Kolkata Court May 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.
Hara Prasanna Bandopadya Vs. Arab Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal353
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant whose name is Hara Prasanna Bandopadya. The respondent, Sabdar Ali Choukidar, who does not appear, was one of the defendants in the suit brought by Hara Prasanna some years ago. That suit was eventually made over to arbitrators on the application of Sabdar Ali and some, but not all, of the other defendants. The decision of the arbitrators was against Sabdar Ali. He made an objection to the award, but that was dismissed for default. He made another objection in the course of execution proceedings. That was also rejected. Now, he has brought the suit, out of which this appeal arises, to have the award set aside, and the Courts below have set it aside on the ground that three of the defendants in the original suit, that is to say, Nos. 5, 6 and 7, were not parties to the application for reference to arbitration. In support of this view both Courts have referred to several decisions of this Court, one of them is the case reported as ...
Hara Prasanna Bandopadhya Vs. Arab Ali and on His Death Two of His Hei ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.326
1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant whose name is Hara Prasanna Bandopadya. The respondent, Sabdar Ali Choukidar, who does not appear, was one of the defendants in the suit brought by Hara Prasanna some years ago. That suit was eventually made over to arbitrators on the application of Sabdar Ali and some, but not all, of the other defendants. The decision of the arbitrators was against Sabdar Ali. He made an objection to the award but that was dismissed for default. He made another objection in the course of execution proceedings. That was also rejected. Now, he has brought the suit, out of which this appeal arises, to have the award set aside and the Courts below have set it aside on the ground that three of the defendants in the original suit, that is to say, Nos. 5, 6 and 7, were not parties to the application for reference to arbitration. In support of this view both Courts have referred to several decisions of this Court, one of them is the case reported as Girija Nath Ro...
Kedar Nath Sadhukhan and ors. Vs. Madhu Sudan Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal682,75Ind.Cas.105
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for ejectment. The case for the plaintiffs was, that the defendants held as tenants and that they are tenancy which was of a terminable character had been duly terminated by the service of notice to quit. The Court of first instance held that the tenancy was permanent and dismissed the suit. Upon appeal the Subordinate Judge has held that the tenancy was terminable and had been duly terminated before the institution of this suit. On the present appeal, the conclusion of the Subordinate Judge upon each of the two points in controversy has been assailed on behalf of the appellant.2. As regards the nature of the tenancy, the Subordinate Judge has found that the tenants have been in occupation for more than 40 years, and that during this period the rent has been paid at a uniform rate. The Subordinate judge however, has held that long possession and uniform payment of rent are not by themselves suffiicent to justify the finding that the tena...
FaijuddIn and ors. Vs. Asrab Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal670,70Ind.Cas.570
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title. The Trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal that judgment was reversed. On second appeal to this Court the case was remanded to the lower Appellate Court for re-consideration. After remand, the District Judge adhered to the opinion previously expressed by him, with the result that the suit 1ms been dismissed. On the present appeal, the plaintiffs have contended that the decision of the District Judge is erroneous, as he has excluded from consideration a lease granted on the 7th April 1883 on the ground that the document, though compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, had not been duly registered.2. Section 17 provides that a lease of immoveable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent shall be compulsorily registrable. The question for consideration, consequently, is, whether the document now befor...
Suradhani Dutta and anr. Vs. Sitoo Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal311,71Ind.Cas.377
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery o possession of certain parcels of land on the allegation that the plaintiffs got a decree in respect of them in 1908 but from which the defendants subsequently dispossessed them. The facts are that in 1908 the plaintiffs brought a suit against the defendants and other persons for recovery of 4 pakis of land measured according to the standard called Nalkarsha rod. In that litigation they finally got a decree for 3 pakis of land according to that measurement, namely, Nalkarsha measurement. They put that decree in execution when a Commissioner was appointed by the Executing Court to deliver possession to the plaintiffs. The Commissioner felt some difficulty in regard to the measurement to be applied and the plaintiffs set up a Patlai rod of 14 cubits 1 inch, while the defendants set up the Nalkarsha of 13 cubits. The Commissioner made a compromise with the consent of the parties by which the length of the rod was fixed somewh...
Gora Chand Haldar and anr. Vs. Rakhal Chandra Gope and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal364,72Ind.Cas.37
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent on the allegation that the rent is livable in kind. The tenant defendants urged that rent was payable not in kind but in cash, and in support of this contention they relied upon a mutation order made by an Assistant Settlement Officer on the 17th July 1922, and amended on the 2nd September 1922. The plaintiffs thereupon assailed the validity of the mutation order on a variety of grounds. The Court of first instance came to the conclusion that the order was ultra vires and afforded no defence to the claim. Upon appeal the District Judge has held that rent has been validly commuted by an order under Section 40 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which cannot be successfully impeached by the appellants. On the present appeal, we are invited to consider which of these conflicting views is correct.2. It is plain from the materials on the record that no notice of the -application for commutation was served upon the plain...
Hari Ram Singh Choudhury Vs. Ram Ram Singh Choudhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal444,75Ind.Cas.218
John Woodroffe, J.1. A preliminary objection was raised in this appeal as to its competency. It has been contended that the appeal is directed against an order re fusing an application for a review, that is taking it that the Probate was granted by the Court on the 7th of August 1920. It is not necessary, in my opinion, to decide that point because I think the appeal fails upon the second ground.2. The appellant is a son of the testator, one Gobinda Sundar Singh Choudhury. The respondent also is another son. These two sons were appointed executors under the Will of their father. There were also other persons executor and executrix. An application for probate was made by the respondent, Ram Ram Singh, on the 8th June 1920. On the 12th June 1920 the application was registered and notice was directed to issue to the persons named in the order of that date requesting them either to renounce the executorship or to join in the application On the 3rd July an application was made by the appell...
Annapurna Debya Vs. Amiyanath Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal307,68Ind.Cas.482
1. This is an appeal by the fourth defendant in a suit for partition of joint family properties. Girish Chandra, Banerjee, the founder of the family, is alleged to have made a testamentary, disposition on the 24th November 1899, shortly before his death. He left, as his survivors, his widow, Golapmani, and three sons, Haripada, Tarapada and Ham Chandra. He directed that his properties should be taken in four equal shares by his widow and his three sons, subject to the, reservation that his widow would not be, competent to sell or make a gift of her one-fourth share. The eldest son, Haripada, died on the 19th June 1916, leaving a widow, Annapurna, and three daughters. The second son, Tarapada, has a son Amiya. On the 2nd August 19(sic)9, Golapmani, Lie widow of the testator, instituted the present suit for partition of the estate left by her, husband, She alleged that her daughter-in-law, Annapurna, had taken in adoption her grandson, Amiya, with the consequence that the share in the fa...
Nehar Bewa and anr. Vs. Kador Bakas Mohammed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1922
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.282
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of possession upon establishment of title. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. Upon appeal that decision has been revered by the subordinate Judge. We are unable to affirm the decision of the Subordinate Judge as not liable to be successfully challenged in second appeal. There are two points which have been urged against the judgment on behalf of the appellant. In the first place, it has been contended that there is no clear and definite finding upon the question of title. The property stood originally in the name of Bhedu, one of three brothers (Bhedu, Saidu, and Kanu). One side affirmed that although the property stood in the name of Bhedu it was owned by all the three brothers. Another side asserted that Kanu bad no interest in the property so that after the death of Bhedu the property, passed to Saidu and after his death to Kalua, the predecessor in interest of the defendants Upon this fundamental question of t...
Surendra Nath Chatterjee Vs. Sivadas Mookerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal182,69Ind.Cas.867
1. This appeal is directed against an order of dismissal made on an application for Probate of a Will and codicil alleged to have been executed on the 24th June 1916, by Rai Bahadur Krishnamohan Mookerjee, formerly a member of the Provincil Judicial Service. Mookerjee executed a Will on the 24th November 1914. On the 24th June 1916 he executed a second Will which stated explicitly that all previous Wills, if any, were thereby cancelled. On the same date he executed another document described as a codicil. On the 14th April 1918 he executed two deeds of gift, one in favour of his five daughters Saraswati, Lilabati, Satyabati, Kamala and Dargamani, the other in favour of Probodh Chandra Chatterjee, the only son of his daughter Kamala. The former of these two deeds of gift refers to the Will End codicil executed on the' 24th June 1916 and cancels ' the said Will-' On the date of execution of the deeds of gift, the second Will is alleged to have been partially torn and thrown away, Mookerj...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »