Kolkata Court December 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.
Rebati Mohun Das and anr. Vs. AlauddIn Ahammed Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Cal29
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal arises are as follows : The present appellant obtained a decree against the respondents on the 15th of July 1916. Certain payments were made towards the satisfaction of the decree on the 29th of November 1916, 3rd October 1917, and 22nd December 1918, and these payments were certified to the Court. It has been held that certification of payment to the Court is a step in aid of execution so as to save limitation under the provisions of Article 182, Sub-clause (5) of the Limitation Act. Speaking for myself I feel considerable difficulty in holding that a certification of payment by a judgment-debtor is an application to the Court to take some step in aid of execution. Speaking for myself I should look upon it as merely a statement to the Court that something had been done and' not an application to the Court to do something. However, so far as the present appeal is concerned it is not necessary to decide this point. It may be ta...
Kinu Shaikh (Molla) and Vs. Raj Kumar Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1160,96Ind.Cas.588
Cuming, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit for recovery of possession. The plaintiffs' case was as follows: The plaintiffs are the purchasers of a certain ganti right. Under the ganti was a certain occupancy holding of which the tenants were one Menajuddi and his nephew Kinu. They sold the holding to defendant No. 1, the. benamidar of defendant No. 3. Menajuddi and Kinu and on Menajuddi's death his daughters, defendants Nos. 4 and 5 remained in possession as under-ryots under defendant No. 3.2. Menajuddi and Kinu had no transferable right in the holding and hence the sale had the effect of an abandonment of the holding and plaintiffs are entitled to re enter.3. The defence was that (1) the interest of Menajuddi was a transferable one, (2) that defendant No. 3 obtained recognition after the purchase and that at any rate, the landlord was not entitled to khas possession or in other words to eject defendants Nos. 4 and 5 the original tenants as they continued in possession after t...
Srimati Priyambada Debi Vs. Priya Nath Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal822,95Ind.Cas.334
1. The four suits from which the present appeals arise were brought by the plaintiff tenants against the defendant-landlord for a declaration that they were lakherajdars in respect of the lands in suit, and for a further declaration that the lands did not appertain to the jama as alleged by the defendant, and that the decisions of the Revenue Officer were not binding upon them. It appears that during the settlement proceedings these holdings were recorded in the Record of Rights as rent paying, and liable to assessment of rent.2. Thereafter the defendant applied under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, to have fair and equitable rent settled in respect of these holdings. The plaintiff-tenants did not appear in those proceedings which were decided ex parte against them. The result of those proceedings was that the lands were included as mal lands in the holdings in suit. Thereafter the defendant brought suits for rent against the plaintiffs which led to the institution of the present suit...
Raja Satya Niranjan Chakra Barty and ors. Vs. Abrahim Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1069,95Ind.Cas.843
Greaves, J.1. These are appeals from an order of the District Judge of Birbhum, dated the 22nd March 1924 which confirmed an order of the Munsif of Dubrajpur. The appeal is by the decree-holders and the short question is whether the period of limitation is that prescribed by the schedule to the Bengal Tenancy Act or the ordinary period of limitation applicable in an ordinary suit. The matter turns upon the construction of Section 64 A of the Cess Act, IX of 1880. That section provides that all sums due to the holder of any estate or tenure under the provisions of that Chapter of the Act in respect of land held rent-free (as this land is held) may be recovered by such holder from any owner or bolder of such rent-free land, or from any occupier of the same, by any means and any process by which the amount might be recovered if it were due on account of rent of a transferable tenure or holding, and subject to the same rules as to limitation. Now it seems to me as both the Courts below hav...
Registered Jessore Loan Co., Ltd. Vs. Gopal Hari Ghose Choudhury and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal657,94Ind.Cas.159
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant No: 12--the Registered Jessore Loan Company, Ltd., against a judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Jessore, dated the 10th December 1923, by which the suit of the plaintiff for contribution was decreed in full. The question raised in this appeal is a question of law applicable to the facts of this case which are not disputed and they are as follows : The plaintiff and the defendants other than the defendant No. 12 were the owners of a permanent tenure. The defendant No. 12 purchased the share of the defendants Nos. 13,14 and 15 which was 1 anna odd gundas in execution of a mortgage decree in his favour on the 20th June 1921. The said defendant No. 12 is now also the mortgagee of a 3 anna odd gunda share which belonged to the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff's share in the tenure was 3 annas 4 gundas. In execution of a decree for arrears of rent obtained by the landlords, the property was put up to Bale and was purchas...
Nishi Kanta Chaudhury Alias N. Choudhury Vs. Gopeswar Chatterjee and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1070,96Ind.Cas.620
1. The plaintiff was a candidate for election as a Municipal Commissioner in one of the Wards of the Assansole Municipality. The election was held on the 4th November, 1922. The largest number of votes were secured by Mr. Hari Das Goswami, the pro -forma defendant No. 2, next in order was the plaintiff, then the defendant No. 1 and last, in order, was another gentleman. There were two vacancies, and Mr. Goswami and (he defendant No. 1 were declared duly elected. The plaintiff then instituted this suit for a declaration that the election of defendant No. 1 was not legal but void and that he, the plaintiff is a duly elected Municipal Commissioner. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and that decree has been affirmed on as appeal preferred by defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 has preferred this appeal.2. The first ground urged on behalf of the appellant is that the Courts below have, erred in holding that his election was not. valid. The Courts below held that the election of the appel...
Mansurali Sarkar Vs. Jamiran Bewa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal976,95Ind.Cas.203
Ghose, J.1. It is very much to be regretted that the lower Appellate Court has not followed the provisions contained in Order XLI as regards orders for remand. This question was decided by this Court long ago. If the lower Courts were careful in acting according to the provisions of the case as interpreted frequently by this Court appeals against orders of remand would have been fewer than what they are now. In this case the Trial Court decided all the questions raised before it on the merits and passed a decree in accordance with the findings. The defendant appealed to the lower Appellate Court and the Subordinate Judge sets aside the judgment of the Trial Court and sends back the case to that Court for deciding it by framing an issue which the Subordinate Judge considers necessary for the decision of the case. This right of reversing a decision and remanding a case is confined under Order XLI, Rule 23, C.P.C. to particular circumstances which do not occur in the present case. If the ...
Raja Reshee Case Law Vs. Kedarnath Marik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal849,95Ind.Cas.971
Greaves, J.1. The short point that arises in this appeal is with regard to the construction to be put on certain words appearing in Section 108 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That section provides that any Revenue Officer specially empowered by the Local Government may, on an application or of his own motion within 12 months from the making of any order or decision under the sections therein mentioned, revise the same, and the point is whether the revision must be within the period of 12 months from the order sought to be revised or it is sufficient if the application at the instance of a party interested is made within 12 months, even if the order is passed subsequent to the expiry of the 12 months from the application. The material facts are as follows:---In October 1916 the Record of Rights was finally published. The suit was commenced, under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, on the 19th January 19l7. On the 8th April 1918 the decree in that suit was passed. On the 3rd December 192...
Mr. K.S. Bannerjee Vs. Maharaja Kumar Dharendra Krishna Deb Bahadur an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.659
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of khans possession of 9 jotes under the following circumstances:Purgannah Gangamondal within which these jotes are situated has been in the hands of the Official Receiver from a very long time and has been let out in ijara for terms of years from time to time. On the 11th August, 1896, there was an ijara for a term of 6 years granted to Raja Benoy Krishna Deb Bahadur, the predecessor of defendants Nos. 1 to 9. Then, the last lease to the Raja was for another term of 6 years commencing from the 11th January, 1905. During the term of the former lease, the Raja, the ijaradar, took kabuliyats us respect of certain lands which are the lands in dispute in the present suit from one Sani Mahamad and in the last term of the ijara he sued Sani Mahamad for arrears of rent and in execution of decrees for rent put up the jotes to sale and purchased them himself, and on his death, his heirs, defendants Nos. 1 to 9, are in possessio...
Keramat Ali Khan Vs. Baidya Nath Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal955,95Ind.Cas.297
Cuming, J.1. The facts of this appeal are as follows; The present appellant filed an application to be adjudicated an insolvent. He stated that his liability amounted to sum of Rs. 806 and that his assets were only Rs. 70. The learned Judge found that he had a rent-free tenure, raiyati holdings and a homestead which had been transferred a few years ago to his wife His case was that he had transferred his properties to his wife in discharge of the dowry which he owed to her. The learned Judge found that the transfer was merely a paper transaction to defeat the claims of his creditors and further that if the petitioner behaved honestly he would not be unable to pay his debts.2. I do not think that on the facts found and proved the Judge was entitled to reject his application. Section 10 provides that a debtor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition unless he is unable to pay his debts and his debts amount to five hundred rupees; and Section 25 further provides that in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »