Kolkata Court March 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.
Asmati Bibi and ors. Vs. Saimuddi Pathan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1922
Reported in: AIR1925Cal533
M.N. Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in which the plaintiff, the husband, after being unsuccessful in the Court of first instance, has obtained a decree in the lower Appellate Court. The defendants are the appellants in this Court, the defendant No. 1 being the wife. The two grounds put forward in the appeal on behalf of the appellants arise upon a clause in the Kabilnama which has been specified therein as the third clause. That clause runs thus: 'Condition No. 3 I shall not abuse my wife or beat her and I shall not go to parabash without her permission nor shall I marry again.'2. The learned Vakil appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended, first, that, although the learned Subordinate Judge has found that the ill-treatment, if any, which may be taken to have been proved as having been caused by the husband to the wife did not amount to such cruelty as would entitle the wife to divorce her husband, still there should be a fin...
Sreemati Asmati Bibi and ors. Vs. Saimuddi Pathan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1922
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.991
M.N. Mukerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for; restitution of conjugal rights in which the plaintiff the husband, after being unsuccessful in the Court of first instance, has obtained a decree in the lower Appellate Court The Defendants are the appellants in this Court the defendant No. 1 being the wife. The two grounds put forward in the appeal on behalf of the appellants arise upon a clause in the Kabilnama which has been specified therein as the third clause. That clause runs thus: 'Condition No. 3, I shall not abuse my wife or beat her and I shall not go to parabash without her permission nor shall I marry again.' The learned Vakil appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended, first, that, although the learned Subordinate Judge has found that the ill-treatment if any, which may be taken to have been proved as having been caused by the husband to the wife does not amount to such cruelty as would entitle the wife to divorce her husband still there should be a findin...
Probodh Chandra Das and anr. Vs. Birsinha Bagani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal350,71Ind.Cas.319
1. The plaintiffs brought this suit to eject the defendants on the allegation that the plaintiffs were raiyats at fixed rates of the land in dispute and, that the defendants were either heirs or transferees of the heirs of one Bolaram Das with whom the under raiyat's settlement had been made. According to the plaintiffs, the original settlement of their superior interest was with Bhagirath. Das. Bhagirath Das was succeeded by Kshetra Mohan and the settlement with the predecessor of the defendants was made by Drabamayee, the widow of Kshetra Mohan. They alleged that Drabamayee could not make a Permanent Settlement, and, therefore, on the death of Bolaram with whom the settlement was made the landlords had the right to recover possession. The defendants contended that the interest of the plaintiffs was that of tenure-holders, and that the Permanent Settlement was made with Beni Madhab, the father of Bolaram, that this settlement created a transferable interest and that the defendants, th...
Naz Rahamad Choudhury and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India Co ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1922
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.74
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of certain plots of land, on the allegation that some of the plots were re formations on their own land, that the remaining plots were accretions to the lands re-formed, and that the defendant No. 1, the Secretary of State, settled the lands with defendants Nos. 2 to 5 disallowing plaintiffs' petition for settlement.2. The Court below gave a decree to the plaintiffs for possession of the portion of the land found to be re-formation of plaintiff's land and dismissed the suit in respect of the portion which was claimed as an accretion. The portion which was found to be re-formation of plaintiffs' land consisted of Dags Nos 6889 and 6890 and portion of 6888, and the claim of the plaintiffs was decreed in respect of such plots. The appeal, therefore, relates to the land situate to the north of Dag No. 6891, and to the west of the northern part of Dag No. 6888 and the land to the west of the Dag No. 6890.3. Cross-objections have been prefer...
Ramani Kanta Roy Vs. Hara Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal162,68Ind.Cas.495
1. This is an appeal against the decree dismissing a suit for rent on the finding that the principal defendant had been dispossessed by the plaintiff landlord from a portion of the holding for which rent is claimed.2. The facts of the case as found are as follows: The holding was originally held by two brothers, Muniram Singh and n(sic)an Chandra Singh. The principal defendant Hara Chandra Das is the son of Maniram; Jnan Chandra had two sons, Padma Singh and Boul Singh, Boul Singh died leaving a son Baishnab Charan and a daughter Brindamoyee Baishnab Charan died leaving Brindamoyee, defendant No. 3, surviving. Padma Singh left a widow, Kanchanmoni, who is defendant No. 2. After the death of Baishnab Charan the plaintiff made a settlement of half of the holding with Kanchanmoni and Brindamcyee. It in found by the lower Appellate Court that the principal defendant, Hara Chandra Das, is new entitled to 12 annas share of the property; but the plaintiff settled 8 annas share with the 2nd an...
Afsar Khan Vs. Shabu Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal148,77Ind.Cas.556
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This Rule was granted to show cause why the decree complained of should not be set aside and such order passed as to this Court might seem fit. The decree complained of was a decree made in consequence of the judgment by the learned Subordinate 4 Judge on the 3rd of August 1921.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover money alleged to have been lent by the plaintiff to the defendant.3. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. The plaintiff then appealed to the learned Subordinate Judge and arguments were presented to the learned Subordinate Judge on the nth and 12th of August 1921. The judgment, as I have already said, was delivered on the 31st of August. By that judgment the learned Subordinate Judge overruled the decision of the Court of first in stance, allowed the appeal, and decreed the suit for Rs. 72 0 plus Rs. 20 as damages. In the judgment the learned Judge discussed the evidence which was given on the one side and the other, and ca...
Ashraf Ali and ors. Vs. Makbul Ahmed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal166,70Ind.Cas.931
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover the sum of Rs. 1,032 to be realized from certain mortgaged property. The contract sued on between the parties was to the following effect. The plaintiffs advanced a sum of Rs; 500 and for this the defendant undertook to re-pay 172 maunds of paddy in the year 1322 and the same amount on the following year, in the month of Falgoon in each year. In default of delivering this paddy, the price was to be charged at Rs. 3 per maund. Both the lower Courts have given the plaintiffs a partial decree. The lower Appellate Court has held that the stipulation was penal under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act and has confirmed the decree of the lower Court allowing 15 per cent. per annum interest.2. In this case there is no suggestion that the defendant acted under any undue influence find the fact that the result of the breach of his contract has been that he has to pay nearly double the amount advanced is in itself no sufficient reason for holding ...
Kirodi NaraIn Basu anr. Vs. Srimati Mrinalini Dasi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal129,69Ind.Cas.785
1. This appeal arises out of an order passed in a partition suit. The plaintiffs sued for partition of certain property alleging that they were the purchasers of 1/4th share. The suit was contested by defendants Nos. 3 to 5 mainly on the ground that their father was the sole owner of the property. The plaintiff's suit was decreed after contest and the plaintiff's title to 1/2th share of the property in suit was declared. It was farther directed that the plaintiff's share should be valued and the defendants Nos. 3 to 5 would then elect either to purchase that share on that valuation or allow the property to be divided. Against that decree defendants Nos. 3 to 5 preferred an appeal to this Court and the plaintiffs-respondents in that appeal took a cross-objection, one of the grounds of which was ' that the option, restricted to defendants Nos. 3 to 5 alone is not in accordance with law.' The appeal was dismissed in this Court; and the cross-objection was not pressed and was accordingly d...
Hara Kumar Mitter Vs. Murari Mohan Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal572,69Ind.Cas.1003
Thomas Richardson, J.1. In my opinion, this Rule should be discharged on the ground that there is no substance in the contention advanced on the petitioner's behalf,; The petitioner brought a suit in ejectment against the opposite parties. The petitioner not appearing when the suit was called on for hearing the suit was dismissed tinder Rule 8 of Order IX. The petitioner then applied under Rule 9 of the same Order for an order setting aside the dismissal. The petitioner again failed to appear at the proper time and application was in its turn dismissed for default. The petitioner then applied to have the dismissal of the previous application set aside. The second application was heard and refused by the learned Munsif in the Court of first instance by an order, dated 5th February 1921. From that order the petitioner appealed. The appeal was heard by a learned Subordinate Judge who dismissed it on the ground that no appeal lay. The petitioner then obtained this Rale sailing upon the opp...
Sued Mahammad HossaIn Chaudhary and anr. Vs. Rabia Khatun Alias Pori B ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal163,68Ind.Cas.467
1. In this suit the arguments, we are told, lasted for some three days in the First Court. It was dismissed as against defendant No. 2 and a decree was made in favour of the plaintiff against defendant No. 1 for the sum mentioned in the Subordinate Judge's judgment. Then it went on appeal to the District Judge and in his Court the arguments, we are told, lasted for four days. The District Judge did not deliver his judgment forthwith bit we are told that he reserved his judgment and had it under consideration for some time. In the result be came to the conclusion that the decree of the First Court should stand. There ore, we have before as a case of judgment it of concurrence as regards the fact.2. It has been argued before us here (and this is the only point, of law in this appeal) that the judgment of the Court, below is not in accord acne with the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code inasmuch as the Court did not assign any reason for its decision. That the le...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »