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.
Raja Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb Vs. Bhubaneswar Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal121,76Ind.Cas.241
1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon three mortgages executed by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. The mortgages were dated the 17th July 1908 (for Rs. 5,000) 7th July 1909 (for Rs. 1,300) and 5th May 1910 (for Rs. 1,362) respectively. A nine-annas durmokarrari right in 10 Mouzahs and also a fractional share of the mokarrari right in two of the Mouzahs, and the jote mandalit right in another (11th Mouzah) were mortgaged. The defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were purchasers of some of the properties long after the mortgages.2. The suit was originally instituted on the 15th January 1913, against the mortgagors (the defendants Nos. 1 and 2) and the transferees (the defendants Nos. 3 and 4), and was laid at Rs. 11,114-10. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed written statements on the 9th March 1913. the preliminary judgment was passed on the 4th November 1913 and the preliminary decree on the 22nd December 1913.3. Two days after the suit was instituted,...
Patal Ghose and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal532,72Ind.Cas.72
1. In this case four persons named Patal Ghose, Kanta Das, Nalini Chandra Katu alias Nalini Kalir and Gui Ram Mullik were originally convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Barrackpur, under Sections 458 and 325, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced under the first section to be detained till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each and in default to one month's rigorous imprisonment, and under the second section to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each and in default to two months' rigorous imprisonment. There was an appeal to the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge of the 24-Pergannas and that officer, while maintaining the conviction of Kanta Das under Section 458 and 325, altered the conviction of the petitioners Patal, Nalini and Gui Ram into one under Section 323 from Section 325 and reduced the fine on these three petitioners to a fine of Rs. 100 each and in default to two months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Barrackpur found tha...
Annada Charan Sil and anr. Vs. Hargobinda Sil and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal570,75Ind.Cas.557
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit to enforce a mortgage executed by them on the 22nd December 1916 in favour of the plaintiffs to secure a loan of Rs. 800. The plaintiffs alleged that nothing had been paid on the mortgage and according to the terms thereof they claimed Rs. 1,071. The defendants pleaded that the debt had been satisfied and the claim was unfounded. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. Upon appeal the District Judge reversed that decision and decreed the claim in full with interest from the date of suit to the date of judgment. In their plaint the plaintiffs allege that the mortgage-bond was part of a transaction which took place between the parties on the 22nd December 1916. The plaintiffs and the defendants were partners in a paddy business at Akyab. The defendants, it is alleged, fixed the price of the share of the plaintiff in the business at Rs. 3,000 and purchased that share for the sum. The defendants paid Rs. 1,500 in cash, Rs. 400 by a b...
Arun Chandra Sinha Bahadur and ors. Vs. Manmohan Sinha Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal154
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of money paid by them as proprietors of an estate under the Bengal Embankment Act, 1882. The defendants are tenure-holders under the plaintiffs, and the question in controversy is, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the disputed amount in one sum from the defendants. The Courts below have held that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover only a portion of the sum claimed. The payment was made by the plaintiffs pursuant to an order made by the Collector under the provisions of the statute. There is no room for dispute that the order of the Collector was erroneous, inasmuch as it did not specify the instalments in which the same was payable to the Government. What we have to consider is whether the validity of the order of the Collector can be questioned before the Civil Court in this litigation; for this purpose, we must refer to the relevant sections of the Bengal Embankment Act.2. Section 54 provides...
Sinha and ors. Vs. Manmohan Singha Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.784
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of money paid by them Proprietors of an estate under the Bengal Embankment Act, 1882. The defendants are tenure-holders under the plaintiffs, and the question in controversy is, whether tie plaintiffs are entitled to recover the disputed amount in one sum from the defendants The Courts below have held that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover only a portion of the sum darned. The moment was made by the plaintiffs pursuant order made by the Collector under the provisions of the Statute, There is no room for dispute that the order of the Collector was erroneous, inasmuch as, it did not specify the instalments in which the same was payable to the Government,' What we have to consider is whether the validity of the order of the Collector can be questioned before the Civil Court in this litigation and for this purpose we must refer to the relevant sections of the Bengal Embankment Act.2. Section 54 provides that the costs are t...
Lakhi Guha and ors. Vs. Nanda Kumar Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal345,84Ind.Cas.525
John Woodroffe, J.1. This is a suit between Certain parties whom I may call the Boses as plaintiffs on one hand and the Guhas as defendants on the other. The suit was brought by the former against the latter for declaration of title of their predecessor to the properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint and for possession of the same. The plaintiff No. 2 claims under plaintiff No. 1 who has made a gift to him of 1/3rd of the properties claimed. The family of the Boses is given in the following table in which the parties who are dead and with whom we are not concerned are omitted. THE BOSES. Gopi Chandra Bose. ____________________________|___________ | | Nanda Bose Chandra Kumar Bose married (Plaintiff No. 1). to Manikyamala Bose. | | | | Durga Charan Ghose Satish Bose. Akshoy. Chowdhury (Brother of Manikyamala), | Chintaharan, (Plaintiff No. 2).2. The family of the Guhas is shown in the following table: The Guhas ________________|______________________ | | Ambica Guha married ...
In Re: Hari NaraIn Das (an Infant)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal409,74Ind.Cas.244
Greaves, J.1. This is an application by one Laluram Das, the father of the infant Hari Narain Das, that he may be appointed guardian of the person and property of Hari Narain Das and that he may be given liberty to sell and convey the undivided half share of No. 16, Cowie Dane, for the purpose of paying off the moneys due under the mortgage now subsisting on the property.2. The infant is governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. He is the only child of his father and he has no separate property of his own. There is a mortgage on 16, Cowie Dane, of Rs. 5,000 or thereabouts and certain costs have, I understand, also to be paid. An offer has been trade to purchase the property for a sum of Rs. 16,650 and I, am told and it so appears in the petition that this is considerably above the real value of the property, the real value it is said being something in the neighbourhood of Rs. 10,000. The purchaser insists that an order of the Court should be obtained sanctioning the sale before ...
Baidyanath Chatterjee Vs. Panchanani Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal72
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of land on establishment of title by purchase. The case for the plaintiff is that the property belonged to 4th second defendant who conveyed it to her on the 29th September, 1916 pursuant to an agreement made eight days earlier. The case for the first defendant is that the claim is unfounded inasmuch as he had become entitled to the property by virtue of an award made on the 24th September, 1916 in an arbitration proceeding between himself and his brother the second defendant. The Court of first instance held that the plaintiff had acquired no valid title by her purchase from the second defendant and dismissed the suit as against the first defendant. The Court however made a decree for Rs. 175 against the second defendant who it was found had obtained that sum from the plaintiff as consideration for the conveyance. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge has held that the title to the property was ...
Baidya Nath Chottopadya Vs. Sreemati Panchanani Dassee Widow of Ganesh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.128
1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of land on establishment of title by purchase. The case for the plaintiff is that the property belonged to second defendant who conveyed it to her on the 29th September 1916 pursuant to an agreement made eight days earlier. The case for the first defendant is that the claim is unfounded, inasmuch as he had become entitled to the property by virtue of an award made on the 24th September 1916 in an arbitration proceeding between himself and his brother, the second defendant. The Court of first instance held that the plaintiff had acquired no valid title by her purchase from the second defendant and dismissed the suit as against the first defendant. The Court, however, made a decree for Rs. 175 against the second defendant who, it was found, had obtained that sum from the plaintiff as consideration for the conveyance. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge has held that the title to the property was vested in the...
Sheik Babujan Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal403,76Ind.Cas.651
Walmsley, J.1. The facts giving rise to this Rule are as follows:--One evening last August a consignment of til seed was loaded into nine buffalo carts at Sealdah. Two of the carts, one. driven by Ram Khelawan and the other by Purusottam, left the road leading to their destination and proceeded to a go down, for the purpose of having some of the. contents abstracted. The petitioner is found to have been directing operations at this godown. Separate cases were instituted against Ram Khelawan and Purusottam, and in each case Babujan was joined as an accessory. Both cases ended in conviction, and Babujan has been sentenced in each case to one year's rigorous imprisonment and those sentences must under the. law run consecutively.2. The Rule was granted on the ground that 'the basis of the prosecution case being one act of abetment in respect of criminal breach of trust for the whole quantity of goods there was one offence, and the double conviction is bad in law.' The learned Vakil for the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »