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.
Brahmopada Bhattacharjee Alias Chakravarti and ors. Vs. Rai Mohan Hald ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.967
Chakravarti, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for Probate of the Will of one Judhistir Haldar dated the 21st January, 1913 and is on behalf of the petitioners who propounded the Will against the order of the District Judge of the twenty-four Perganas, dated the 21st January, 1924 by which the petition for Probate was refused. The application for Probate which was made by four out of the five executors named in the Will was opposed by the daughters of the testator Judhistir, by the sons of one of the daughters and also by one of his sons-in-law. The objectors, amongst other matters, stated that the instrument propounded by the petitioners was not a Will on the face of it; and an issue was raised as to whether the document propounded was a Will at all. This issue was tried as a preliminary issue and the learned District Judge without going into the evidence and deciding the other issues which arose in the case found in favour of the objectors on this issue and dismissed the ...
Jogesh Chandra Ray Vs. Fazar Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal960,96Ind.Cas.10
In S. A. 2060 of 1923.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against the tenant respondent. The claim was that the plaintiff was entitled as rent to 5 aris and 8 seers of paddy the price of which according to the market rate for the three years under claim was Rs. 17-12 for which a decree was sought. The defendant contended that the amount of rent was not 5 aris 8 seers of paddy but Rs. 1-6 0 in money and that though he offered rent at that rate the plaintiff's gomasta refused to accept it. The Trial Court relying upon the entry in the Record of Rights held that though the tenant used to pay 5 aris 8 seers of paddy as rent but the jama was Rs. 1-6- 0 and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover rent at that rate and gave the plaintiff a partial decree. The plaintiff appealed and the Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal was of opinion that the plaintiff should not be beard in support of the appeal as he had already executed the decree granted to him by the Tria...
Tarakeswar Mukhopadhyay Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1922Cal788,94Ind.Cas.600
1. In this case the petitioner filed a petition of complaint on the 14th June 1924 in the Court of Mr. Suresh Chandra Sen, Deputy Magistrate, First Class, under Sections 395, 380 and 147, Indian Penal Code. Mr. Ben examined the petitioner on oath and thereafter the case was transferred to the file of Mr. L. C. Guha, Deputy Magistrate, First Class, for disposal, Mr. L. G. Guha held a local enquiry and then dismissed the petitioner's complaint under Section 203, Cr. P.C. He observed, however, that there was no occasion for proceedings against the petitioner under Section 211, Indian Penal Code. Mr. Sen before whom the petition of complaint had been filed thereafter made a complaint under Section 476, Cr. P.C., against the petitioner and sent the complaint to Mr. Das, Deputy Magistrate, for necessary action. After a preliminary enquiry the petitioner was committed to the Court of Session to take his trial under Section 211, Indian Penal Code. He was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Jud...
Jnanendra Bala Debi Vs. Official Assignee of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal597
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Jnanendra Bala Debi against an order which was made by my learned brother, Mr. Justice Pearson, on the 17th of June 1925.2. The order was made upon an application made by the Official Assignee of Calcutta in the insolvency of Nishi Kanto Chatterjee, who is the husband of the appellant and the notice was to the effect that an application would be made by the Official Assignee for a declaration that the premises, No. 110, Beniatolla Street, in the town of Calcutta, belong to the estate of the insolvent, and that Srimati Jnanendra Bala Debi be ordered to deliver up possession of the said premises to the Official Assignee at such time, in such manner and on such terms as to the Court might seem fit and proper.3. The learned Judge allowed the application, and the order was that the premises belonged to the estate of the insolvent and directed the appellant to deliver possession thereof to the Official Assignee.4. The learned Judge appears to have assum...
Lloyds Bank, Ltd. Vs. Surojimull Jalar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1112
Greaves, J.1. This Rule was granted at the instance of Lloyds Bank, Limited, who were defendants in the suit. It is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Howrah refusing an application by Lloyds Bank, Limited, to amend their written statement. The suit was brought to enforce a charge executed in favour of the plaintiff. The Bank claimed certain charges in priority to those in favour of the plaintiff and these are set out in the written statement which they filed in the suit. This written statement was filed so long ago as 28th June 1924. The amendment which is now sought is an amendment to enable the Bank to plead two other securities, dated the 15th of May 1922 and the 8th of January 1923, which the Bank allege are in priority to the plaintiff's security. The failure of the Bank to plead these two securities was discovered by them in July 1924. They refrained at that time from making an application to amend their written statement for the reason that they were advised ...
Drupad Chandra Naskar and ors. Vs. Bindumoyi Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1925
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.209
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Howrah reversing a decision of the Munsif of the second Court of the same place. The suit was brought for a declaration that certain properties, were debutter and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession therein. The first Court dismissed the suit but the lower Appellate Court has decreed it. The first Court held that a certain deed of dedication under which the plaintiffs claim was not intended to be acted upon. This has been reversed by the lower Appellate Court. It appears that a previous suit was instituted before the Munsif for recovery of possession by the plaintiffs of a portion of the properties which are covered by the deed of dedication. It was held in that suit that the dedication was invalid and accordingly, it is urged before us that the previous suit with regard to the validity of the deed operates as res judicata in t...
ShamsuddIn Biswas and ors. Vs. Molannessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal941,95Ind.Cas.300
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal by the defendant No. 2 and some other defendants arises out of a suit for recovery of khas possession of certain lands. The facts are these. On Drajtulla had a tenure carrying a rent of Rs. 43-3 which was sold to one Raj Kumar and Sarala Sundari. After the sale he took a subordioate interest under the purchasers in the name of his wife defendant No. 8. In the year 1916 the plaintiff purchased the tenure at an auction-sale in execution of a decree for rent against Raj Kumar and Sarala Sundari. In 1917 certain creditors of the plaintiff's husband defendant No. 9 sold the tenure in execution of a money-decree against defendant No. 9 and purchased it, themselves. The plaintiff's husband defendant No. 9 had, on a certain date which is not material, purchased the interest in the land obtained by Drajtulla under the base from Rajkumar and Sarala Sundari taken in the name of his wife defendant No. 8. Defendant No. 2 purchased the interest of defendant No. 9 in that...
Asiur Rahman Vs. Munshi Asgar Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.404
1. There were two suits one was brought by the present appellant against the respondent in which the appellant claimed that the respondent was his benamdar in respect of a certain mahal. The other suit was by the respondent against the appellant and others for recovery of possession of the mahal. The first suit was dismissed by the Munsif on the finding that the respondent was not the appellant's benamdar. The second suit was decreed; but it was found by the Munsif that the respondent who was the plaintiff in the suit was the benamdar for one Nezamat Ali. The defendant in that suit (the appellant) resisted the plaintiff's claim firstly, on the ground that the plaintiff was his benamdar; and secondly on the ground that he had some encumbrances which the plaintiff was not entitled to annul or ignore. The first ground was settled by the decision in the counter suit in which the appellant was the plaintiff. As to the second ground, the Munsif held that as the plaintiff Asgar Ali was a purc...
Ganga Prosad Chowdhury Vs. Kuladananda Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal568,94Ind.Cas.235
Mukerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff asked for a declaration that a certain house situated in the town of Burdwan is a part of an estate of which he alleges he is now one of the trustees, and also for recovery of possession thereof.2. The trust was created by one Annada Prosad Ghose by a deed which was called a Niyam-Nirbandhapatra in 1305. He died in the year 1308. Shortly after his death his daughter Katyani instituted a suit being No. 438 of 1901 wherein she prayed for a declaration that the deed executed by her father was void and inoperative and in the alternative she prayed for construction of the deed. In this suit she impleaded as defendant her step-mother Haribhabini, and the trustees named in the deed and also other persons in whose favour certain bequests had been made by the deed. The deed, it may be observed here, purported to dedicate certain properties to the family deity Sri Sri Iswar Sridhar Jieu and creates an endowment for the sheba ...
Harendra Kumar Bose and anr. Vs. Khemada Kinkar Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Cal86
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal by Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 arises out of a suit for recovery of khas possessson of 2/3rds share of certain land on the allegation that one Mukta Sundari was an occupancy raiyat and that she had died without leaving any issue. The plaintiff was the owner of 2/3rds share of the land and Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 were the owners with regard to the remaining share. The suit was based on the provisions of Section 26 of the Bengal Tenancy Act on the ground that the occupancy raiyat had died without leaving any heir. The defence of Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 was that they were the heirs of the occupancy raiyat and the plaintiff was not entitled to khas possession. In the course of the trial in the first Court it was contended that Defendants 5 and 6 were not her heirs under the Hindu Law, but there were some distant kinsmen or heirs who were the preferential heirs. The learned Munsiff held that whether the Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 were her heirs or her distant kinsmen n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »