Kolkata Court March 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.
idol Sri Sri Gokul Nath JIn Vs. the New Birbhum Coal Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1923
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.589
B.B. Ghose, J.1. The memorandum of appeal in this case was filed with a Court-fee of Rs. 20 in accordance with the provisions of Schedule II, Article 17(iii) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as amended by Bengal Act, IV of 1922. There being a difference of opinion as to the fee payable between the Stamp Reporter and the Vakil for the Appellant, the Taxing Officer referred the matter to the Chief Justice who has appointed me to decide the question under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act. I thought it necessary to look into the plaint in order to enable me to decide it, and the learned Vakil for the Appellant supplied mo with a copy of it and also another copy to the learned Government Pleader who appeared on behalf of the revenue authorities. It is contended on behalf of the Appellant that the court-fee paid is sufficient. Article 17 of Schedule II. of the Court Fees Act runs thus: 'Plaint or memorandum of appeal in each of the following suits: (iii) to obtain a declaratory decree where no co...
Santala Bewa and ors. Vs. Badaswari Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal98
1. The defendants are the appellants before us and the facts of the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen are, shortly stated, as follows:The plaintiff is the daughter of one Lalua Singh, who held a six pies share in ,a certain jote. The defendant No. 1, Santala Bewa, is Lalua's second wife. On Lalua's death she inherited the share of Lalua in the said jote. Thereafter the defendant No. 1 married again, according to the custom of the Rajbansis and subsequently she sold the said six pies share in the jote to defendant No. 2, who again sold the same to defendant No. 3. The plaintiff has brought the present suit for recovery of possession of the said six pies share on the ground that the defendant No. 1 by her re-marriage had forfeited her right to the said share and that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 by their purchase had acquired no right and title to the same. The defendant No. 1 in her defence stated that there was a special custom among the Rajbansis that a widow did not forfeit he...
Abinash Chandra Roy and anr. Vs. Fulchand Chaudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal165
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants before us and the facts, which have given rise to this appeal are, shortly stated, as follows:The plaintiffs, who are the landlords, instituted a suit, being Suit No. 984 of 1919, in the Court of the Munsif at Dubrajpur, for recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1322 to 1325 B.S. The jote, in respect of which the arrears of rent were claimed, stood in the names of two persons named Miran and Bishnu Chaudhuri. The parties, who were made defendants in the suit, contended that all the heirs of the said two recorded tenants had not been made defendants and accordingly the suit was incompetent.2. The Court of first instance found that all the heirs of the said two recorded tenants were in possession of the jote, and that a son of Bishnu Chaudhuri and the heirs of other sons of Bishnu Chaudhuri and heirs of Miran Chaudhuri had not been made parties to the suit, and accordingly dismissed the suit, holding that it was bad for defect of parties.3. The pl...
Santala Bewa and ors. Vs. Budaswari Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.11
1. The defendants are the appellants before us and the facts of the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, are, shortly stated, as follows:2. The plaintiff is the daughter of one Lalua Singh who held a six-pies share in a certain jote. The defendant No. 1, Santala Bewa, is Lalua's second wife. On Lalua's death she inherited the share of Lalua in the said jote. Thereafter, the defendant No. 1 married again, according to the custom of the Rajbansis and subsequently she sold the said six-pies share in the jote to defendant No. 2 who again sold the same to defendant No. 3. The plaintiff has brought the present suit for recovery of possession of the said six-pies share on the ground that the defendant No. 1 by her re-marriage had forfeited her right to the said share and that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 by their purchase had acquired no right and title to the same. The defendant No. 1 in her defence stated that there was a special custom among the Rajbansis that a widow did not forfeit h...
Krishna Chandra Dey Vs. W. Graham
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal694,75Ind.Cas.421
1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us and the facts which have given rise to the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, are, briefly stated, as follows:--By an agreement in writing made on the 15th day of September 1919, the defendant agreed to sell and the plaintiff agreed to purchase certain lands, measuring about 24 1/2 bighas, in Tollygunge, in the suburbs of Calcutta, particularly described as plots A and B in the schedule annexed to the said agreement, free from encumbrances, for a sum of Rs. 1,53,000. The vendor agreed to deliver to the purchaser's Solicitor the title-deeds relating to the said plots A and B within two days from the said date and the purchaser agreed to send in his requisitions in respect of the title within five days from the date of the delivery of the title-deeds. The requisitions were to be answered within five days thereafter. The vendor agreed to make out a marketable title to the said properties and in case of failure, to refund to the purchaser...
Jogneswar Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Surendra Nath Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal167,76Ind.Cas.343
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for ascertainment of mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is preferred by the judgment-debtors. The suit was instituted in 1904 for possession of a small piece of land valued at Rs. 50 and for mesne profits the extent of which was calculated at Rs. 3. The litigation with regard to this land continued for a considerable number of years, and it was finally decided in the year 1914 in favour of the plaintiffs. The present application was made in 1917 to the Munsiff for ascertainment of mesne profits for the period of dispossession including the period for which the litigation was pending. The Plaintiffs in their application to the Munsiff asked for Rs. 3,820 as the mesne profits due to them. The defendants raised various objections to the petition, and among these there was this objection that the Munsiff was not empowered to make a decree in excess of the pecuniary jurisdiction of his Court. ...
Jnanendra Nath Mookerjee Vs. Brahmapada Pramanick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal704,79Ind.Cas.191
1. The question involved in this appeal turns upon the construction o a decree obtained by the appellant against the respondent in a suit for recovery of possession.2. It appears that the suit was for ejectment of the defendant from certain land on which there were some huts. The huts are found by both the Courts below to belong to the plaintiff. There was no reference to the huts in the plaint in that suit but the decree in that suit was as follows:The suit being decreed with costs and interest, plaintiff will get khas possession of the disputed land on ejecting the defendant there from, as prayed. The defendant himself must remove all his personal properties from the disputed land within one month. In default the plaintiff will have to remove the same with the help of the Court and he will get khas possession of the said land.3. In execution of the decree, the plaintiff obtained khas possession of the land by turning out the defendant. The defendant thereupon applied to the Court bel...
Govind Das Pity Vs. Jardine Skinner and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal176
Sanderson, C.J.1. In this matter there are three appeals, Nos. 151 of 1922, 25 of 1923 and 26 of 1923. Appeal No. 51 of 1922 is against an order made by my learned brother Mr. Justice Greaves, on the 31st of August 1922, whereby he directed the Appellant Govind Das Pity to pay the sum of Rs. 3,750 to Messrs. Jardine Skinner & Co., on or before the 13th of November 1922.2. The next appeal, No. 25 of 1923, is against an order made by the learned Judge on the 6th of February 1923, whereby the learned Judge directed that a previous order, which he had made on the 21st of November 1922, should be vacated, and the third appeal, No. 26 of 1923, is against an order which the learned Judge made on the 7th of February 1923, directing that a writ of attachment should issue against the person of the Appellant to the Sheriff of Calcutta authorizing him to attach the person of the Appellant and bring him up before the Court to be dealt with according to law for having failed to comply with the order...
Govind Das Pity Vs. Jardine Skinner and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1923
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.849
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this matter there are three appeals, Nos. 151 of 1922, 25 of 1923 and 26 of 1923. Appeal No. 151 of 1922 is against an order made by my learned brother Mr. Justice Greaves on the 31st of August 1922, whereby he directed the appellant Govind Das Pity to pay the sum of Rs. 3,750 to Messrs. Jardine Skinner & Co., on or before the 13th of November 1922.2. The next appeal, No. 25 of 1923, is against an order made by the learned Judge, on the 6th of February 1923, whereby the learned Judge directed that a previous order, which he had made on the 21st of November 1922, should be vacated, and the third appeal, No. 26 of 1923, is against an order which the learned Judge made on the 7th of February 1923, directing that a writ of attachment should issue against the person of the Appellant to the Sheriff of Calcutta authorizing him to attach the person of the Appellant and bring him up before the Court to be dealt with according to law for having failed to comply with...
Lalit Mohan Bhattacharjee Vs. Noni Lal Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal662,77Ind.Cas.816
1. This is a Reference from the District Magistrate of Howrah recommending that in the alternative one of the two orders by the Sub-Deputy Magistrate of Uluberiah be set aside. A complaint was made before that officer on the 22nd December and he passed a order directing that the two accused persons be summoned. Subsequently on that date one of the persons against whom summons had been ordered to be issued appeared and laid a cross complaint. The Magistrate then rescinded the order passed by him and sent both the cases to a Subordinate Magistrate for local enquiry and report. The learned District Magistrate recommends that either the order directing the issue of summons or the order rescinding that order should be set aside on the ground that the Magistrate having formed an opinion that summons should issue under Section 204, Criminal Procedure, Code, cannot rescind that order and direct the holding of an enquiry under Section 202. We are unable to accept the recommendation of the learn...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »