Kolkata Court February 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.
Wajudi Pramanik Vs. Mahomed Balai Morul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1032
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for rent valued at Re. 9-11-0 which the plaintiff claimed from the defendant as landlord in respect of 4-annas share of the property. The defence was first that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit in the absence of other persons interested in the 4-annas, share claimed by him, and secondly, because there had been no separate collection of the plaintiff's share of the rent. The learned Munsif gave effect to both these pleas. He found that there wore other brothers and their heirs who were interested in the 4-annas share claimed by the plaintiff, and that there had been no separate collection of the plaintiff's share of the rent. He accordingly dismissed the suit. There was an appeal by the plaintiff and the learned Subordinate Judge reversed that decision. The learned Judge was of opinion that the plaintiff and the pro forma defendants were the only persons interested in the 4-annas share and that the plaintiff had succ...
Bilash Chandra Roy Vs. Rajendra Chandra Das Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal776
Newbould and Ghose, JJ.1. The plaintiff Bilash Chandra Roy who is the appellant before us was the owner of an entire estate bearing Tauzi No. 9299 in the Dacca Collectorate. The revenue of the estate is Rs. 88-1-1, payable in three instalments, and the amounts and the latest days of payments fixed under Section 3 of Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act XI of 1859 of these instalments are Rs. 60-4 on the 12th January, Rs. 16-9-1 on the 28th March and Rs. 11-4 on the 28th Jane. On the 26th June 1919 the plaintiff himself paid Rs. 11-4 at the Dacca Post Office with a revenue money-order form duly filled in according to the rules contained in the Bengal Tauzi Manual, 1918, on account of the revenue payable on the 28th June. On the 6th July the plaintiff received Exhibit 12, the acknowledgment portion of the money-order, which, instead of being a receipt for the payment of revenue, contained an intimation endorsed in red ink in the following terms: 'Received after expiry of due date. The amount is...
Wajuddi Pramanik Vs. Mohammed Bolai Morul Alias Dalal Morul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.576
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was due for rent, valued at Rs. 9-11-0 which the plaintiff claimed from the defendant as landlord in respect of 4-annas share of the property. The defence was first that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit in the absence; of other persons interested in the 4-anhas share claimed by him, and, secondly, because there had been no separate collection of the plaintiff's share of the rent. The learned. Munsif gave effect to both these pleas. He found that there were other brothers and their heirs who were interested in the 4-annas share claimed by the plaintiff, and that there had been no separate collection of the plaintiff a share of the rent. He accordingly dismissed the suit. There was an appeal by the plaintiff and the learned Subordinate Judge reversed that decision. The learned Judge was of opinion that the plaintiff and the pro forma defendants were the only persons interested in the 4-annas share and that the plaintiff had s...
Jnanendra Nath Roy Chaudhury and ors. Vs. Ram Ranjan Banerji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.588
1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs for the recovery of possession of certain immoveable properties after declaration of title. These properties originally belonged to one Gagan Chandra Roy Chowdhury who died in 1857 leaving a widow Kritarthamoyee Debi and a daughter by a predeceased wife Rangini. Rangini was married to one Chandra Sekhar Banerjee who resided in the house of his father-in-law. Kritarthamoyee made a gift of all the properties left by her husband Gagan in favour of Chandra Sekhar by a deed, dated the 4th January 1866. At that time the next reversioners of her husband's estate were Rangini who, if she survived the widow, would get a woman's estate, and Bishnu Chandra Banerjee who was the daughter's son of Gagan's great-grand-father. Rangini died sometime after the execution of the deed of gift and Chandra Sekhar apparently remained in possession of the property. On the 16th December 1891 Bishnu Chandra along with another person named Surendra Lai Roy Chowdhury executed a ...
Bilast Chandra Roy Vs. Rajendra Chandra Das Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.661
1. The plaintiff Bilas Chandra Roy who is the appellant before us was the owner of an entire estate bearing Touzi No. 9299 in the Dacca Collectorate. The revenue of the estate is Rs. 88-1-1 payable in three instalments and the amounts and the latest days of payments, fixed under seotion 3 of Bangal Land Revenue Sales Act XI of 1859, of these instalments are Rs. 60-4-0 on the 12th January Es 16-9-1 on the 28th June. On the 26th June 1919 the plaintiff himself paid Rs. 11-4-0 at the Dacca Post Office with a Revenue Money-Order form duly filled in according to the rules contained in the Bengal Touzi Manual, 1918, on acoount of the revenue payable on the 28th June. On the 6th July the plaintiff received Exhibit 12 the acknowledgment portion of the money-order which, instead of being a receipt for the payment of revenue, contained an intimation endorsed in red ink in the following trems: 'Received after expiry of due date. The amount is kept in revenue deposit. The Mahal should be released ...
Tara Prasanna Singh and ors. Vs. Ranjit Lal Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Cal252,85Ind.Cas.553
Mukerji, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was commenced in the year 1908. The plaintiffs as darpatnidars instituted this suit against the zemindars, the patnidars and certain tenants, for a declaration that they were entitled to obtain settlement of certain lands as being chaukidar chakran lands included within their darpatni mehals and for recovery of khas possession and wasilat on the ground that the said lands having been resumed by the Collector and assessed to rent had been settled with the zemindar who had. wrongfully granted settlement thereof to the said' tenants. The zemindar was the defendant No. 1, the tenants defendants Nos. 2 to 18 and the patnidars defendants Nos. 19 to 64 in the suit.2. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit in. its entirety. On appeal the District Judge made an order for remand, which, on a further appeal to this Court was varied, and the Subordinate Judge was directed to take evidence and record his findings on certain issues and send th...
Dwarkadas Marwari and anr. Vs. Jadab Chandra Ganguli and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal801
Walmsley, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver, and I agree in the substance of the order that he proposes to make. If there is a right of appeal to this Court, that is, if the learned Judge was right in thinking that an appeal lay to him, I agree that his decision on the merits was wrong and should be reversed.2. Personally however I do not think that an appeal lay and consequently I hold that we should interfere under the provisions of Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. My reasons for thinking that no appeal lay are as follows: - The view that the matter comes within the scope of Section 47 Civil Procedure Code, rests on the footing that the question has arisen between the parties to the suit brought by Sitaram. It must be that suit because Jadab was not a party to the other.3. The parties to that suit are Sitaram on the one side and Jadab and Anil on the other side, and the order for rateable distribution can be treated a...
Abdul Aziz Mia and ors. Vs. Amanmal Bathra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal276
1. This is an appeal by the defendants against the decree in a suit on a mortgage bond. The execution of the bond was admitted. The defences raised by the defondants were that the stipulation for compound interest was not enforcible, that it was penal and that certain payments made by them had not been credited.2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that it was not necessary to take any evidence except as to the alleged payments. As these were small amounts the plaintiff raised no objection to these being credited against their claim. It is contended that the defendants should have been allowed to adduce evidence on the other issues. Referring to the defendants' written statement it is clear that no evidence would have been admissible in support of their pleas. The allegations amount to a contention that there was a contemporaneous oral agreement that compound interest should be mentioned in the bond but that interest would never be claimed according to it and that simple interest only ...
Dwarkadas Marwari Vs. Jadab Chandra Ganguly
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal761
Walmsley, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver, and I agree in the substance of the order that he proposes to make. If there is a right of appeal to this Court, that is, if the learned Judge was right in thinking that an appeal lay to him, I agree that his decision on the merits was wrong and should be reversed.2. Personally, however, I do not think that an appeal lay and consequently I hold that we should interfere under the provisions of Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. My reasons for thinking that no appeal lay are as follows: The view that the matter comes within the scope of Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, rests on the footing that the question has arisen between the parties to the suit brought by Sitaram. It must be that suit, because Jadab was not a party to the other. The parties to that suit are Sitaram on the one side and Jadab and Anil on the other side, and the order for rateable distribution can be treated a...
In Re: (Effie Jessie) Caroline Miranda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal644
Buckland, J.1. The question which arises in this matter is whether a married woman who died before attaining the age of 21 years and of whose person and property a guardian has been appointed is competent to make a Will or whether she is a minor and therefore not within Section 46 of the Indian Succession Act which says, what persons may dispose of property by Will.2. The point is governed by Section 3 of the Majority Act which in these circumstances-postpones majority until the age of 21 years and does so notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Succession Act.3. The point is settled by authority, an from the section of the Majority Act itself it is clear that Section 3 of the Indian Succession Act which states that a minor is a person who has not completed the age of 18 years has no application to the circumstances of this case.4. The only other point which has been submitted for my consideration is based upon Exp. 1, Section 46 of the Indian Succession Act which provides tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »