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.
Manmatha Nath Sett Vs. Nagendra Nath Bhattacharjya and Purna Chandra D ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal855,94Ind.Cas.880
Cuming, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of 24-Perganahs Mr. B. K. Dutt ordering under Order XXXVIII, Rule 6, C. P. C, that the property of defendant No. 1 in a certain money suit should be attached before judgment. To justify an order under this rule it is necessary that the Court should be satisfied that the defendant with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property or is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. Now the evidence on which the learned Subordinate Judge has apparently relied to show that defendant No. 1 is about to dispose of his property is a bare statement of the plaintiff's son on affidavit. He states on affidavit that he believes that the defendant is about to dispose of his property through two persons Bhusan Chandra Das and Mani Lal Chatterjee. No details...
Ramanuj Rai and anr. Vs. Dakshineshwar Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal752
Suhrawardy, J.1. In this case the defendants are appellants. Both the Courts below decreed the plaintiffs' suit which was one for establishment of their title to and recovery of possession of 15 cottahs of the land in suit. The property originally belonged to one Rakhal. The plaintiffs' case is that on the 25th February 1901 the plaintiffs' father purchased it along with other plots from Rakhal. The kobala recites that the property was sold in order to pay off a mortgage executed by Rakhal in favour of the plaintiffs' father in 1889. It further appears that in 1888 Rakhal had mortgaged this plot to one Khelaram by way of usufructuary mortgage and put him in possession of it under which the mortgagee was to remain in possession up to 1314. The plaintiffs' father, after having purchased the land, paid off Khelaram and entered into possession of it in 1901. The plaintiffs allege that they were in possession all along from that date till December 1917 when they were dispossessed by the def...
ismail Pramanik Vs. Khedir Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal986
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover rent for three pakhis of land for the years 1326 to 1328 at the rate of Rs. 20 per year together with damages. The defendant contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover rent at more than Rs. 3-6 annas per year by reason of the provisions of Section 48 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Courts below have upheld the defendant's contention as to the applicability of Section 48 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and have given the plaintiff a decree at the rate of Rs. 4-2-0 per year; that is to say, at the rate which the plaintiff is supposed to pay to his landlord together with 50 per cent. thereof. The plaintiff has appealed.2. The defendant along with some other persons held an occupancy holding consisting of six pakhis of land bearing a rental of Rs. 11. The defendant, on the 3rd Augrahayan 1322 B.S., executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiff in respect of three pakhis of land out of this holding, alleging the s...
Srimati Sabitri Dasi and ors. Vs. Nadiar Chand Barik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal881,94Ind.Cas.38
Mukerji, J.1. The substantial question in these two appeals is whether the Sidings of the Courts below to the effect that the possession of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 should be treated as adverse to the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 6 to 10 and that the title of defendants Nos. 6 to 10 has become extinguished by the adverse possession of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are correct. The question of adverse possession is a mixed; question of law and fact. In dealing with this question we have got to take into consideration the findings of fact arrived at by the lower Appellate Court and then to see whether the inference which that Court has drawn from these facts was proper or not. Now what are the facts that have been found by the lower Appellate Court in this case? It has been found in the first place that in 1279 the Roys granted a settlement of the whole of the mokarrari interest to the defendant No. 1. By this settlement the title of the predecessors of defendants Nos. 6 to 10 was altogethe...
Abdul Khairat Mahommad Vs. Hrishikesh Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal978
B.B.Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge First Court, Dacca, appointing a Receiver with regard to certain mortgaged properties. The mortgagee brought a suit on his mortgage on the 11th March 1922. The principal amount was Rs. 2,15,000. The interest due at the time was Rs. 1,21,000. The final decree on the mortgage was made on the 17th November 1923; and execution was applied for on the 5th December 1923. Several objections were taken to the legality of the execution proceedings; and the case came up before this Court more than once. Ultimately the date of sale was fixed for the 1st August 1924. On the 26th of May preceding, the mortgagee made an application for the appointment of a Receiver of the mortgaged properties. A Receiver was appointed on the 30th July 1924. The sale was held on the 1st of August following. It appears that the bulk of the mortgaged properties was purchased by the mortgagee decree-holder and there were other purchasers of sever...
Akshoy Kumar De Patwari Vs. Nalini Kumar Majumdar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.80
1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against a decision of the District Judge of Noakhali, dated the 9th April 1921, dismissing an appeal preferred by the judgment-debtor to him and confirming a decision of the Munsif.2. The facts are as follows. A rent decree was obtained against the judgment-debtor on the 24th of May 1916. The decree-holder in execution of the decree brought the tenancy to sale on the 7th September 1918. The sale was set aside at the instance of the judgment-debtor on the 1st October 1920 the ground for setting aside the sale being that the sale proclamation had been suppressed. Although the sale had been set aside the decree-holder did not refund the purchase-money paid by the auction-purchaser. No order to this effect was made at this date. Then the decree-holder made a second application on the 20th April 1921 for execution of the rent-decree. It was urged by the judgment-debtor that the application was barred by limitation. But this contention was overrule...
Debendra Nath Sinha and ors. Vs. Raja Nagendra Nath Sinha Sahas Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.245
Suhrawardy, J.1. We regret very much that the unsatisfactory nature of the judgment passed by the learned District Judge has necessitated a remand for a re-hearing of the matter. These four appeals arise out of four suits under Section 158, Bengal Tenancy Act. The suits were decreed by the Subordinate Judge by his order dated the 24th July, 1922. On the 10th August 1922 decrees were prepared embodying the results of the decision of the Court. The appeals were filed before the District Judge on the 11th September 1922, and admittedly they were within time under Clause (4), Part II of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act, if time is calculated from the dates of the decrees. At the hearing of the appeals an objection was taken that the appeals were filed out of time inasmuch as they should have been filed within 30 days from the dates of the orders and not from the dates of the decrees. The learned District: Judge held that it should have been so. The Pleader appearing for the appellant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›