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.
Harish Chandra Saha Vs. Harish Chandra Chuckerbutty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal622,80Ind.Cas.195
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Panton in a suit for declaration and enforcement of a village pathway in village Backrabad ordinarily known as Earn Chandrapore.2. The plaintiffs asked for declaration of a village path-way used by all the people of the village for certain specified purposes. The defendants contended that the alleged path-way was not a public highway but was a permissive foot track. Thereupon several issues were raised; the sixth was to the following effect:Did the lands of Schedule 2 of the plaint ever appertain to a public gopath as alleged in the plaint: Was there any public gopath over the lands of Schedule 1 of the plaint or any part of it? If so, what was its breadth and have the defendants encroached upon it in the way described in the plaint, namely, by the erection of fences seven years prior to the institution of the suit.3. The Trial Court considered the evidence and came to the conclusion that the ca...
Pahal Ghorai Vs. Haji Munshi FazluddIn Mahammad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal97
C.C. Ghose, J.1. Mr. Muzumdar who has opposed this appeal has said everything that could be said in this case; but for the reasons which are about to be given we are of opinion that this appeal must be allowed. It has arisen out of a suit for establishment of title in respect of a half share of plots Nos. 1 to 3 and the entirety of plot No. 4, for possession of a part and for confirmation in respect of another part of the same. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance in this manner, namely, that the plaintiff's claim with respect to dag No. 684/2823 was dismissed; his title to an 8 anna share of plot No. 1 of the plaint with the exception of the dag referred to above and an 8 anna share of plots Nos. 2 and 3 and the entirety of plot No. 3 was declared, and a decree was further made in his favour for recovery of khas possession of the entirety of plot No. & on ousting defendant No. 1, and khas possession of plot No. 3 to the extent of an 8 anna share therein jointly with def...
Choudhuri Jamini Nath Mullick and ors. Vs. Midnapur Zemindary Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal716,75Ind.Cas.231
Rankin, J.1. In this application for revision the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Midnapur is complained of on the ground that he has refused, under Sction 10, Civil Procedure Code, to stay the trial of a rent suit. The case made by the defendants petitioners is that the plaintiffs, the Midnapur Zemindary Company, are the proprietors of a certain tuwji and are also the darputnidars; that the defendants are the putnidars; that the dispute in question is as to whether in these circumstances the plaintiffs are entitled to make the defendants, putnidars, pay certain cesses. It appears that a rent-suit (No. 9 of 1916), was brought by the plaintiffs and was decreed, Ex parte; that to counteract this, the defendants brought a title suit (No. 262 of 1919); that the plaintiffs thereafter brought a rent-suit (No. 80 of 1918), and that at the present moment the position is, that, although the defendants have lost at the trial of these suits, these two suits are pending in appeal. In ...
Pahal Ghorai Vs. Haji Munsi Fazl-ud-dIn Maham-mad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.407
1. Mr. Mazumdar, who has opposed this appeal, has said every thing that could be said in this case; but, for the reasons which are about to be given, we are of opinion that this appeal must be allowed. It has arisen out of a suit for establishment of title in respect of a half share of plots Nos. 1 to 3 and the entirety of plot No. 4, for possession of a part and for confirmation in respect of another part of the same. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance in this manner, namely, that the plaintiff's claim with respect to dag No. 684-2323 was dismissed; his title to an 8-annas share of plot No. 1 of the plaint with the exception of the dag referred to above and an 8-annas share of plots Nos. 2 and 3, and the entirety of plot No. 3 was declared and a decree was further made in his favour for recovery of khas possession of the entirety of plot No. 4 on ousting defendant No. 1 and khas possession of plot No. 3 to the extent of an 8-annas shares therein jointly with defendant...
Darpali Sadagar Vs. Najir Ahmed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal669,77Ind.Cas.1030
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a dispute between grantees of two conterminous plots of land within the khas mahal of Government. Plaintiff was given lands in the south and defendant lands in the north, the grant to both parties being from the year 1312 B.S. The dispute is regarding the boundary line between the parcels. The Courts below have decided against the plaintiff. Hence this appeal by him. The question depends upon the construction of the leases with regard to the boundary line. In the lease to the plaintiff the land is thus described--'land lying with in the boundaries as shown in the map which is in the settlement papers and appertaining to the Sudar khas mahal, etc.' and again in the schedule as '4 drones 14 kanis of land in dag No. 17421/3796 of the present survey, etc.' The defendants' land is similarly described in his lease, 'land lying within the boundaries as shown in the map which is in the settlement papers, etc.' and in the schedule as 'I drone 5 gandas ...
Khetra Mohan De Vs. Satish Chandra Giri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal438,83Ind.Cas.556
Rankin, J.1. In this case the plaintiff was the putni talukdar and the holding stood originally in the name of Prasanna Kumar Dhar. In the time of Prasanna proceedings were taken by the plaintiff under Section 105. These proceedings began in 1908 and considerable litigation seems to have taken place between 1998 and 1911. Prasanna himself at some stage prior to 1911 died and in that year the plaintiff commenced a rent-suit against his widow which was decreed at a jama of Rs. 14. In execution the holding was sold to the appellant in 1912 and the sale certificate described the jama as being Rs. 14. In 1915 there was another rent-suit against the appellant which was decreed at Rs. 14. But it is quite clear that in this case there was not a decision but only a decree upon the footing that the defendant in the suit consented to that amount and there was no determination as to whether any larger jama was due or not. The present proceedings were brought by a plaint filed on the 14th April 191...
Anantaram Bhattacharjee Vs. Hem Chandra Kar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal379,72Ind.Cas.1041
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of certain sums of money withdrawn by the defendant No. f from the Collectorate which has been decreed by both the Courts below. The defendant No. 1 is the appellant before us. The relevant facts which give rise to the arguments in this Court lie within a narrow compass. The plaintiffs are the owners of a village named Ghola in mukurrari right while the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 3 are the owners of a contiguous Mouza called Kan-gore. The defendant No. 3 owns five-sixths of Mouza Kangore and the defendant No. 1 one-sixth share. Some time in 1907 there was a dispute between the defendant No. 3 and the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest with regard to some lands, one party alleging that the lands appertained to Kangore and the other that they appertained to Ghola. The lands were attached under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and remained under attachment up to the year 1916. In consequence, several s...
Mukunda Lal De Vs. Bansidhar Marwari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal342,76Ind.Cas.311
1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal shortly stated are as follows:--On the 7th August 1916 the present respondent obtained a decree for Rs. 765 against the present appellant. On the 2nd August 1917 the decree-holder applied for execution of his decree, the execution case being numbered 480 of 1917. On execution being levied, the judgment-debtor, it is alleged, entered into a compromise with the decree-holder, the compromise being in these terms, viz., that the judgment-debtor executed a mortgage-bond in favour of the decree-holder for a sum of Rs. 1,500 which was made up as follows.--Rs. 1,050 being the consideration in respect of a previous bond, a sum of Rs. 450 being the balance of the decree referred to above, a sum of Rs. 250 paid to the decree-holder in cash and the balance Rs. 65 being remitted by the decree-holder. The judgment-debtor alleges that the decree-holder promised, on the execution of the said bond, that he would certify an adjustment of the decree to th...
Rustam Ali Mia Vs. Abdul Jabbar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal535,76Ind.Cas.499
1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal, shortly stated, are as follows: A person of the name of Asgar Ali died leaving him surviving two widows one of whom was a lady of the name of Munjumarnessa, two cousins, who are defendants Nos. 1 and 4, and a sister, who is, defendant No. 3. Asgar Ali, at the time when he married Munjumarnessa, executed a kabilnama in her favour in which the dower was fixed at Rs. 250. He did not pay the amount of the dower, and it appears that he misappropriated a considerable portion of the ornaments which belonged to the lady. The lady, therefore, had to receive from Asgar Ali the amount of the dower mentioned in the kabilnama and also the amount of the price of the ornaments misappropriated by Asgar Ali. To Satisfy the debt which Asgar Ali owed to the lady he executed a hibanama in respect of the disputed plots Nos. 1 to 3 and some other lands. It appears that in respect of one of these plots, at the time when Asgar Ali executed the hibanama, he wa...
Jagat Chandra Ghose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal484,75Ind.Cas.722
1. This Rule is directed against an order passed under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act including the petitioner's name in a list of touts. It appears that the order for the inclusion of the petitioner's name was passed by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate and on this order the petitioner's name was added to the list of touts for the Court at Jorabagan. It appears, however, that the Court at Jorabagan is subordinate to the Chief Presidency Magistrate and consists of several Courts presided over by several Presidency Magistrate, one of whom is the Fourth Presidency Magistrate, Mr. J.N. Sarkar, who passed this order. But, the powers of a Presidency Magistrate to publish list of touts is limited by Section 36 to his own Court and the Courts subordinate thereto. The list in which the petitioner's name has been published is applicable to Courts other than that in which the Fourth Presidency Magistrate pre sides and those Courts are not subordinate to his Court. We must, therefore, h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »