Kolkata Court May 1922 Judgments
Gopal Chandra Poddar Vs. Dwarika Nath Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal353a,69Ind.Cas.655
1. The superior landlord granted certain lands to the defendant No. 1 partly as a patni and partly as a dar patni tenure. A portion of these lands was held by the defendant No. 4, the appellant before us, as an occupancy raiyat. The patni tenure was sold under Regulation VIII of 1819, for arrears of rent and the superior landlord having purchased it at the sale granted it to the plaintiffs. One-fourth of the dar patni tenure was also sold for arrears of rent, and this fractional share of the dar patni was also purchased by the superior landlord and granted to the plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs brought this suit claiming Khas possession of the land held by defendant No. 4 on the ground that, under the relevant statutory provisions, the landlord had purchased the land free from incumbrances. Both the Courts below have held that the defendant No. 4 not being a khud-khast raiyat or a resident and hereditary cultivator within the meaning of clause third of Section 11 of Regulation VIII of 181...
Tag this Judgment!Akshay Kumar Chand Vs. the Commissioners of Bogra Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1922
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.506
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in. an action in ejectment. The disputed land was the subject-matter of a lease granted by the Chairman of the Municipal Corporation at Bogra to the appellant on the 28th April 1909. The document was registered on the 18th August 1909. The defendant went into occupation of the land and paid rent to the Municipality for a period of six years. On the expiry of the term of the lease the Municipality requested the defendant to vacate the land, but he insisted that the lease included a covenant for renewal which entitled him to continue in occupation. Thereupon the present suit was instituted on the 19th December 1918. The Courts below have decreed the suit on the ground that the lease granted by the Chairman was void, as such lease could have been granted only by the Comissioners at a meeting.2. One of the questions in controversy in the Trial Court was, whether there was in fact a Resolution of the Commissioners at a meeting for the grant of this leas...
Tag this Judgment!Bhairab Chandra Dutta and ors. Vs. Kali Kumar Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal606,71Ind.Cas.453
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for partition against an order for re-trial of the matters in controversy. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs in the primary Court on the allegation that the land had been previously partitioned by metes and bounds and that they and their predecessors had been in separate possession for more than a century. The Subordinate Judge held in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit. Upon appeal the plaintiffs asked for permission to adduce in evidence an entry in the Record of Rights which had been finally published on the 5th August 1919, long after the decree of dismissal had been made by the Trial Court on the 10th August 1918. The District Judge came to the conclusion that before the matters in difference were finally decided, the entry in the Record of Rights should be taken into account. In this view he allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the Court of first instance and directed a re-trial of the suit wit...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Profulla Kumar Mazumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal453,74Ind.Cas.267
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Reference under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Second Additional Sessions Judge of Dacca in a case in which two persons, Manindra Kumar Sen and Profulla Kumar Mazumdar were charged with murder. The name of the man who is alleged to have been murdered was Mukunda Lal Goon, and I do not suppose that any one who has read the evidence in this case, has any doubt that Mukunda Lal Goon was, in fact, murdered. The Jury were unanimous in their verdict which runs as follows:We think Manindra not guilty: but we think there is a doubt in the case of Profulla, and that he should get the benefit of the doubt.2. The learned Judge accepted the unanimous verdict of the Jury that Manindra was not guilty: he found that this accused was not guilty and he directed him to be acquitted and released from custody.3. With regard to Profulla, the learned Judge disagreed with the verdict of the Jury, and referred the case for the decision of the High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Saradindu Chakravarti Vs. Gosta Behari Pramanick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal302,75Ind.Cas.196
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by defendant No. 4. The plaintiff's case is that the predecessors of defendants Nos. 1--3 executed a mortgage in his favour in 1310 B.S.; he then brought a suit on the mortgage against the representatives of the mortgagors, and against the defendant No. 4 as a purchaser, in 1898 and in execution of his decree caused the property to be sold in 1909, when it was brought by Parameswar Ghose, father of defendants Nos. 5, 7, and servant of the plaintiff, as benamida for the plaintiff. It is beyond doubt that there was such a mortgage, that the plaintiff obtained a decree and that the property was bought by Parameswar.2. The plaintiff went on to say that the father of the defendants Nos. 1--3 then entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, by which the defendants were to pay off the plaintiff's dues by the end of 1322 B.S., meanwhile remaining in possession, and in default the plaintiff was to take khas possession after the end of 1322 B.S. The defe...
Tag this Judgment!Bhairab Chandra Dutt and ors. Vs. Kali Kumar Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1922
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.1038
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for partition against an order for re-trial of the matters in controversy. The defendants resisted the claim, of the plaintiffs his the primary Court on the allegation that the land had been previously partitioned by metes and bounds and that they and their predecessors had been in separate possession for more, than a century. The Subordinate Judge held in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit. Upon appeal the plaintiffs asked for permission to adduce in evidence an entry in the Record of Rights which had been finally published on the 5th August 1919 long after the decree of dismissal had been made by the Trial Court on the 10th August 1918. The District Judge came to the conclusion that before the matters in difference were finally decided, the entry in the Record of Rights should be taken into account. In this view, he allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the Court of first instance and directed a re-trial of the suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Aziz and ors. Vs. Lakhmi Chandra Majumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1922
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.545
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for cancellation of a sale held under the putni Regulation. The suit was decreed in the Court of first instance, Upon appeal by the two zemindars, that judgment was reversed and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs thereupon appealed to this Court. They joined as respond-ts three sets of persons, viz, (i) the auction-purchaser; (ii) the two zemindars, and (iii) the persons alleged to be joint tenant in the putni. During the pendency the appeal in this Court, Sarat Chandra Ghose, the executor to the estate of Saraswati Debi, one of the zemindar respondents, ed on the 10th June 1916. The plaintiffs, is now asserted, were not aware of this circumstance and the auction purchaser also the other zemindar respondent were eqally ignorant of the event. The result as that on the 31st Jan friary 1917 when i.e appeal was taken up for final disposal this Court, the hearing proceeded on the assumption that all the parties were properly presented on ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Sadaq Reza, Chairman, Murshidabad Municipality Vs. Khoshmohini Da ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.346
Thomas Richardson, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Murshidabad, dated the 25th November 1919, affirming the decree of the Subordinate Judge, dated the 18th September 1918. The plaintiffs in the suit were, originally, the father, the mother, the widow and the minor daughter of the deceased Charu Krishna Dutta whose death was caused by an accident attributed to the negligence of the Murshidabad Municipality.2. The claim was under Act XIII of 1855 for a lump sum of Rs. 1,020 as damages on that account, the plaintiffs asserting that the deceased had maintained them. The suit having been dismissed, the High Court directed a re-trial. Pending the second trial the father of the deceased died. The Courts below have now, by concurrent decrees, apportioned the entire sum claimed among the three surviving plaintiffs. The appellant is the defendant, the Chairman of the Murshidabad Municipality.3. It appears that in the town of Murshidabad there is an ol...
Tag this Judgment!Umarannessa Nnessa Bibi Vs. Jamirannessa Bibi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal362,76Ind.Cas.448
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration that a conveyance executed by her on the 18th February 1916 was void and inoperative. The case for the plaintiff is that it had been represented to her that the document was a deed of mortgage and that on the faith of this representation she affixed her signature thereto. She has since discovered that the document is in reality a conveyance. She further alleges that, notwithstanding the execution of the document and the delivery of the deed to the defendant, she is still in possession. In the Court of first instance, a Question was raised, whether a suit of this description could be regarded as a suit for a declaratory decree and whether Rs. 10 was the proper Court-fee payable on the plaint. The Trial Court answered this question in favour of the plaintiff, but on the merits dismissed the suit. Upon appeal, the District Judge has not considered the merits of the case, but has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Saran Singh Vs. Chandra Mohun Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal386,71Ind.Cas.222
Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a Rule issued by my learned brothers Mr. Justice Walmsley and Mr. Justice Suhrawardy calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the period of the sanction should not be extended.2. The rule was granted on the 3rd April 1922, on an application supported by an affidavit which was affirmed on the 27th February, 1922.3. It appears that the petitioner instituted a suit against one Chandra Mohun Saha and others for rent. It was tried by the Subordinate Judge of Comilla, who gave judgment in favour of the petitioner. Certain rent-receipts had been put in evidence by the defendants and the learned Judge held that the rent-receipts were forgeries. An application was made by the petitioner to the learned Judge for sanction to prosecute the defendants and some of their witnesses under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and on the 13th of June, 1921, sanction was given by the learned Subordinate Judge. An application to revoke the sanction was then mad...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »