Kolkata Court August 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.
Raghupati Chatterjee Vs. Nrishingha Hori Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal90,71Ind.Cas.1
1. This is an appeal by the second defendant in a suit for recovery of immoveable property on establishment of title. The disputed land belonged to one Saha and was occupied by one Mallik as-a tenant under him. On the 15th June, 1886, Saha executed a mortgage-deed in favour of Das. This transaction, it has now been ascertained, was fictitious, and the mortgage was effected solely with a view to delay, if not to defeat, the creditors of Saha. Das sued on the mortgage, obtained a decree, and on the 7th November 1892, became purchaser at the sale which followed in due course. The fifth defendant is the representative-in-interest of Saha. The second defendant is the successor of Mallik. The plaintiffs are the representatives of Das. They commenced this action on the 2nd January 1914 for declaration of their title by purchase at the mortgage sale and for recovery of possession. The claim was contested by the second and fifth defendants; they united and urged that the mortgage was fictitious...
The Chairman, Serajgunj Municipality Vs. the Chittagong Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.696
1. This is an appeal by the defendant Municipality against the plaintiff Company in a suit for damages of illegal distress in execution of a warrant issued for recovery of latrine tax which is alleged to have been not leviable under the law.2. On the 27th March 1905 the Commissioners of the Serajgunj Municipality, at a meeting decided to extend the latrine area in accordance with the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884. Thereupon, on the 27th November 1905, the Government of Bengal extended the provisions of Part IX of the Bengal Municipal Act to the area mentioned in the resolution, and empowered the Commissioners to levy the latrine1 tax within the limits specified. The boundaries of the area were set out in the notification in the following terms: North--By Elliot Bridge. South--By Chur Raipur. East--By Hossainpur and Mirpur. West--by the Dhanbandi river.3. From before the issue of this notification, the Municipal Commissioners had received from the European firms within th...
Akbar Sarcar and ors. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Moitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.329
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for assessment and recovery of rent upon declaration that the disputed land is rent-paying. The Courts below have found in favour of the plaintiff, and the substantial question now in controversy is, whether the claim for assessment is or is not barred by limitation. The defendants have urged a further point of subordinate importance, namely, that rent should not be decreed for a period antecedent to the date of assessment.2. On the 18th December 1844 one Karim Sarcar, now represented by the defendants-appellants, executed a kabuliyat in favour of Mritunjoy Moitra, the father of the plaintiff-respondent. As the determination of the rights and obligations of the parties depends upon the terms of the contract between them, the relevant portion of this document is set out here:I, Karim Sircar, son of Fozdar Sircar, of Haldi, Thana Tanar, District Rajshahye, executed this kabuliyat in the year 1251 to the effect followin...
In Re: Ballar Chand Serojee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1922
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.651
Greaves, J.1. This is an application by a creditor to annul the adjudication order, dated the 21st June 1922 made at the instance of the insolvent himself.2. The facts are as follows: On the 22nd February 1919 the insolvent was adjudicated on his own petition. On the 12th May 1919 he filed a schedule but failed to apply for his discharge within the time provided by the Act and his adjudication was annulled on the 9th May 1922.3. As already stated his second adjudication took place some five or six weeks after, viz., on the 21st June, on the same facts and on the same materials, so far as I can gather, upon which the order of adjudication had been made.4. Under these circumstances it seems to me that I ought to annul the order of adjudication for the reasons stated in the case of Mal Chand v. Gopal Chandra Ghosal 39 Ind. Cas. 199 : 21 C.W.N. 298 : 25 C.L.J. 88 : 44 C. 399. It is suggested on behalf of the insolvent that this is not good law having regard to the subsequent decision of th...
Dina Nath Pal and ors. Vs. Raja Sati Prasad Garga Bahadur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal74,72Ind.Cas.663
1. These six appeals have arisen out of as many suits, instituted by tenants, under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, against their landlords, for the decision of disputes regarding entries which had been made in a finally published Record of Rights. The plaintiffs had been recorded as settled raiyats under the defendants; they claimed that they were raiyats at fixed rents. In support of their contention, they produced rent receipts which showed that each of them had held at a uniform rent for over 20 years. In each case, however, the rent consisted partly of CJPII and partly of the money value of a fixed quantity of paddy. To take ere illustration : in the ease of one tenancy, the amount of rent as shown in the tent receipts was Rs. 20-ia-12gds-2k; this amount is made up of Rs. 18-13a-18gds-2k as cash rent and Rs. 1-3as-14gds as the money value of two kuris 3 mans 1 khupi of paddy. These two items are shown separately in the receipts up to the year 1902, and, thereafter, the cons...
Kalipada Das Vs. Raja Sati Prasad Garga Bahadur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal468,72Ind.Cas.722
1. These two appeals are directed against the decree in a suit for arrears of rent. The defendant holds a tenure in the zemindari mahal Tamluk situated in the District of Midnapore. The plaintiffs, who are two brothers governed by the Mitakshara Law, own twelve-and-a-half annas share in the zemtndari and are patmdars under the proprietors of the remaining three-and-a-half annas share. The plaintiffs are consequently the immediate landlords of the defendant as a tenure-holder, and as such they instituted the present suit on the 12th December 1916, for recovery of arrears of rent due from him. On the 12th February 1917 the defendant filed a written statement setting forth various objections to the claim. On the 28th February 1917 he filed an additional written statement contending that the suit could not proceed, inasmuch as the minor son of the first plaintiff, born on the 16th November 1916, had not been joined as a co-plaintiff. On the 20th December 1917 he filed a supplementary writt...
isup Ali and ors. Vs. Gour Chandra Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal496,74Ind.Cas.591
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for conformation establishment of title by inheritance and adverse possession of land, the suit was instituted on the 3rd July 1917 by Isup Ali, Goja Ali and Basaratulla, sons of Basir Mohammad, Talukaar against Gour Chandra Deb the son of Nehal Krisha Deb and his brothers instituted a suit against Isup Ali arid his brothers for establishment of their title to the homestead portion of the property involved in the first litigation, The relief in the first suit was valued at Rs. 348, and that in the second suit at Rs. 200. The two suits were tried jointly at the desire of the parties, as the disputed land and the causes of action were common to a certain extent. The first suit, was dispraised, while the second was decreed Thereupon the plaintiffs in the first suit who were the defendants in the second suit, preferred an appeal to the District Judge. The appeal was directed against the decrees in both the suits and was valued at Rs. 548. Co...
Hara Kumar Dey Vs. Jogendra Krishna Ray and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal526
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit to recover the principal sum and interest thereon, due on a promissory note executed by him in favour of the plaintiffs on the 11th June 1915. The defendant admitted the execution of the document, but contended that as he was born on the 6th February 1895 and had a certificated guardian, the note was void because of his minority. The trial Court gave effect to this contention and dismissed the suit. Upon appeal, the District Judge has reversed that decision and has decreed the suit. The District Judge has held that the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant in proof of the date of his birth was unreliable, which is conclusive in second appeal; he has also held that the documentary evidence wag inadmissible in law. The documentary evidence consisted of an order made by this Court on the 15th August 1910 for the appointment of a guardian of the person of the defendant which contains a recital that the defendant was bo...
Aran Sardar and ors. Vs. Hara Sundar Majumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal95,71Ind.Cas.225
1. We are invited in this Rule, which was obtained under Section 107 of the Government of India Act, to quash certain proceedings initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Manikganj under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code.2. The question in controversy lies within a very narrow compass. There was a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, between the first party and' persons now represented by the second party which resulted in an order being made in favour of the first party on the 29th of August 1919 declaring such party to be entitled to retain possession until evicted in due course of law and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction. The principal person of the second party then was one U.N. Roy. The interest of U.N. Roy has now passed to one Hara Sundar Mazumdar and, he is now the principal person among the second party. It appears that after Hara Sundar acquired his interest he began to disturb the possession of the first party, which...
Hara Kumar De Vs. Jogendra Krishna Ray and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.336
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit to recover the principal sum and interest thereon, due on a promissory-note executed by him in favour of the plaintiffs on the nth June 1915. The defendant admitted the execution of the document, but contended that, as he was born on the 6th February 1895, and had a certificated guardian, the note was void because of his minority. The Trial Court gave effect to this contention and dismissed the suit. Upon appeal, the District Judge has reversed that decision and has decreed the suit. The District Judge has held that the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant in proof of the date of his birth was unreliable, which is conclusive in second appeal; he has also held that the documentary evidence was inadmissible in law. The documentary evidence consisted of an order made by this Court on the 15th August 1910 for the appointment of a guardian of the person of the defendant, which contains a recital that the defend...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »