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.
Jadu Gopal Kundu Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Gopal Chandra Nandi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal541,69Ind.Cas.44
1. We are of opinion that the appellant ought not to be allowed to take a point which was expressly abandoned in the Court below. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Nabadwip Chandra Nandi and anr. Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal609,79Ind.Cas.218
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for cancellation of a certificate made under the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, for recovery of the sum paid in satisfaction thereof and for an injunction to restrain the Secretary of State for India in Council from making and enforcing similar certificates in furture.2. The case for the plaintiffs is that on the 7th March 1917, a certificate was made against them for Rs. 40-3 on account of peshkush in respect of land situated in Mouza Mouhati, Hudda Sham Chok, Peruana Koormal, within the jurisdiction of the Court at Contai. The plaintiffs preferred an objection before the Revenue Authorities on the 30th May 1917, which was summarily rejected without investigation. Thereupon the plaintiff were constrained to pay the sum claimed on the 5th July 1917, when their goods were attached in execution of the certificate. The substance of the contention of the plaintiffs is that the sum claimed as peshkush is not legally recoverable from them....
Sashi Bhusan Jha Vs. Shaikh Ahmadullah Chaudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1922
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.1005
John Woodroffe, J.1. One of the grounds taken in this appeal is that set out in the 8th paragraph of the memorandum of appeal. It is urged that the Court of Appeal below has omitted to some to a finding whether the' holding (assuming, though not admitting, it to be an occupancy holding), is or is not transferable by custom as alleged by the defendant and that in the absence of a definite finding upon this point the decree for ejectment is wrong and liable to be set aside. The point was undoubtedly dealt with by the Court of first instance, the judgment of which states (after finding that the plaintiff gave no permission to purchase the holding), that it was fir the defendant to prove the alleged custom and usage with regard to transfer. It holds that he has failed to discharge that onus of proof, that his witnesses did not carry conviction and that the defendant's evidence does not establish that the Zemindars are bound to recognize the transferee as a tenant whenever nazrana is paid. ...
Jogesh Chandra Ghose and ors. Vs. Prosanna Kumar Talukdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal395,71Ind.Cas.962
Woodroffe, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises, the plaintiff, who is the respondent in the appeal, prayed for a decree, declaring that the plaintiff and the co-sharer defendants had nim-howla right in the disputed lands specified in the Schedule Kha, and that they had a right to realize rent from tenants under them. The conclusion of the Court as regards the contention is that he cannot hold that the lands in suit appertain to the nim-howla of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 7 and the settlement records show that they do not appertain to the nim-howla. The Court then says that the presumptive value of these records is considerable, and, therefore, the Court decides this point in favour of the then appellants to this extent, that the lands in suit do not appertain to the nim-howla of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 7. This is the subject-matter of the cross-objection before us. I think the cross-objection fails on the ground that the conclusion is one of fact...
Jamini Mohan Sarkar and ors. Vs. Debendra NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal355
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of possession of land on establishment of title. The plaintiffs are the representatives-in-interest of the reversionary heir to the husband of a Hindu widow, Rani Nilkumari Debi, who was at one time in possession of the estate. On the 26th October, 1869, she granted a permanent lease at a fixed rent to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant. The plaintiffs contend that this lease was granted in excess of her authority as a Hindu widow in possession of the estate of her husband, and that they are consequently entitled to recover possession by ejectment of the defendant. The defendant resisted the claim on a two fold ground, namely, first, that the lease granted on the 26th October, 1869, was a fair transaction binding upon the estate in the hands of the reversioners after the death of the lady and, secondly, that if the lease ceased to be operative upon the death of the lady, he was entitled to fall back upon another le...
Rajendra Narayan Chaudhury Vs. Khan Bahadur Moulvi Abu Nasar Ahiya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.327
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant No. 3 and it arises out of a suit for rent brought by the plaintiff under the following circumstances. One Abdur Rahman was the Zemindar of a certain estate. He granted a putni lease of the entire 16-annas of the property to the predecessor of the defendants sometime in 1881. Subsequently, one Bhuban Babu acquired an interest in 1-anna share of the Zemindary in 1895. After acquiring this interest, he created a putni in respect of this 1-anna share in favour of a lady Amatul Fatima Banu. Sometime after that, Bhuban Babu sold the interest of Amatul Fatima Banu under Regulation VIII of 1819 and it was purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has now sued the defendants for rent of the putni to the extent of 1-anna share.2. The defendant No. 3 alone contests the plaintiff's claim and he denies the relationship of landlord and tenant and contends that the plaintiff as acquired no interest in the property entitling him to recover rent from hi...
Jamini Mohan Sarkar and ors. Vs. Debendra Narayan Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.976
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of possession of land on establishment of title. The plaintiffs are the representatives-in-interest of the reversionary heir to the husband of a Hindu widow, Rani Nilkumari Debi, who was at one time in possession of the estate. On the 26th October 1869, she granted a permanent lease at a fixed rent to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant. The plaintiffs contend that this lease was granted in excess of her authority as a Hindu widow in possession of the estate of her husband, and that they are consequently entitled to recover possession by ejectment of the defendant. The defendant resisted the claim on a twofold ground, namely, first, that the lease granted on the 26th October 1869 was a fair transaction binding upon the estate in the hands of the reversioners after the death of the lady; and, secondly, that if the lease ceased to be operative upon the death of the lady, he was entitled to fall back upon another lease...
Rajani Kanta Ghose and ors. Vs. Sheikh Rahman Gazi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal408
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The defendants denied the relationship of landlord and tenant during the years in claim. They urged in substance that the title of the plaintiffs had been extinguished as the result of a sale held in execution of a decree passed in a suit instituted under Section 148-A of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The Court of first instance gave effect to this contention and dismissed the suit. Upon appeal the decree of the primary Court has been affirmed by the District Judge. On second appeal it has been argued that the question of title of the plaintiffs is res judicata in view of a decree made on the 29th April, 1915, in a previous suit between the parties. This view has been rejected by both the Courts below. It is not necessary to examine in detail the scope of the earlier suit because we have arrived at the conclusion that the question now in controversy was not directly and substantially in issue in ...
Rajani Kanta Ghose and ors. Vs. Sheikh Rahaman Gazi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1922
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.507
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The defendants denied the relationship of landlord and tenant during the years in claim. They urged in substance that the title of the plaintiffs had been extinguished as the result of a sale held in execution of a decree passed in a suit instituted under Section 148A of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The Court of first instance gave effect to this contention and dismissed the suit. Upon appeal the decree of the primary Court has been affirmed by the District Judge. On second appeal it has been argued that the question of title of the plaintiffs in res judicata in view of a decree made on the 29th April 1915 in a previous suit between the parties. This view has been rejected by both the Courts below. It is not necessary to examine in detail the scope of the earlier suit because we have arrived at the conclusion that the question now in controversy was not directly and substantially in issue in the previous lit...
Emperor Vs. Rajani Kanta Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal106,72Ind.Cas.22
1. This is a reference under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act in the matter of Babu Rajani Kanta Ghose, Mukhtear. The facts proved by the evidence are narrated by the District Judge in his letter of reference. Babu Rajani Kanta Ghose was engaged as a Mukhtear on the side of the prosecution in a criminal case in which there were four accused persons. Under instruction received from one Padlochan Das, who was looking after the case of two of these accused persons, namely Harihar and Nirubar, Babu Rajani Kant Ghose prepared a draft written statement on their behalf. It has been proved that neither Harihar nor Nirubar gave instruction direct to him to prepare the draft. The draft written statement was taken to the gentleman who was engaged as Mukhtear on behalf of the four accused persons. When he read the written statement he found that it would be impossible to file it in Court, inasmuch as it implicated the other two accused to their prejudice. The result was that Babu Nabakris...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »