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.
NeyajaddIn and ors. Vs. Akamat Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal411a,79Ind.Cas.365
1. In this case the plaintiffs brought a suit for recovery of possession of certain plots of lands against seven defendants on the allegation that the defendants Nos. 6, 4 and 7 had dispossessed the plaintiffs from them by wrongly recording themselves in the Record-of-Rights. The first Court declared the title of the plaintiffs to two plots (Nos. 959 and 960 of the batwara map) but dismissed their claim for recovery of khas possession holding that, in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs might have relief in a suit for ascertainment and recovery of rent of the lands. On appeal that decree has been set aside and the lower Appellate Court has passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for khas possession of those plots. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Court defendant No. 1 Ahamuddin died and his heirs were brought on the record five of whom were minors. It further appears that these minor children of the defendant No. 1 were not properly r...
Kasiram Kaiborta and ors. Vs. Boga Kaiborta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal524
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the learned District Judge of the Assam Valley Districts reversing the decision of the Munsif of Gauhati. The facts may be briefly summarised. The plaintiffs' case was that the land in suit belonged to one Behia who is described as a paik of Umanand temple. The land was submerged after the great earthquake of 1897 and the plaintiffs say that Bahia left the village in 1900 and thereafter, in 1915, conveyed the disputed plot to their father. Four years later they were dispossessed by the defendants.2. The defendants, on the other hand, pleaded that Behia had abandoned the land after the earthquake and that the dolai of the temple settled it with them in 1303 B.S., corresponding to 1905, and granted them a pottah on the 22nd February, 1912.3. The learned Munsif was of opinion that the plaintiffs had proved their possession in the land transferred to them and their subsequent dispossession by the defendants while the defendants had failed to establ...
Hari Charan Das and anr. Vs. Taraprasanna Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal541,79Ind.Cas.354
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge, first Court, Barisal. The plaintiffs brought a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 6,500 with interest. They obtained decree for Rs. 2,000 with interest and have appealed against this decree. The defendant No. 1 has filed a cross-objection on the ground that the suit should have been dismissed as against him.2. The plaintiff's case at the trial was as follows: Tarini Kumar Gupta and another purchased at auction-sale in execution of a decree certain properties belonging to the estate of Syed Obidulla Choudhuri. The defendant No. 2 is a brother of Syed Obidulla Choudhuri who is now deceased, and defendant No. 3 is the wife of defendant No. 2. After this purchase the auction-purchasers entered into a contract to sell those properties to the second and third defendants for Rs. 6,000. That contract was entered into on the 23rd February, 1912 and at that time Rs. 1,000 was paid as earnest-money. The plaintiffs were the tenants of l...
Lokhan Chandra Basak and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal149
Greaves, J.1. Lakhan Chandra Bysack and Benode Behari Bysack were, on the 18th September last found guilty by an Honorary Presidency Magistrate of offences under Sections 482 and 483 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced, each of them, to pay a fine of Rs. 50 in respect of the offence under the first section and to pay a fine of Rs. 75 in respect of the offence under the second section. The accused Benode was also convicted of an offence under Section 486 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50; Lakhan was acquitted of the offence with which he was charged under Section 486.2. The Rule was granted on the 27th September at the instance of the accused on the 16 grounds set out in the petition and on the 11th October, the Rule was directed to be served upon the complainant. The complainant and his brother carry on business in Calcutta as dealers in umbrellas and umbrella covers; their firm is known as Tinkori Dulal Chand Basak. The accused were charged with having used a false trade mark o...
Chandra Mohan Maiti and ors. Vs. Kinaram Maiti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal408,79Ind.Cas.412
1. The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiffs brought a suit for Khas possession of two plots of land ' Ka ' and 'Kha' on the allegation that they ware the debutter property of Thakur Chandaneswar Mahadeva. With regard to their claim in respect of the land marked ' Kha' both the Courts below have agreed in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. With regard to plot 'Ka' the defendants' case was that they were holding this land as tenants for a long time under an idol named Banabir Thankurani and under Thakur Chandaneswar Mahadev.2. The first Court found that the land belonged to Thakur Mahadev but refused to give the plaintiffs Khas possession of the land, holding that the defendants were tenants in respect of it and could not be ejected therefrom. The plaintiffs appealed and the lower Appellate Court found with respect to this plot that the plaintiffs were entitled to Khas possession on the ground that the defendants failed to prove that they were the tenants on the land. Against this...
Baldeo Misser Vs. Deputy Inspector-general of Police, C.i.D.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal826,(1924)ILR51Cal652,84Ind.Cas.82
Greaves, J.1. The first of these Kales was granted at the instance of Baldeo Misser calling upon the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, C.I.D., Bengal, to show cause why an order of the 4th October 1923 of Mr. Moudad Rahman, one of the Judges of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes, granting sanction to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, C.I.D., Bengal, to prosecute Baldeo Misser under the provisions of Section 109 and Sections 209/109 of the Indian Penal Code, should not be set aside on the ground that the order of sanction granted by the learned Judge of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes is not warranted by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is illegal.2. The second Rule was granted on exactly similar grounds at, the instance of Harendra Nath Mitra.3. The material facts are as follows. On the 3rd January 1922 Harendra Nath Mitra instituted a suit in the Calcutta Court of Small Causes against Ramrup Lohar and Baldeo Misser. Ramrup stated that the claim was false...
Lakhan Chandra Basak and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1924
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.922
Greaves, J.1. Lakhan Chandra Bysack and Benode Behari Bysack were on the 18th September last found guilty by an Honorary Presidency Magistrate of offences under Sections 482 and 483 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced, each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 50 in respect of the offence under the first section and to pay a fine of Rs. 75 in respect of the offence under the second section. The accused Benode was also convicted of an offence under Section 486 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50; Lakhan was acquitted of the offence with which he was charged under Section 486.2. The Rule was granted on the 27th September, at the instance of the accused on the 16 grounds I set out in the petition and on the 11th October, the Rule was directed to be served upon the complainant. The complainant and his brother carry on business in Calcutta as dealers in umbrellas and umbrella covers; their firm is known as Tinkori Dulal Chand Basak. The accused were charged with having used a false trademark o...
Syed Abu Mahomed Barakat Ali and ors. Vs. Abdur Rahim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal187
1. These two appeals arise out of a suit brought by five persons on the allegation that they as worshippers are interested in a public charitable trust which was wakf property and they brought the suit on behalf of the general Mussalman community as their representatives. The suit was brought against a number of defendants and the main prayer was that the compromise decree in suit No. 48 of 1910 should be declared to be not binding upon the plaintiffs and the Masulis of the Musjid. The defendants Nos. 1 to 18 are the descendants of one Mir Miran who was said to be the original Mutwali of the Mosque and the wakf property. The defendants Nos. 19 to 27 are purchasers of some of the properties which the plaintiffs alleged were included in the wakf estate; and the defendants Nos. 28 to 42 are the representatives of the plaintiffs who representing the Mahomedan community in general brought the previous suit No. 48 of 1910 under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code. The defendants Nos. 43 and 44 ...
Emperor Vs. Brahmananda Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal238
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a rule which was issued by the Court calling upon the leader, Brahmananda Dutta, to show cause why he should not be suspended from practice or why such other order should not be made in the matter as to this Court might seam fit and proper.2. It appears that the Pleader was the Vice-Chairman of the Golaghat Local Board and that one Bhikola bought the right to collect the revenue fixed by the Government in respect of two cattle-pounds and it was alleged that Bhikola had paid a sum of Rs. 66-10 8 to the Pleader on account of this matter, that the Pleader retained this sum for about seven weeks and that then be paid it into the treasury of the Local Board.3. He was charged with an offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code which deals with the offence of criminal breach of trust by a public servant and was convicted by the Magistrate of Golaghat and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to a fine of Rs. 500; and it was directed that, ...
Ganesh Lal and anr. Vs. the East Indian Railway Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal299
Suhrawardy, J.1. The rule was issued on the ground that in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ghelabhai Punsi v. East Indian Railway Co. A.I.R. 1921 Bom. 443 the order of dismissal made by the Small Cause Court Judge should not have been made. It appears on a perusal of the plaint that the plaintiff admits that the goods were lost and further he makes a claim that the goods were lost on the E.I. Railway. The goods were originally consigned at a station on the E.B. Railway and the plaintiff wants to make the Company liable for the loss of the goods. The loss has been admitted but the plaintiff has not adduced any evidence that the loss was due to the neglect of the railway administration & c., in accordance with the terms of the Risk Note B under which the goods were consigned. The learned Small Cause Court Judge has dismissed the plaintiff's suit and I think he is right in so doing. In the case of the East Indian Railway Company v. Jagapat Singh : AIR1924Cal72...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »