Kolkata Court November 1924 Judgments
Soroj Bashini Debi Vs. Girija Proshad Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Cal326
1. In this Rule we are invited to transfer a case pending in the Court of the Munsif at Kalna to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan. The petitioner is a Hindu widow and her case is that the opposite party managed the properties which she and her co-widow inherited from their husband from the years 1320 to 1329. A suit was brought by the opposite party in the Munsif's Court at Kalna upon a hand-note alleged to have been executed by the petitioner in 1S25. The defence taken by the petitioner in the hand-note suit is that the opposite party was managing her property during the time the hand note is alleged to have been executed and that she had occasion to sign blank papers in the course of the litigations connected with the properties and that the opposite party got the hand-note fabricated in his favour. This suit was instituted by the opposite party in the Court of the Munsif at Kalna on the 27th November 1923 and the petitioner instituted her suit in the Subordinate Judge's...
Tag this Judgment!Macneil and Co. Vs. Debendra Nath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1928Cal293
ORDER1. This rule is directed against an order granting a temporary injunction against the petitioner passed by the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly. The plaintiffs brought a suit for recovery of a share of the properties in suit. Defendant 2 is the petitioner before us and is a trading company in Calcutta who are building a mill on the land in suit and the injunction asked for by the plaintiffs and which has been granted by the Court is to the effect that the petitioners should be restrained from continuing to build on the land. The injunction was prayed for presumably under Order 39, Rule (1), Clause (a), which provides that the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction if the property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted or damaged or alienated by any party to the suit. It is, therefore, necessary to see whether the present case is really a case in which any property is being wasted or damaged. We have been relieved of the necessity of dealing with this matter with re...
Tag this Judgment!Nayan Manjuri Dasi Vs. Chairman, Howrah Municipality and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1067,87Ind.Cas.229
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the Chairman of the Municipality, of Howrah, sued the appellant for the recovery of Rs. 100-6-6 being the Municipal tax of a certain holding No. 25-1, Courys Road. Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were made defendants on the ground that they had acquired a right on the property and that they were in possession. The defendants raised various defences that it is not necessary now to set out in detail. The learned Munsif decreed the suit in the following terms:Order that a decree be made for the full amount claimed and the costs, declaring that the sum be a first charge on the holding and the building and the moveable property to be found on the land subject to the prior payment of the land revenue if any due, on the land directing the defendants to pay the decretal amount and costs within a month from this date, in default of which the land and the building and the moveables to be found on the land will be sold for the arrears so decr...
Tag this Judgment!Hangeswar Kundu and ors. Vs. Surjya NaraIn Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1221,87Ind.Cas.336
Suhrawardy, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation, or in other words whether the defendants have acquired exclusive title to the land in suit by virtue 'of the adverse possession, The predecessors of the parties were joint co-owners in respect of several properties' consisting of hashil land, patit lands, jungles and tanks. Bisu, the predecessor of the appellants in the other appeal (S.A. No. 1256 of 1922) brought in 1906 a suit for partition of the mouza, which belonged to the joint family. The heirs of the other brothers, including Balai (the father of the appellants in this appeal), filed a written statement in that suit in which they alleged that hashil, patit and other lands were partitioned amongst the co-sharers long ago and some of the tanks and jungles were left unpartitioned. Thereupon Bisu withdrew the suit in 1908. In 1908 the defendants' lessee brought a criminal case against the plaintiffs...
Tag this Judgment!The Bengal Coal Company, Limited Vs. Apcar Collieries, Limited and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.248
1. This is an appeal from an order recording a compromise or a partial settlement of a suit under Order XXIII, Rule 3, C. P.C. The order appealed against was passed on 8th December 1922. On 15th January 1923 a decree was prepared in pursuance of that order in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3. On the 26th February this appeal was filed only against the order of the 8th December but no appeal was preferred against the decree. A preliminary objection was taken by Mr. Sirkar on behalf of the respondent that the present appeal is incompetent in that the decree having been passed before the appeal was filed an appeal lay from the decree and not from the order which is superseded by the decree: We think this objection must prevail. So far as this Court is concerned it must be now taken to be settled that where a preliminary decree or order is followed by a final decree an appeal does not lie against the former 'after the final decree is passed. All the cases on this point have been ci...
Tag this Judgment!Bengal Coal Company, Ltd. Vs. Apcar Collieries, Ltd., and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Cal412
1. This is an appeal from an order recording a compromise or a partial settlement of a suit under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P.C. The order appealed against was passed on 8th December 1922. On 15th January 1923 a decree was prepared in pursuance of that order in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3. On the 26th February this appeal was filed only against the order of the 8th December but no appeal was preferred against the decree. A preliminary objection was taken by Mr. Sircar on behalf of the respondents that the present appeal is incompetent in that the decree having been passed before the appeal was filed an appeal lay from the decree and not from the order which is superseded by the decree. We think this objection must prevail. So far as this Court is concerned it must be now taken to be settled that where a preliminary decree or order is followed by a final decree appeal does not lie against the former after the final decree is passed. All the cases on this point have been cited...
Tag this Judgment!Nishi Kanta Sarkar Vs. Umar Lal Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal711
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff. The only point taken is that the lower Appellate Court should have given him permission under Order 23, Civil Procedure Code to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. The suit was brought by the plaintiff in the Court of the Munsiff of Howrah in respect of a certain pathway of which he claimed to be the owner. He claimed in the alternative that he had a right of way over the disputed pathway and also that the pathway was a public pathway. At the trial before the Munsiff he gave up his claim with respect to his alleged title to the land and it was found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he had a prescriptive right of way over the land or that the pathway was a public pathway. The defence raised various preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the suit and the issues framed thereupon ware (1), 'whether the plaintiff's claim for a public pathway is maintainable and (2), if the plaintiff's suit i...
Tag this Judgment!AlimuddIn Mollah and ors. Vs. K.S. Banerjee, Official Receiver, High C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.316
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal by the defendant arises out of an application under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, by the respondent for settlement of fair and equitable rent and relates to khatians Nos. 12,28, 39 and 75. It is necessary to deal with the different khatians separately as the points with reference to them are not the same.2. As regards khatian No. 12, it is argued, that the learned Special Judge should have raised the presumption of fixity of rent under Section 50(2), Bengal Tenancy Act. With reference to this particular khatian the Assistant Settlement Officer held that the defendant had proved that the rent entered in the Record of Rights is the same as paid by them in 1894 and hence he raised the presumption under Section 50(2), Bengal Tenancy Act, in favour of the tenant. The learned Special Judge in appeal has differed from the lower Court and refused to raise the presumption from the circumstance pointed out by him. The fact is that the tenant had produced only one ...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Muktear Jogendra Chand ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.843
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is a Reference under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act made to us by the Sessions Judge of Bakargunj. The facts are as follows: A certain Muktear, Jogendra Chandra Das by name, instituted certain proceedings under Section 144 of the Cr. P. C, and instituted such proceedings by a petition. The proceedings related to a certain plot of, land which belonged to him which he described in the petition as Dag No. 1441. He sought by the petition an injunction restraining the opposite party from doing certain acts with regard to the land. After the petition had been filed in Court the muktear discovered that he had made a mistake in his description of the dag in his petition and that it should have been described not merely as Dag No. 1441 but as Dag No. 1441/1659. Instead of presenting to the Court a further petition for amendment of the first petition he very-foolishly proceeded to effect an alteration in the petition which had been filed in Court...and he adde...
Tag this Judgment!AlimuddIn Mollah and ors. Vs. Karim Bux and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal632
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal by the defendant arises out of an application under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act by the respondent for settlement of fair and equitable rent and relates to Khatians Nos. 12, 28, 39 and 75. It is necessary to deal with the different khatians separately as the points with reference to them are not the same.2. As regards Khatian No. 12, it is argued, that the learned Special Judge should have raised the presumption of fixity of rent under Section 50 (2), Bengal Tenancy Act. With reference to this particular khatian the Assistant Settlement Officer held that the defendant had proved that the rent entered in the record-of-rights is the same as paid by them in 1894 and hence he raised the presumption under Section 50 (2), Bengal Tenancy Act in favour of the tenant. The learned Special Judge appeal has differed from the lower Gout and refused to raise the presumption from the circumstance pointed out by him. The fact is that the tenant bad produced only one dak...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »