Kolkata Court January 1924 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.
NaraIn Das Dutt and anr. Vs. Banku Behari Chattopadhaya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal213
Richardson, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for the execution of a mortgage decree and is from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, dated the 22nd August, 1921 directing that execution should proceed. The appellants are the sons and representatives of the mortgagor-defendant in the suit to which the decree was made. It will be convenient to distinguish the plaintiff in that suit as the first mortgagee and the three several puisne mortgagees who were also impleaded, as the second, third and fourth mortgagees respectively. The principal respondent, Banku Behary Chattopadhya, is the fourth mortgage, a6 whose instance the learned Subordinate Judge made his order and to whom I shall refer as the respondent. The other respondents are formal parties representing the other mortgagees whose claims have been satisfied.2. The question for decision whether the application for execution was in time is governed by Article 183 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act of 1908. The...
Kumudini Dassya and anr. Vs. Mukta Sundari Dassya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal257
Mukerji, J.1. The pleadings of the parties are set out in sufficient detail in the judgment of the Trial Court and it is unnecessary to repeat them here. A reference to the geneological tree in that judgment will show how the parties to this suit are related to each other. The substantial points in controversy in this litigation were whether the lands in suit were the joint property of a family, which traces its origin to one Bali Charan De, and whether the plaintiffs as widows of two of the male members of the family were entitled to certain shares therein. The subject-matter of the suit were plots bearing Khatian Nos. 182, 91, 108, 138 and 208.2. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit so far as it related to lands of khatian No. 182 and made a decree in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 declaring her title to l/6th share and in favour of the plaintiff No. 2 declaring her title to 2-9ths share in the lands of khatian Nos. 91, 108,138 and 208, and for joint possession in favour of both t...
Mohendra Kumar Rudra and ors. Vs. Gagan Chandra Rudra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal471
Suhrawardy, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of a contract which came into existence in the following circumstances: There is a tank which originally belonged to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. They sold a moiety of it to the plaintiff on the 16th Pous, 1275. The two weeks after, namely, on the 29th Pous they entered into an agreement the principal clause of which runs thus:If by chance the condition of either party becomes deplorable or if either party voluntarily wants to transfer the whole or a portion of his interest in the said tank or it becomes necessary to execute hot or simple mortgage of the tank, it must be to the other party. If it becomes necessary for any party to execute absolute sale, or kot simple mortgage of the whole or a portion of that property for any reason, then the party or their successors-in-interest transferring or mortgaging their share do so to the other party or their successors-in...
Shib Das Kundu Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal584
Greaves and Panton, JJ.1. The accused in this case is a boy of 16, and he was charged with having committed rape. It is not suggested that he was of unsound mind at the time the offence was committed, but a petition was put in on his behalf showing that since his apprehension he had become a person of unsound mind. Accordingly, under the provisions of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a jury were empanelled for the purpose of trying the fact of his unsoundness of mind and incapacity to make his defence. The only witness examined before the jury was Lt.-Col. A.C. McGilchrist of the Indian Medical Service who was the Civil Surgeon at Howrah. He was examined as a witness on behalf of the accused, and he stated that he did not think that the accused was in a fit state to understand the proceedings in Court or to stand his trial. He was cross-examined, and stated that he considered the accused mentally unsound, and that his actions were those of a person of unsound mind. The ju...
NaraIn Dass Dutt and anr. Vs. Banku Behary Chattopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.1001
Richardson, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for the execution of a mortgage-decree and is from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, dated 22nd August 1921, directing that execution should proceed. The appellants are the sons and representatives of the mortgagor defendant in the suit in in which the decree was made. It will be convenient to distinguish the plaintiff in that suit as the first mortgagee and the three several puisne mortgagees who were also impleaded, as the second, third and fourth mortgagees respectively. The principal respondent, Banku Behari Chattopadhya, is the fourth mortgagee, at whose instance the learned Subordinate Judge made his order and to whom I shall refer as the respondent. The other respondents are formal parties representing the other mortgagees whose claims have been satisfied.2. The question for decision, whether the application for execution was in time, is governed by Article 183 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act of 1908. T...
Kedar Nath Biswas Vs. Kamini Sundar Dasya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal623
Suhrawardy, J.1. In this appeal, the point involved is whether on the findings of the Courts below the plaintiff's suit is barred by two years' limitation under Article 3 of Schedule 111 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The facts are that defendant No. 2 who is the appellant was the landlord in respect of a certain holding which was jointly held by two brothers Sitanath and Dwarkanath. Sitanath died leaving plaintiff as his widow on whom devolved his one half share. The plaintiff's case is that she purchased the other one half of Dwarkanath and thus became entitled to the 16 annas share of the holding. The defendant's case is that, in respect of the eastern half of this holding Dwarkanath was the sole tenant and after his death the defendant No. 4 succeeded him as a tenant, but as defendant No. 4 did not pay the rent in respect of the eastern half of the holding, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, being the landlords brought a suit for rent, obtained a decree, purchased the land in execution of th...
Jagabandhu Kundu and ors. Vs. Rajmohan Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal538a
Rankin, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the 5th Subordinate Judge of Dacca whereby he modified a decision of the Munsif of Munshiganj. The plaintiff is a co-sharer in the maliki interest of a small piece of land in area about one-third of an acre and he has a 3 annas 4 gundas share. So far as this particular land now in question is concerned, it appears that it was the subject-matter of a non-transferable occupancy right in defendant No. 11. The original raiyat transferred it or purported so to do to the first defendant and the case has been argued on the footing that the first defendant is merely a benamidar transferree for a co-sharer of the plaintiff, by name Hari Binode. It appears that the transfer was in November 1918, and that, in May of 1919, Hari Binode settled the land with the present appellants, defendants Nos. 2 and 3. It appears, further, so far as we can gather, that in or about January of 1919, Hari Binode excavated a tank and dug certain ditches on the proper...
Kedar Nath Biswas Vs. Kamini Sundari Dassya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.514
Suhrawardy, J.1. In this appeal the point involved is whether, on the findings of the Courts below, the plaintiff's suit is barred by two years limitation under Article 3 of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The facts are that defendant No. 2 who is the appellant was the landlord in respect of a certain holding which was jointly held by two brothers Sita Nath and Dwarka Nath Sita Nath died leaving plaintiff as his widow on whom dovolved his one-half share. The plaintiff's case is that she purchased the other one-half of Dwarka Nath and thus became entitled to the 16 annas share of the holding. The defendant's case is that in respect of the eastern half of this holding Dwarka Nath was the sole tenant and after his death the defendant No. 4 succeeded him as a tenant; but as defendant No. 4 did not pay the rent in respect of the eastern half of the holding, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, being the landlords, brought a suit for rent, obtained a decree, purchased the land in execution o...
Motaherali Jamadar and ors. Vs. Eshaque Sikdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal848
1. We make the Rule absolute upon the third ground stated in the petition. The Magistrate in his explanation contends that he is under no obligation to write a judgment and that it is sufficient for him, in Section 145 proceedings merely, to make an order. In the order before us, there is nothing to show how the Magistrate had approached the question or how he has considered the evidence which was before him and as stated in the case of Bhuban Chandra Hazra v. Nibaran Chandra Santra A.I.R. 1922 Cal. 382, we think that we are entitled in Section 145 proceeding to require from the trying Magistrate a statement of the reasons for his decision sufficient to enable us to determine whether he has or has not complied with Sub-section (4) to Section 145 and whether he has directed his mind to the consideration of the effect, the evidence adduced. We, therefore, follow the order which was made in the case to which we have already referred and direct that the case be re-opened at the point reach...
Prohlad Chandra Chatterjee Vs. Mahendra Nath Gopait and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal564
Rankin, J.1. This is an appeal by the landlord in a suit brought by him to have an entry in the Record-of-Rights corrected. The entry is with respect to a mouzah called Dakhin Aukhua and it is Contained in what is called Part II of the general Khatian in respect of that mouzah. The entry is to the effect that in that mouzah, if inundation takes place, the raiyats are to get a rateable proportionate deduction of rent from their landlords. The judgment under appeal proceeds upon the basis that that entry attracts the presumption under Section 103-B, Sub-section (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act; in other words, that it shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence to be incorrect. Accordingly, the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has approached, first, the plaintiff's evidence and ho has examined into the question whether that evidence, first of all, taken by itself, succeeds or fails to rebut the presumption of the correctness of the entry. Having dealt with the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »