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.
Muhammad Sulaiman Vs. Uma Charan Sil
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal181
M.N. Mukherji, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for ejectment of the defendant on the expiry of a lease, dated the 22nd Falgun 1321 B.S., the terms of which expired on the 30th Chait 1325. The plaintiff was unsuccessful in both the Courts below and he has preferred this appeal to this Court.2. Two contentions have been put forward in this appeal on behalf of the appellant. The first is that the tenancy is governed not by the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act but by those of the Transfer of Property Act; and the second is that assuming for the sake of argument, that the tenancy is governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act, the Courts below have erred in law in holding that the provisions of Section 47 of that Act stand in the way of the plaintiff's recovering a decree.3. In support of the first contention, the learned Vakil for the appellant has drawn my attention to the conditions of leases Exs. A and B executed respectively in 1908 and 1915. He has referred to the. de...
Debendra Nath Chowdhury and anr. Vs. the Chairman, Local Board
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1924
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.904
1. The dispute in this case is between the petitioners and the Local Board. The Local Board's case was that the petitioners had encroached on land at the side of a road, which belonged to the Local Board and that as a result of such encroachment the. Local Board drain which ran by the side of the road had been blocked. Both the Courts have found in favour of the Local Board holding upon the evidence, that the Local Board had been in possession of the land encroached upon by the petitioners for some 12 years and an order under Section 133 has accordingly been passed.2. The only question that arises is whether under the circumstances this order was rightly made. It is admitted by both parties who are before us that according to the Settlement Record, the land alleged to have been encroached on by the petitioners, is the petitioners' land. Accordingly, the only question that really arises is whether this is reliable evidence within the meaning of Section 139A of the Code of Criminal Proce...
Muhammad Sulaiman Khan Vs. Uma Charan Sil
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.648
M.N. Mukerji, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for ejectment of the defendant on the expiry of a lease, dated the 22nd Falgun 1321 B.S. the term of which expired on the 30th Chait 1325. The plaintiff was unsuccessful in both the Courts below and be has preferred this appeal to this Court.2. Two contentions have been put forward in this appeal on behalf of the appellant. The first is that the tenancy is governed not by the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act but by those of the Transfer of Property Act: and the second is that, assuming, for the sake of argument, that the tenancy is governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act, the Courts below have erred in law in holding that the provisions of Section 47 of that Act stand in the way of the plaintiff's recovering a decree.3. In support of the first contention, the learned Vakil for the appellant has drawn my attention to the conditions of leases Exs. A and B executed respectively in 1908 and 1915. He has referred to the desc...
Tarapada Biswas and anr. Vs. Kalipada Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal639
1. This Rule is directed against two orders of a District Magistrate, dated the 10th of November, 1923, and 19th of November, 1923, whereby he committed the four petitioners before us for trial to the Sessions in respect of charges of having forged certain kabuliats. In making his order the District Magistrate reversed the decision of the Deputy Magistrate, who had dismissed the complaint disbelieving the evidence of the witnesses who were cited before him and holding that no motive for the forgery of the kabuliyats by the accused either of their own accord or at the instance of their master had been established. The learned District Magistrate in reversing the Deputy Magistrate's order states that he does so relying on the judgments of two Civil Courts, which suspected the genuineness of these kabuliyats and also on the ground that there was ample evidence of motive for forgery of the kabuliyats. The reasons given by the District Magistrate are clearly wrong. He had no right, we think...
Harry Jones Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal908
1. The appellant before us was convicted by the Officiating Second Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, on the 12th June, 1923, of an offence under Section 409, I.P.C., that is to say of criminal breach of trust as an Attorney in respect of certain books and furniture left with him as the complainant's Attorney for safe custody when the complainant left for England in the month of May, 1904. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment until the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.2. The books and furniture to which the charge relates were seized in the top flat at 9-3 Middleton Row on the 19th November, 1922, in pursuance of a search directed by the Magistrate and the books and the books and furniture so be returned to the complainant. The Magistrate's judgment and the charge contain references to other furniture also handed over in May 1904, by the complainant to the appellant; this furniture and the books and furniturs comprised in the charge are said to have been in the c...
Shailesh Chandra Guha Vs. Bechai Gope and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal94
1. This appeal is by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for enforcement of a mortgage by sale of the mortgaged properties. The mortgage bond is, dated the 4th June, 1907, and was executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of one Mathura Mohan Saha for Rs. 130 by which he mortgaged all his properties. The stipulated rate of interest was Rs. 5 per cent. per month with five monthly rests and the due date was in the Aswin following the date of bond. Mathura Mohan died some time in June or July 1916, and his sons, pro forma defendants Nos. 29 to 33, succeeded to his interest as his heirs. Plaintiff obtained an assignment of the bond from the pro forma defendants for a consideration of Rs. 900 by a deed dated the 26th September, 1919, and brought this suit on the 27th October, 1919. The mortgage money Hue on that date is said to have amounted to Rs. 83,917-12 as; but considering that so much money cannot be realised from the mortgage property plaintiff has claimed only Rs. 9,999 and abandoned...
Reshee Case Law Vs. Ambika Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal399
1. In these appeals the question raised is whether the appellant is entitled to enhancement of rent under Section 304 (b), Bengal Tenancy Act. He applied under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, for settlement of fair and equitable rent and claimed enhancement of the rent of the holdings to which these appeals relate on the ground of rise in the price of staple food crops. The Revenue Officer, as well as the Special Judge on appeal, have dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The Revenue Officer records his reason in these words ' Serials, 2, 14 and 28 consist of bastus, dobas, nalas, patits, &c.;, growing no agricultural crop. So in these cases no enhancement under Section 30 (b) is allowed at all.' The learned Special Judge on appeal observes, it appears, that all the above serials except 48 are homesteads, ditches, and nalas, patit, growing no agricultural crop. I think that the lower Court was right in disallowing enhancement under Section 30 (b). It has been decided in many cases in this ...
Narendra Nath Chatterji Vs. Rakhal Das Tarafdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal510
1. This rule is directed against an order of the Court below dated the 14th January 1924, rejecting an application made by the petitioner under Order 9, Rule 4, for restoration of an application which was dismissed for default. The original application was under Order 21, Rule 90 for setting aside a sale on the ground of material irregularity in the publication of sale processes. On the date of hearing neither party appeared and the Court, having disallowed the petitioner's prayer for further time, dismissed the application and confirmed the sate. The petitioner thereupon applied to the learned Subordinate Judge for its restoration. The learned Judge being of opinion that Order 9, Code of Civil Procedure, was not applicable to an application under Order 21, Rule 90 dismissed the petition without entering into its merits.2. It is argued before us that the view taken by the Court below is wrong and that Order 9 is applicable to an application under Order 21, Rule 90. This question has be...
Prithuram Kalita Vs. Mayaram Sarma
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal555,79Ind.Cas.330
M.N. Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. The facts, so far as they are necessary for the purpose of the present appeal, are these: The plaintiff* had an order in his favour entitling him to a sum of Rs. 35-2-3 as costs payable to him by the defendant in certain previous litigation which he had with the defendant. In execution of the said order, he took out attachment of the defendant's movables. The plaintiff's case was that when the movables were attached, the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 20 and promised not to prosecute an appeal which he had already preferred against the order which was then under execution, and that, on account of his promise, he, the plaintiff, accepted the said sum of Rs. 20 in full satisfaction of the claim. The plaintiff further alleges that the defendant did not as a matter of fact, withdraw the appeal but proceeded with it and the said appeal was eventually decided ax parte in favour of the defendant, no notices in respect of the appea...
Tarapada Biswas Vs. Kalipada Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal849
Greaves and Panton, JJ.1. This Rule is directed against two orders of a District Magistrate, dated the 10th of November 1923 and 19th of November 1923, whereby he committed the four petitioners before us for trial to the sessions in respect of charges of having forged certain kabuliats. In making his order the District Magistrate reversed the decision of the Deputy Magistrate who had dismissed the complaint disbelieving the evidence of the witnesses who were cited before him and holding that no motive for the forgery of the kabuliats by the accused, either of their own accord or at the instance of their master, had been established. The learned District Magistrate in reversing the Deputy Magistrate's order states that he does so relying on the judgments of two Civil Courts which suspected the genuineness of these kabuliats, and also on the ground that there was ample evidence of motive for forgery of the kabuliats. The reasons given by the District Magistrate are clearly wrong. He had ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »