Kolkata Court May 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.
Bharat Chandra Dhupi Vs. Hari Krishna Patari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.829
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against a decision of the District Judge of Noakhali reversing a decision of the Munsif. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought to recover rent from the defendant. The suit was valued at Rs. 79-13 annas.2. A preliminary objection was taken before us that having regard to the provisions of Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act no appeal lies as the value is below Rs. 100. It was urged before us on behalf of the appellant that the preliminary objection is not well founded and we have been referred to the case of Sudhanya Santra v. Basanta Kumar Sirkar 64 Ind. Cas. 733 : 49 C. 538 : 26 C.W.N. 96 : 34 C.L.J.579; (1922) A.I.R. (C.) 417 as an answer to the preliminary objection. It seems to us that the case does not help the appellant. Section 153 is clearly a bar to the present appeal unless it can be shown that a question arose in the suit as to the amount of rent. We cannot find that this was so, for a reference to the issues ...
Bijoy Chand Mohatab Vs. Khoka Sinha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1059,84Ind.Cas.425
1. These two appeals arise out of a suit for rent of a putni taluk Lat Sajnosh held by the defendants at a rent of Rs. 6,928.2. The putni taluk was sold under the provisions of Regulation VIII of 1819 for the arrears of rent for the year 1321 on the 15th May, 1915, and purchased by one Bejoy Krishna Mukherjee. The defendants sued to set aside that sale on the 13th May, 1916. The suit was decreed on the 4th October, 1917, by the trial Court. The sale was set aside and the defendants were held entitled to possession. The defendants actually got possession in Assin 1324 B.S. corresponding to October 1917. There was an appeal by the purchaser but the decree of the trial Court was confirmed by the High Court on the 12th August, 1919.3. The present suit was instituted on the 20th March, 1920. It was originally for rent of 1323, and for the kists up to Falgun 1326 together with cesses. Subsequently on the 4th March, 1921, there was an application for amendment of the plaint, and the arrears o...
Saroj Bandhu Bhaduri and ors. Vs. Manik Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal305
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the two decrees obtained by the common manager of the estate of the defendants were obtained by fraud and that the decrees were void and ineffectual as against the plaintiffs. The Munsiff dismissed the suit in its entirety but the lower Appellate Court has made a modified decree in favour of the plaintiff's. The facts shortly stated are as follows: The defendants' estate was represented by a common manager who brought a suit against the plaintiffs in the year 1914. The suit was decreed on the 17th July, 1915. An appeal to the first lower Appellate Court was dismissed on the 21st March, 1916, and the judgment of the first Court was confirmed. A second appeal against that decree by the present plaintiffs was disposed of on the 10th March, 1919. But it appears that the other suit to which the plaintiffs' claim relates was brought in the year 1917 and the present ...
Devendra Nath Basu and ors. Vs. Kailash Chandra Kalu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal318
Pearson, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Nadia, confirming an order of the Munsiff of Ranaghat.2. The appellants obtained a decree for rent and applied in execution for sale of the lands. A notice was served on the judgment-debtors under Order 21, Rule 66 upon which the letter appeared and objected that the lands were not properly described in the sale proclamation. The objection related to the western boundary which was stated to be certain accreted lands whereas the judgment-debtors contended that the accretions should be included in the sale, the boundary on that side being in that case the river. Upon a hearing of the application the Munsiff decided in favour of the judgment-debtors and ordered the decree-holders to furnish a true description of the rent lands within a week, failing which the execution case would be dismissed. From that order an appeal was preferred, and the learned Judge upheld the order of the Munsiff, holding upon a preliminary obje...
Hari Sankar Raj Chandra Dalal Vs. the E.i. Ry. Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal308
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Asansole confirming a decision of the Munsiff of Asansole. The suit was brought by the plaintiff as the consignor of certain consignments of sugar to recover a sum of Rupees six hundred and twenty-nine and annas ten, damages for loss of part of the goods. The sugar was consigned to the defendant-Company for carriage to the plaintiff at Ranigunj. There were four consignments of sugar. The first was made on the 28th November, 1919 of some 344 maunds and the loss claimed in respect of this consignment is in respect of deficiency of 3 maunds 18 seers of sugar. The second consignment was consigned on the 30th January, 1920. The amount of the consignment was the same as that in the first consignment and the sugar lost in course of transit was 4 maunds and 30 seers. The third consignment was on the 26th March, 1920 and the loss in respect of that consignment was 1 maund and 28 seers. The fourth c...
Haladhar Das Tanti Vs. Nagendra Nath Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal431,(1924)ILR51Cal997,84Ind.Cas.846
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant to recover possession of one anna share in a certain mauza and four annas share in certain, land We are told that the claim was to recover ejmali possession; but this is only true as regards the pro forma defendants and the real contest is between the defendant, the appellant and the plaintiff. The first Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and the Munsif's decree was confirmed on appeal by the District Judge and hence this appeal by the first defendant. The circumstances leading up to the claim are as follows:One Tara Chand Mahapatra was the proprietor of the mauza in respect of which the one anna share is claimed. He settled the mauza with Sitaram and Premchand each of them getting a one-half share. Sitaram subsequently sold eight annas of the mauza to Sonatan and one Chaudhury and Sonatan and Chaudhury sold these eight annas to Dinu, who is the father of the present plaintiff, and to one Kristo. On the 5th of August...
Mozharul Islam Vs. Abdul Gani Ala
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal322
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal raises a question which to my mind does not demand an elaborate, though it needs, careful consideration. The suit was brought by the father of a deceased Mahomedan wife against the husband for his share of the dower due to the deceased wife. At the time of the marriage the appellant, who had a guardian of his person and property appointed by the Court was 20 years of age and legally his age of majority under the Indian Majority Act was postponed to 21 years. The defence was that at the time of the marriage the defendant was a minor under the Indian Majority Act and, therefore, incompetent to enter into a contract for payment of the dower. Both the Courts below have overruled the plea and held that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree. The only point argued in this appeal is that despite anything in Section 2 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 a Mahomedan husband who is a minor according to the other sections of that Act, read with Section 11 of the Majority ...
Ali Miyan Vs. WajaddIn Sikdar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal383
Chakravarti, J.1. The question which arises for decision in this appeal by the plaintiff is:-Was the certificate which was issued tinder Act III of 1913 under which the sale of the holding in question took place, a valid and binding one? The facts which are relevant, for this appeal may be shortly stated thus. The plaintiff Munshi Ali Miyan and the defendant No. 2 Asgar were the owners of a holding under the khas mehal in Chittagong and a certificate, dated the 19th February, 1917, was filed by the Certificate Officer and the holding in arrears was sold on the 11th June, 1917 and, purchased by the defendant No. 1 for Rs. 46.2. The plaintiff instituted this suit for a declaration that the sale was not binding on him and in the alternative prayed for a reconveyance of his 8-annas share on payment of half the purchase-money. Among other matters which are not material, the plaintiff contended that the certificate was not a certificate, signed and made under the provisions of Section 4 of t...
Krishna Mohan Chowdhury Vs. Gour Sundar Chowdhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal470,82Ind.Cas.851
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decision of the District Judge of Chittagong, confirming a decision of the First Subordinate Judge. The facts necessary for the understanding of this appeal are as follows: The present plaintiff in the year 1914 commenced a suit for partition and his brother who was a party in that suit filed a written statement. At this stage friends of the parties intervened and the plaintiff's case is that he was induced by misrepresentations to sign a solenama compromising the matters in this suit. Then the plaintiff commenced the suit out of which this appeal arises and in this suit he asked for a declaration that the decree based on the solenama filed in the partition suit might be declared null and void and inoperative as having been obtained by undue influence, coercion and fraud. This was what the plaintiff asked for in this suit and he asked for nothing else. When the matter came before the First Subordinate Judge of Chittagong he sai...
Munshi Ali Miyan Vs. WajaddIn Sikdar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.1013
Chakravarti, J.1. The question which arises for decision in this appeal by the plaintiff is: Was the certificate which was issued under Act III of 1913 under which the sale of the holding in question took place, a valid and binding one? The facts which are relevant for this appeal may be shortly stated thus. The plaintiff Munshi Ali Miyan and the defendant No. 2 Asgar were the owners of a holding under the khas mehal in Chittagong and a certificate, dated the 19th February 1917, was filed by the Certificate Officer and the holding in arrears was sold on the 11th June 1917 and purchased by the defendant No. 1 for Rs. 46.2. The plaintiff instituted this suit for a declaration that the sale was not binding on him and in the alternative prayed for a re-conveyance of his 8-annas share on payment of half the purchase-money. Among other matters which are not material, the plaintiff contended that the certificate was not a certificate, signed and made, under the provisions of Section 4 of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »