Kolkata Court March 1922 Judgments
Chandra Kumar Basu Vs. Rani Sashimukhi Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal511,71Ind.Cas.324
1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents for account against defendant No. 1, who was their cashier and defendant No. 2 with whom in the present appeal we are not concerned and defendant No. 3, the appellant before us who was the Saiar Naib. It is alleged that money is due by defendant No. 1 on account being taken against him and that the appellant, the Sadar Naib is responsible for any loss which the plaintiffs may have sustained through action or omission of their cashier, which loss has been occasioned by his negligence, his duties being, amongst others, to supervise the work and to sign the jamakharach of the Sadar Khazanchi. An objection has been taken in this appeal to this suit on the ground that it is bad for misjoinder of causes of action and parties. I think this objection is a sound one.2. It is a suit for accounts as against defendant No. 1 and a suit for negligence against the appellant who becomes liable to re-pay to the plaintiffs such sum of money as may ...
Tag this Judgment!Jadu Nath Sarkar and ors. Vs. Haran Chandra Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal221,70Ind.Cas.687
1. This is an appeal against the final decree in a suit for partition of joint property. A preliminary decree was made on the 17th May 1920, which defined the shares of the parties, and directed that partition be made equitably, with due regard to the convenience of all the parties concerned. This decree contemplated that eleven allotments should be made. A Commissioner was appointed and plans were drawn up for the purpose of allotment. The parties appear to have realised at this stage that, in view of the size and shape of the land and of the number of shareholders, no convenient partition could be effected. The result was that on the 25th June and 17th July 1920, applications were made by various share-holders under Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893, for an order for sale instead of division; but the Subordinate Judge declined to make an order under Section 2 at that stage, before receipt of the report of the Commissioner. On examination of the report, he was later on, satisfied t...
Tag this Judgment!PulIn Behari Dey Vs. Satya Charan Dey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal79,70Ind.Cas.548
1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in a suit for administration, partition, accounts and incidental reliefs against an executor. Rakhal Chander Dey, the admitted owner of the subject-matter of the litigation, died on the 31st July 1901. Two days before his death, he made a testamentary disposition of his properties. He appointed his eldest son Pulin Behan Dey as executor and directed that his second son, Sattya Charan Dey, at that time an infant, do become joint executor on attainment of majority. He left a widow, Thakomoni Dasi, the mother of Satya Charan Dey, and his three sisters. His first wife, the mother of Pulin Behari Dey, had died during his lifetime many years before. After the death of Rakhal Chandra Dey Probate was taken out by Pulin Behari Dey on the 15th July 1903. Satya Charan Dey attained majority on the 16th February 1917 and took out joint Probate on the 12th July 1918. On the 20th August 1918 he instituted the present suit against his step-brother Pulin Beha...
Tag this Judgment!Mirza Dilbar HossaIn and ors. Vs. SadaruddIn Choudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal568,77Ind.Cas.77
1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiffs sued for recovery of Rs. 25 on account of the price o' trees which they alleged hive been wrongfully cut away by the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 from a plot of land in their possession and which they hid recently purchased from the pro forma defendants Nos. 5 to 7. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 congested the suit and their case was that the land belonged to defendant No. 5 alone, the defendants Nos. 6 and 7 no concern with the land that; they had taken lease of this land from defendant No. 5 and were in possession of the and as tenants and further that they had purchased the trees alleged to have been cut from defendant No. 5 for Rs. 11. The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit. On appeal the lower Appellate Court found that defendants Nos. 6 and 7 had interest in the land in suit; that the interest of defendant No s was not that of a sole owner, and that, therefore, the defendant No 5 had no right to sell the entire trees...
Tag this Judgment!Shib Charan Chakraburtty and ors. Vs. BepIn Behary Chakraburtty and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1922
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.1047
John Woodroffe, J.1. This appeal has taken some time but the point is very simple. It arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of khas possess on of certain plot of land by ejecting the defendants there from and for recovery of a certain sum of money claimed by way of compensation for misuse of the land. The defence is that no notice was served and that if it was served it was invalid. The point which comes before us for decision is this: whether the decision of the High Court when it made a remand in this matter is conclusive. I am of opinion that it is not conclusive in the sense in which it has been urged before us by the appellant to-day. The question then is; that being so and there being no bar to the decision by the Subordinate judge; whether his decision do that particular point with regard to, the notice is correct. He finds on the evidence as a question of fact that 'the misuse is capable of remedy and that when the notice was issued t...
Tag this Judgment!Bimla Prosad Mookerjee and ors. Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ld. and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.236
Walmsley, J.1. This Rule was issued in regard to an order passed under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code, attaching two plots of lands respecting which proceedings had been drawn up under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code.2. The petitioners are four members of the first party, and they are lessees and sub-lessees under the other members of the first party, who are described in the petition as proprietors of Estates Nos. 4551 and 769.2. The second party, the opposite party at this stage, are the Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., and its servants; and the Company holds a mining lease from the Maharaja of Burdwan, who is, according to the Company, Zamindar of the whole village in which the land is situated.3. The cause of the dispute is that the petitioners in virtue of the rights conferred on them by their lessors want to bore in the area to which the proceedings relate, while the Company claims that the sub-soil rights have been given to them, and that they are entitled to prevent th...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Gafur Khan Alias Kalachand Khan and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.56
Walmsley, J.1. The appellants, Abdul Gafur Khan alias Kala Chand Khan and Abdul Sattar Khan, alias Chotu Khan, have been convicted, on a unanimous Verdict, under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo ten gears rigorous imprisonment each.2. The inmates of the house in which the dacoity is said to have been committed were Abdul Jabbaf, the complainant, a boy of fifteen, his elder brother Abdul Nabi, another brother, two sisters, one of whom is the witness, Alekjan, a girl of eleven, their mother, some, servants, and a beggar woman.3. The occurrence is said to have taken place on the night of September 4th and information was lodged at the Thana seven miles distant, on the morning of the 6th.4. The description of the dacoity is of the usual kind; but there is this singular feature in the case that the appellant, Kala Chand Khan, has given his daughter in marriage to Abdul Nabi just mentioned. Relations are strained because Abdul Nabi has married a second wife, and Kala ...
Tag this Judgment!Aradhan Mondal and ors. Vs. Abhoya Charan Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal321,68Ind.Cas.626
1. In this case a preliminary objection has been taken that no second appeal lies. In support of that objection it has been pointed oat that the suit was described as a suit for recovery of the price of fish after declaration of title in respect thereof, The plaintiffs also prayed that the Court might be pleased to establish the plaintiffs' right in respect of the fish and to pass a decree in their favour and against the defendants for recovery of the price thereof, namely, Ra. 500, t,e., the amount claimed with casts and future interest, and in support of their view as to the nature of the suit they rely upon the first ground of the memorandum of appeal, namely, that the Court of Appeal has erred in deciding the question of title to the tank which was beyond the scope of the suit and in declaring plaintiffs' tide to the tank in the present suit which was merely a suit for damages after declaration of title to the fish and not to the tank. They contend, therefore, that the suit being a...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Nagendrabala Dassi and ors. Vs. Dinanath Mahish and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal215,70Ind.Cas.933
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, by Srimati Nagendrabala Dassi and Nobo Kumar Hazra against the judgment of this Court dated the 20th May 1921 See Dinanath Mahish v. Nabakumar Hajra 70 Ind. Cas. 542--[Ed] and the first question which we have to decide is whether the decree of the High Court is one which affirmed the decree of the Court immediately below.2. The position is somewhat curious, because the plaintiffs were the appellants, although the petitioners now before us had put in cross-objections, and the plaintiffs' appeal was dismissed with costs, yet the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge was affirmed with one variation, namely: 'that the decree as also the mortgaged properties purchased by the assignee in execution will be included in the conveyance and the plaintiffs will be allowed two months from the date of the decree of this Court to deposit the amount mentioned in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge.' Th...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhadamoyo Dasi, Widow of Johurilal Roy Vs. Atul Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal165,68Ind.Cas.203
1. The plaintiff in this suit sought for declaration of her title to and recovery of possession or confirmation of her possession in a certain tank. She has been successful in the First Court in respect of 8-annas share of the tank and has appealed in respect of the 8 annas share to which her claim has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court.2. A genealogical table showing the principal parties in this litigation will be found in Schedule kha of the plaint which is translated and printed at page 11 of the paper-book. The tank in suit originally belonged to Swarup Chandra Roy. A half share descended to Anup Chandra Roy and the other half share to Jahuri and Biswanath. It is now undisputed that the plaintiff has obtained Jahuri and Biswanath's share. We are only concerned with the share which descended to Anup. The plaintiff's case as now made out is that Jahuri and Biswanath executed a mortgage by which they purported to transfer 16-annas share in the tank to one Kristo Chandra Dutt...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »