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.
Jonardi Mandal Vs. Anadi Nath Ray and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal838
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Cuming in a suit for arrears of rent.2. The claim was valued at less than Rs. 100. A second appeal to this Court would accordingly be barred under Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, unless one or other of the special circumstances mentioned in that section was proved to exist. Mr. Justice Cuming came to the conclusion that there were no such special circumstances and that the appeal was consequently incompetent. In this view he did not consider the appeal on the merits. We are of opinion that this view as to the nature of the decree under appeal cannot be supported.3. The defendant holds under the plaintiffs a parcel of land and the plum trees thereon. The case for the plaintiffs is that the land was settled first at the rate of Rs. 5 a year and that the trees were settled thereafter at the rate of Rs. 2 a year. The plaintiffs accordingly claimed rent for the years in suit at th...
irrani Mundle and ors. Vs. NaimuddIn Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1006
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould in a proceeding for assessment of mesne profits. Mr. Justice Newbould has held that the appeal to the Subordinate Judge was incompetent and he has accordingly not considered the case on the merits. We have arrived at the conclusion that this view cannot be supported and that the appeal must be heard on the merits.2. The suit was instituted for the recovery of possession of land with mesne profits. It was dismissed by the trial Court on She 25th-January, 1917. On the 19th March, 1918, the Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal and remanded the suit for actual partition of the disputed land and for assessment of mesne profits. When the case came before the trial Court, seven of the defendants namely, defendants Nos. 6-18, contended that the decision of the Subordinate Judge absolved them from liability for mesne profits, This question was considered by the trial Judge on the 9t...
iswar Chandra Nath and anr. Vs. Gour Sundar Nath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal608,82Ind.Cas.90
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice B.B. Ghose in a suit for ejectment.2. On the 1st June 1892, the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs granted a lease to the predecessor of the defendants. A premium of Rs. 30 was paid by the grantee to the grantor. The lease was for a term of 20. years and expressly provided that the grantee would have the status of a raiyat. The term of the lease expired on the 31st May 1912, yet the grantee continued in occupation till his death in 1914. Thereafter the heirs of the grantee have remained in possession.3. On the 16th April 1916, the plaintiffs commenced the present action to eject the defendants on the allegation that the tenancy was not heritable and that they were consequently liable to be ejected, as trespassers. The contention that the tenancy was not heritable was founded on the allegation that although the lease stated that the grantee was a raiyat, he was in fact an under-raiyat in ...
Banku Behary De and ors. Vs. Bisseswar Lal Marwari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal575,76Ind.Cas.598
1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal have been set out carefully and at length in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court and, therefore, it is unnecessary to repeat the same here.2. The main questions which have been argued before us with great earnestness and with great learning are two in number, namely, (i) whether a Hindu widow under a bequest which did not contain words giving an absolute estate with power of alienation takes only a limited estate which under Hindu law a widow takes as heir in her husband's property, or whether, apart from all questions arising under Hindu Law, she takes only a. life interest pure and simple; (ii) whether the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is vitiated by reason of the absence of any finding to the effect as to whether the alienee in this case made all proper enquiries to satisfy himself of the truth of the representations made by the alienor and which representations are to be found in the recital in the deed by which the al...
Sarifun MandalIn and ors. Vs. Feradoul Khatun
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal578,76Ind.Cas.603
1. The point for determination in this appeal is whether a certain document, Exhbit (1) in this case, was a mere acknowledgment of a liability under Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act or whether it was an adjustment of accounts between the parties and a promise to pay the amount arrived at on the adjustment as being a sum due and Owing by the defendants. The date of the adjustment, which is Exhibit I, is the 26th October 1914 corresponding to the 9th Kartik 1321 B.S. The suit was instituted on the 19th November 1917. The defendants who lost in the two Courts below argued that it was a mere acknowledgment of a liability under Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act; and that, inasmuch as it has not been proved by the plaintiff that any portion of the account taken into consideration at the time of the adjustment had not been barred on the date of the adjustment, the plaintiff should not be heard to rely on the document as an acknowledgment of a liability under Section 19. It is fur...
Kali Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.533
1. This is an appeal by two persons who have been convicted of Various offences in connection with a fraudulent suit brought in the Munsif's Court. The main facts found are that the appellant, Kali Singh, filed a suit against one Pasindh Roy of Kanaila, in the United Provinces, in the Court of the Munsif of Rampurhat, in the District of Birbhum, in this Province. This suit was based on a hand-note which has been found to have been a forgery, and to have been fo ged by the second accused, Deb Nath Roy. Kali Singh was charged with having fraudulently used as genuine a forged document purporting to be a valuable security, punishable under Section 471 of the Penal Code, and also with laving been a member of a criminal conspiracy for the purpose of fraudulently and dishonestly making a false claim punishable under Section 209, read with Section 120B, of the Penal Code. Deb Nath was charged with forging a valuable security punishable under Section 467 of the Penal Code, with abetment of the ...
B.N. Sen and Bros. Vs. Chunni Lal Dutt and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal651
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in the suit against an order of my learned brother, Mr. Justice Greaves, whereby he dismissed the application made by the defendants. The application was that a certain consent decree which was made on the 27th of July, 1922, should be set aside, and that the suit should be duly proceeded with. The consent decree was to this effect:It is ordered and decreed with the consent of the parties by the respective counsel that the defendant firm do pay to the plaintiff firm the sum of rupees twenty-two thousand one hundred and seventy-seven, annas five, pies three with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent, per annum...and this decree is without prejudice to the right of the defendant firm, if any, to proceed with its claim, in its own suits.2. The suit was brought to recover the sum of Rs. 11,024 alleged to be due for goods sold and delivered and a sum of Rs. 4,853 as interest. There was a further claim for damages in respect of goo...
B.N. Sen and Bros. Vs. Chuni Lal Dutt and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal385
Sanderson C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in the suit against an order of my learned brother, Mr. Justice Greaves, whereby he dismissed the application made by the defendants. The application was that a certain consent decree which was made on the 27th of July 1922 should be set aside and that the suit should be duly proceeded with. The consent decree was to this effect: 'It is ordered and decreed with the consent of the parties by the respective counsel that the defendant firm do pay to the plain tiff firm the sum of rupees twenty-two thousand one hundred and seventy-seven, annas five and pies three with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum... and this decree is without prejudice to the right of the defendant firm, if any, to proceed with its claim, in its own suits.'2. The suit was brought to recover the sum of Rs. 11,024 alleged to be due for goods sold and delivered and a sum of Rs. 4,853 as interest. There was a further claim for damages in respect of ...
In Re: Dinaram Somani and ors. Vs. Bhim Bahadur Sing Chetri and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal427,82Ind.Cas.76
Greaves, J.1. This is an application by two persons to set aside an order for their examination under Section 36 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act made on the 18th August, 1922. By the said order, which was made at the instance of a creditor who had proved his debt and in the presence of the Official Assignee, the applicants were ordered to attend before the Registrar in Insolvency on the 14th September, 1922 to be examined regarding the insolvents, their dealings and properties and they were required to produce their books of account for the year 1920 and a mortgage executed by the insolvents in their favour on the 4th December, 1920. The applicants in fact attended before the Registrar in pursuance of the order on the 14th September, 1922, when the matter was adjourned until the 30th November. The applicants thereupon returned to Darjeeling where they reside, and came down again to Calcutta on the 20th November, one of them was attacked by fever on the 23rd November and they bot...
Karali Prosad Mukherji Vs. Jaminibala Devi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal344,76Ind.Cas.316
1. In this case it appears that in a suit in which the opposite party was impleaded, a judgment was given for a sum of money against the other defendants. Execution was taken out under that judgment and. property was attached to which the opposite party made a claim. She laid claim to that property as her own by virtue of a gift made to her by her husband who had been very much indebted. This Court has already held that the proceedings between the opposite party and the judgment-creditor as to whether the attachment is valid are proceedings under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code and not under the provisions of Order XXI, Civil Procedure Code. Now, the learned Judge in the Court below has held that the gift to the opposite party under which she claimed was a fraudulent deed intended to defeat creditors. He has thought, however, that under Section 47 it was not possible that the deed of gift should be set aside or ignored and that, because an independent suit had not been brought f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »