Kolkata Court November 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.
Behari Lal Mukerjee and anr. Vs. Asutosh Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal788,87Ind.Cas.19
1. The plaintiffs-respondents brought a suit out of which this appeal has arisen for confirmation of possession of a certain tank on establishment of title thereto as appertaining to their chak Keshabad or in the alternative declaration of their right of easement for taking water from the said tank for irrigating their lands in that chak. The learned Munsiff who tried the case dismissed the suit and found against the plaintiffs on both the points. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge agreed with the Munsiff as to the finding on the question of title but held that the plaintiffs succeeded in proving their alleged right of easement for drawing water from the tank for irrigation purposes.2. Against this finding of the lower appellate Court several objections have been taken. Firstly, it is urged that the plaintiffs and the defendants being tenants under the same landlord, no right of easement can be acquired by the plaintiffs against the defendants. This point was not raised in the ple...
Panchkari Majumdar Vs. Giridharimal Mohesri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal955
1. This appeal raises a question of some importance which in so far as this Court is concerned is one of first impression.2. The opposite party the respondent in this appeal obtained a decree against the appellant in the Mekliganj Court which is within the Native State of Cooch Behar. The decree was obtained ex parte. The judgment-debtor the appellant is a British subject residing at Jalpaiguri. The respondent had the decree transferred to Jalpaiguri for execution. The judgment-debtor the present appellant objects to the execution of the decree under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the decree had been obtained by fraud and also that the Cooch Behar Court had no jurisdiction over him. The first Court decided the case in favour of the respondent for reasons that it is not necessary to recapitulate. The appellant appealed to the District Court. That Court held relying on the authority of a case S. Veeraraghava v. J. D. Muga [1918] 14 M.L.T. 96 that the executi...
indu Bhusan Bose Vs. Atul Chandra Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1114,87Ind.Cas.830
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit; brought by the plaintiff against a number of defendants for possession of 90 plots of land on the allegation that they appertain to his towji of which he is an ijaradar under the patnidar of Towji No. 203. The defendants are numerous. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are said to be the legal representatives of one Sarola Sundari who held a tenancy under the owners of the plaintiff's towji at a Jama of Rs. 50 which was subsequently reduced to Rs. 30. Defendant No. 4 is said to be a patnidar of a neighbouring Towji No. 2498. Defendant No. 5 is alleged to be one of the co-patnidars with Defendant No. 4 who, we are told, has disclaimed his right as a patnidar. Defendants Nos. 6 to 9 are zamindars of Towji No. 2498. I should have stated that Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 also claim to be tenants under the proprietors of Towji No. 2498. The other defendants are either tenants of Defendants Nos. l to 3, Defendant No. 4 or Defendant...
Gobind Lal Dutt Vs. Official Assignee of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal291,92Ind.Cas.563
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an application on behalf of Gobind Lal Dutt, who was the defendant in the suit, that the memorandum of appeal against the judgment and decree in the suit, dated the 6th of June, 1924, which was presented on behalf of Gobind Lal Dutt on the 18th of November, 1924, and which was not accepted by the Registrar, should be admitted.2. The material dates are as follows: The decree was made on the 6th of June, 1924, as I have already mentioned, in favour of the Official Assignee against the present applicant.3. On the 11th of June a requisition for an office copy of the decree was made by the attorney of the applicant Gobind Lal Dutt.4. Nothing further was done until the 7th of August 1924, when a requisition for drawing the decree was made on behalf of the plaintiff.5. This decree was drawn up, finally settled, and signed on the 16th of November, 1924. The stamps necessary for the office copy were furnished on the 12th of November and the memorandum of appeal was pre...
Kalisadhan Addya Vs. Nani Lal Hazra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal721
1. The Rule has been issued to show cause why the order passed by the Sessions Judge of the 24-Parganas, dated the 12th September, 1924, should not be set aside, or such other or further order passed as to this Court may seem fit. The order in question was passed by the learned Sessions Judge under the provisions of Section 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The petitioner was the complainant in a case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code which he had instituted against one Nani Lal Hazra. The case was triad by the Honorary Magistrate, Rev. K.P. Banerjee, who, on the 23rd May, 1924, acquitted the accused, Nani Lal, on the charge on which he was tried. On an application made by the accused, Nani Lal, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted under the provisions of Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner showed cause, and the learned Honorary Magistrate, on the 11th July, 1924, after hearing the petitioner, passed...
Jagannath Marwari and anr. Vs. Kalachand Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal785
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendants. The material facts of the ease are these: In February 1913, one Tara Prasanna Bose and his wife executed a mortgage for the sum of Rs. 40,000 in favour of the first defendant Jagannath Marwari. The mortgage was by way of a Kat-kobala and the mortgagee Jagannath Marwari was acting for himself and for one Bepin Behari Banerji the second defendant. The mortgage related to three pieces of property. Two years later, these mortgagees instituted a suit on the document adding one Kedar Nath Marwari as a defendant because he had some interest in one of the properties. It is unnecessary, however, to refer again to Kedar Nath's interest. Tara Prasanna Bose and his wife, after making two applications for time, put in, on the 6th of March 1915, a petition of compromise with the mortgagees undertaking to pay the interest that might accrue due on the principal amount within the month of Chaitra every year and securing in return the advantage ...
Kailash Chandra Datta Vs. Sadar Munsif
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal817
Greaves, J.1. This is a rule seeking to set aside certain proceedings to which I shall presently refer. The facts are as follows: There is a certain insurance company called Arya Insurance Co. Ltd. which has its registered office at Silchar. Apparently disputes had arisen with regard to the management of the Company and Borne time in the year 1922 one Jogesh Chandra Mazumdar, a shareholder in the Company, instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge for a declaration that certain persons were no longer directors of the Company. In the course of the suit an application was made for the appointment of a Receiver to carry on the business of the Company and an order was made appointing a Receiver who thereupon took charge of the business of the Company. Then ultimately the suit was decreed and a declaration was made to the effect that the defendants had ceased to be directors of the Company. On the 16 th April 1924, the Subordinate Judge directed the Receiver to hold a meeting o...
Chooni Lall Khemani Vs. Nilmadhab Barik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1034
1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Ganganarain (father of the plaintiff) and Sarbeswar (father of Defendants Nos. 2 and 3) lived together as uncle and nephew and that Sarbeswar lived on the property in suit for a long time and that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 mortgaged it with Bama Charan who in execution of the mortgage decree put it up to sale and it was purchased by Defendant No. 1 on the 12th July 1919 and delivery of possession was taken by him on the 11th June 1920. Thereupon the plaintiff brought the present suit for recovery of possession on establishment of title. The defence was that the land belonged to the common ancestor of the parties and that it fell to the share of Sarbeswar who had possessory right to it and that Defendants (Nos. 2 and 3 sons of Sarbeswar, were in possession for more than 12 years and had acquired a right by adverse possession to the land. There were also the other questions raised with regard to the plaintiff's knowledge of the transaction b...
Arshed Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1924
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.890
Babington Newbould, J.1. Arshed Ali has been found guilty by the unanimous verdict of the Jury on the charge of abetment of murder. He has been sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge of Backerganj to death under Section 302 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Under Section 374 of the Or. P.C. the proceedings have been submitted to this Court for confirmation and the accused has also preferred an appeal against his conviction.2. The facts according to the case for the prosecution are as follows:Lalsom Bibi, the principal witness in this case, has lived as the wife of five men. To how many of them she was legally married is not clear, but her marriage to the appellant Arshed Ali who was the fourth of her so-called husbands was certainly bigamous as it took place during the lifetime of the third Abdul Hussain who had not divorced her. After living with the appellant for a few months she left him and went to live in her father's bari. She was then one month pregnant. In Mag...
Kailash Chandra Datta Vs. Sardar Munsif, Silchar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal513
Greaves, J.1. This is a rule seeking to set aside certain proceedings to which I shall presently refer. The facts are as follows: There is a certain insurance company called Arya Insurance Co., Ltd., which has its registered office at Silchar. Apparently disputes had arisen with regard to the management of the company and some time in the year 1922 one Jogesh Chandra Mazumdar, a shareholder in the company, instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge for a declaration that certain persons were no longer directors of the company. In the course of the suit an application was made for the appointment of a Receiver to carry on the business of the company and an order was made appointing a Receiver who thereupon took charge of the business of the company. Then ultimately the suit was decreed and a declaration was made to the effect that the defendants had ceased to be directors of the company. On the 16th April 1924, the Subordinate Judge directed the Receiver to hold a meeting o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »