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.
Ram Sadan Biswas Vs. Mathura Mohan Hazra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal233
Mukerji, J.1. Plaintiff Mathura Mohan Hazra instituted this suit against Ram Sadhan Biswas as principal defendant and Hari Sadhan Biswas as pro forma defendant in the Court of the Second Munsif at Baruipore on the following allegations:2. The pro forma defendant held 7-1/2 cottas of land under Narendra Kumar Banerjee and others. The said land together with other lands were mortgaged by the pro forma defendant to one Srimanta Mondal, who enforced his mortgage and obtained a decree thereon and purchased the mortgaged lands. Sri Manta Mondal thereafter obtained khas possession in respect of 3-1/2 cottas out of the said 7-1/2 cottas, but being unable to get possession of the remaining 4 cottas whereon stood the homestead of the pro forma defendant) instituted a suit against the latter for khas possession and obtained a decree. The plaintiff purchased the 7-1/2 cottas of land along with some other lands from the heirs of Srimanta.3. The principal defendant Ram Sadhan Biswas in collusion wit...
Dayamoyee Ray Choudhury Vs. Lalit Mohal Pal Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal401
1. The suit giving rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff to recover certain properties as heir of her father one Bharat Chandra Basu. The properties had been placed in two schedules ka and kha of the plaint. Bharat obtained the properties described in schedule ka as heir of his son who had pre-deceased him, the son having inherited the properties from his maternal grand. father. The properties in schedule kha were the ancestral properties of Bharat. Bharat died leaving two daughters, the plaintiff who was married at the time and Mon Mohini a maiden daughter. Mon Mohini, therefore, succeeded to the property left by Bharat obtaining a Hindu woman's estate. Bharat had also three nephews, his brother's sons. One of them Krishna was appointed guardian of Mon Mohini during her minority. It appears that Bharat died leaving some debts and a decree was obtained by the creditor one Ram Kumar Nag in a suit in which he made both the daughters of Bharat defendants, The decree was for Rs....
Srimati Dayamoyee Ray Choudhurani Vs. Lalit Mohal Pal Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.1001
1. The suit giving rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff to recover certain properties as heir of her father one Bharat Chandra Basil. The properties had been placed in two Schedules ka and kha of the plaint, Bharat obtained the properties described in Schedule ka as heir of his son who had predeceased him, the son having inherited the properties from his maternal grandfather. The properties in Schedule kha were the ancestral properties of Bharat. Bharat died leaving two daughters, the plaintiff who was married at the time and Mon Mohini a maiden daughter. Mon Mohini, therefore, succeeded to the property left by Bharat obtaining a Hindu woman's estate. Bharat had also three nephews, his brother's sons. One of them Krishna was appointed guardian of Mon Mohini during her minority. It appears that Bharat died leaving some debts and a decree was obtained by the creditor one Ram Kumar Nag in a suit in which he made both the daughters of Bharat defendants. The decree was, for Rs. ...
Ram Sadhan Biswas Vs. Mathura Mohan Hazra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1924
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.2
Mukerji, J.1. Plaintiff Mathur Mohan Hazra instituted this suit against Ram Sadhan Biswas as principal defendant and Hari Sadhan Biswas as pro forma defendant in the Court of the Second Munsif at Baruipore on the following allegations:2. The pro forma defendant held 7 1/2 cottas of land under Narendra Kumar Banerjee and others. The said land together with other lands were mortgaged by the pro forma defendant to one Srimanta Mondal, who enforced his mortgage and obtained a decree thereon and purchased the mortgaged lands. Srimanta Mondal thereafter obtained khas possession in respect of 3 1/2 cottas out of the said 7 1/2 cottas, but being unable to get possession of the remaining 4 cottas whereon stood the homestead of the pro forma defendant instituted a suit against the latter for khas possession and obtained a decree. The plaintiff purchased the 7 1/2 cottas of land along with some other lands from the heirs of Srimanta. The principal defendant Ram Sadhan Biswas in collusion with the...
Joad Ali Vs. Raikeshore Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal949,85Ind.Cas.753
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff as a co-sharer landlord for recovery of possession from the defendant of a plot of land which the defendant alleges to have purchased from a former tenant of the plain-till' named Wazuddi. The defence of the defendant is that the holding to which this plot of land appertains was not the holding of Wazuddi alone but belonged to Wazuddi and several others, the same having devolved on them on the death of Wazuddi's father Asanullah, and that, inasmuch as the other heirs of Asanullah are still living, the sale of the holding by Wazuddi did not operate to transfer the entire holding such as would give the landlord the right of re-entry. It is unnecessary to refer to the other allegations in the pleadings of the parties. The learned Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit being of opinion that it had bean proved that the holding originally belonged to Asanullah, that there were heirs of Asanullah other than Wazuddi, tha...
Probhas Kumar Ganguli and anr. Vs. Nithar Lal Ganguli and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1054,84Ind.Cas.278
Mukerji, J.1. The petitioners applied for review of an order passed by the Munsif of Chuadanga dismissing their suit on the ground that the said order had been passed on overlooking the fact that the defendants had admitted a portion of their claim. The application was headed as one under Order 47, Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Munsif passed an order, the material portion of which ran as follows : 'I am satisfied that the application comes more properly under Section 151 than under Order 47, Rule 1. I must note here that the application in question has been filed under both provisions of law. I therefore allow it and restore the case for re-hearing under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code.' The suit was proceeded with and the previous-decree modified. The petitioners then applied for refund of Court-fees under Section 15 of the Court Fees Act. The learned Munsif refused the application, being of opinion that he had acted under Section 151, Civil Proc...
Sm. Taritbarani Dasi Vs. Basumati Devi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal985,85Ind.Cas.953
Mukerji, J.1. The only question which has been urged on behalf of the appellant in this appeal is whether the decision of an earlier suit operated as res judicata in respect of some of the issues which arose in the subsequent suit, out of which the present appeal arises.2. The plaintiff Basumati Debi instituted the present suit against Taritbarani Debi the defendant No. 1 and her husband the defendant No. 2, seeking to eject them from a plot of land and for a decree for mesna profits, and in the alternative for a decree for rent in case it was found that she was not entitled to eject them.3. Taritbarani had instituted a suit for a deolaration of her right of way as a prescriptive right or an easement of necessity against one Chedi Dosadh a tenant under Basumati and also two persons as pro forma defendants of whom Basumati was one being the defendant No. 3 in that suit. In that suit no relief was claimed against her. She, however, contested the suit and amongst other things, contended t...
Chhadek Karikar Vs. Sayad Ali Kaviraj and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1046,85Ind.Cas.979
Mukerji, J.1. The two contentions urged on behalf of the appellant in this appeal are: 1st, that the finding in the suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, to the effect that the plaintiffs were not in possession within six months before the institution thereof, should have been held to operate as res judicata; and 2nd, that at any rate the judgment in that suit should have been considered as a piece of relevant evidence in the present suit.2. With reference to the aforesaid contentions reliance has been placed upon the case of Lillu v. Annaji [1880] 5 Bom. 387 and the case of Jiaullah Sheikh v. Inu Khan [1896] 23 Cal. 693 and the principles laid down in the case of the Duchess of Kingston [1776] 2 Sm. L.C. (6th Ed.) 679.3. Now as to the case of the Duchess of Kingston [1776] 2 Sm. L.C. (6th Ed.) 679 it was observed by the Judicial Committee in the case of Gokul Mandar v. Pudmanund Singh [1902] 29 Cal 707, while dealing with the provisions of Section 13 of Act XIV of 1882 (whi...
Jewan Ram Khettry Vs. E.i. Ry. Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal108,(1924)ILR51Cal861,84Ind.Cas.102
Page, J.1. At 1-45 A.M. on the 4th of April 1922, a terrible disaster befell the Punjab Up Mail. It was travelling at a speed of between 42 and 45 miles an hour round a curve about a quarter of a mile above Jainti Bridge, 173 miles from Calcutta, and 8 miles from Madhupur, when the passengers became aware of a loud, grating noise; the lights went out, and a few moments later, the engine, tender and six carriages were precipitated down an embankment 30 feet in depth. Eight persons were killed, and 25 were injured. The plaintiff was travelling with some members of his family in the train, and this suit is brought to recover damages in respect of the alleged negligence of the defendant Company causing damage to him. On the issue as to whether or not the defendant Company is liable in respect of negligence, this case is a test case, and the determination of it will govern other cases. On the issue of liability a number of cases were cited to me, and I propose to state the principles of law...
Jadab Chandra Santra Vs. Gopal Chandra Debnath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal837
M.N. Mukerji, J.1. The question which arises in this Rule is whether the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to try the Suit. The plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 49 alleged to have been due as price of bhag paddy and straw. The plaint alleged that the land had been settled with the Defendant in the month, of Jaistha, and the Defendant had stipulated to deliver to the Plaintiff by the month of Falgoon a half share of the paddy and straw that would be grown on the land, and in case of default would be liable to deliver 25 per cent, more as bridhi or interest in accordance with local usage; that the defendant, in accordance with the aforesaid promise or stipulation, after having taken settlement of the land cultivated the land and grew paddy and straw of which the quantities were also stated and the price of half thereof was claimed together with interest as aforesaid. One of the objections taken in the written statement was that the suit was one for rent and so ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »