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.
Kshitish Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Umed Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal338
1. We think this Rule succeeds to this extent that the case must go baek to the Small Cause Court to be dealt with on the footing that the Mablakbandi is a good acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, will preserve any debt due which was not; at that time barred by limitation. But, in dealing with this matter, the learned Judge must also proceed upon the view that the Mablakbandi is not a promise to pay under Section 25 of the Contract Act so as to revive any debt, which was barred at the date of the Mablakbandi. The view taken by the learned Judge to the effect that the plaint was presented one day out of time is also negative. From that point of view, the case must go back to be dealt with afresh. Costs of this Rule will abide the result. We assess the hearing-fee at one gold mohur....
Sudhanya Kumar Bose Ray Chaudhury Vs. Sreemutty Sushilabala Bose Ray C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.547
Rankin, J.1. In this case, I am of opinion that the appeal fails and must be dismissed. It appears that the present plaintiff who was the second mortgagee in respect of certain plots of land brought a suit for redemption claiming that prior to the institution of the suit she had made a sufficient tender. She accordingly claimed not merely possession of the' mortgaged property but claimed also mesne profits from the institution of the suit until such date as she could get delivery of possession. The Trial Court as regards the question of mesne profits allowed her to withdraw that claim with, permission to sue again. But the ultimate effect of the suit was this that it was held that there had been no sufficient tender before the suit and a preliminary decree was made under which a certain sum was fixed and that sum was after the decree paid into Court in pursuance of the decree. Thereupon, of course, the first mortgagee was obliged to take that sum in, full discharge and to reconvey and ...
Bilwar Bibi Vs. Mahamed Habibar Rahman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal710,84Ind.Cas.204
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the judgment-debtors. The respondents obtained a decree against the appellants in a contribution suit on February 25, 1913, and that decree was confirmed on January 17, 1914. They presented an application for execution on January 8, 1917, but withdrew it on March 24, 1917. On March 12, 1920, they made another application, the application from which the present appeal arises. Prima facie, the application is barred by limitation but the Courts below have held that limitation was saved by the fact that some of the decree-holders were minors and that the adult decree-holders could not give a discharge without their concurrence. It is urged for the judgment-debtors that this finding is erroneous.2. It appears that the original plaintiff in the contribution suit died during the hearing of the suit, and that the present decree-holders were brought on the record as his representatives. On February 21, 1913, a certificate was issued under Act VII of 18...
Kailas Chandra Ray and ors. Vs. Hridoy Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal814,83Ind.Cas.958
Rankin, J.1. In this case, some fourteen plaintiffs brought a suit in May 1918 for the purpose of setting aside the preliminary and final decrees made in 1917 in a partition suit and for certain incidental reliefs. Some of the plaintiffs, namely, plaintiff No. 2 and plaintiffs Nos. 5 to 9 went out of the case by compromise before the matters with which we are now concerned. There were a great number of defendants, I understand about 160 or more of whom the present petitioners who appear to be defendants Nos. 43 to 49 were the contesting defendants. After many days, on the 21st June 1923, the case came on for hearing and an application for. adjournment was made by certain of the plaintiffs and it was dismissed. Thereupon, the suit was dismissed for default in the presence of the present petitioners-defendants Nos. 43 to 49. Shortly after, wards, an application for the restoration of the suit was made by three of the plaintiffs-plaintiffs Nos. 1, 3 and 4 - against the present petitioners...
Janaki Nath Kundu Pal and ors. Vs. Monmohan De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal263a
1. This Rule was granted at the instance of the second party, other than No. 1 of that party, against an order of the Magistrate, dated the 16th of March, 1923, forbidding interference by the second party with a certain pathway. The Rule was granted on the ground that the second party other than No 1 of that party were not served after an amendment in the proceedings had been made. The facts shortly areas follows. On the 18th of May, 1922, an information was received of a possible breach of the peace in respect of the pathway which was in dispute in these proceedings. On the 26th of May a Police Report was received by the Magistrate which referred to the whole of the pathway. On the 5th of June proceedings were drawn up under Section 107 but on the 6th of July on the petition of the second party the proceedings were changed to proceedings under Section 147. As those proceedings ware drawn up it seems to me that they only referred to a portion of the pathway in dispute running by the so...
Syed Raza Ali and ors. Vs. Kazi Nur-ud-dIn Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal537
Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the District Judge of 24-Parganas dated the 12th August, 1923, dismissing an application of the petitioners under Section 3 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, XIV of 1920. That section authorizes any person having an interest in a trust of a charitable or religious nature to apply to Court for a direction on the trustee for certain information relating to the trust and for an examination and auditing of the accounts of the trust. The petitioners' application has been dismissed by the learned Judge as he has found that the wakfnama was executed during the death illness of the testator and that it was never acted upon.2. With regard to the first ground the finding of the learned Judge is as follows: 'It appears, however, that it was created when he was in death illness. Ha was suffering from phthisis. He may have been ill for a long time but death was near. The evidence on the record has been placed before me and the lea...
Bilwar Bibi Vs. Mahamed Habibar Rahaman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal566
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the judgment-debtors. The respondents obtained a decree against the appellants in a contribution suit on February 25, 1913, and that decree was confirmed on January 17, 1914. They presented an application for execution on January 8, 1917, but withdrew it on March 24, 1917. On March 12, 1920, they made another application, the application from which the present appeal arises. Prima facie, the application is barred by limitation, but the Courts below have held that limitation was saved by the fact that some of the decree-holders were minors and that the adult decree-holders could not give a discharge without their concurrence. It is urged for the judgment-debtors that this finding is erroneous.2. It appears that the original plaintiff in the contribution suit died during the hearing of the suit, and that the present decree-holders were brought on the record as his representatives. On February 21, 1913, a certificate was issued under Act VII of 1...
Promoda Sundari Dassi and anr. Vs. Khetra Bag and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal186
1. This Rule was granted at the instance of the first party. The short point raised by the Rule is that the learned Magistrate was wrong in giving possession to the second party and ignoring a decree of a Civil Court, reliance being placed by the learned Vakil for the first party upon two cases to which we were referred, namely, Doulat Koer v. Rameswari Kosri (1899) 26 Cal. 625 and Atul Hazra v. Uma Charan Changdar (1916) 20 C.W.N. 796. Now the case for the first party is that a suit was brought against Khetra Bag who was then settled on the land and that this suit was decreed and that accordingly the Magistrate was not justified in ignoring this decree and finding, as he has done, possession with the second party.2. Now it appears that the case for the second party was that some of them had purchased the land in question prior to the ejectment decree being passed against Khetra Bag. They also asserted that they were not parties to the ejectment suit and that they were not bound by the...
Giribala Dasi and ors. Vs. Tarak Nath Jatan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal515
Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the District Judge, 24 Parganas, setting aside a sale held in execution of a decree of the petitioners. The sale was held so far back as the 7th October, 1915 and the present application was presented by the opposite party for setting aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 20, on the 20th April, 1922. The Court of first instance found that the property was sold for an inadequate price, that the decree-holder was the purchaser, that the sale processes were duly served, and the judgment-debtor had given up possession of the land to the decree-holder by an amicable arrangement. On appeal, the learned District Judge has recorded his finding in the following words: 'I am inclined to hold that the petitioners are still in possession and that they were not aware of the sale proceedings. The sale proceedings were irregular. The properties were misdescribed and sold for an inadequate price. The decree-holders were the purchasers. The appea...
Golak Chandra Nundy Vs. Nishi Chandra Sil and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal521
Suhrawardy, J.1. Two grounds have been token in this case. The first is that the learned Judge was wrong in giving a decree So the plaintiff on a case which was not made in the plaint. This has prejudiced the defendant as he was unable to meet the plaintiff's case as placed before the Judge and accepted by him. The allegations in the plaint are to the effect that the plaintiff had some money deposit-ad with defendant No. 2 and that the plaintiff had taken Rs. 100 out of the money in order to pay certain taxes on timber cut by him. With regard to this case the Judge observes as follows: 'This Rs. 100, is described as plaintiff's money kept in deposit with defendant No. 2, but defendant No. 1 took that as a loan from defendant No. 2 and then promised to pay to the plaintiff. This of course is not proved.' Having disbelieved the plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint, the learned Judge proceeds to determine whether anything is due to the plaintiff from defendant No. 1 and he finds that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »