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.
Manmohini Debi Vs. Ram Kishore Tarkaratna and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal273,68Ind.Cas.334
1. This is an appeal against a decree dismissing a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's Niskar title to one-third share of the lands of the plaint and for partition. The dismissal by the Court of first instance was affirmed on appeal by the lower Appellate Court.2. The main point urged in this appeal is that the lower Appellate Court was wrong in refusing to receive certain documents in evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, The plaintiff-appellant's case was that she was unaware of the more important of these documents daring the hearing of the case in the First Court. The lower Appellate Court has held that that is no sufficient ground for admission of the evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, and the plaintiffs proper remedy is by an application for a review under Order XLVII, Rule 1. In support of this view be sites the case of Garden Beach Spinning and Manufacturing Co. v. Secretary of State for India (1). He has wrongly referred to it...
Fazil Meah Vs. Prosanna Kumar Roy Decree-holder, Idris Meah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal316(1),68Ind.Cas.305
Newbould, J.1. The petitioner in this case made a bid for Rs. 450 for a certain property which was being sold by the Court in execution of a decree. The actual sale was held by the Nazir who accepted this bid and the petitioner at once made the necessary deposit of 815 persent. However, soon after the property had been knocked down the opposite party No. 10, Emadadulla, applied to the Munsif for a resale of the property offering a bid of Ra. 700. On this the Munsif ordered a re sale of the property which was knocked down to Emdadulla for this sum. For the petitioner it is said that the knocking down of the property by the Nazir and the acceptance of the deposit made the gale final and the Munsif had no jurisdiction to put the property up again. A similar point came up for decision in the case of Bakhal Chandra Butt v. Sitanath Roy, Civil Revision Case No. 241 of 1921, It was there decided that a sale was not concluded when a property was knocked down and the deposit made. Having regard...
Ram Sundar Saha and ors. Vs. Kali NaraIn Sen Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal86,70Ind.Cas.307
1. In this case a Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the orders, dated the 15th September and 28th November 1921, should not be set aside and why the Court should not be directed to hold a judicial enquiry into the matter. The Rule arises in connection with an application under Order XXXII, Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, to appoint a guardian of a defendant who is alleged by the applicant, the opposite party, to be of unbound mind or mentally infirm, an allegation which the plaintiff denies.2. It has been, in the first place, contended that this Court has no power to interfere under Section 115 or the Civil Procedure Code. We think, however, that the answer to this is that there is in this case material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction within the meaning of that section, because, in the first place, it is alleged (and so far as the record before us shows such allegation seems to be proved) that the Judge's order was based simply upon an ...
Sailabala Dei and anr. Vs. Gadahar Hazra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.408
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the judgment of this Court, dated the 19th of July 1921, should not be reviewed as prayed. The Judgment of this Court of the 19th of July was a Judgment of my learned brother and myself whereby the appeal was dismissed under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The plaintiff failed in the First Court and in the lower Appellate Court. He then appealed by way of special appeal to this Court and after hearing the appeal my learned brother and I dismissed it, as I have already said. Then an application for review was made on the ground that, after the dismissal of the appeal under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a document was discovered by the plaintiff, which document, he said, could not have been discovered earlier by the exercise of reasonable diligence, that it was an important document and, as was alleged in the petition, it would throw light upon the case. ...
Prasanna Kumar Sen Vs. Durga Charan Chakrabarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal146,70Ind.Cas.537
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the betters Patent form the judgment of Mr. Justice Teunon in a suit for enhancement of rent.2. It appears that a Record of Rights was published in 1914 and an entry was made therein to the effect that the tenant-defendant was a sayhitwan raiyat that is, an occupancy raiyai. On the 30th January 1918 the plaintiff-landlord instituted the present suit for enhancement of rent on the ground of rise in the price of staple food crops. The defendant resisted the claim on the ground that he was a raiyat at fixed rate, and in support of this allegation he invoked the aid of Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. His contention was negatived by the Primary Court and the claim for enhancement was allowed. Upon appeal the Subordinate Judge held that the defendant was entitled to the benefit of the presumption mentioned in Section 50 and disallowed the claim for enhancement. Upon appeal to this Court Mr. Justice Teunon has reversed the decision of the Subordin...
Hemangini Dasi Vs. Sital Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal310(1),67Ind.Cas.300
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decision of the Officiating Subordinate Judge of the 24. Pargannas reversing a decision of the Munsif of Basirhat. The plaintiff sued for declaration of her title to, and to establish her right to the rent of, certain land. Her case was that the land belonged originally to one Motilal and that she acquired the land by purchase from Moti Lal's successors-in-interest. The defence was that the land belonged not to Moti lal but to Baiknntha and that the defendants ware the heirs of Baikantba. It appeared in evidence, that the lands in snit were acquired at a time when Moti lal and Baikuntha were joint and, accordingly the plaintiff reduced her claim to 8-annas share in the land claiming Moti lal's spare. The Munsif decreed the suit in the plaintiff's favour so far as regards the 8 annas share. Bat the loner Appellate Court reversed the Munsif's finding holding that Moti lal and his successors-in interest were barred by the advene possession o...
Jagabandhu Saha Vs. Haris Chandra Sil and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal459,76Ind.Cas.915
1. This is an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Panton in a suit for recovery of possession of land upon establishment of title. 2. The subject-matter of the litigation belonged to one Ramjiban Sil who left two daughters Umatara and Kumari. They inherited their father's estate as joint tenants; Umatara died in 1899 and Kumari in 1915. on the 12th June 1916 the plaintiff instituted the present suit on the strength, of a conveyance executed in his favour by Kumari on the 4th May 1911, with the concurrence of her sons. The claim was resisted by the first three defendants' who alleged that they had purchased the property from Umatara on the 23rd April 1888. The substantial question in controversy was that of limitation. The Court of first instance held that the suit was not barred by limitation and gave the plaintiff a decree. Upon appeal the District Judge reversed that decision and his -view has been adopted by Mr. Justice Panton. In our opinio...
Rajendra NaraIn Mazumdar Choudhury and ors. Vs. Sheikh Kalim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal575,67Ind.Cas.813
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Panton in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent.2. The plaintiff claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 22-1 per year in respect of four years from the 14th April 1913 to the 13th April 1917. The defendants pleaded that rent was payable at the rate of Rs. 12-2 per annum, The suit was instituted on the 21st April 1917 and was decided by the First Court on the 16th April 1918. The claim of the plaintiffs was founded upon a Kabuliyat executed by the predecessors of the defendants on the 19th April 1894. The rent payable thereunder was that claimed in the suit. The defendants contended that the kabuliyat was in contravention of Section 29(b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Trial Court held that the defendants had successfully proved by the production of Road-Cess Return filed by the landlords on the 26th May 1885 that the rent was originally fixed at the rate of Rs. 12-2. Consequently, there was, prima fac...
Sahib Chandra Singh and on His Death His Rears and Legal Representativ ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal160,68Ind.Cas.86
1. This appeal arises cut of a suit for the recovery of possession of certain properties described in the plaint on establishment of the plaintiff's title thereto. The facts of the cases which are rather complicated are folly set out in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. The Court of first instance gave the plaintiff a partial decree by declaring the take right of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 in four annas share of the land3 described as property No. 1 in the plaint and the coast raiyali title of the plaintiff's to eleven annas four ganders share of property No. 2 and dismissed the plaintiff's claim with regard to the rest of the properties in suit, On appeal the lower Appellate Court modified the decree of the first Court by declaring plaintiff's note right under defendants Nos, I, 2 and 4 in property No. 1 and granting them a decree for has possession of that property, and in other repeats upheld the decree of the first Court. Several objections have been taken to the findings of ...
Ram Taran Tewary and ors. Vs. Kumeda Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal80,68Ind.Cas.161
1. The facts of this appeal are there.2. The plaintiffs sued to recover arrears of rent for-the years 1321 to 1324 B. Section with cresses and damages on a registered maurasi mokurrari kabuliyat exeouted in 18773. The lease recites that ' within the aforesaid Monza you have granted me a patta of 12 big has of land at an annual jama of Rs 6 and Rs. 24 as premium,' After reciting how the runny should be paid and in what instalments, the lease- states that the landlord should have right to the minerals, ets' and, lastly, the words appear : Also it should appear that I would deliver 1 seer of shyama ghee and one kid every year.' No amount is mentioned as payable in lieu of the ghee and goat in case of default.4. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover rent at the' rate of Rs. 6 per annum and that le was not entitled to recover the ghee and the goat.5. This finding was upheld by the Appellate Court on the ground and that the ghee and goat are net mentioned as part of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »