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.
Mohamed Golam Rabbani Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Taranath Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1212,87Ind.Cas.657
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration of his title to four parcels of land and also for recovery of possession against all the defendants. But so far as Defendant No. 1 was concerned the plaintiff's case was that that defendant was his tenant but in a suit for rent brought by the plaintiff against the defendant he (the defendant) put in a written statement denying the plaintiff's title to the land and set up a title of Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 as the owners of the land. The plaintiff alleges that on such a denial having been made he withdrew the rent suit and now brought this suit for khas possession against the defendant on the ground that the Defendant No. 1 had forfeited his tenancy under the plaintiff. The defence was that the and belonged to Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and that if it was found that the plaintiff was the owner of the land then Defendant No. 1 was ready to pay rent to him. The Court of fi...
Umedali Munshi Vs. Goyjaddi Molla and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Cal114,87Ind.Cas.672
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the principal defendant in a suit for ejectment. The plaintiffs' case was that they with the pro -forma defendants owned 8-annas of the defendant's jama and the first defendant was an under-raiyat. The allegation of the first defendant was that he was an occupancy raiyat and that he had held the land for more than 20 years.2. The two points urged before us were, firstly, that the ex parte decree referred to in the judgment which was obtained by the plaintiffs against the defendant for rent and which was subsequently satisfied did not operate as res judicata as the lower Appellate Court has found that it did. It is stated that as there was no judgment at all but merely a decree passed it is impossible to say whether the issue was actually decided. But it seems to us that this argument is untenable, and that the lower Appellate Court was quite-right in holding that the ex parte decree which was subsequently satisfied operated as res judicata on th...
Kutiswar Mondal and ors. Vs. Jitendra Nath Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.975
1. This is a Reference made by the District Magistrate of Jessore in connection with an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Narail, dated the 5th June 1924, whereby the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate ordered certain lands which had been under attachment under an order passed under. Section 146, Cr. P. C, to be released in favour of the 1st Party. At the outset we should like to point out to the learned District Magistrate that the Reference is not quite in order. It is not in the form prescribed for such Reference by the General Rules and Circular Orders of this Court, Criminal Appellate Side, Ch. I, Rule 139, and it does not appear from the order which the learned Magistrate passed as to what is the recommendation that he makes in connection with the order. Reference under Section 438, Cr. P.C., should always be made in that form. In as much, however, as the order is before us we propose to deal with it and pass necessary orders.2. It appears that an order under Sectio...
Fatema Bibi and ors. Vs. Radha Syam (Sic) Banik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Cal343
1. This is an appeal by Defendants Nos. 2, 4 and 5 and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for recovery of the money due nokhata accounts, said to have been advanced to Defendant No. 3, the brother of some of the minor defendants and their mother. It is the plaintiff's own case and the books show that the money was advanced to Defendant No. 3. It appears that Defendant No. 3 and all the other defendants are sons and the widow of one Moula Bux. The money was borrowed after the death of Moula Bux. The plaintiff sued Defendant No. 3 and along with him the other defendants. The defence of Defendants Nos. 2, 4 and 5 was that they did not borrow the money, and in fact two of them were minors and that they, therefore, were not liable. The first Court dismissed the suit against these defendants and gave a decree against Defendant No. 3 who had borrowed the money and who did not deny the loan. On appeal by the plaintiff the learned Subordinate Judge has not only made Defendant No. 3 l...
Fatema Bibi and ors. Vs. Radha Syam Saha Banik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.660
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 2, 4 and 5 and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for recovery of the money due on khata accounts, said to have been advanced to defendant No. 3, the brother of some of the minor defendants and their mother.- It is the plaintiff's own case and the books show that the money was advanced to defendant No. 3. It appears that defendant No. 3 and all the other defendants are sons and the widow of one Moula Bux. The money was borrowed after the death of Moula Bux. The plaintiff sued defendant No. 3 and along with him the other defendants. The defence of defendants Nos. 2, 4 and 5 was that they did not borrow the money and in fact two of them were minors and that they, therefore, were not liable. The First Court dismissed the suit against these defendants and gave a decree against defendant No. 3 who had borrowed the money and who did not deny the loan. On appeal by the plaintiff the learned Subordinate Judge has not only made d...
Probhat Chandra Barma Vs. the Kinq-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal598,84Ind.Cas.31
Chatterjee, J.1. This appeal is preferred under Section 15 of the Letters Patent against a decision of Mr. Justice Rankin. There was a reference under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-Tax Act (Act XI of 1922) made by the Commissioner of Income-Tax to the High Court. It was heard by a Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Rankin and Mr. Justice Page. The learned Judges differed in opinion and under Section 36 of the Letters Patent the opinion of the senior Judge Mr. Justice Rankin prevailed. As against that judgment the present appeal has been preferred.2. A preliminary objection has bean raised ok behalf of the Respondent that no appeal lies in this case under Section 15 of the Letters Patent, and reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ld. v. Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 148. The question in that case was whether an appeal lay to the Privy Council under Clause 39 of the Letters Patent of the Bombay H...
Prabhat Chandra Barua Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal546
Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal is preferred under Section 15 of the Letters Patent against a decision of Mr. Justice Rankin. There was a Reference under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income Tax Act (Act XI of 1922) made by the Commissioner of Income Tax to the High Court. It was heard by a Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Rankin and Mr. Justice Page. The learned Judges differed in opinion and under Section 36 of the Letters Patent, the opinion of the Senior Judge, Mr. Justice Rankin, prevailed. As against that judgment the present appeal has been preferred.2. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent that no appeal lies in this case under Section 15 of the Letters Patent, and reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Company, Limited, v. Chief Revenue-authority, Bombay (1923) I. L. R. 47 Bom. 724; L. R. 50 I. A. 212. The question in that case was whether an appeal lay to the Privy Council under Clause 3...
Raja Probhat Chandra Barua Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.653
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a decision of Mr. Justice Rankin. There was a Reference under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income Tax Act (XI of 1922)' made by the Commissioner of Income Tax to the High Court. It was heard by* a Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Rankin and Mr. Justice Page. The learned Judges differed in opinion and under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent the opinion of the Senior Judge Mr. Justice Rankin prevailed. As against that judgment the present appeal has been, preferred.2. A preliminary objection has been raised ' on behalf of the respondent that no appeal lies in this case under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, and reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Limited v. Chief Revenue Authority Bombay 74 Ind. Cas. 469 : 50 I.A. 212 : 21 A.L.J. 675 : 25 Bom. L.R. 908 : (1923) A.I.R. (P.C.) 148 : (1923) M.W.N. 603 : 45 M.L.J. 295 : 18 L.W. 372 ...
Rash Behary Karury Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.970
Mukerji, J.Revision No. 858 of 1924.1. This Rule has been issued to show cause why the proceedings mentioned in the petition should not be quashed.2. The proceedings against the petitioner are under Section 495A of Act III (B. C.) of 1892, as amended by the Calcutta Municipal Amendment Act of 1917. A study of the proceedings as they were had in the Court of the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta is surprisingly interesting.3. The proceedings were started on the complaint of Dr. S.N. Ghose, Special Food Inspector, filed on the 2nd December 1923. The records do not indicate what happened till the 1st February 1924, which is the date which the first summons issued against the petitioner bears. The summons was signed by the Magistrate on the 13th, February 1924 and evidently was served on the petitioner, on whose behalf, it appears, appearance was entered on the 23rd February 1924. The order passed on that date runs as follows: 'Pleader appears and would contest. To 8th March 1924 for eviden...
Rameshwar Khemka and anr. Vs. Siddeshwar Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1927Cal418,101Ind.Cas.901
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an application by the defendant in the suit for a certificate that the case is a fit one for, appeal to His Majesty in Council.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to establish his title to, and recover possession of certain plots of land measuring about 4 cottas and 9 chittaks situated in the town of Howrah.3. The suit was brought in the learned Munsiff' Court and the subject matter of the suit was valued at Rs. 872. The defendants objected to the valuation and thereupon the learned Munsiff took evidence and found that the value of the subject matter of the suit, was at least Rs. 600 per cotta and he accordingly returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court.4. The suit was then filed in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge and the value of the subject matter of the suit was stated to be Rs. 2,737-8-0. It is obvious that the plaintiff adopted the valuation which the learned Munsiff had arrived at after taking the evidence,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »