Kolkata Court February 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.
Abedunnissa Bibi and ors. Vs. Isuf Ali Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal142
1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal, shortly stated, are as follows : One Azmatullah Khan carried on business as a hatter in Calcutta. On the death of Azmatullah the defendant No. 1, who is a son of the deceased by his wife the defendant No. 4, obtained a certificate under the Succession Certificate Act for the collection of debts due to the estate of the deceased. It is alleged on behalf of the plaintiffs, who are the sons of the deceased by his wife, the plaintiff No. 4 and also by the latter that the defendant No. 1 realised all the debts due to the estate of the deceased, but has not accounted for the moneys so realised, and has not paid to the plaintiffs their share of the same. The plaintiffs therefore prayed for an account of these moneys and. for recovery of their share thereof, it being alleged that the plaintiffs are entitled to a nine annas share in the said moneys. The defendants alleged that accounts had already been rendered to the plaintiffs once in 1313 B....
Firm Prasanna Kumar Pal Sanatan Kunda Vs. Punaulla Miji and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal659,79Ind.Cas.77
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for money advanced on loan. There were transactions between the parties, followed by an adjustment of accounts on the 4th April 1911, when Rs. 3,535 was found due from the defendants to the plaintiffs. Thereafter, there were three successive adjustments on the 2nd April 1914, 6th April 1917 and 8th February 1920. On the 3rd August 1920, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit to recover the sum of Es. 5, 200 with interest and costs. The defendants resited the claim on the ground, amongst others, that it was barred limitation. The Subordinate Judge has found on the merits in favour of the plaintiffs but has dismissed the suit on a twofold ground, namely, first, that the claim was barred by limitation and, secondly, that the document which recorded the adjustment on the 4th April 1911 was not admissible in evidence as not duly stamped. On the present appeal, these positions have been controverted and we have come to the conclusion that t...
Karali Charan Pal and ors. Vs. Ashutosh Nandi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.474
1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal have been set out at length in the judgments of the Courts below, and it is, therefore, unnecessary for us to repeat them here. The plaintiff prayed for declaration of title to and separate possession of the lands in Schedule 2, for declaration of title to one-fourth share of the lands in Schedule I and for recovery of that share on partition, and for declaration of title to one-fourth share of the lands in Schedules 6 and 7 and for recovery of joint possession of the same and for other reliefs mentioned in the plaint. The defendant No. 1 contended that the plaintiff being a leper did not inherit the properties left by his maternal grandfather, one Jagannath, and that, in any event, the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 pleaded that the plaintiff had no cause of action as against them. The defendant No. 4 supported the defendant No. 1. The Court of first instance found that the plaintiff was not dis...
DarajuddIn Akanda and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal672,73Ind.Cas.936
1. The petitioners Have teen convicted of kidnapping a girl named Sahya Khatun from lawful guardianship and sentenced under Section 363, Indian Penal Code, to two months' rigorous imprisonment each. The girl in question is a Muhammadan girl whose age according to the case for the prosecution is 8 or 9 and according to defence about two years less.2. This Rule was granted on the ground that the husband of the girl from whose care she was taken was not her lawful guardian under the Muhammad an Law, nor was he proved to have been lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of the minor so as to make the explanation of Section 361, Indian Penal Code, applicable. We hold that the Rule must be made absolute on this ground. The husband of a Muhammadan girl who has not attained puberty is not the lawful guardian of her person under the Muhammadan Law. The lawful guardian of such a person is ordinarily her mother, and in the present case, since the mother is dead the lawful guardian is the moth...
In Re: G.T. Williams
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal115
Greaves, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, for the purpose of determining the amount of the fees to be paid in respect of the grant of Letters of Administration in the above estate. Two questions are raised. The first is whether the Bengal Court Fees Amendment Act of 1922 (Act IV of 1922) is ultra vires. The second question is whether, assuming the Act is not ultra vires, the fee is to be levied at the enhanced rate prescribed by the Bengal Court Fees Amendment Act of 1922 (Act IV of 1922) on the whole estate, or whether the enhanced fee is payable only on that portion thereof which is situate in Bengal, the fee in respect of the assets outside Bengal being leviable at the lower rate prescribed by the Court Fees Act of 1870 as amended by subsequent Acts of the Imperial Legislative Council.2. On behalf of the Administrator-General of Bengal to whom a grant has been issued, and who has paid under protest the fee at the enhanced rate prescribed by Benga...
Bengal-nagpur Railway Company, Limited Vs. Firm Bal Mukunda Biseswar L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal663,80Ind.Cas.200
1. This is an appeal by the defendant Company in a suit for damages for destruction of a godown and buildings. The damages were assessed by the plaintiff at Rs. 5,000; a decree has been made in his favour for Rs. 3,500. The plaintiff was a lessee under the defendants and the crucial point in the litigation is, whether his tenancy had been terminated in accordance with law at the date when the godown and the buildings erected by him on the land covered by the lease were destroyed. The Subordinate Judge has answered this question in favour of the plaintiff and we feel no doubt that the view taken by him was correct.2. The terms of the tenancy are embodied in two documents, dated the 16th December, 1912. The eighth paragraph of the first document states that the Company would give three months' notice in writing to the lessee to deliver up the land and premises leased. The second paragraph of the second document states that the lessee would, during the continuance of the lease, pay to the...
In Re: Goods of G.T. Williams
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.466
Greaves, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5 of the Courts-Fees Act, 1870, for the purpose of determining the amount of the fees to be paid in respect of the grant of Letters of Administration in the above estate. Two questions are raised. The first is whether the Bengal Court-Fees Amendment Act of 1922 (Act IV of 1922) is ultra vires. The second question is whether, assuming the Act is not ultra vires, the fee is to be levied at the enhanced rate prescribed by the Bengal Court-Fees Amendment Act of 1922 (Act IV of 1922) on the whole estate, or whether the enhanced fee is payable only on that portiol thereof which is situate in Bengal, the fee in respect of the assets outside Bengal being leviable at the lower rate prescribed by the Court-Fees Act of 1870, as amended by subsequent Acts of the Imperial Legislative Council.2. On behalf of the Administrator-General of Bengal to whom a grant has been issued, and who has paid under protest the fee at the enhanced rate prescribed by Ben...
Madhoram Raghumull and anr. Vs. the Official Assignee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal631,85Ind.Cas.984
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Madhoram Raghumull against an order which was made by my learned brother Mr. Justice Greaves on the 13th of June 1922, by which he declared that two assignments dated respectively the 2nd of March 1921 and the 29th of June 1921 were void as against the Official, Assignee under the provisions of Section 56 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. The appellants have appealed against that order, and it is necessary to state a few facts, about which there is no dispute.2. The insolvents were Surajmull and Mongalchand. They traded under the name of Puran Chand Hurruck Chand. They were adjudicated insolvents at the instance of a creditor on the 15th of March 1921. On the 2nd March 1921, thirteen days before the adjudication, Surajmull and Mongalchand by a deed of assignment assigned to Raghunath Das Sewlal, a firm of traders in Calcutta who were creditors of the insolvents, certain outstanding debts which were alleged to be owing to the insolve...
Srimati Nagendra Bala Choudhurani Vs. Hon'ble Sir Bejoy Chand Mahatap ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.153
1. These three appeals arise out of three suits for recovery of possession of certain chaukidari chakran lands after establishment of the plaintiff's title thereto. It is alleged that the putni mehal, known as Lot Udaynarainpore was originally held by one Ram Narayan Mookerjee under the Ziminiar, the Maharajadhiraj of Burdwan, and that the plaintiff Srmati Nagendra Bala Choudhurani purchased on the 8th April 1905 the paint tenure in respect of the said Lot Udaynarainpore comprising 13 Mouzahs at a sale held by a Receiver appointed by this Court on its Original Side in a suit for partition of certain plaint properties among the representatives of the said Ram Narayan Mookerjee, and that thereafter the plaintiff tried to obtain possession of certain chaukidari chakran lands comprised in the said Mouzahs which had been resumed by the Government under() Bengal Act VI of 1870 aid which had beets settled during the years 1896 to 1899 with the Zemindar, the Maharajadhiraj of Burdwan. The main...
Pitambar GaIn Vs. Ramcharan Moral and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal483
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment of the defendant who is the appellant before us after service of notice to quit.2. It appears that in 1901, the plaintiff's' father brought a suit for ejectment against the appellant Pitambar and his brother Digambar from the disputed land and obtained a decree for Khas possession upon a solenama. In 1904, Pitambar and his brother Digambar instituted a suit against the plaintiffs for specific performances of the contract, alleging that at the time of the solenama there was an agreement between the parties that the plaintiff would grant a lease of the lands to them. The suit was decreed and the plaintiffs in the present case were given two months' time to execute a registered lease and make it over to the defendants and it was directed that in default thereof, the lands would be measured on the defendant's application for the purpose, and that a patta on the terms mentioned in the judgment would be prepared and executed by the Court on t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »