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.
Chhaganmull Agarwalla and ors. Vs. Amanatulla Mohammad Prodhan and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.529
Mukerji, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of 12 hals of land with mesne profits. The plaintiffs claimed to have purchased a durchukani tenancy comprising of 16 hals of land under a kobala dated 1312 B.S. from certain persons who along with two others (who subsequently left the land) had obtained dur-chukani settlement in respect of the said quantity of land. The chukani out of which this dur-chukani settlement was made comprised of 171/2 hals of land. There were proceedings under section. 145, Criminal Procedure Code, between the plaintiffs and the defendants, which ended in an order under that section in respect of 4 hals in favour of the plaintiffs, 3 hals in favour of the defendants, and an order under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code, in respect of the remaining 9 hals of the durchukani. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for the 12 hals of which he had failed to be declared in possession as aforesaid.2. Th...
Girish Chandra Pal Vs. Baikuntha Nath Singha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal270
Mukerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The Court of first instance hold that the plaintiff bad succeeded in proving his title to eight annas of the property in dispute but that he had failed to prove his possession within twelve years of the suit and, in that view, that Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, the lower Appellate Court found that the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing his right to the entire sixteen annas of the property but being of opinion that the plaintiff's suit had not been instituted within 12 years of the date of his dispossession, it upheld the decision of the Court of first instance and dismissed the appeal. Against this decision the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.2. The point which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the lower Appellate Court was right in the view that it took on the Question of limitation In so far as it held that the time ...
Abdul Mazid Mir and ors. Vs. Goshai Das Bachar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal461
1. These appeals are directed against the orders of the Court of appeal below remanding the cases to the Court of first instance for the trial of issues other than the issue of limitation. The facts are that the plaintiffs brought two suits for recovery of possession of certain Char lands against the Muhammadan tenants who were in actual occupation of the lands as principal defendants and the landlords as pro forma defendants. The Court of first instance held that the suit was barred by special limitation under the Bengal Tenancy Act. On appeal by the plaintiffs the learned Additional District Judge, disagreeing with the finding of the first Court, allowed the appeal and remanded the cases to be tried on the merits. The present appeals are against the orders of remand. In these appeals the principal defendants as well as the pro forma defendants have all been made party respondents-the respondents who were pro forma defendants being 101 in the one case and 84 in the other. Some of them...
Hamid Ali and ors. Vs. Ram Charan Goldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.569
1. These appeals are directed against the orders of the Court of Appeal below remanding the cases to the Court of first instance for the trial of issues other than the issue of limitation. The facts are that the plaintiffs brought two suits for recovery of possession of certain Char lands against the Muhammadan tenants who were in actual occupation of the lands as principal defendants and the landlords as pro forma defendants. The Court of first instance held that the suit was barred by special limitation under the Bengal Tenancy Act. On appeal by the plaintiffs the learned Additional District Judge, disagreeing with the finding of the first Court, allowed the appeal and remanded the cases to be tried on the merits. The present appeals are against the orders of remand. In these appeals the principal defendants as well as the pro forma defendants have all been made party respondents--the respondents who were pro forma defendants being 101 in the one case and 84 in the other. Some of the...
Krishna Kumar Deb Vs. Atul Chandra Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal998,84Ind.Cas.79
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff instituted this suit against the defendants Nos. 1 to 10 as principal defendants and defendants Nos. 11 and 12 as pro forma defendants for declaration of right by purchase to a tank with an outlet comprising an area of 5 cattas and of right by inheritance to 1 catta of land and for confirmation of possession in respect of the said 5 cattas and for recovery of khas possession in respect of the said 1 catta and for an injunction.2. The plaintiff's case was that he has acquired 3/4th share in the said tank by purchase, the remaining 3/4th share belonging to the defendant No. 12, and had also acquired title to the said 1 catta of land by inheritance and thereafter by partition with his brother the defendant No. 11. As for the tank, the allegation was that there was an outlet at its north-east corner from the time of the plaintiff's vendor, and the plaintiff closed the same for the purpose of rearing fish; that the defendants Nos. 1 to 9, at the instigation of th...
Elahinewaz Khan Vs. Biseswar Baisya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal175,79Ind.Cas.921
1. The first question which we are called upon to determine in this case is whether the appellant has made out a case for the exercise of the discretion vested in the Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to admit the appeal which was presented after the period of limitation. In order to determine this question it is necessary to refer to the relevant dates. There were three suits brought by the decree-holders on several mortgages. The suits were Nos. 945, 699 and 698 of 1916. They were decreed on the 30th January 1917. The decree passed in these suits was rather peculiar.2. The suits were tried together and were disposed of by one judgment and the decree following the judgment was a joint decree, a copy of which was ordered to be placed in the record of each of these suits. It ordered that certain properties were to be sold first and out of the sale proceeds the decrees in suits 945 and 699 were to be first paid off and surplus would go to satisfy the decree in suit No. 698 from...
Sasi Bhusan Roy Choudhury Vs. Srimati Khiroda Sundari Sut and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1924
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.42
1. This Rule has been issued to show cause why the decree of the Subordinate Judge should not be set aside and that of the Munsif modified or such other or further orders passed as to this Court may seem fit.2. The suit was one in which plaintiff claimed a decree for rent against the tenants, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, alleging that he had a 4 annas, and the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 an 8 annas and the defendant No. 5a 4 annas nishkar maliki right in certain properties; that under the said nishkar, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 held plots Nos. 232, 1080 and 1013 and a portion of plots Nos. 281, and 282, at a yearly rental of Rs. 12-11-6 payable to the 16 annas maliks; that the rents for the years 1326 to 1328 and the, Assar kist of 1329 were due, of which the plaintiff's share was Rs. 13-7-6 being the amount of rent together with cesses and damages. The plaintiff alleged that inspite of his endeavour he had not been able to ascertain whether the rents due to his co-sharers had been paid or n...
Rajabala Dasi Vs. Radhika Charan Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal969,79Ind.Cas.982
1. This Rule is directed against an order holding that the plaint is undervalued, and directing the plaintiff to put in deficit court-fees according to the valuation fixed by the court. The history of the case is that in 1919 the defendant brought a suit against the plaintiff being Suit No. 106 of 1919 in which a solenama was purported to have been filed by the plaintiff in this suit, admitting the defendant's claim and stating that she was the defendant's benamidar in respect of the property in that suit. That suit was valued at Rs. 6,000. The plaintiff has brought the present suit (in 1921) in which she prays for a declaration that the decree obtained by the defendant is Suit No. 106 of 1919 was fraudulently obtained and for declaration of her title to the property in suit. One of the objections taken by the defendant was that the suit was undervalued and the plaint insufficiently stamped. The suit was originally valued at Rs. 2,100, Rs. 2,000 being the value of the declaration sough...
Kabir-ud-dIn Mondol and anr. Vs. Entaj Mondol and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal420,79Ind.Cas.586,79Ind.Cas.586a
1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Munsif of Katwa, dated the 28th April, 1923, refusing an application by the petitioner for amendment of the final decree in a mortgage suit. The learned Munsif suggested that the proper remedy of the plaintiff was to apply for a review of the judgment and dismissed the present application which purported to have been made under Sections 151 and 152, Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that the decree sought to be amended was not in conformity with the judgment. In the preliminary decree thirteen persons had been named as defendants against whom the decree was obtained. There was an appeal and on appeal there was some modification made by the Appellate Court. In the final decree only the names of four of the defendants appeared as judgment-debtors, these are defendants Nos. 1,3,4 and 5. The learned Munsif has based his opinion that the present application under Section 151 or Section 152 was not maintainable, mainly on two facts noticed b...
Chattra Nath Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Babar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal635
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the Plaintiffs-Respondents for declaration that no rent is payable in respect of the holding in their possession. During the settlement proceedings in the District the Respondents were not made parties and the tenure was recorded as rent-paying, the rent being fixed at Rs. 15. They then applied under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, to have the entry corrected, but they were not allowed to proceed with their application as they were not parties to the settlement proceeding-they being purchasers from some of the recorded tenants. Thereupon they brought the present suit for establishment of their nishkar right in the disputed land and also for declaration that the disputed lands are not liable to be sold in execution of rent decrees obtained by the landlords Appellants against one of the tenants. Both the Courts have found in favour of the tenants. The appeal is by the landlords.2. Three points have been raised in this appeal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »