Kolkata Court March 1924 Judgments
Rajendra Narayan Rai Vs. Bhairabendra Narayan Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal235,82Ind.Cas.235
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover joint possession of certain lands on establishment of the plaintiff's zamindari right thereto to the extent of 3 annas 9 gundas, 1 kag share. The allegations upon which the suit was based shortly stated were that the defendants Nos. 13 and 14 were co-sharers of the plaintiff to the extent of 5 annas 3 karas 3 kags and that the remaining 7 annas 10 gundas share belonged to certain persons sailed the Parsha Zemindars who, how-over, are no parties to this litigation, The plaintiff alleged that the defendants Nos. 13 and 14 had settled the lands in dispute with the defendants Nos. 1 to 12, that the said settlement was unauthorized and that those persons were cultivating the lands and were in possession thereof. He, therefore prayed for recovery of joint possession to the extent of his share as stated above.2. The contesting defendants, namely, defendants Nos. 13 and 14, alleged that, out of the lands in suit, 129 bighas were debutta...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Safar Jama Khan and anr. Vs. Raja Satya Niranjan Chakravarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal266a
Newbould, J.1. The facts of this case as found by the lower Court are as follows: -The land in suit about 1 1/2 bighas in area appertains to a Revenue free Mahal bearing Touzi No. 237 of the Birbhum Collectorate. The plaintiff, known as the Rajah of Hetampur, is the patnidar of 12 1/2 annas share of that Estate and the defendants are owners of the remaining 3 1/2 annas share of the zemindari. On the 6th Pos 1320, corresponding to December 1913, a hat was opened on this land. It was the plaintiff's case that he alone opened this hat, but the finding is that it was established both by the plaintiff and the defendants. At first some thatched huts were erected from materials collected by the plaintiff's manager and the defendants from their joint tenant. About a month later it was proposed to build corrugated iron sheds in place of the thatched huts. The defendants were asked to pay their share of the expenses of erecting these iron sheds and they expressed their inability to do so. Thereu...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Safar Jama Khan Alias Janglu Khan and anr. Vs. Raja Satya Nir ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.290
1. The facts of this case as found by the lower Court, are as follows: The land in suit about 1 1/2 bighas in area appertains to a Revenue free Mahal bearing Touzi No. 237 of the Birbhum Collectorate. The plaintiff, known as the Raja of Hetampur, is the patnidar of 12 1/2-annas share of that Estate and the defendants are owners of the remaining 3 1/2-annas share of the Zemindari. On the 6th Pos 1320, corresponding to December 1913, a hat was opened on this land. It was the plaintiff's case that he alone opened this hat, but the finding is that it was established both by the plaintiff and the defendants. At first some thatched huts were erected from materials collected by the plaintiff's manager and the defendants from their joint tenant. About a month later it was proposed to build corrugated iron sheds in place of the thatched huts. The defendants were asked to pay their share of the expenses of erecting these iron sheds and they expressed their inability to do so. Thereupon the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Mcleod and Company Vs. Ivan Jones and Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Cal189
Page, J.1. This is a suit brought to recover damages for the breach of a contract to take delivery of and to pay for 4 Westcott cars, 12 Lexington cars and TO Nash cars sold by the plaintiffs to the defendants. In his opening address counsel for the plaintiffs stated that the plaintiffs' relationship to the defendants in respect of the sale of these cars was partly that of agent to the principal and partly that of vendor to vendee. At the trial he applied for leave to amend the plaint by adding a claim in the alternative for an indemnity as agents, but I refused the application because in my opinion there was no reasonable ground for permitting an amendment of the claim at so late a stage in the proceedings, and also because, if the amendment were to be allowed, a new cause of action would be admitted which is now time barred. I do not wish it to be understood, however, that, in my opinion, the proposition which was propounded on behalf of the plaintiffs is one to which I should give m...
Tag this Judgment!Baneswar Bandopadhya Vs. Amulya Charan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal288
Mukerji, J.1. The two grounds upon which the learned Additional District Judge has reversed the decision of the learned Munsiff and dismissed the plaintiff's suit are: first, that the delay in instituting the suit leads to the conclusion that he acquiesced in the defendant's acts, and 2nd, that the plaintiff himself has not done equity and so has offended the principle that he who seeks equity must do equity. These grounds according to the learned Additional District Judge have disentitled the plaintiff to the relief he sought for. As to the first of these grounds the position is this. The defendant's case was that the rooms were constructed about 1312 B.S. The suit was not instituted till 1325 B.S. 'If this be so', says the learned Additional District Judge,' then plaintiff has waited a matter of 13 years before seeking relief and 1 think he is plainly out of Court.' As authorities in support of this view he had relied upon the cases of Duke of Leeds v. Earl of Amherst (1846) 2 Ph. 11...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Ram Das Vs. Bharat Ram Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.739
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and is confined to a strip of land which is described as plot No. 1 in the proceedings, with regard to which the suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below.2. The plaintiff's case as laid in the plaint shortly stated and so far as is necessary for our present purposes was this: that the plaintiff was residing in his bari to the west of the plot from the time of his ancestors, that he and the defendants (Nos. 1, 5 and 6 being his brothers and Nos. 2, 3 and 4 being the sons of No. 1) and their ancestors had used the said plot as a pathway for over 100 years for going to their lands with ploughs, loads, cattle, palanquain and corpses, openly, peacefully and as of right all the time, that of late he has 'removed to his new bari and thereafter also used the plot as a pathway, till the principal defend ants put up an obstruction thereon. The prayer of the plaintiff was for a declaration of plaintiff's right of way and for recoveri...
Tag this Judgment!Baneswar Bandopadhya Vs. Amulya Charan (Amulya Chandra in Vakalatnamah ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.309
Mukerji, J.1. The two grounds upon which the learned Additional District Judge has reversed the decision of the learned Munsif and dismissed the plaintiffs suit are: first, that the delay in instituting the suit leads to the conclusion that he acquiesced in the defendant's acts, and 2nd, that the plaintiff himself has not done equity and so has offended the principle that he who seeks equity must do equity. These grounds according to the learned Additional District Judge have disentitled the plaintiff to the relief he sought for.2. As to the first of these grounds the position is this: The defendant's case was that the rooms were constructed about 1312 B.S. The suit was not instituted till 1325 B.S. 'If this be so', says the learned Additional District Judge, 'then plaintiff has waited a matter of 13 years before seeking relief and I think he is plainly out of Court.' As authorities in support of this view he has relied upon the cases of Duke of Leeds v. Earl of Amherst (1846) 2 Ph. 11...
Tag this Judgment!Mcleod and Company Vs. Ivan Jones and Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.218
Page, J.1. This is a suit brought to recover damages for the breach of a contract to take delivery of and to pay for 4 Westcott Cars, 12 Lexington Cars and 70 Nash Cars sold by the plaintiffs to the defendants. In his opening address Counsel for the plaintiffs stated that the plaintiffs' relationship to the defendants in respect of the sale of these cars was partly that of agent to the principal and partly that of vendor to vendee. At the trial he applied for leave to amend the plaint by adding a claim in the alternative for an indemnity as agents, but I refused the application because in my opinion there was no reasonable ground for permitting an amendment of the claim at so late a stage in the proceedings, and also because, if the amendment were to be allowed a ' new cause of action would be admitted which is now time-barred. I do not wish it to be understood, however that, in my opinion the proposition which was propounded on behalf of the plaintiffs is one to which I. should give' ...
Tag this Judgment!imdad Mia and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal192
1. This is an appeal by two persons, Mazher Ahmed and Imdad Mia. They were both tried before a jury for an offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. The jury unanimously found them guilty and the Judge agreeing with the verdict of the Jury sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The facts are shortly as follows: One Ali Mia brought a rent suit against one Makbul Ali on the 21st of May 1920, and Ali Mia obtained an ex parte decree in that rent suit. He realized the decretal amount by attachment on the 4th of July 1920. Makbul Ali applied to set aside the ex parte decree. This was done. The suit was re-heard and was dismissed on the 13th of May 1921. On the 23rd of March 1922, Makbul Ali applied for a refund of the amount of the ex parte decree which had been realized by execution. Ali Mia put in a petition objecting to the application on the 10th of June 1922. He alleged that the money bad in fact been repaid by him to Makbul Ali and in supp...
Tag this Judgment!Mazher Ahmed Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.261
1. This is an appeal by two persons, Mazher Ahmed and Imdad Mia. They were both tried before a Jury for an offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. The Jury unanimously found them guilty and the Judge agreeing with the verdict of the Jury sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The facts are shortly as follows. One Ali Mia brought a rent suit against one Makbul Ali on the 21st of May 1920 and Ali Mia obtained an ex parte decree in that rent suit. He realized the decretal amount by attachment on the 4th of July 1920. Makbul Ali applied to set aside the ex parte decree.. This was done. The suit was re-heard and was dismissed on the 13th of May 1921. On the 23rd of March 1922 Makbul Ali applied for a refund of the amount of that ex parte decree which had been realized by execution. Ali Mia put in a petition objecting to the application on the 10th of June 1922. He alleged that the money had in fact been re-paid by him to Makbul Ali and in sup...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »