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.
Chooni Lal Khemani Vs. Nil Madhab Barik and Ram Nath Barik and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.734
1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Ganga Narain (father of the plaintiff) and Sarbeswar (father of defendants Nos. 2 and 3) lived together as uncle, nephew and that Sarbeswar lived on the property in suit from 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 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 other questions raised with regard to the plaintiff's knowledge of the transaction between def...
Jaganath Marwari and ors. Vs. Kalachand Banerjee, Receiver to the Esta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.1042
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendants. The material facts of the case are these: In February 1913, one Tara Prosanna Bose and his wife executed a mortgage for the sum of Rs. 40,000 in favour of the first defendant Jaganath Marwari. The mortgage was by way of a kat kobala and the mortgagee Jaganath Marwari was acting for himself and for one Bepin Bihary Banerjee 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 defend ant because he had some interest in one of the properties. It is unnecessary, however, to refer again to Kedarnath's interest. Tara Prosanna 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 advantag...
Rakhal Chandra Biswas Vs. Jamini Kanta Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.842
1. Three persons, of whom the petitioner is one were sent up for trial for an offence under Section 147, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner and one of the other persons were tried and convicted under that section and sentenced to pay a line of Rs. 25 each. On an appeal preferred by the petitioner and the co-accused who had been convicted the learned District Magistrate acquitted the co-accused of the petitioner and altered the conviction of the petitioner from that under Section 147, Indian Penal Code to one under Section 323, Indian Penal Code maintaining the sentence passed upon him.2. The petitioner has obtained a Rule to show cause why his conviction and sentence should not be set aside on the ground amongst others that such an alteration of the conviction is not permissible as the petitioner had not been tried on a charge under Section 323, Indian Penal Code. The contention seems to be supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Genu Majhi v. King-Emperor 26 Ind. Cas. 15...
Krishna Mohan Ghosh Vs. Surapati Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal684,94Ind.Cas.929
1. We think that under the circumstance of the case the delay was bona fide and sufficient cause has been shown within the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2. We accordingly make the Rule absolute. Costs one gold mohur will be costs in the cause....
Soroj Bashini Debi Vs. Girija Proshad Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.170
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 1325. 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 1-923 and the petitioner instituted her suit in the Subordinate Judg...
R.W. Valliant Vs. N. Eleazer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Cal467
1. The petitioner, R.W. Valliant, has been convicted by the Third Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, of an offence punishable under Section 363, I.P.C., and sentenced to be detained till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or undergo three months rigorous imprisonment in default of payment. He has obtained a Rule calling on the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on him should not be set aside on the two following grounds:For that upon the facts found and proved in the case, no offence under Section 363 has been male out against the accused--and the learned Magistrate has erred in law in not holding so.For that the reasons given by the learned Magistrate for convicting the accused are unsound and illegal.2. The petitioner has been convicted of having kidnapped Mildred Eleazar, aged, about 15 years and 5 months, from the lawful guardianship of her mother. It appears that about two months before the date of occurrence the 24th M...
Monmohan Saha Chowdhury Vs. Sarifannessa Chowdhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1131,87Ind.Cas.10120
1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. The appellant is the putnidar under the respondents. The respondent brought a suit for rent in respect of the putni. It was decreed partially by the Courts of first instance but the learned Additional District Judge on appeal decreed the suit in full. The objections taken against the decree of the lower appellate Court are, first, with regard to the payment of road-cess. The point) taken is that under the lease the putnidar is not liable to pay the amount of road cess in excess of what is stated therein. And secondly, the decree against the appellant for the payment for the entire amount of road-cess is wrong. On these points in the course of argument before us the learned vakils on both sides came to an agreement. The entire amount of road cess claim is Rs. 16-14 per year. It is, agreed that the defendant will pay to the plaintiff Rs. 8-7 as road cess per year and the plaintiff will bear the other half.2. The next objection take...
Anu Biswas and ors. Vs. Gopal Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Cal442
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a judgment and decree of the Officiating Subordinate Judge of Faridpur dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiff's allegations upon which they claimed are shortly these: that one Idu was the original owner of the property in suit. That on Idu's death the property devolved upon the Plaintiff's Nos. 2, 3 and Defendant No. 2 and that Defendant No. 2 sold his interest in the property to the Plaintiff No. 1 by a conveyance executed on 21st December 1917. That the plaintiffs were in possession of the property, but they were dispossessed by the Defendant No. 1 in execution of a decree which that defendant obtained against them in a case under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. On these grounds, the plaintiffs prayed for declaration of their title as alleged and also for possession from Defendant No. 1 The defence of Defendant No. 1. was that, as a matter of fact, there was a partition between the heirs of Idu and that Defen...
Sundi Bibi Vs. Mobarak Ali Sikdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Cal56
B.B. Ghose, J.1. The point for decision in this case depends upon the construction of Rule 90 of Order 21, Civil P.C. The learned Judge finds that the property in question was sold in execution on the 8th September 1919. The decree-holder was the purchaser and it is said that he took possession on the 28th of August 1920 after evicting the judgment-debtors. One of the three judgment debtors was one Aisha Bibi. She sold her interest by a kobala in the property to a person called Serajuddi on the 19th of February 1921. Aisha Bibi then died and her heir is one Shundi Bibi, the petitioner, before me. This Shundi Bibi made an application for setting aside the sale on the 3rd June 1921 under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. The Court of first instance made an order in her favour. The decree-holder then appealed and, on appeal, the learned District Judge held that the applicant had no locus standi to make the application and, without, therefore, entering into the merits of the case, he dismissed...
Amulya Ratan Banerjee and ors. Vs. Banku Behari Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal668,87Ind.Cas.61
1. This appeal arises out of a proceeding in execution of a decree passed in the Original Side of this Court. It is necessary to give a short history of the litigation. The decree was passed on the 25 th July 1904. In 1905, it was transmitted to the Hughli Court for execution which ended on the 16th November 1905, according to the Court below, but on the 20th January 1906 according to the certificate issued by this Court and printed at page 34 of Part II of the paper-book. On the 19th November, 1917, the respondent decree-holder again applied for execution and notice was served upon the appellants on the 19th December 1917, and the execution case was struck off on the 21st December 1917, with a remark 'dismissed for want of prosecution.' The application for the present execution was presented on the 17th February 1921, and it was prayed that certain properties belonging to the appellants' father might be attached in execution of the decree. The appellants who are the present judgment-d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »