Kolkata Court July 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.
Srepat Singh and anr. Vs. Ram Sarap Surya Prasad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1922
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.583
Thomas Richardson, J.1. These are two appeals from two orders made in the course of insolvency proceedings by the District Judge or Murshidabad in the following circumstances:--The late Chatrapat Singh was adjudicated an insolvent by an order of the Privy Council, dated the 20th November 1916. On the 2nd August, 1917. the District Judge made an order appointing Babu Promatha Nath Chakraburty Receiver of the insolvent's estate Chatrapat died on the 15th April, 1018, and the appellants in these appeals are his sons Srepat Singh and Jagatpat Singh, the respondents being the Receiver whose name I have mentioned and certain creditors of the estate. On the 26th May 1910, the District Judge, on an application by the appellants to be made parties to the proceedings, held that they had no title or interest to come in as parties. That order was subsequently revered on appeal by the High Court by an order dated the 19th May 1920, and since then the names of the appellants have appeared as parties...
Jobeda Khatun Vs. Tulshi Charan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal82,77Ind.Cas.564
1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of land, with mesne profits, on declaration of title. The disputed properly is a tenure situated in the eastern suburbs of Calcutta and held on payment of revenue to the Secretary of State. Tae holders of the tenure defaulted, with the result that it was sold on the 18th February 1902; for recovery of arrears of revenue, under Act XI of 1859. The plaintiff became the purchaser at that sale for a sum of Rs. 1,900, and his purchase took effect from the 29th June 190I, that is from the date when the last proprietor had defaulted. The sale was confirmed on the 2nd May 1902, the sale certificate was granted on the 21st June 1902 and the property was delivered to the purchaser on the 1st June 1903, by beat of drum in the customary manner. The property was in the occupation of tenants, and the case for the plaintiff is that for some years after his purchase he was in possession by receipt of rent from them, but t...
Fanindra Nath Roy Vs. Bhola Dassi Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1922
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.402
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court, Burdwan in reference to an application under Section 47 and Order XXI, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the judgment-debtor, Phanindra Nath Roy. It appears that one Trailokya Nath Banerjee had obtained a decree against the judgment-debtor, and Bhola Dassi Debi, who is one of his daughters, desired to execute the decree and the judgment-debtor objected that she had no title to execute the decree and further argued that the amount of the decree had been paid with the exception of a small sum of about Rs. 50.2. The main question in the appeal, namely, whether Bhola Dassi Debi was competent to execute the decree, depends upon a deed of gift which was executed by her father on the 12th Magh 1325 B.S. The learned Subordinate Judge held, upon the construction of this deed, that the debt due from the judgment-debtor under the decree was assigned by the donor to his daughter and h...
BepIn Behari Ghose Vs. Hari Pada Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal538,71Ind.Cas.53
1. In this case the opposite party was charged with having committed offences under Sections 109, 477 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. There was an order of commitment committing the opposite party to take his trial in the Sessions Court. The Public Prosecutor at the outset of the trial informed the learned Sessions Judge that he had been instructed after consultation with the District Magistrate to withdraw the case against the opposite party. The learned Sessions Judge thereupon recorded an order to the effect that on perusing the record he found little or nothing in the way of proof against the accused and under these circumstances he allowed the withdrawal of the case against the opposite party under the provision of Section 494, Criminal Procedure Code.2. On behalf of one Bepin Behari Ghose, Mr. Mukherjee has applied to this Court to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge (which order amounted to an order of acquittal) and has asked that this Court sh...
ishan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Monmotha Nath Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal339,71Ind.Cas.611
1. This is a Rule calling on the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal and the opposite party to show cause why the order of the learned President, dated the 26th April 1922, should not be set aside, or such other and further order made as to this Court may seem fit.2. The facts, which have given rise to this application shortly stated, are as follows: The petitioner before us is a tenant in premises 64 and 64-1 of Garpar Road within the limits of Calcutta as defined in the Calcutta Rent Act. He was let into possession of four rooms and a kitchen sometime in November 1918, the rent payable by him being a sum of Rs. 15 per month. It is stated that in February 1920 this rent was enhanced to Rs. 26 a month, and that in February 1922 a further demand for a further enhancement was made by the landlord but it was refused by the petitioner. The result of the refusal on the part of the petitioner to pay farther enhanced rent was that the petitioner's landlord, namely, the opposite par...
Kishori Mohan Pal Vs. Provash Chandra Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal351,72Ind.Cas.646
Richardson, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff arising out of an application for the execution of the decree made in a suit for partition. The respondents who have appeared are four of the defendants in the suit. They are described in the application as judgment-creditors while the plaintiff and the remaining defendants are described as judgment-debtors. The decree bears date the 25th March, 1914. The application was made on the 21st July, 1920, more than six years later. The only question is whether execution is barred by limitation. No previous application for execution having been made, the period of limitation provided by Article 182 of the Limitation Act is three years from the date of the decree. The words are plain and unambiguous and prima facie this application is out of time.2. Under the Stamp Act of 1899 a decree for partition is chargeable with duty to the amount prescribed by Article 45 of Schedule I of the Act, and the expense of providing the proper stamp is to be b...
Kamala Kanta and ors. Vs. Ananda Chandra Chakraburty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal357
1. This appeal is by the plaintiff's and it arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage by conditional sale dated the 4th Jaistha 1304 B.S. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that the document which purported to be a deed of mortgage was really a deed of sale, and upon that it was held that the plaintiffs had no right to redeem the mortgage. The Subordinate Judge on appeal, although he held that oral evidence was not admissible for the purpose of showing that the deed was really a deed of sale, though in the form of a mortgage, was of opinion that evidence of the acts and conduct of parties was admissible to show that the document was really not what it purported to be, that is, that it was not a mortgage but really a sale. That such evidence is not admissible between parties to the document has been definitely laid down by the Judicial Committee in the case of Maung Kyin v. Ma Shwe La A.I.R. 1917 P.C. 207. The learned Subordinate Judge refers to this cas...
Abinas Chandra Das and anr. Vs. Majub Ali Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal461,70Ind.Cas.273
1. These twenty-one appeals arise out of as many applications, made by landlords under sections 105 and 105A of the Bengal Tenancy Act, for settlement of fair and equitable rent in respect of the lands held by their tenants. In the Record of Rights, as finally published, entries had been made to the effect that each tenure was held at a fixed rate of rent. The tenants accordingly contended that the rents were not liable to enhancement. The Assistant Settlement Officer gave effect to this contention, subject to the reservation that excess lands were liable to be assessed with additional rent. Upon appeal, the Special Judge has reversed this decision, and has assessed fair and equitable rent, inasmuch as the tenures were, in his opinion, not held at rates of rent fixed in perpetuity. In this Court, the decision of the special Judge has been assailed on a fourfold ground, namely, first, that upon a true construction of the grant in each case, it should have been held that the tenure was h...
Kamala Kanta and ors. Vs. Annanda Chandra Chakraburtty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.1030
1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage by conditional sale dated the 4th Jaisiha 1304 B.S. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that the document which purported to be a deed of mortgage was really a deed of sale and upon that it was held that the plaintiffs had no right to redeem the mortgage. The Subordinate Judge on appeal, although he held that oral evidence was not admissible for the purpose of showing that the deed was really a deed of sale, though in the form of a mortgage, was of opinion that evidence of the acts and conduct of parties was admissible to show that the document was really not what it purported to be, that is, that it was not a mortgage but really a sale. That such evidence is not admissible between parties to the document has been definitely laid down by the Judicial Committee in the case of Maung Kyin v. Ma Shwe La 42 Ind. Cas. 642 : 44 I.A. 236 : 22 C.W.N. 257 : 15 A.L.J. 825 : 33 M.L....
Major A.Y. Reily Vs. Golap Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal645,72Ind.Cas.38
1. This Rule was directed against an order passed under Order XXI, Rule 29, Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner obtained a decree against the opposite party and in execution fealized a part of the decretal amount. He again applied for execution of the decree and the opposite party, therefore, set up an agreement for satisfaction of the decree. The alleged satisfaction of the decree, however, was not notified to the Court of execution within the time allowed and that Court accordingly refused to recognise the satisfaction of the decree. A suit was, therefore, instituted by the opposite party for declaration that the rent-decree had been fully satisfied and for a perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner from executing the decree and also for a temporary injunction. There was a further grayer that it might be declared that the petitioner was bound to refund a certain amount deposited by the plaintiff.2. The Court below has held that a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »