Kolkata Court November 1925 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.
Nibas Chandra Manna Vs. BipIn Behary Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal846,96Ind.Cas.69
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is directed' against an order made by the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal about the apportionment of some compensation money. The necessary facts may be shortly stated as follows: The appellant was the tenant of a piece of land measuring 1 bigha 8agUas 12 chitaks. This land with other lands was acquired by the Improvement Trust and' the total amount of compensation payable was fixed by amicable agreement. The agreement further stated that, in raspect of this particular area of 1 bigha 8 cottas 12 chitaks, the compensation was to be Rs. 15,000. There were three sharers in the landlord's right and the appellant compromised his claim with the owners of two-thirds. The present dispute is between the appellant as tenant of this land and the owner of the remaining one-third share of the landlord's right.2. The learned President has given the appellant, the tenant, the sum of Rs. 800 for his interest in the land; and it is contended on his behalf...
Beni Madhab Sapui and anr. Vs. Jadu Nath Sapui and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1208,94Ind.Cas.907
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside on ground No. 1 of the petition and also on the facts stated in para. 9.2. The order complained of was an order made by a Deputy Magistrate of Alipore by which the petitioners were directed to remove an alleged obstruction from ascertain waterway or canal.3. Ground No. 1 was as follows: 'That the learned. Additional District Magistrate was wrong in holding that the notice of the conditional order under Section 133, Cr. P.C., was legally served upon the petitioners and that Sections 134(1) and 71, Cr. P.C., render such service valid.' The facts stated in para. 9 of the petition were that there was no personal service upon the petitioners nor was there any proclamation as prescribed by law.4. The point upon which the learned Vakil, who appeared for the petitioners relied, is not that which was stated in para. 9 of the peti...
Hemanta Kumar Roy and ors. Vs. Belatali Munshi, Minor, Represented. by ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal848,95Ind.Cas.1055
B. B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for settlement of fair and equitable rent with regard to a jama settled with tenants under a kabuliyat, dated the 3lst Chaitra 1318 B. S.2. Both the Courts below dismissed the suit on the ground that the settlement asked for was of a certain quantity of land within fixed boundaries, and, therefore, the landlords were not entitled to claim additional rent for any excess area.3. An analogous case was decided by another Bench of this Court of which I was a member. The kabuliyats in both the cases are in similar terms. That case was remanded for the fixing of the area and the rent payable with regard to each class of land according to the terms of the kabuliyat.4. In Clause 8 of the kabuliyat now in question there is a stipulation for survey being made of the land by the landlords, the tenant undertaking to be present at the survey and assisting in carrying it out. It was also stipulated that if the tenant failed to be present at t...
King-emperor Vs. Kiran Bala Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal531
1. This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, against the acquittal of the respondent, Kiranbala Dassi, by the learned Sessions Judge of Bankura by his judgment dated the 6th February 1925.2. The short facts are as follows: The respondent, Kiranbala Dassi, along with three other persons, Upendra Nath Ghoshal, Kishori Mohan Misra and Panchu Gopal Chakravarti, was put upon trial for offences under Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act. The case for the prosecution was that a deed of release, dated the 29th March 1923, purporting to have been executed by one Sindhubala Dassi in favour of Upendra Ghoshal was a forged document made at the instance of Upendra Ghoshal, that Panchu Gopal was the scribe and that he had signed the name of the executant, and that Upendra Ghoshal procured the registration of the document by causing Kiranbala, the respondent before us, to personate Sindhubala Dassi before the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, and that Kishori ...
(Kumar) Satya Kam Ghosal Bahadur and ors. Vs. Mohamad Hamedulla and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1152
Cuming, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Additional District Judge of 24-Pergannas refusing to restore an appeal which had been dismissed for non-appearance of the parties. The learned Judge, in dealing with the application for restoration states that no satisfactory explanation for the failure to appear at 12 a.m. has been given.2. On turning to the explanation which was given by the plaintiff-appellant to account for his non-appearance. I am not prepared to say that the learned Additional District Judge was wrong in the order he made. The only excuse offered for non-appearance of the plaintiff-appellant's pleader was that it was raining, and hence he was a little late in coming from Bagbazar. The fact that it was raining is hardly a satisfactory explanation for the learned gentleman being late. If this excuse be accepted, no one will come in time during the rainy season.3. In this view of the case it is unnecessary to decide the preliminary objections of the res...
Abdul Halim Abul HossaIn Khan Ghuznavi and ors. Vs. Hemendra Kumar Ray ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.686
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal arises are as follows: A certain suit was brought on a mortgage-bond against four defendants. The appellants are defendants Nos. 2 and 4. At the trial of this suit defendants Nos. 2 and 4 did not appear and defendant No. 1 alone appeared. He entered into a solenama with the plaintiffs. It is unnecessary to give the term's of the solenama in detail, one of them being that the compound interest was to be given up and it was agreed that this solenama should be incorporated in the decree and that this decree should be the final decree in the mortgage suit Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 did not appeal against this decree. This decree has now been put into execution and the judgment debtors Nos. 2 to 4 who are the appellants before us raised objection contending that the decree was passed without jurisdiction. Their contention is that it was not open to the trial Court to pass the final decree without passing a preliminary decree and that t...
Srikanta Mandal and ors. Vs. Rani Jotirmoyi Devi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.253
1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiffs sued for recovery of possession with mesne profits from 32 defendants. Their case was that they had taken settlement of some 98 bighas odd of land from defendant No. 32 or rather his predecessors-in-interest. Out of this area of 98 bighas they were only in possession of some 63 bighas odd and their case was that defendant No. 32 in collusion with the other defendants had dispossessed them from these 35 bighas. The suit was decreed by the first Court. On appeal to the District Court a part of the claim was disallowed. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court and the High Court allowed the appeal in part and the decision of the learned District Judge so far as he dismissed the claim for the lands of schedule (ga) was set aside and the case was remitted to him so that he might re-consider the question of the land of schedule (ga).2. The learned District Judge allowed the Appeal No. 28 in part and the judgment of the Subord...
Mahomed Rafique Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal537
1. The appellant before us named Mahomed Rafique has been convicted under Section 46, Act V of 1909--The Bengal Excise Act-and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.2. The facts are as follows:--On the 19th January 1925, the appellant, along with two others, was arrested by Excise Sub-Inspector, Probhat Chandra Sen Gupta at Premises No. 356, Upper Chitpur Road, in Calcutta. On a search being made, several quantities of cocaine were found to be in possession of the persons arrested. Thereafter they were sent up for trial for having been in illicit possession of cocaine without a license in contravention of the provisions of Section 46 of the Bengal Excise Act. The trial, so far as the present appellant is concerned, commenced on the 20th January 1925, before Mr. Keays, Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate. It was alleged that the appellant had in his possession cocaine in a phial which was found in a chula under a wooden taktaposh in his shop, an...
Abdul Halim Abdul HossaIn Khan Ghuznavi and ors. Vs. Hemendra Kumar Ra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1179
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal arises are as follows: A certain suit was brought on a mortgage bond against four defendants. The appellants are Defendants Nos. 2 to 4. At the trial of this suit Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 did not appear and Defendant No. 1 alone appeared. He entered into a solenama with the plaintiffs.2. It is unnecessary to give the terms of the solenama in detail, one of them being that the compound interest was to be given up and it was agreed that this solenama should be incorporated in the decree and that this decree should be the final decree in the mortgage suit. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 did not appeal against this decree. This decree has now been put into execution and the Judgment-debtors Nos. 2 to 4 who are the appellants before us raised objection contending that the decree was passed without jurisdiction. Their contention is that it was not open to the trial Court to pass the final decree and that the Court in so doing acted without ju...
Ajimtulla Saha Vs. Jadavnath Chakrabutty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal685
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decision of the Officiating Subordinate Judge of Dinajpur confirming a decision of the Munsif of the first Court of that place. The question that arises in the appeal is whether in the case of a sale by a Mahomedan co-sharer of his share to a Hindu the right of pre-emption attaches thereto so that a Mahomedan co-sharer of the vendor can exercise that right as against a Hindu purchaser. The learned Officiating Subordinate Judge has dismissed the appeal agreeing with the decision of the Munsif and considering that the matter was covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court to which I shall presently refer.2. The appeal has been argued before us on behalf of the appellant on the basis that the grounds on which the Full Bench decision Furman Khan v. Bhurut Chunder [1869] 4 B.L.R. 134 was based are no longer binding and that the matter is really open. Now, exactly the same question that now arises for our decision arose in that Fu...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »