Kolkata Court June 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.
J. and D. Eziekeil, Carrying Business Under the Name and Style of Ezek ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal35,70Ind.Cas.794
1. The subject-matter of the litigation which hat led up to this appeal is a small tract of land situated in the town of Chittagong, and included in a larger area purchased by the plaintiff-respondent from the Chittagong Municipality on the 19th December 1913. The defendants-appellants disputed the title of the plaintiff as also of the Municipality, which, it was alleged, had acquired the property under the Land Acquisition Act. The Court of first instance found against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge has reversed that decision and decreed the suit. On the present appeal, the decree of the Subordinate Judge has been assailed substantially on two grounds, namely, first, that assuming that the Municipality had acquired a good title to the land by virtue of proceedings regularly taken in respect thereof under the Land Acquisition Act such title has not been transferred to the plaintiff by a deed executed and registered in conformity with the provis...
Haridas Ghose Mridha and anr. Vs. Gouri Charan Ghose Mridha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal359a,71Ind.Cas.309
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for establishment of a right of easement to pass over the land of the defendants as well as the right to pass water over it. The Court of first instance made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. On appeal by the defendants, the judgment has been reversed by the Subordinate Judge. The plaintiffs appeal to this Court, and their appeal is only with regard to the right of way, as it is admitted that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge as regards the right of passage of water is conclusive as a question of fact.2. The main contention of the plaintiffs is that the Subordinate Judge has fallen into an error in deciding the case, as he was of opinion that, if there was not a regular or defined pathway over the waste land of the defendants which is said to be the servient tenement, no right of easement can be acquired by the dominant owner. It is contended on the other hand, by the respondents that this appeal is concluded by the findi...
Gopal Chandra Pal Vs. Kadambini Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal364
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for partition of joint property. The plaintiff and the first defendant are two brothers, and this litigation was commenced by the plaintiff for division of the properties jointly held by them. Subsequently, the third defendant, the widow of another brother of the plaintiff and the first defendant, who is now dead, was joined as a defendant. The husband of this lady died during the lifetime of the father of the plaintiff, and consequently never became entitled to the properties of his father. The lady claimed that provision might be made in the decree for her maintenance. The District Judge has given effect to this contention : and the only point in controversy in this appeal is, whether provision should be made for her maintenance in the decree for partition. Three points have been raised before us; namely, first, that the added defendant has no right of maintenance as against the estate received by her brother-in-law from their father; s...
Dhorendra Krishna Mukherjee Vs. Mohendra Nath Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.869
1. This is an appeal by the third defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of land upon establishment of title. The plaintiff alleged that the disputed property had been sold on the 2nd September 1907 under the Public Demands Recovery Act, although there were no arrears due in respect of the land he consequently prayed for recovery of possession from the representatives-in-interest of the purchaser at the sale. The Courts below have decreed the suit. That decree has been assailed before us on the ground that the suit was barred under Section 36 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. This argument is based on the assumption that the right of the plaintiff to institute the present suit is regulated by the provisions of a Statute which was not in existence when his property was brought to sale. There can be no question that this contention cannot be supported on principle, and, as we shall presently see, is opposed to well known authorities.2. The sale was unquestionably held wit...
Moydhannessa Bibi and anr. Vs. Satis Chandra Giri and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal435,70Ind.Cas.895
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for a declaration that a solenama entered into between the second plaintiff and the defendant, and the decree for rent based thereon, were fraudulent and illegal. The defendant claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 40-13 which was entered in a petition of compromise and which was filed before the Revenue Officer on the 1st March 1910. The plaintiffs contended that the rent was payable at the rate of Rs. 28 which is entered as the fair and equitable rent in the finally published Record of Rights. The Court of first instance decided in favour of the plaintiffs. The lower Appellate Court reversed that decision. On second appeal to this Court the case wag remanded for further consideration. After remand, the Subordinate Judge has adhered to his previous decision. We have consequently to consider whether the rent is payable at the rate of Rs. 40-13, as claimed by the defendant, or at the rate of Rs. 28, as claimed by the plaint...
Dwarka Nath Sen and ors. Vs. Tara Prassanno Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal356,76Ind.Cas.328
Thomas Richardson, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, the appellant before us, to establish his right of way over certain land and to obtain the removal of certain alleged obstructions to that way for which the principal defendants are said to be responsible. The parties are co-sharers of the homestead in respect of which the question arises. The plaintiff's house is on the north of the inner courtyard. The house of Tara Prasanno Sen, the original defendant No. 1, is on the east and the house of Surendra Chandra Sen, the original defendant No. 2, is on the south. The plaintiff's case is, that from this inner courtyard two ways or passages lead in an easterly or southeasterly direction towards he plaintiff's Bahirbari and the public road. The facts are stated in the judgment of the learned District Judge as follows:--'In the year 1303 the appellant's father (that is, the father of the defendant No. 1) commenced the erection of the mud-walled house marked I i...
Reshee Case Law Vs. Bhuban Mohan Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal361
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff landlord in a suit under Section 106, Bengal Tenancy Act, for correction of an entry made in the record-of-rights. In the record-of-rights the defendant is entered as holder of a permanent tenure held under a fixed rent. The tenancy is governed by the terms of a lease granted by Rajah Prithwi Ballabh Pal to Kadem Ali on the 16th February, 1862. The Courts below have come to divergent conclusions as to the true construction of this document. The trial Court held that the rent was not intended to be fixed in perpetuity. The lower Appellate Court has held that rent was fixed in perpetuity. The case now before us bears some resemblance to that of Raja Reshee Case Law v. Satish Chandra Paul A.I.R. 1922 Cal. 123. There, as here, the document was written in Ooriya character, possibly by a half literate scribe. The language of the document is a mixture of Bengali, Urdu and Ooriya. The document states, in the first place, the different classes of land, thei...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Raj Kumar Mukherjee an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal585,77Ind.Cas.1025,82Ind.Cas.69
Thomas William Richardson, J.1. By our order, dated 26th January, 1922, Rule No. 515 of 1921 Raj Kumar Mookerjee v. W.J. Godfrey (1922) A.I.R. (C.) 196, was made absolute on the footing that the amount standing to the credit of W.J. Godfrey in the State Railway Provident Institution was attachable at the instance of the then petitioner, Raj Kumar Mukherjee, in execution of a decree for money which he had obtained against Godfrey in the Sealdah Court of Small Causes. Inasmuch, however, as the rule was unopposed, there being no appearance for Godfrey and the Administrator of the Fund, to whom no notice of the Rule had been given, not being represented, liberty was expressly reserved to the latter to come in and move to have the order discharged. In pursuance of the liberty so reserved, the present Rule was obtained on behalf of the Secretary of State for India. At the hearing, the learned Advocate-General appeared for the present petitioner, the Secretary of State, and the learned Vakil,...
Ali Mohammed and ors. Vs. Sheikh Katu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.263
Thomas Richardson, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Sylhet, dated the 19th June 1919 reversing the decree of the Munsif of Maulvi Bafcar, dated the 15th March 1918. The plaintiffs in the suit claimed on behalf of themselves and other inhabitants of the villages of Narainpasha, Paschim Atghur and Jatrapur a right of way leading, roughly, from these villages on the north to a tract of land on the south, known as Hail Hoar, which the learned Munsif describes as 'the public pasture ground.' The plaintiffs duly obtained the leave of the Court to bring the suit under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the order we are about to make, by which the case will be remanded to the lower Appellate Court, I desire to intimate at once that nothing which I may say in the course of this judgment is intended to express any opinion at all on the merits one way or the other.2. The controversy relates to the southern part of the way which the plainti...
Arjun Chandra Bhadra Vs. Kailas Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal149,70Ind.Cas.532
Thomas Richardson, J.1. This is a second appeal. The plaintiff who is the appellant before use seeks to recover the amount due under a bond purporting to create a simple mortgage as security for a loan made by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaint was filed more than six years but less than twelve years after the date fixed for repayment.2. The, Trial Court, holding that the transaction was fraudulent and collusive and without jurisdiction, dismissed the suit.3. The learned Subordinate Judge in the lower Appellate Court found on the evidence that there was consideration for the bond and that it was not a fraudulent and collusive document. Re was of opinion, however, that there was no reliable evidence to show that the bond was executed in the presence of two attesting witnesses and he accordingly confirmed the Munsif's decree of dismissal.4. It appears that at the hearing in the Trial Court before any witnesses were examined, the defendant admitted his own signature on the bond bu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »