged that he, being a cashier in the above named firm, as aforesaid, with intent to defraud made false entries in the pukka rokur book of the said firm on or about the 25th April, 2nd May and 13th May 1921, in respect of the said three sums of mon...
Basanti Charan Sinha Vs. Rajani Mohan Chatterjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal514,86Ind.Cas.227
1. This Rule was granted at the instance of the petitioner calling upon the opposite party and the' Rent Controller under the Calcutta Rent Act to show cause why the order of the Rent Controller dated the 25th April 1921 should not be set aside. The material facts are shortly as follows: The petitioner on or about the 2nd January 1920, entered into an agreement with the trustees of the late Baboolal Agarwalla for a lease of premises No. 10 Greek Lane for a period of three years from the 16th January 1920 with an option in the petitioner to renew his tenancy for a further period of three years at the expiration of the first three years. Correspondence passed but no agreement was actually signed nor has any lease been actually executed. Under the agreement of the 2nd January the petitioner entered into possession of premises. Under this agreement rent was payable at the rate of Rs. 400 a month, the previous rental of the premises having been Rs. 150 a month. The petitioner paid at the ra...
Bengal and North-western Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. Sadaram Bhairodan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal500,70Ind.Cas.229
John Woodroffe, J.1. This is a suit for the recovery of the value of 2 bales of piece goods alleged to have been delivered on the 7th April 1918 at Jagannath Ghat in Calcutta to the River Steam Navigation Co., Ltd., and the India General Steam Navigation and Railway Co., Ltd., for carriage, despatch and delivery by transmission to Bhuptiahi, a station on the Bengal and North-Western Railway, and which, it is said have not been delivered to the consignee at Bhuptiahi.2. I need not go into the facts of the case so far as they affect the merits, because the point which has been argued before us is a question of jurisdiction, and in the view I take of the case it is unnecessary to deal with the question on the merits.3. There is no question that the Court had jurisdiction as against the River Steamer Company. The question before us is whether it had jurisdiction against the Bengal and North-Western Railway Co., Ltd., the defendant-appellants, to whom I will refer as the Railway Company.4. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »