Kolkata Court April 1924 Judgments
Lal Mahammad Sarkar Vs. HusaIn Mahammad Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal655
Chakravarti, J.1. This is a second appeal by the Plaintiff and, so far as the present appeal is concerned, is limited to a question as to whether the Plaintiff was entitled to recover the land in suit on the basis of a right of pre-emption. The parties are both Mahomedans and according to the Mahomedan law, the law of preemption is binding between them. The Plaintiff's case so far as this question was concerned was that he and Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were co-sharers of certain jote of 24 bighas in equal shares and that the Plaintiff sought to purchase the 8 as. share of Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 but before the negotiations between himself and the defendants were concluded Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 sold the 8 annas share of the jote belonging to themselves to Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by a conveyance and that the Plaintiff on hearing of that sale from one Abdulla Kaviraj, his brother-in-law, performed the necessary formalities of the Mahomedan law and he now brings the suit to get possession ...
Tag this Judgment!S. and C. Nordilinger Vs. Chandmull Mulchand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1051
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants S. and C. Nordilinger against the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Buekland.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs Chandmull Mulchand against the defendants for a declaration that a certain award, dated the 3rd of September, 1921, made by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, was invalid and inoperative; and the two grounds upon which the claim was based at the trial in this Court are first, that the award was bad on the face of it and secondly, that the arbitrators had no jurisdiction to make the award.3. The learned Judge held in favour of the plaintiffs on both the points and declared that the award was invalid and inoperative. Against that decision the defendants have appealed.4. The award was in the following terms:Contract No. Nil. dated 7th December, 1920.Goods covered by contract. Finished Dhooties.Basis of Sale No. 2226.Packages available for inspection B/S 116/20, 141/5.Packages examined.Complaint--inferior quality ...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Sankar Roy Choudhury Vs. Nishi Kanta Das Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal430
Pearson, J.1. In this matter the parties arrived at a compromise in a suit between them while the suit was in the appellate Court, and an order was made in terms of the compromise. The decree was not actually drawn up but the judgment was apparently signed. The judgment was said not to be in accordance with the terms of the compromise and accordingly an application was made for a review with the idea of putting the judgment and decree into an accurate form. The application for review name on for hearing on the 5th of December, 1921. The applicant was not ready and applied for summonses on his witnesses. This, however, was refused and thereupon the application was dismissed for default on the same day. On the 21st of December, 1.921, a petition was filed for restoration of the review application which had been previously dismissed on the 5th of December, 1921. That petition was stated to be made under Order 9, Rule 9, Order 47, Rule 1 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code. The learned S...
Tag this Judgment!Rash Behari Mazumdar Vs. Kasum Kumari Guha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1145
M.N. Mukerji, J.1. The learned Munsif, in my opinion, was in error in supposing that the order of attachment of the surplus sale proceeds could not be vacated at the instance of the petitioner as the latter was not a party to the mortgage suit in the course of which the said order had been made. The application being one under Section 151, Civil P.C., invoking the inherent powers of the Court to make an order necessary for the ends of justice, the question as to the locus standi of the applicant can hardly arise. The petitioner was, no doubt, not a party to the mortgage suit, but it cannot be urged for a moment that he is not vitally interested in the order which had been passed and which he seeks to be vacated.2. As for the merits, it is clear that by virtue of Section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act the moment a mortgaged property is transformed into money by reason of a revenue sale, the lien fastens by operation of law upon the surplus sale proceeds, It is so, on the equitable p...
Tag this Judgment!S. and C. Nordlinger Vs. Chandmull Mulchand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.341
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants S. & C. Nordlinger against the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Buckland.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs Chandmull Mulchand against the defendants for a declaration that a certain award, dated the 3rd of September 1921, made by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, was invalid and inoperative; and the two grounds upon which the claim was based at the trial in this Court are first, that the award was bad on the face of it and secondly, that the Arbitrators had no jurisdiction to make the award.3. The learned Judge held in favour of the plaintiffs on both the points and declared that the award was invalid and in operative. Against that decision the defendants have appealed.4. The award was in the following terms: Contract No. Nil, dated 7th December 1920.Goods covered by contract. Finished' Dhoties. Basis of Sale No. 2226. Packages available for inspection B/S 116/20, 141/5.Packages examined.5. Complaint--inferi...
Tag this Judgment!Padma Lochan Pal Vs. Kali Kamal Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal328
Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Tipperah transferring the plaintiff No. 2 from the category of plaintiffs to that of defendants. I have patiently heard the learned Vakil who appears for the petitioner and have gone through all the relevant documents in the case but I am not satisfied that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for our interference under Section 115) Civil Procedure Code. It is argued that the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to pass the order he passed under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code. There is no substance in this contention. As has been observed in the case of Bhairabendra Narain Deb v. Udai Narain Deb : AIR1924Cal251 ; such an order is within the jurisdiction of the Court in the exercise of its inherent powers or as is remarked in the case of Brojendra Kumar Das v. Gobinda Mohan Das (1916) 20 C.W.N. 752, the Court has jurisdiction to pass such an order under Order 1, Rule 10. In an...
Tag this Judgment!Khettra Mohan Das Vs. Biswanath Bera
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1047
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for accounts and is directed against an order of remand made by the learned Additional District Judge of Midnapur.2. The facts of the case have been shortly stated as follows in the judgment of the Court of first instance:This is a suit for accounts. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant No. 1 was Gomastha under the pro forma defendant Ho. 2 in Mouzas Barkola and Mirzapore and that he executed a security kabuliyat for his work in favour of the pro forma defendant on the 7th Kartik 1306 A. 'S. mortgaging the plaint schedule properties and on the strength of that kabuliyat he did the Gomaatha work from Kartik 1306 to Magh 1327 A. S.. that on the 5th Falgun 1327 A.S., the pro forma defendant No. 2 sold off to plaintiff all his rights in the two mouzas together with his rights to get accounts and papers from defendant No 1 and to recover from him the sums due thereon, by a registered kobala taking due and proper consideration thereof, ...
Tag this Judgment!Kumudini Dasi, Widow of Girish Chandra Mitra Vs. Surendrabala Dasi, Wi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal155
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant, and it relates to a small strip of land measuring about ten kattas. The plaintiff's case is that she and Defendant No. 3 are owners of an estate No. 165 of the Hooghly Collectorate, immediately to the east of some railway 'B' class land, and that; the land in suit lies within their estate and not in the ' B ' class land, that the land was in possession of their tenants, Defendants Nos. 4 to 10, but the first and second defendants have entered on the land, and cut trees, dug a tank and built a privy and established a bazar. On those allegations she claimed khas possession.2. The suit was resisted by the second defendant, who asserted that the land was really situated in the ' B ' class land of which he is the owner. The first Court found that the land was in the plaintiff's estate and gave her a decree for possession through the tenants along with her co-partner, the Defendant No. 3.3. The second defendant appealed and the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Rajani Kanta Saha and anr. Vs. Rajendra Kumar Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal274
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from a judgment of the Second Additional District Judge of Dacca, dated the 14th of July, 1922.2. The judgment of the lower Appellate Court dealt with two suits Nos. 305 and 321. The plaintiff alleged that the first and the second defendants had by erection of a building encroached beyond the land which the plaintiff had settled with them.3. It appears that the defendants had a building in the Srinagar Bazar, that the building was blown down in the Cyclone of 1919. Thereupon, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 erected a new building and it is in respect of this building that the plaintiff alleged the encroachment, and two suits were brought and, it was alleged, that two plots of land belonging to the plaintiff had been encroached upon.4. Suit No. 305 referred to the alleged encroachment on the west, and Suit No. 321 related to the alleged encroachment on the south and the east.5. The learned Munsiff who tried three suits dismissed Sui...
Tag this Judgment!Khetra Mohan Das Vs. Biswa Nath Bera
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal972
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for accounts and is directed against an order of remand made by the learned Additional District Judge of Midnapur.2. The facts of the case have been shortly stated as follows in the judgment of the Court of First Instance:This is a suit for accounts. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant No. 1 was Gomastha under the pro forma defendant No. 2 in Mouzas Barkola and Mirzapore and that he executed a security kabuliat for his work in favour of the pro forma defendant on the 7th Kartick 1306 A.S. mortgaging the plaint schedule properties and on the strength of that kabuliat he did the Gomostha work from Kartick 1306 to Magh 1327 A.S., that on the 5th Falgun 1327 A.S. the pro forma defendant No. 2 sold off to plaintiff all his rights in the two Mouzas together with his rights to get accounts and papers from defendant No. 1 and to recover from him the sums due thereon, by a registered kobala taking due and proper consideration thereof, tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »