Kolkata Court December 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.
Girindra Nath Ray Vs. Kedar Nath Bidyanta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal966,87Ind.Cas.783
Chakravarti, J.1. The Rule No. 1082 of 1924 and the analogous application pending in this Court, raise the question as to the distribution of the assets realised in execution of a decree for money, by the Subordinate Judge of Nadia in Execution Cage No. 17 of 1924. The properties of the judgment-debtor, who is Opposite Party No. 9 in this Rule, were sold in three lots. Lot No. 3 was sold for Rs. 283 on the 17th July, 1924, and the whole of the purchase money was deposited on that very day. On the same day lot No. 4 was sold for Rs. 125 out of which Rs. 40 only was deposited and loft No. 5 was sold for Rs. 7,800 out of which only Rs. 2,000 was paid on the date of sale. On the 29th July, 1924, Rs. 5,800, the balance of the price of lot No. 5 was deposited and on the 1st of August, 1924, Rs. 85, the balance of the price of lot No. 4, was deposited. Now the Petitioner in the Rule obtained his decree in the Court of the Subordinate Judge on the 30th July and made his application for rateabl...
Rakhal Chandra Mondal Vs. Gour Gopal Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1085,90Ind.Cas.486
Walmsley, J.1. Those two appeals are directed against a judgment which disposed of two applications for setting aside a sale held under the provisions of Regulation VIII of 1819. The suits were brought one by the putnidar and the other by one of the durputnidars and the allegations were that there had been fraud on the part of the durputnidars, Defendants Nos. 3 to 6, who had agreed to pay the rent to the landlord and that the said durputnidars had further committed fraud by engaging a benamidar to buy the property. It was also said that the notices required to be served under the law had not been properly served by the landlord. Now the learned Judge went into the questions of fact and found that the durputnidars Defendants Nos. 3 to 6 who had agreed to pay the rent had obtained from doing so and brought about the sale in order to purchase the putni themselves and that they had engaged a benamidar to purchase the property, when the sale took place. Ha also found that the notices were ...
Aptabuddi and ors. Vs. Syed Alla Hafij and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1104
Suhrawardy, J.1. These eight appeals arise out of applications by the plaintiffs landlords under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, for settlement of fair and equitable rent on two grounds: first, additional rent in respect of additional area in possession of the defendants; and secondly, rise in the price of staple food crops. As to the second ground both the Courts below have agreed in allowing small enhancement on the ground of rise in the food crops. With regard to the first ground they are in disagreement in respect of the question relating to the length of the nal or standard rod, which was employed at the time of the original letting. The landlord's case was that the nal prevailing in the pargana was one of 15 or 16 cubits, whereas the defendants assented that its was one of 18 or 20 cubits. The Revenue Officer accepted the defendant's version and decided the suits according to that standard of measurement. One of the grounds which the learned Revenue Officer gives in support of h...
Pryambada Debi Vs. Manohar Mukhopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal576
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiff sued the two defendants for the assessment of a fair and equitable rent on certain lands on the following allegations.2. The plaintiff is the zamindar of a 12 annas, 6 gandas share in mouza Sangrai. The defendant No. 1 is the putnidar under him for the whole of the share (12 annas 16 gandas) that he holds in mouza Sangrai. Within the village there were certain chaukidari chakran lands. These chaukidari chakran lands were resumed by Government and transferred to the zamindar by two deeds, one Ex. 1, dated the 16th October 1901, which covers some 25 bighas, 9 cottahs odd of land, the other Ex. 2, dated the 15th April 1914, which covers 6 bighas odd of land. The defendant has refused to pay him any rent for these lands and hence the suit.3. Defendant No. 2 contended that he had no interest in the land in dispute and this contention hay been found in his favour.4. Defendant No. 1 contended that she was only in possessio...
Srimati Taru Bala Dassi Vs. Sourendra Nath Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal866
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These two appeals by the defendant arise out of a suit for partition and accounts. One is from an order under Rule 3 of Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Code that a compromise be recorded, and the other appeal is from the decree passed in accordance with the compromise. The properties to be partitioned were valued at over 16 lacs of rupees and the claim for accounts was valued at Rs. 10,000. 1 he parties formed a joint Hindu family governed by the Bengal School of Hindu Law. The following genealogical table will show the position of the parties. ISHAN CHANDRA | | died 17th January 1900 ------------------------------------------------ | | | Bipin Lal Behary Charu died 23rd Dec. 1910 died 28th Feb. 1901 died 28th April 1915 = Sarat Kumar dead = Parul Sundari = Tarubala, Deft. | dead | | | | | -------------- | -------------------- | | | | | Sourendra Satyasanti Khoka Lal Baidyanath Daughter Plff. No. 1 minor Plff. No. 3 died April Umarani Plff. No. 2 1920 married to An...
Srimati Dayamoyi Alias Biddutlata Debi Vs. Sankar Nath Mukhopadhya and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.159
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of an action in ejectment brought by the plaintiff on the allegation that the defendant No. 1 is in possession of certain properties as trespasser. In order to understand the facts, it is necessary to refer to the following genealogical table: BAMANDAS MUKHOPADAYAYA | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Arundas Umanath, (dead). First wife = Taranath = Second wife Srinath | | | | -------------------- Bhoyaharini Nagendrabala | | | | | | | Girindra, Harendra, Narendra, Lambodari, | | defendant (dead) (dead) (defendant No. 6) | | No. 2. | | | | | Mohini Mohan, | | ------------------------ (dead) | | | | | | | | Dhirendra, Satindra, Atindra Bibhuti Bhusan, | | (dead) defendant (dead) defendant No. 7. | | | No. 4. defendant No. 5. | | Thakurdas, | |defendant No. 3. ------------------------------------ | | | | | Son 1st daughter 2nd daughter | Barada Bhusan Aditya, Probodh, | Dayomoyee, (wife) (husband). ...
Dayamayi Vs. Sankar Nath Mukhopadhyaya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Cal417
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of an action in ejectment brought by the plaintiff on the allegation that the; Defendant No. 1 is in possession of certain properties as trespasser. In order to understand the facts, it is necessary to refer to the genealogical table: (See page 418.)2. Bamandas Mukhopadhyaya died possessed of considerable property. He made a Will, dated the 7th January 1875, making certain dispositions of his property. A portion of the property disposed of by the Will was given to his daughter-in-law Bhoyaharini, first wife of his son Taranath and this is the property now in dispute. Bhoyaharini died on the 18th November 1881 after having executed a Will dated the 16th November 1881. By Clause (1) of her will, she dedicated certain properties as debutter to the ancestral Thakur of her father-in-law Sri Sri Sridhar Salgram Thakur, and certain other properties for the performance of the ancestral Durga puja, Syama puja and Jagadhatri puja. After her death, her husb...
Kedar Nath Chakravarti and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal603
Mukerjee, J.1. This Rule has been issued to show cause why the convictions of the Petitioners and the sentences passed on them should not be set aside on three of the grounds stated in the petition namely, grounds Nos. 8, 9 and 10. The Petitioners who are four in number were tried with three other persons-of whom two were acquitted and one was convicted and has since died-on a charge under Sections 420/120, B.-I. P.C., and the first Petitioner was also tried on a charge under Section 420, I.P.C., and the Petitioners were all convicted on those charges. The first of the grounds relates to the sufficiency of the charges. The Judicial Committee in the case of Subramaniya Ayyar v. King-Emperor (1901) 25 Mad. 61 observed that 'the necessity of a system of written accusation specifying a definite criminal offence is of the essence of criminal procedure.' An accused person is entitled to know with certainty and accuracy the exact value of the accusation brought against him. This cardinal prin...
Miller Vs. Miller
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal874
Pearson, J.1. This is a wife's petition for divorce. It is not defended. The marriage took place before a marriage Registrar in Bombay in November 1922. The husband was a subject of the United States of America and domiciled in that country: the wife before marriage had her domicile in India, where her family had been for several generations. The married life only lasted until January 1923, when the husband sent the wife back to her relations and himself left for America, where he has since remained.2. Proof has been given of adultery and cruelty sufficient to entitle the petitioner to a decree nisi. Upon the question of jurisdiction, my attention has been drawn to the judgment of Sir Henry Duke in Keyes v. Keyes [1921] P. 204, which decided that the Courts administering the divorce law in India have no jurisdiction to decree dissolution of a marriage between parties not domiciled in India: it also decided that the East India Councils Act of 1861 does not warrant the making of a law to...
Kundamul Dalmia and ors. Vs. W. Dyer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal571
1. The main question which arises in these three rules is the same and it will be convenient to deal with them in one judgment considering first the main question which is common to all these rules, and dealing later with any special matter which arises in one or other of the rules.2. By Section 1(1)(4) of the Calcutta Rent Act, 1920 (Bengal Act No. 3 of 1920) it was provided that the Act should come into force on such date as the Local Government might by notification direct and it should be in force for a period of three years from the date of the commencement of the Act.3. The Act came into force under a notification in the Calcutta Gazette on the 5th May, 1920.4. By the Calcutta Rent (Amendment) Act, 1923 (Bengal Act No. 2 of 1923) the period of the duration of the Act of 1920 was extended to the end of March, 1924.5. By the Calcutta Rent (Amendment) Act, 1924 (Bengal Act No. 1 of 1924) the duration of the Act was extended until the end of March, 1927, but it was provided by thin l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »