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.
Sri Sri Gopal Jew Thakur Through Narendra Nath Mondal Vs. Radha Binode ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal996
1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Sri Sri Iswar Gopal Jew Thakur and Sri Sri Iswar Sambhunath Sib Thakur represented by the Shebait Narendra Nath Mondal for the declaration that the properties in suit (consisting of 33 items) are Debuttar properties of the deities and for other reliefs.2. The Shebait plaintiff, and the defendants to the suit are all members of the Mondal Family of Bawali. It appears that the ancestors of the Mondals viz., Peary Lall Mondal and Mohni Mohan Mondal established the two Deities mentioned above more than 70 years ago built temples and kept apart some properties for the maintenance of the worship and Seba of the Deities, which are being carried on from their time.3. A suit was instituted in the year 1919 by two of the members of the Mondal family for framing a scheme of management of the Seba of the Thakurs in which Radha Binode Mondal (the defendant No. 1 in the present suit) denied that the properties were debuttar, and the Court held that t...
Naba Kumar Choudhury Vs. S.S. Higheazany
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.403
1. This case raises an important question of limitation. The plaintiff brought this suit against the defendant for a certain sum of money which he alleged that the defendant had realised from plaintiff's tenants but had retained in his own possession. The right under which he sued the defendant was not specified in the plaint and we take it that it was in his personal capacity. The suit was brought within the period of limitation but after the expiration of that period, the plaintiff prayed to be permitted to sue not only in his personal capacity but also as administrator to the estate of the deceased proprietor and the plaint was amended accordingly. The Small Cause Court Judge found that the money belonged to the estate which was inherited by plaintiff and his two sisters and of which the plaintiff was the administrator and decreed the suit. The defendant contends that at the time of amendment of the plaint the claim was barred by limitation and the suit ought to have been dismissed....
Naba Kumar Chowdhury Vs. Higheazany
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal419,(1924)ILR51Cal845
Suhrawardy and Chotzner, JJ.1. This case raises an important question of limitation. The plaintiff brought this suit against the defendant for a certain sum of money which he alleged that the defendant had realised from plaintiff's tenants but had retained in his own possession. The right under which he sued the defendant was not specified in the plaint and we take it that it was in his personal capacity. The suit was brought within the period of limitation but after the expiration of that period, the plaintiff prayed to be permitted to sue not only in his personal capacity but also as administrator to the estate of the deceased proprietor and the plaint was amended accordingly. The Small Cause Court Judge found that the money belonged to the estate which was inherited by plaintiff and his two sisters and of which the plaintiff was the administrator and decreed the suit. The defendant contends that at the time of the amendment of the plaint the claim was barred by limitation and the su...
Khitish Chandra Deb Roy Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal796
Greaves, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by a Presidency Magistrate of, an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years. Section 406, under which the appellant was convicted relates to criminal breach of trust, and criminal breach of trust, as defined in Section 405, means dishonest misappropriation or conversion by some one of property entrusted to him or over which he has been given dominion.2. The facts of the present case are as follows. On the 31st of May last year the appellant called at Messrs. Boseck & Co., a jeweller in Chowringhee Road, and represented that he was a relation of the Raja of Naldanga, and stated that he wanted to buy some jewellery for his daughter's wedding and that he wanted the goods for approval as his daughter could not come out. According to the prosecution story the appellant selected some articles of jewellery and signed a receipt for them in the inspection book and took ...
Kshitish Chandra Deb Roy Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.163
Ewart Greaves, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by a Presidency Magistrate of an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years. Section 406 under which the appellant was convicted relates to criminal breach of trust and criminal breach of trust as defined in Section 405 means dishonest misappropriation or conversion by some one of property entrusted to him or over which he has been given dominion.2. The facts of the present case are as follow: On the 31st of May last year the appellant called at Messrs. Boseck and Co. a jeweller in Chowringee Road and represented that he was a relation of the Raja of Naldanga and stated that he wanted to buy some jewellery for his daughter's wedding and that he wanted the goods for approval as his daughter could not come out. According to the prosecution story the appellant selected some articles of jewellery and signed a receipt for them in the inspection book and took th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›