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.
Srimati Giribala Dassi Vs. Biswambhar Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.746
1. This is an appeal by the opposite party Giribala Dasi and arises out of an application made under Order XXI, Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for certifying payment of a decree and alleged satisfaction out of Court.2. The learned Subordinate Judge found on the evidence that the alleged payment of Rs. 730 in satisfaction had been proved and directed satisfaction of the decree to be recorded accordingly. Against that order the present appeal has been filed, and the grounds on which it has been assailed are firstly, that the final decree not having been drawn up at the date when the application was made, the application was not maintainable, and secondly, that the Court below ought to have held on the evidence that the receipt (Exhibit I) was not a genuine document.3. In connection with the first point it is necessary to refer to Order XXI, Rule 2(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, which read as follows: '2 (1) Where any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out...
Durga Prosad Sen Vs. Kali Charan Aichrai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1065,84Ind.Cas.475
Suhrawardy, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought on a promissory note which is worded as follows : 'Hand note on condition of payment at sight to Babu Durga Prosad Sen. On the 29th Bhadra 1324, I borrowed Rs. 2,000 for cloth business of you and another at Suchar Bandar. Afterwards owing to non-payment of that amount you have instituted suit No. 445 of 1910 in the first Court of the Subordinate Judge at Comilla. Now by amicable settlement with you on behalf of the said business (or firm) Rs. 2,000 is settled as due. Not being able to pay this amount in cash, I again to-day take this loan of Rs. 2,200 for that business. I will pay interest on this at the rate of 1 per cent, per mensem up to date of repayment.' The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance. On appeal the appellate Court dismissed it on the ground that the defendant was not personally liable. There was a further appeal to this Court and the matter was sent back to the District Judge for decis...
Pramatha Nath Choudhuri and ors. Vs. Krishna Chandra Bhattacharjee and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal1067,136Ind.Cas.140,84Ind.Cas.420
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants. The suit was one for declaration of title to and for possession of a certain plot of land. Both the lower Courts have decreed the suit in the plaintiffs' favour. The judgments of both the Courts are attacked on the ground that it is said that a document between third parties, namely, a kabuliyat, Exhibit 4, was admitted and wrongly admitted as evidence in the suit. This document Exhibit 4 purported to show that the land with which it is concerned was bounded by some of the lands in suit which were therein described as brahmattar lands, another plot being described as Ishan's brahmattar. There is no doubt that, if this document Exhibit 4 is admissible in evidence, it supports the plaintiffs' contention, and the judgments of both the lower Courts are correct. But, in our opinion, this document Exhibit 4, which was between third parties, was not admissible in evidence either as regards the question of the boundary or as to the nature of t...
Kailash Chandra Nag and ors. Vs. Bejoy Chandra Nag and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal253
Walmsley, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, and it is directed against a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court on the 29th August, 1922.2. A preliminary objection has been taken before us that the application is filed out of time and that it should be rejected on that account. It is necessary, therefore,, to give certain dates. As I have stated the judgment was delivered on the 29th of August, 1922. The decree was signed on the 31st of August, 1922. On November 27 of the same year an application was presented for review of judgment. This application was rejected on July 30, 1923. The present application was filed on August 3,1923.3. It was at first suggested to us, that even if the whole period during which the application for review was pending be deducted, this present application is out of time. This suggestion, however, appears to be due to a mistake in an office note: the application for copy of the judgment was made on November...
Debendra NaraIn Singh Vs. Narendra NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal360
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia dismissing for default, an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code for setting aside an execution sale.2. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondent that no appeal lies. In support of this contention reference has boon made to Section 141, Civil Procedure Code which lays down that ' the procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of Civil Jurisdiction.' It is argued that this section applies, that the application must be taken to have been under Order 9 and that being so, no appeal lies.3. We do not think that there is any substance in this contention. The application purported to be made under Order 21, Rule 90, and in our opinion the appeal is competent. This view moreover is supported by Kali Kanta Chukerbutty v. Shyam Lal Basu (1917) 25 C.L.J. 163.4. Coming to the merits of t...
Panchkari Mitra Vs. Panchanan Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal971
M.N. Mukerji, J.1. The question which arises for consideration in this Rule is one of considerable practical importance. I have not been able to discover any authority, so far as this Court is concerned, on the precise point which arises for decision but upon the plain provisions of the statute and general principles of justice about which there can be no dispute, I have not the slightest doubt in my mind as to what my decision should be.2. The facts that need be stated are these : The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit being T.S. No. 1001 of 1923 of the court of the Munsiff of Chaudanga, the opposite parties Panchanan Shaha and Mohini Mohan Shaha are the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in that suit. The suit is for specific performance of a lease based upon allegations of fraud on the part of the said opposite parties. On the 21st December, 1923, the petitioner applied for summonses against the said opposite parties in order to examine them as witnesses on his behalf, and as far as can be ...
Chandra Kumar Aich and ors. Vs. Jiban Krishna Nath Mohajan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal249
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by some of the defendants, against a judgment of the District Judge of Chittagong, which affirmed with slight modifications the decree of the first Gourd.2. The plaintiff bought Noabad Taluq Mahammad Daim Najir at a sale bold under the provisions of Act XI (B.C.) of 1859, on August 7, 1913, and he then brought two suits for recovery of khas possession and for mesne profits. One suit, No. 297, related to 52: 3 kanis of land in Cadastral Survey plot No. 17/13564, and the other to the whole of that plot with certain other plots. It is not necessary to mention the reasons which led the plaintiff to bring two suits, instead of one. The two suits were heard together. The first Court gave him a decree for khas possession and for mesne profits. Then the defendants, or some of them filed two appeals; these again were dealt with in one judgment. The learned Judge upheld the decision of the first Court with this modification viz., that he directed that the ...
Prasanna Deb Raiket Vs. AchhruddIn Mahamad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal465
Walmsley, J.1. These two appeals arise from two rent suits which were decided by one judgment. A third appeal from the same judgment has abated. The landlord is the appellant.2. The facts are as follows. There was a Record-of-Rights prepared and finally published. In it the respondents were shown as the owners of separate jotes, each jote bearing a separate jama. The landlord made an application under Section 105 of the Tenancy Act for the settlement of fair rents. Then one Osman Ali put in an application under Section 106 alleging that his jote and the jotes of the respondents formed part of a parent jote, which had been held at a uniform rate of rent for so long that the holders were entitled to the presumption arising under Section 50 of the Act. The respondents did not join in that application or make similar applications, but they were made pro forma defendants. The hearing of the applications under Section 105 was stayed until the disposal of the application under Section 106, an...
Prasanna Deb Raikat Vs. AchhiruddIn Mahamad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.953
Walmsley, J.1. These two appeals arise from two rent suits which were decided by one judgment. A third appeal from the same judgment has abated. The landlord is the appellant.2. The facts are as follows. There was a Record of Eights prepared and finally published. In it the respondents were shown as the owners of separate jotes, each jote bearing a separate jama. The landlord made an application under Section 105 of the Tenancy Act for the settlement of fair rents. Then one Osman Ali put in an application under Section 106 alleging that his jote and the jote of the respondents formed part of a parent jote, which had been held at a uniform rate of rent for so long that the holders were entitled to the presumption arising under Section 50 of the Act. The respondents did not join in that application or make similar applications, but they were made pro forma defendants. The hearing of the applications under Section 105 was stayed until the disposal of the application under Section 106, and...
RamijuddIn and ors. Vs. Rai Radha Kanta Aich Bahadur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal245
1. These consolidated appeals raise two points which are common to all of them. The first is that the respondents are only some of the co-sharer landlords and are, therefore, not competent to maintain suits under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act; and the second point urged is that it should have been held that the rents of the appellants are fixed. The first question is of some importance and is one of first impression.2. The facts are that the appellants are tenants of chars Katra and Hazari. For the purpose of determination of the first question it is not necessary to go to the early history of the estate. Suffice it to say that it was taken possession of by the Collector under Regulation V of 1812 under the order of the District Judge. I was released in 1858 on condition that the proprietors of the estate, who had quarelled amongst themselves, should enter into an agreement, that the management of the estate should be carried on through Malguzars under Regulation VII of 1822. On the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›