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.
Bamapada Sarkar Vs. Sreemutty Sakuntala Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.689
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 1 against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of the first Court of Hooghly which modified a decision of the Munsif at Serampore. The suit relates to a nontransferable occupancy holding and was brought by the plaintiffs under circumstances which I shall presently state for confirmation of their possession and for other reliefs. The plaintiffs purchased a moiety of the holding and obtained recognition from the co-sharer-landlords who owned 14-annas interest in the property. Subsequent to the plaintiffs' purchase defendant No. 1 in the present suit who was a co-sharer-landlord of the remaining 2-aunas and who had never recognised the transfer to the plaintiffs in this suit commenced a suit for rent under the provisions of Section 148-A of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The parties to that suit were as plaintiffs the 2-annas co-sharer-landlords who had never recognised the transfer and as defendants the 14-annas co sharer-landlords who had r...
Mahammad Ismail Mia and ors. Vs. Suresh Chandra Saha Chowdhury and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal946,96Ind.Cas.616
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Third Court of the 24-Parganas, dated the 19th March, 1923. It arises out of a suit for rent of a permanent tenure held by the defendants. The tenancy is one which is usually called an a bad in the Sundarbans, the plaintiffs being the holders of the superior estate granted by Government. Out of the larger area which the plaintiffs-landlords obtained from Government, a portion was leased out to the defendants' predecessor for reclamation and cultivation. The plaintiffs claimed rent for the years 1324 to 1327 B.S. There was no dispute as regards the amount of the rent due. But the defence of the defendants was that the landlords, the plaintiffs, who held the northern part of fix abad in khas, with a view to put an end to the defendants' tenancy, for the purpose of making it khas, deliberately and fraudulently allowed the embankments on the north of the abad to be dest...
R.M. Watson Vs. F.E. Watson and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal703,94Ind.Cas.528
Chotzner, J.1. The petitioner, Robert Watson, applies to the Court for the dissolution of his marriage with his wife, Frances Watson, on the ground of her adultery with the co-respondent Samuel Mac Farlane. The respondent has filed an answer denying the charge.2. The co-respondent has not appeared.3. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent were married on the 18th July 1914 according to Christian rites and forms at the 'Sacred Heart of Jesus' Church at Dhurrumtollah Street in Calcutta. They lived together after the marriage and had issue, a son, born on the 25th January 1915.4. About the end of 1920 difficulties arose between husband and wife and matters went so far that the petitioner brought a criminal charge against the present corespondent in the Police Court. A charge framed by the Magistrate but before the case came to trial it is said that friends of the parties intervened and their differences were adjusted. The Magistrate's order dated 19th Ja...
Rajani Kanta Das Gupta and ors. Vs. Abani Kanta Das Gupta and Suresh C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal850,94Ind.Cas.33
Mukerji, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff on the following allegations: Plaintiff was one of the partners in a business named Friend and Co., which ran into debts, and the creditors of the firm were about to take proceedings for realizing their dues from out of the plaintiff's properties; The plaintiff thereupon in 1892 executed a benami kobala in favour of the father of the defendant Abani in respect of some of his properties. Some years later, the Comilla Loan Office, one of the creditors of the partnership business, in execution of a decree obtained by them brought to sale in 1895 some of the properties covered by the kobala. The plaintiff thereupon satisfied their dues and got the properties sold reconveyed to himself in 1900 in the name of one Tara Kanta. The plaintiff instituted this suit against Abani and the heirs of Tara Kanta for declaration of his title to the properties, maliki title and title by adverse possession.2. The defence...
Hazi Roshan Bepari and anr. Vs. the Collector of Dacca
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.330
1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned District Judge of Dacca refusing to set aside an ex parte order dismissing a reference made to him under the Land Acquisition Act for default.2. Mr. Guha, who has appeared for the respondent, contends that in this case no appeal lies and in support of his contention, he has referred us to the case of Hasun Molla v. Tasiruddin 15 Ind. Cas. 925 : 39 C. 393. The decision is undoubtedly on all fours with the present case. The learned Judges pointed out that an order refusing to set aside an ex parte decree made in a reference under the Land Acquisition Act is not an award and, therefore, no appeal 'lies against that order.3. The appeal must, therefore, fail as being incompetent and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee three gold mohurs....
Rajani Kanta Dey Vs. Khatir Mahomed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal897,94Ind.Cas.393
Cuming, J.1. The appellant in this appeal brought a suit' against the respondent to recover possession of a certain plot of land after establishment of his right to it. The suit was decreed in part. The defendant then appealed to the District Court. The District Court held that the report of the amin was unreliable and the learned Judge, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree of the first Court and remanded the case to the Primary Court for trial after making a fresh local investigation, against this order the plaintiff has appealed to this Court; and he contends that the learned Subordinate Judge's order is bad in law. He contends that the order does not come under Order XLI, Rule 23 or Rule 25 which are the only rules which provide for the remand of a case to the Primary Court.2. The respondent contends that although the order does not come under Rule 25 or Rule 23 the order was made under the inherent powers of the Court.3. It seems to me quite clear that the order of the lear...
Roshan Bepari and anr. Vs. Collector of Dacca
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal816
1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned District Judge of Dacca refusing to set aside an ex parte order dismissing a reference made to him under the Land Acquisition Act for default.2. Mr. Guha, who has appeared for the respondent, contends that in this case no appeal lies and in support of his contention, he has referred us to the case of Hasun Molla v. Tasiruddin [1912] 39 Cal. 393. The decision is undoubtedly on all fours with the present case. The learned Judges pointed out that an order refusing to set aside an ex parte decree made in a reference under the Land Acquisition Act is not an award and, therefore, no appeal lies against that order.3. The appeal must, therefore, fail as being incompetent and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee three gold mohurs....
(Hajee) Tyeb Ali Mullick Vs. Purna Chandra Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal618
Pearson, J.1. June 18,1925. The applicant, one of the creditors of the insolvent, asks that certain proceedings held before the Registrar should be re-opened. Purna Chandra Pal claimed against the estate as a mortgagee. On his application, with the consent of Official Assignee, the usual enquiry was held by the Registrar under Rule 18 of the second schedule to the Act. The applicant now asks that that enquiry may be re-opened, alleging that the mortgage was collusive, without consideration, and in fraud of the creditors. He says the enquiry was held without notice to the creditors entitled to oppose and that the Official Assignee is not in a position to judge what his attitude should be unless he first consults the creditors.2. In my opinion this application cannot succeed. The enquiry was in accordance with Rule 18. There is no procedure laid down in the Act which confers on a creditor the right to make such on application, or setting up charges which would come within Section 55 of t...
Syed Abu Mahomed Barkat Ali Shah Vs. Saraswati Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1068,97Ind.Cas.194
1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal arises are as follows: The plaintiff who is a Hindu widow brought the suit against her two sisters-in-law for maintenance. She alleged that her husband Barada Kanta died during the lifetime of his father Bhajan Bala Kapali who was her father-in-law. Then Bhajan died and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who are the daughters of Bhajan neglected to maintain her and hence this suit. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to any maintenance and that the plaint lands had been sold to defendant No. 3 with the exception of the dwelling house. On this defendant No. 3 was made a party and ha stated that he had purchased the lands bona fide for Rs. 500 and that, therefore, he could not be made liable for the maintenance.2. The trial Court found that the defendant No. 3 was a bona fide purchaser of the property without any notice of the interests of the plaintiff and hence it held that it could not declare that the plaintiff'...
His Highness Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. JahiruddIn ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.26
Ewart Greaves, J.1. In this appeal the plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was brought for settlement of fair and equitable rent under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defendants resisted the enhancement on the plea that their holding was a mokarrari holding and that they are entitled to the presumption raised by Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The appellant contends that the defendants are not entitled to any such presumption having regard to the existence of a kabuliyat in respect of the land in suit dated in the year 1878. This document creates in favour of the defendants' predecessors-in-interest a lease for a term of 6 years in respect of jote and basat therein described. Both the Courts below have held that this document was merely confirmatory of an existing tenancy and, therefore, the presumption under Section 50 is not thereby displaced. We think, however, that this is not correct. As has been pointed out 'in the case of Ramrutno Sircar v. Chunder Mookhee Debe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »