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.
SayeruddIn Akonda Vs. SamiruddIn Akond and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal378,72Ind.Cas.985
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of land commenced against him by his father. The disputed property stands in the name of the appellant and the question in controversy was, whether he was the beneficial owner or whether it had been acquired by Ho father in his name. The Courts below have decided against the appellant and it is now contended that the decision of the Subordinate Judge is erroneous inasmuch as he has acted upon evidence inadmissible in law.2. The defendant alleged that, although he was a boy, thirteen years old at the time when the property was acquired, the consideration was provided by his paternal grand-father. The plaintiff answered that his father died before the property had been acquired, and he produced a mortgage-bond which had been executed by him on the 28th October 1892 in which he is described as the son of Khan Mahomed Akonda, deceased. The Courts were thereupon required to consider, whether the mortgage bond was adm...
Bali Mohammad Saha and ors. Vs. Janiki Nath Mazumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal535
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in an action in ejectment. The plaintiff sued to eject the defendants as trespassers in possession of a non-transferable occupancy holding. The defendants have proved that in 1919 and 1920 the plaintiff accepted rent from them for the lands in suit in the name of the deceased raiyats. The effect of this acceptance of rent was to constitute the defendants tenants under the plaintiff. Consequently at the date of the suit, the plaintiff was not competent to eject the defendants as trespassers. In this view, it is unnecessary to consider whether there was a recognition by the plaintiff of the defendants as the holders of the original tenancy.2. The result is that this appeal is allowed and the suit dismissed with costs in all the Courts....
Bali Mohammad Saha and ors. Vs. Janaki Nath Mazumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.311
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in an action in ejectment. The plaintiff sued to eject the defendant as trespassers in possession of a non-transferable occupancy holding. The defendants have proved that in 1919 and 1920 the plaintiff accepted rent from them for the lands in suit in the name of the deceased raiyats. The effect of this acceptance of rent was to constitute the defendants tenants under the plaintiff. Consequently, at the date of the suit, the plaintiff was not competent to eject the defendants as trespassers. In this view, it is unnecessary to consider w nether there was a recognition by the plaintiff of the defendants as the holders of the original tenancy.2. The result is that this appeal is allowed and the suit dismissed with costs in all the Courts....
Chandi Charan Mitra Vs. Manindra Chandra Roy Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal198,72Ind.Cas.173
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a Rule issued by two of my learned brothers, Mr. Justice Walmsley and Mr. Justice C. C. Ghose, and obtained by the complainant calling upon the District Magistrate and on the opposite party to show cause why the orders complained of should not be set aside.2. The facts of this case, so far as they are necessary for me to state for the purpose of my judgment, are these:The complainant made a complaint against certain persons with regard to the cutting and removal of certain paddy and the allegation was that the paddy was removed by certain Barkandazes with the connivance or at the instigation of Manindra Chandra Roy Chowdhury who was called accused No. 1. It was alleged by the complainant that one of the persons who actually cut and removed the paddy was one Mokimuddin. The Magistrate who took cognizance of this case asked for a report arid on receipt of the report issued a summons against Mokimuddin only. The Sub-Deputy Magistrate, to whom the case w...
Lal Behary Basak Vs. Akhil Chandra Santra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal469,72Ind.Cas.794
1. This Rule relates to an order dated the 3rd January 1922 made by the Additional District Judge of Howrah whereby he dismissed the application of the petitioner presented to the District Judge of Hooghly under the proviso to Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and transferred by the District Judge to him for hearing.2. The Rule obtained by the petitioner calls upon the opposite party to show cause why the Additional District Judge's order should not be set aside for the reasons set forth in ground (a) of the petition Ground (a) of the petition is to the effect 'that the learned District Judge exercised his jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity in transferring the case to the Additional District' Judge and the latter exercised jurisdiction not vested in him in proceeding with the trial and dismissing the motion.'3. In support of the Rule reliance was placed on the case of Gaudna Bibi v. Jabanulla Mandul 5 C.W.N. 48 notes, (Civil Rule No. 1969 of 1900) reported as 5 C...
Sheikh Jabedali and ors. Vs. Prasanna Kumar Nag and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal423,75Ind.Cas.281
Walmsley, J.1. The plaintiffs in the suits from which these appeals arise are Prasanna Kumar and Chandra Kumar, sons of the late Krishna Kumar Nag; they instituted five suits, two of them relating to land situated in Mouza Balina, three relating to lana situated in Mouza, Dubail. In the first Court they won in the two suits relating to Mouza Balina while they lost the other three. That decision gave rise to five appeals, three by the plaintiffs, and two by the defendants. In the lower Appellate Court, the defandants' appeals were dismissed, and the, plaintiffs appeals decreed almost in full.2. There are now eight appeals before us. Three are preferred by the plaintiffs, and they are in respect of that part of their claim regarding the land in Mouza Dubail which has been dismissed. They are Appeals Nos. 1281, 1322, 1323. the other five are preferred by the defendants, they are Nos. 1244, 1245 and 1247 relating to Dubail and Nos. 1248 and 1249 relating to Balina. The plaintiffs, claim th...
Durga Charan Mitra Vs. Rajendra NaraIn Sinha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1922
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.558
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of c contract for sale of land. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that there was no valid and complete contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for the sale of the property.2. On the 9th June 1919 the defendant Singh gave the following letter of authorisation to a man named Bose:I hereby authorise you to negotiate the sale of the binds at Tolligunge I have recently purchased from Messrs. Martin and Co. If you can secure a purchaser to purchase the same at the gross value of Rs. 16,000. I shall pay 3011 Rs. 200 as your remuneration. If you be able to raise the price to any amount above Rs. 16,000, you will bi entitled to the excess amount fully and I shall be bound to mention the whole amount in the conveyance.Please note that this letter of authority will remain in force for a fortnight only to complete the transaction; alter that this letter will stand cancelled.3. On the 2oth Jun...
Mazhar Ali Vs. Emperor on the Company of Huli Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.662
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed upon him should not be set aside.2. The learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal commented upon the procedure which had been adopted at the trial and said that 'the three sets of cases had a checkered life,' and it is impossible for this Court to view the procedure adopted at the trial with approval. The matter, however, has been simplified by reason of the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, and it is not now necessary for me to deal with the question of the joint trial or whether it was proper to take the depositions in one case and have them copied and used in another case. Speaking generally, in my judgment, that is not a course which should be adopted in trials of criminal cases. The learned judge in the Appeal Court acquitted one of the accused of all the charges and he acquitted the accused Mazahar Ali of two of the charg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›