Kolkata Court January 1923 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.
Manmatha Pal Chowdhuri and ors. Vs. Surendra Nath Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal463
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for arrears of rent. We shall refer briefly to the antecedent history so as to make intelligible the points in controversy between the parties.2. On the 22nd August, 1913, the plaintiffs sued defendants for rent of the disputed property for the years 1315 to 1318. That suit was decided by the Subordinate Judge on the 27th May, 1916. The decree was modified on appeal by the District Judge on the 3rd December, 1918. On second appeal to this Court the decree was further modified on the 22nd July, 1921. In the meanwhile on the 21st August, 1914, the plaintiffs instituted another suit against the defendants for rent from the Chaitra instalment of 1318 to the Ashar instalment of 1321. That suit was decreed and the decree was apparently satisfied. Subsequently on the 14th April, 1919, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for recovery of what is called excess rent in respect of the period covered by the second suit as also the ...
Manmatha Pal Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Surendra Nath Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1923
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.162
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for arrears of rent. We shall refer briefly to the antecedent history so as to make intelligible the points in controversy between the parties.2. On the 22nd August 1913 the plaintiffs sued the defendants for rent of the disputed property for the years 1315 to 1318. That suit was decided by the Subordinate Judge, on the 27th of May 1916. The decree was modified on appeal by the District Judge on the 3rd December 1918. On second appeal to this Court the decree was further I modified on the 22nd July, 1921. In the meanwhile on the 21st August, 1914, the plaintiffs instituted another suit against the defendants for rent from the Chaitra instalment of 1318 to the Ashar instalment of 1321. That suit was decreed and the decree was apparently satisfied. Subsequently on the 14th April, 1919, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit for recover--of what is called excess rent in respect of the period covered by the second suit as also the rent w...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. the Calcutta Improvement Trust
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.346
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Greaves which was given with reference to a special case stated by the Board of the Calcutta Improvement Trust and the Calcutta Corporation under the provisions of Order XXXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. When the matter was before my learned brother there were several schemes for his consideration, but on the hearing of the appeal the argument has been limited to one scheme which is Scheme No. IVA, and the plan relating to it, is marked Exhibit D3. The plots of land to which this case relates, are situated between Kalighat New Road and Kalidas Patitandi Lane. The scheme was a Street Scheme and the works comprised in the scheme are shown on the map Exhibit D3. Part of the land, which lies between Kalighat New Road and Kalidas Patitandi Lane, was required for making a new street running from Kalidas Patitandi Lane to Kalighat New Road; part of it was required for widening Kalighat New Road and p...
Jadab Chandra Mitter and ors. Vs. Romesh Chandra Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal603,77Ind.Cas.1022
Page, J.1. This is a suit for the recovery of moneys paid to a Solicitor for and on behalf of the plaintiffs under an order of the Court. It arises; in this way. The plaintiffs employed t he defendant to act for them as their Solicitor in certain proceedings, the plaintiffs succeeded in the proceedings in the first instance, and as a condition for stay of execution a sum of Rs. 4,000 was ordered to be paid by the unsuccessful party to the defendant on his undertaking not to part with it until the hearing of the appeal was completed. The plaintiffs succeeded on the appeal, and this sum is still in the hands of the Solicitor, the present defendant.2. The only issue which I have to consider in this case relates to certain fees amounting to Rs. 1,700 which were fees paid to Counsel, or alleged to have been paid to Counsel, by the defendant. Those fees, I find as a fact, were discussed between the defendant and the plaintiffs before Counsel were briefed or the fees paid. I am quite satisfie...
Nirode Chandra Banerjee and ors. Vs. Profulla Chandra Banerjee and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1923
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.168
1. This is an appeal by the pro forma defendants against what purports to be a consent decree in a suit to set aside a sale held under Regulation VIII of 1819. On the 21st May 1920 the plaintiffs instituted the suit against the zemindars, the auction-purchaser, and two other persons, their co-sharers whom they described as pro forma defendants. On the 30th June 1921 the pro forma defendants, who were infants represented by their mother as their certificated guardian, applied to be transferred from the category of defendants to that of plaintiffs. No order was passed on this application. On the 27th September 1921 the case was settled as between the plaintiffs and the auction-purchaser. At that stage the pro forma defendants renewed their application to be made co-plaintiffs. The Court refused the, application and made a decree on the basis of the compromise between the plaintiffs and the auction-purchaser. As a result of the decree so made, the suit was no doubt nominally dismissed as ...
Kenaram Pal Vs. Kinu Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal52,75Ind.Cas.379
Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of a decree for money.2. The appellant in execution of a decree for money sought to put up to sale a nontransferable occupancy holding of the defendant, The defendant thereupon appeared and contended that the holding being a non-transferable occupancy holding could not be put up to sale in execution of a money-decree.3. The Court of first instance relying upon the Special Bench decision in the case of Chandra Benode Eundu v. Ala Bux A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 15 held that it was saleable. On appeal, the learned District Judge was of opinion that he should follow the decision in the case of Bhiram Ali v. Gopi Kanth Shaha (1897) 24 Cal. 355 until it was overruled by this Court, and that the question, whether an ordinary execution creditor can put up a nontransferable occupancy holding to sale in spite of the objections of the raiyat, was not referred to, nor considered by the Special Bench.2. No doubt, the question which was refer...
Kazemini Mutwali Vs. Manik Chandra Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal156
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the Plaintiff as mutwali of the Hooghly Imambara for a declaration that the Defendant has no permanent right in respect of the land referred to in the plaint, and for a mandatory injunction that certain walls which had been erected by the Defendant should be demolished by him, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making any permanent structure on the land in question. The defendant in his written statement urged that the jama of the land in question had been fixed at Re. 1-13-10 gds. from before the decennial settlement and that the holding had been in the occupation of tenant on payment of rent at a uniform rate for a long period and that it had been transferred on several occasions at auction sales and by mortgages and conveyances to the knowledge of the landlord.' He also stated in his written statement that if it was found that the holding in question was included within the waqf estate of the Hooghly Imambara,...
Rajendra Nath Ghose and ors. Vs. Amrita Lal Chakravarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal529a
1. These two Rules have been obtained by persons who were informants in two rioting cases which apparently arose out of the same occurrence. The Rule obtained by Keshab Chandra Ghosh is not pressed. That obtained by Rajendra Nath Ghosh was granted on two grounds. The first of these is based on the allegation that the petitioner and four of his accused are prosecution witnesses in the counter-case, and will be seriously prejudiced in their defence if they are required to give evidence in that case before the trial of the case in which they are the accused. We are unable to hold that this is a sufficient reason for staying the proceedings in the case in which they are witnesses. As is urged before us on behalf of the Crown and as has been pointed out by the District Magistrate in his explanation, the recognition of this principle will create a deadlock in the trial of cases where both parties have brought counter-charges.2. The second ground on which this Rule has been granted is, that, ...
Rajendra Nath Ghosh and ors. Vs. Amrita Lal Chakarvarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1923
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.697
1. These two Rules have been obtained by persons who were informants in two rioting cases which apparently arose out of the same occurrence. The Rule obtained by Keshab Chandra Ghosh is not pressed. That obtained by Rajendra Nath Ghosh was granted on two grounds. The first of these is based on the allegation that the petitioner and four of his accused are prosecution witnesses in the counter-case and will be seriously prejudiced in their defence if they are required to give evidence in that case before the trial of the case in which they are the accused. We are unable to hold that this is a sufficient reason for staying the proceedings in the case in which they are witnesses. As is urged before us on behalf of the Crown and as has been pointed out by the District Magistrate in his explanation, the recognition of this principle will create a deadlock in the trial of cases where both parties have brought counter charges.2. The second ground on which this Rule has been granted is, that af...
Syed Ali Kazemini Matwali Vs. Manik Chandra Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1923
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.580
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff as mutwali of the Hooghly Imambara for a declaration that the defendant has no permanent right in respect of the land referred to in the plaint and for a mandatory injunction that certain walls which had been erected by the defendant should be demolished by him and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making any permanent structure on the land in question, The defendant in his written statement urged that the jama of the land in question had been fixed at Re. 1 13 as. 10 gds. from before the decennial settlement and that the holding had been in the occupation of tenant on payment of rent at a uniform rate for a long period and that it had been transferred on several occasions at auction sales and by mortgages and conveyances to the knowledge of the landlord. He also stated in his written statement that if it was found that the holding in question was included within the wakf estate of the Hooghly Imambara...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »