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.
Amarta Lal Kumar Vs. Sisir Kumar Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.651
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of an order made by the District Judge of Dacca, dated the 15th of June 1921, It appears that the plaintiff brought a suit for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of certain immoveable property. He valued his suit for the purpose of Court-fees at Rs. 60 and paid Court-fees ad valorem on that valuation. After the quantity and situation of the land had been ascertained by local investigation, the defendants raised a question that the suit had been undervalued and the Court-fee paid was insufficient. The learned Subordinate Judge enquired into the matter and found that the true value of the land in suit should be assessed at Rs. 9,905 and gave the plaintiff an opportunity of paying the deficit Court-fees. The plaintiff defaulted and the result was that the plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11. The plaintiff appealed against that order to the District judge and valued his appeal at the same value as ...
Thomas Vs. Thomas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal379
Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case we are of opinion that the matter must be remanded to the learned District Judge on the ground that in our opinion the judgment of the learned Judge is not sufficient.2. In the first place there is nothing in the learned Judge's judgment to show that the case comes within the provisions of Section 2 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. That section provides that Nothing herein after contained shall authorise any Court to grant any relief under this Act, except in cases where the petitioner professes the Christian religion and resides in India at the time of presenting the petition. There is no finding as to the matters referred to therein. The section further provides or to make decrees of dissolution of marriage except in the following cases:---(a) where the marriage shall have been solemnized in India; or (6) where the adultery...complained of shall have been committed in India.3. All that the learned Judge says in his judgment is as follows:---I am satisfi...
Chiranjilal Ramlal Vs. B.N. Ry. Co., Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal372,86Ind.Cas.127
Page, J.1. The decision of this suit involves the construction of Article 31 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908). The material facts are simple and undisputed. On the 9th October 1919, the Bengal Nagpur Railway Company agreed to carry for the plaintiff certain scantlings from Lapanga to Charkhidhari on the terms of Risk Note Form B. The plaintiff duly delivered the scantlings to the first defendant, the B. N. Ry. Co., at Lapanga Station, and the goods were despatched therefrom as to 550 scantlings in wagon No. 2820 on the 12th October 1919 and as to 328 scantlings in wagon No. 9656 on October the 12th. Wagon No. 2820 arrived at Charkhidhari sometime in December 1919 and the goods therein were delivered to and accepted by the consignee Koaliram Dwarkadas. Notwithstanding repeated protests and demands by the plaintiff however the defendants were not ready or willing to deliver the scantlings loaded in wagon No. 9656 until the 3rd March 1921, when notice that the good...
Ahmed Ali Vs. Madhab Ram Namasudra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal671
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for recovery of certain properties on the basis of a conveyance, which the plaintiff obtained from two persons, Bishnu and Chandra in the year 1310 of certain land covered by patta No. 20 and the land in suit is claimed to be a part of the patai land. The plaintiff's case further was that the defendants were holding the land in suit as his tenants and that the plaintiff's title was denied in the rent suit brought by the plaintiff and that suit having failed the plaintiff brought this suit for ejectment against the defendants. The defence of the defendants appears to be that the plaintiff was not their landlord and that they themselves were owners of taluk No. 20 which was sold to the plaintiff by Chandra alone. The defendant's contention was that Chandra was only part owner, being one of the brothers of the defendants and that therefore he had only a share in the patai land and not th...
H.V. Low and Co. Vs. Hazarimull Babu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1924
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.786
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These three appeals arise out of three suits brought on different mortgages by the same plaintiff. In the suits out of which Appeals Nos. 3 and 4 arise, the defendants were the same. In the suit which has given rise to Appeal No. 19, the principal defendants were the co-sharers of the principal defendants in the other two suits who owned an eight-anna share of the mortgaged property. The appellants before us are Messrs. H.V. Low &. Co., Ltd., who were added as defendant No. 3 in the suits from which Appeals Nos. 3 and 4 arise and who were the defendant No. 8 in the suit which has given rise to Appeal No. 19. The suits were decreed by the Subordinate Judge against all the defendants. The mortgage in Appeal No. 3 is dated the 3rd April 1917. In Appeal No. 4, the mortgage is dated the 23rd September 1913 and in Appeal No. 19, it is dated the 10th of January 1917. The appellants before us are the lessees of two mouzahs called Simsa and Barkola and they obtained a mining le...
Ahamed Ali Vs. Madbab Ram Namasudra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.646
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for recovery of certain properties on the basis of a conveyance, which the plaintiff obtained from two persons, Bishnu and Chandra in the year of 1310 of certain land covered by patta No. 20 and the land in suit is claimed to be a part of the patai land. The plaintiff's case further was that the defendants were holding the land in suit as his tenants and that the plaintiff's title was denied in the rent-suit brought by the plaintiff and that suit having failed the plaintiff brought this suit for ejectment against the defendants. The defence of the defendants appears to be that the plaintiff was not their landlord and that they themselves were owners of taluk No. 20 which was sold to the plaintiff by Chandra alone. The defendant's contention was that Chandra was only part owner, being one of the brothers of the defendants and that, therefore, he had only a share in the patai land and n...
Jogesh Chandra Roy Vs. Izzat Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal454,85Ind.Cas.97
1. These two appeals arise out of a suit for enhancement of rent. The cause of action stated in the plaint is that the defendants are intermediate tenure-holders who have been realising more rent from the tenants than they are entitled to do. Upon this ground alone the plaintiff cases his cause of action for enhancement of rent. At the hearing before the Trial Court some evidence was adduced by the plaintiff to prove that the defendants were holding the tenures at rents lower than the customary rate of rent in the locality for lands of similar description. The learned Munsif found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the customary rate of rent in the locality for lands of similar description was much above what the defendants paid. Having come to this finding the learned Munsif proceeds to ascertain the price of the yield of land and having deducted the collection charges and reasonable profit to the defendants he allowed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for enhancement of r...
Sahorali Molla Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1120,87Ind.Cas.103
1. The appellant Sahorali Moll was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Faridpur with the aid of a Jury on a charge under Section 376, I.P.C. The Jury brought in a verdict of guilty in proportion of 4 to 1 and the learned Judge not finding sufficient reason to disregard the verdict of the majority of the Jury agreed with and accepted it, and convicted the appellant under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25 in default to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months. Against this conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. Of the grounds urged in support of the appeal it is necessary to mention only one namely, the one relating to the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 360, Cr. P.C. in respect of one of the prosecution witnesses, namely, No. 10, Satis Chandra Sarkar. It is alleged and it also appears to be a fact that the deposition of this witness was read over...
Radhika Prasad Datta Vs. Panchanan Choudhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.788
1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 4 against a decision of the District Judge of Murshidabad confirming a decision of the Munsif. The facts shortly stated are as follows. The plaintiffs and the defendants were joint owners of a. zemindari. The zemindari was let out in patni and was brought to sale by the zemindars for arrears of putni rent and it was purchased by a third party. The patnidars sued to set aside the patni sale and the sale was set aside and the zemindars were held liable for the costs of the patnidars and the patnidars recovered these costs from some of the zemindars who are the plaintiffs in the present suit and the present suit was brought against defendant No. 4 and the other defendants for contribution in respect of the costs which had been paid by the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 4 had been compelled to pay the costs of the auction-purchaser in the putnidars suit and accordingly he contended in' these proceedings that he was entitled to set-off as against the claim f...
Radhikaprasad Datta Vs. Panchanan Choudury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Cal454
1. This is an appeal by Defendant No. 4 against a decision of the District Judge of Murshidabad confirming a decision of the Munsif. The facts shortly stated are as follows: The plaintiffs and the defendants were joint owners of a zamindari. The zamindari was let out in patni and was brought to sale by the zamindars for arrears of putni rent and it was purchased by a third party. The patnidars sued to set aside the patni sale and the sale was set aside and the zamindars were held liable for' the costs of the patnidars and the patnidars recovered these costs from some of the zamindars who are the plaintiffs in the present suit and the present suit was brought against Defendant No. 4 and the other defendants for contribution in respect of the costs which had been paid by the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 4 had been compelled to pay the costs of the auction-purchaser in the putnidar's suit and accordingly he contended in these proceedings that he was entitled to set-off as against the claim f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »