Kolkata Court July 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.
injad Ali and ors. Vs. Mohini Chandra Adhikari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal148,80Ind.Cas.623
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is can appeal from the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge of Sylhet by the Plaintiffs in the suit. The suit was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by the Act of Limitation. The learned Additional District Judge applied Article 62 of the Limitation Act to the case holding that this was a 'suit for money payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs for money received by the Defendant for the Plaintiffs' use.' The learned Vakil who appeared for the Plaintiffs argued that that article was not applicable, but that Article 116 applied. The suit was for establishment of title to and recovery of possession of two annas share in the property described in the schedule to the plaint, it being alleged that the Plaintiffs purchased such share from Defendant No. 1. There was an alternative prayer that in case it was found that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to possession, a decree for the refund by the Defendant No. 1 of the consideration paid with inter...
Sailaja Nath Ray Choudhury and ors. Vs. Raja Reshee Case Law and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal693
Rankin, J.1. The plaintiffs brought the suit out of which this appeal arises under Section 106 of Bengal Tenancy Act to have a certain entry in the record of rights corrected. The subject-matter of the suit appears to be a two storied building with the tank and orchard round it and some tenanted lands the area of the whole being some sixty bighas. The building and the tank appear to be in the centre of a village which has become a municipality. The record of rights treated the matter thus: That these lands were in the possession of the plaintiffs, and that they were liable to be assessed with rent by the Zemindars. Now the plaintiffs themselves are fractional owners of the Zamindary and the contesting defendants come in by purchase of an eight anna interest in the Zemindary, the purchases having been made somewhere between 1287 and 1290 B.S. The case made by the plaintiffs is that there was an old Brahmattar grant made in 1165 B.S. to one Anand Prosad Mookerjee, that his son was Durga ...
Gopi Sundari Dasi and ors. Vs. Kherod Gobinda Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal194,82Ind.Cas.99
Richardson, J.1. This is an appeal from the appellate judgment of the Additional District Judge of Pabna, dated the 31st May, 1921. The questions which the learned Additional Judge had to consider are thus stated by him:(1) Was Mouza Chur Raninagar included within the putni held by the plaintiffs and other pro forma defendants under the malik defendants? Was Mehal No. 2159 created out of the lands of that putni?(2) Are the plaintiffs entitled to a refund of the amount claimed?2. Some short explanation is necessary to the nature of the dispute in connection with which these questions arose.3. The plaintiffs and those defendants in the suit who are described as pro forma defendants are the proprietors of a putni tenure within the estate of the principal defendants Nos. 1 to 7. The tenure is bounded on one side by the river Ganges and in the year 1912-1913, a survey was made by the Government with the result that certain lands were formed into a separate estate No. 2159 known as Mouza Chu...
Sailaja Nath Roy Chowdhury Vs. Rishee Case Law
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal135
Rankin, J.1. The plaintiffs brought the suit out of which this appeal arises under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to have a certain entry in the record-of-rights corrected. The subject matter of the suit appears to be a two-storied building with the tank and orchard round it and some tenanted lands, the area of the whole being some sixty bighas. The building and the tank appear to be in the centre of a village which has become a municipality. The record-of-rights treated the matter thus That these lands were in the possession of the plaintiffs and that they were liable to be assessed with rent by the zemindars. Now the plaintiffs themselves are fractional owners of the zemindary and the contesting defendants come in by purchase of an eight-anna interest in the zemindary, the purchases having been made somewhere between 1287 and 1290 B.S. The case made by the plaintiffs is that there was an old Brahmattar grant made in 1165 B.S. to one Annada Prosad Mookerjee, that his son was Du...
Natabar Khan Vs. King Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal63
1. The Petitioner in this case has bean convicted of theft and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 25. From the record and the explanation submitted it would appear that the Petitioner pleaded guilty. But the trying Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal appear to have overlooked the fact that this was a case in which an appealable sentence was passed. Section 263 applies to cases in which no appeal lies and exempts She Magistrate from framing a formal charge in such cases. But there is no such exemption in a case tried summarily in which, as in the present case, the sentence passed is appealable. Further under Section 262, Cr.P.C., it is necessary that in a summary trial the procedure prescribed for warrant cases shall be followed in warrant cases with certain exceptions. One of the distinguishing points between a summons and a warrant case is that in a warrant case sufficient evidence to support the charge must be recorded b...
Banka Behary Das Vs. Gurdas Dhar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal172
B.B. Ghose, J.1. The plaintiff, who was the auction-purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree for rent, sued both the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor for refund of the purchase money and also for compensation on certain allegations made in the plaint. The suit was decreed in the primary Court against both the defendants. On appeal by the decree-holder defendant, the learned Judge has dismissed the suit holding that it was not maintainable. The plaintiff appeals to this Court and two questions have been raised on his behalf : (1) - Whether a suit for refund of purchase money is maintainable by the auction-purchaser on the ground that the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest in the land and (2) whether the suit is maintainable on the ground of fraud of the defendants. With regard to the first question, the learned Vakil for the appellant has placed before us all the cases decided by the different High Courts with reference to sales held after the Code of Civil Procedure of 1...
Rampratap Chamria Vs. Durgaprasad Chamria and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal567,83Ind.Cas.300
Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order made by Mr. Justice Greaves for cancellation of an award made by arbitrators.2. The subject matter of the litigation is alleged to be the estate left by one Hardatrai Chamria whose name appears in the following genealogical table: Nandaram Chamria | ____________________________________________________ | | Gorakhram Hardatrai Chamria | M. Annardevi | | _______________ _________________________ | | | | |Rampratap Amlockchand Durgaprasad Radhakissen Motilal Ptff. M. Surji | (adopt. Keshabdeo Keshabdeo)3. On the 12th January, 1922, Rampratap instituted a suit against his cousins Durgaprasad, Radhakissen and Motilal; as also against his sister-in-law Surji and his nephew Keshabdeo. The allegations in the plaint may be briefly summarised. Nandaram left two sons Gorakbram and Hardatrai. The former died in 1914 leaving the plaintiff as his surviving son, and Surji, his daughter-in-law, the widow of Arnlokchand who had predeceased him in ...
Sarat Chandra Sen Vs. Yakub Taluqdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal805,83Ind.Cas.898
1. Letter of Reference which was as follows: -Under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, I have the honour to submit herewith the record of the marginally noted case for necessary orders by the Hon'ble Court.2. The case for the prosecution was that one Kishori Mohan was a Bhuggattardar under one Jogeswari Gupta in respect of his homestead piece of land, that Kishori Mohan was at Nwadip for some time and that his brother was placed in charge of that bari, that one day in last November the landlord had a jack fruit tree worth Rs. 15 or Rs. 20 removed from the bari through his servants and that the servants thus committed an offence under Sections 426 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The defences were that the tree removed was a dead one, that the tree was removed under the orders of the landlord who was entitled to it, that the servants removed it bona fide without any criminal intention, that Kishori had left and had disposed of the bari and that the land was in khas possessio...
Ellen Eveline Wells Vs. John Dickinson and Co., Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal868
Buckland, J.1. This is a suit to recover the sum of Rs. 5,860 as rent of a furnished flat in No. 12, Loudon Street and a small amount of Rs. 86-7-0 which is not in dispute. The material facts as to which also there is no dispute are as follows : - By a letter dated the 3rd February 1920 the Defendant Company agreed to take 'the lower flat of the house at the above (12, Loudon Street) address at Rs. 600 a month including furniture' from the 1st of May next till the 31st October 1921. The Defendant Company entered into possession on 1st June 1920. On the 14th October 1920 the Defendant Company applied to the Rent Controller appointed under the Calcutta Rent Act and on the 30th March 1921 the Rent Controller fixed a standard rent for the premises at Rs. 275 per month including the furniture. The plaintiff applied to the Tribunal which decided that the Controller had no power in fixing a standard rent to include hire of furniture and fixed it at Rs. 200 per month for the premises unfurnish...
Natabar Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1923
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.278
1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted of theft and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 25. From the record and the explanation submitted it would appear that the petitioner pleaded guilty. But the Trying Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal appear to have overlooked the fact that this was a case in which an appealable sentence was passed. Section 263 applies to cases in which no appeal lies and exempts the Magistrate from framing a formal charge in such cases. But there is no such exemption in a case tried summarily in which as in the present case, the sentence passed is appealable. Further under Section 262, Criminal Procedure Code, it is necessary that in a summary trial the procedure prescribed for warrant cases shall be followed in warrant cases with certain exceptions. One of the distinguishing points between a summons and warrant case is that in a warrant case sufficient evidence to support the charge must ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »