Kolkata Court March 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.
Jatindra Chandra Chowdhury Vs. the Rangpur Tobacco Coy., Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal990
Mukerji, J.1. The petitioner in this Rule challenges the validity of the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge under Section 73(1), proviso (6) of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the sale proceeds of some movable properties which were hypothecated with the opposite parties, the Rungpur Bank, Limited, and which have been sold in execution of a decree obtained by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that that proviso is confined in its operation to immovable properties only as 'mortgage' or 'charge' as defined in Sections 58 and 100 respectively of the Transfer of Property Act and can only be in respect of such properties. The petitioner further contends that the only form of security for payment of a debt or performance of a promise by the bailment of goods recognised by the Indian Contract Act is 'pledge' as defined in Section 172 of that Act, in which transference of possession of the goods to the pawnee is the essential ingredient, and that, inasmuch as in the pr...
Ekabbar Ali Shah Vs. Shaik Kon Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal272
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for khas possession of a piece of land upon a declaration of plaintiffs' jote right thereto. The plaintiffs alleged that the said land together with other lands belonged to one Ishan Chandra Lahiri in his zemindari right and was in his exclusive possession, and that they took settlement of jote right therein from him and thereafter were wrongfully dispossessed by the defendants. The contesting defendant on the other hand alleged that Ishan Chandra Lahiri had no zemindari right in the said land nor was he in possession thereof and that the land formed part of a chawk belonging to him and his predecessors and had been in possession for three generations. The Trial Court found that the chawk in question in which the* disputed land was included had been in the joint possession of the said Ishan Chandra Lahiri, the contesting defendant and other co-sharers and that Ishan Lahiri had only l/6th share therein, and accordingly it gave a decree to t...
Ekabbar Ali Shah Pagal Panthi Fakir Vs. Shaikh Kon Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.31
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for khas possession of a piece of land upon declaration of plaintiffs' jote right thereto. The plaintiffs alleged that the said land together with other lands belonged to one Ishan Chandra Lahiri in his zemindari right and was in his exclusive possession, and that they took settlement of jote right therein from him and thereafter were wrongfully dispossessed, by the defendants. The contesting defendant on the other hand alleged that Ishan Chandra Lahiri had no zemindari right in the said land nor was he in possession thereof and that the land formed part of a chawk belonging to him and his predecessors and had been in possession for three generations.2. The Trial Court found that the chawk in question in which the disputed land was included had been in the joint possession of the said Ishan Chandra Lahiri, the contesting defendant and other co-sharers and that Ishan Lahiri had Only 1/6th share therein, and accordingly it gave a decree to t...
Mahendranath Khundu Vs. Suresh Chandra Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal332
Mookerjee, J.1. The two suits out of which the present Rules have arisen being Suits Nos. 33 and 49 of 1923 of the Court of Small Causes at Krishnagar, were referred to a certain arbitrator. The arbitrator submitted his award on the 17th August, 1923, on the 27th of August, 1923, the opposite party in these Rules put in a petition challenging the validity and correctness of the award. The petition was headed as one under para. 15 of Schedule II of the Code of Civil Procedure. It dealt substantially with two sorts of grievances. One was that there was misconduct on the part of the arbitrator, inasmuch as he had refused to take relevant evidence which the opposite party was ready to adduce before him and the other was that the arbitrator had been misled into coming to certain findings upon calculations which were the result of fraudulent representations made to him on behalf of the petitioner in these Rules. The matter came up before the learned Subordinate Judge on the 31st of August, 1...
Abdul Samad and anr. Vs. Gunendra Krishna Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal452,82Ind.Cas.974
Mukerji, J.1. Conscious as I am of the restricted powers that we exercise in second appeals I hesitated a good deal before deciding whether I should interfere with the finding of the lower Appellate Court in these cases to the effect that the presumption arising from the entries made in the finally published Record-of-Rights has not been rebutted. Having regard, however, to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases I think I should interfere. If a Court of second appeal can interfere with a finding of fact when that finding is based on no evidence, if it can interfere with a finding of fact when the finding is arrived at without reference to the evidence on the record, if an inference as to facts can be interfered with when it is not warranted by the facts found, I do not see why a Court of second appeal should not interfere with a supposed finding of fact when that finding is arrived at upon an erroneous supposition as to matters which are not to be found on the record.2. What...
Mahendra Nath Kundu Vs. Suresh Chandra Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.10
Mukerjee, J.1. The two suits out of which the present Rules have arisen being Suits Nos. 33 and 49 of 1923 of the Court of Small Causes at Krishnagar were referred to a certain arbitrator. The arbitrator submitted his award on the 17th August 1923. On the 27th of August 1923, the opposite party in these Rules put in a petition challenging the validity and correctness of the award. The petition was headed as one under para. 15 of Schedule. II of the Code of Civil Procedure. It dealt substantially with two sorts of grievances. One was that there was misconduct on the part of the arbitrator, in as much as he had refused to take relevant evidence which the opposite party was ready to adduce before him and the other was that the arbitrator had been misled into coming to certain findings upon calculations which were the result of fraudulent representations made to him on behalf of the petitioner in these Rules. The matter came up before the learned Subordinate Judge oh the 31st of August 192...
Maharajah Sir Manindra Chandra Nandy Vs. H.V. Low and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal796
C.C. Ghose, J.1. These are two applications, one by the Maharajah of Kasisimbazar for the appointment of a receiver for the purpose of realizing certain outstanding payments due from customers in respect of coal supplied from the collieries of Maharajah during the time of the Managing Agency of the defendant Company and up to the termination of the said agency on the 4th February, 1914, and for the purpose of taking charge of all books, papers, records and documents relating to the said collieries and now in the possession of the Defendant Company, or, in the alternative, for an injunction to restrain the Defendant Company, their Directors, servants, and agents, from realizing the said outstandings and the other by the Defendant Company, for an order that all proceedings in this suit may be stayed to enable the matters in dispute and difference between the parties to be referred to arbitration in terms of certain agreement, dated the 1st April, 1917. The grounds in support of the one a...
Abdul Rajjak Sikdur and anr. Vs. Promada Sundari Devi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal482
Mukerji, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises plaintiffs claim rent from the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 for their 8 1/2 annas-share of a Nim Howla which is subordinate in the remaining 7 1/2 annas-share to a Nim Osat taluk belonging to the defendant No. 5 and in the said 8 1/2 as share to a pattan miras ijara held by the plaintiffs as darpattan miras ijara. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 contested the suit alleging that the darpattan miras ijara was fictitious and fraudulent and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant as between the plaintiffs and themselves. The defendant No. 5 also challenged the bona fide character of the darpattan miras ijara, denied that the plaintiffs acquired any rights under it, and averred that he, having purchased the pattan miras ijara in execution of a decree for arrears of rent thereof, he has become the landlord of the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 to the extent of 'the 18 annas share.2. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance, but on ...
Abdul Hakim and ors. Vs. Abdul Gani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal547
Mukerji, J.1. This action was commenced on a plaint purporting to have bean filed by fifteen persona on behalf of themselves and for all the villagers of Mouza Netra for a declaration of their customary pasture right to the lands in suit and for a declaration of their right to bury their dead in some portion of the same and also for certain consequential reliefs. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit, and the learned Subordinate Judge, on appeal, made a decree in favour of twelve of the plaintiffs; from which the defendants have preferred this appeal.2. The validity of the decree is challenged upon various grounds of which it is necessary to notice only two. The first ground relates to the competency of the suit in view of provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code. The second one is based on the contention that the Maharaja of Tippera was a necessary party to the suit, and in his absence the suit could not proceed.3. With regard to the first ground the position is this. The p...
Satish Chandra Ghose Vs. Debendra Nath Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal761,85Ind.Cas.636
Mukreji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by which the plaintiff seeks to eject the defendant No. 1 from two plots of land adjoining one another, the bigger one covering an area of 2 bighas 13 cottas 10 chittaks and the smaller one an area of 11 cottas 15 chittaks upon the allegation that the defendant No. 1 had purchased the said two holdings without the knowledge and consent of the landlord from whom the plaintiff has taken mourashi mokarrari settlement of the holdings. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif and decreed on appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge.2. The defendant No. 1 has appealed to this Court. It will be convenient to summarise his contentions with reference to the two holdings separately. As to the bigger jama it is contended:1st.-That the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that the tenancy was for horticultural purposes where as he should have held that it was for residential purposes.2nd.-If it was for residential purposes, then under the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »