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.
Debendra Nath Haldar Vs. Prosonna Kumar Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.47
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which tins appeal has arisen are shortly these: One Gunamani Dassi obtained a Rent Decree No. 1170 of 1912 against the present appellant and the respondents. In execution of this rent-decree the tenure was put up to sale and was sold. The present appellant paid the decretal amount and the sale was, therefore, set aside. He now sues his co-defendants in that rent suit for contribution. The case of the defendants was that they had no interest whatever in the land and that they never had any possession of the land.2. The Trial Court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendants had any substantial interest in the holding and on this finding he dismissed the plaintiff's suit. This decree was upheld by the learned Subordinate Judge who dismissed the appeal.3. Against the order the plaintiff has appealed to this Court. His case is shortly this: That the present case comes within the provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Contract A...
G. C. Moses Vs. A. C. Oakeshoit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.522
Sanderson, C. J.1. This is an appeal by Mr. G.C. Moses against an order of the learned Judge on the Original Side sitting in insolvency whereby he granted the insolvent, who is the respondent in this appeal, but who has not appeared, his discharge subject to his paying Rs. 140 for six months to the Official Assignee, the first of such payments to be on the 10th of March and the subsequent payments to be made on the 10th of every subsequent month.2. It appears that the respondent was adjudicated insolvent on his own petition on the 27th of January 1923, his liabilities being about Rs. 40,000 and the assets at about Rs. 3,600.3. The Official Assignee stated in his report: 'A point to notice in this insolvency is the transfer of insolvent's furniture to one of his creditors. This transfer was subsequently set aside by the Court and sold for the benefit of the general body of creditors.' That transfer is alleged to have been made on the 7th of February 1922 in favour of one Mr. Mac-Millan....
Parbati Charan Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Amarendra Nath Bhattacharjee and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal831,96Ind.Cas.97
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 16,126 under the following circumstances:The plaintiff and the defendants carried on a foundry business in which the plaintiff had a 6 annas share, the defendants being the owners of the remaining 10 annas share. The plaintiff sold his 6 annas share in the business to the defendants for a price of Rs. 21,000 on the 12th August, 1922 The defendants paid Rs. 6,000 out of the Rs. 21,000 to the plaintiff and for the balance of Rs. 15,000 executed a mortgage-bond about three months afterwards on the 15th November, 1922 in which they stated 'as we are unable to pay the balance of Rs. 15 000 in cash to you, we admit the said Rs. 15'000 to be due to you and as security for payment of the same we mortgage to you the 'machineries described in the schedule' The interest payable was 12 annas per cent' up to the end of Chaitra and thereafter at Re. 1 per cent, per annum. There was also a provision for payment of compound int...
Surendra Nath Singha Vs. Janaki Nath Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.527
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In this matter six persons were put on their trial before the Honorary Magistrate at Alipore on a charge of rioting with the common object of taking possession of the complainant's land and assaulting the complainant's durwans. The date of occurrence was the 9th September, 1924. It appears that this land, which is situate within the suburb of Calcutta, consisted of 7 1/2 bighas. The complainant's case was that it was purchased in 1903 by Mrityunjoy Sirdar and Khirode who had since then cultivated paddy, lady's fingers, brinjals, etc., on the land. But on the day complained of when the complainant, who is the son-in-law of Khirode, went to the land with Khirode's son and two durwans, the accused persons, two of whom are the superior landlords, assaulted the durwans, drove away the complainant, and in the evening set to work to construct a shed on the land. It appears that directly after the occurrence took place the complainant came to the Police Magistrate and reported...
Jadu Nath Singha Vs. Krishna Rangini Dassya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal879,94Ind.Cas.44
Cuming, J.1. This appeal arises out of. an application for execution. The judgment-debtor objected that the application for execution was time-barred. The objection was overruled by the first Court and it was allowed by the lower Appellate Court and the application for execution was dismissed. The facts appear to be these: The application for execution in the present case was made on the 27th July 1922. It was contended by the decree-holder that the limitation was saved, because on the 29th July 1919 an affidavit was put in proving that certain notice under Order XXI, Rule 66, C.P.C. had been served on the judgment-debtor. It would appear that in this former execution case notice had been duly served under Order XXI, Rule 22 and service of these notices was proved on the 12th July 1919. The Court then ordered that notice under Rule 66, Order XXI should be given to the judgment-debtor in order that he might be present to assist the Court in drawing up the sale proclamation. It may be po...
Sadananda Mandal and anr. Vs. Kumar Jyotishkanta Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.101
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendants and arises out of a suit for recovery of khas possession of 161 3/4 bighas of land on the allegation that the defendants have no title to hold these lands after the death of the two lessees of the land, namely, Sambhuram and Darika, Sambhuram obtained a lease for this property in 1875 from the owner at that time. The proprietary interest appears to have passed subsequently into the hands of there persons and in 1894 Sambhuram and his brother Darika executed three separate kabuliyats in favour of each of the three proprietors to the extent of his one-third share of the laud, that is to say 53 bighas odd, and the rent payable for the entire land was also split up into three shares payable to each separately. Sambhuram died in 1902, Darika died in 1938 and the present suit has been brought in the year 1920. The plaintiff derived his title to the entire land by virtue of a partition between him and his other two co-sharers under w...
Dost Mahamud Mulla and ors. Vs. Majed Ali Nasker and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.146
1. The facts out of which this Rule arises are as follows. The petitioners are the purchasers in a private sale of 5 bighas 9 cottas of land out of an area of 7 bighas 1 1/2 cottas bearing a rental of Rs. 27-8-0 their purchase having never been recognised by the landlord though they appear to be paid part of the rent in the name of the recorded tenants. The opposite party brought a rent suit in, 1920 against the recorded proprietors in the Court of the Munsif at Diamond Harbour, obtained an ex parte decree and in execution of that decree purchased the whole holding at auction and took delivery of possession through Court. Thereupon the petitioners made an application under Order XXIV, Rules 100 and 101, C.P.C., claiming that they should be restored to possession. The learned Munsif, however, held that, as the decree was a rent-decree, the application was not maintainable and against his order the present Rule has been obtained. It appears further that before the Munsif it was argued th...
Ashwini Coomar Banerjee Vs. Ram Gopal Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal975,95Ind.Cas.179
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are briefly these : One Mr. A.C. Banerjee instituted a Suit No. 49 of 1921 to eject the-defendants from certain lands under realization of wasilat. This suit ended in a compromise, and the suit was finally decreed in terms of this compromise on the 10th July 1922. The terms of the compromise so far as the present appeal is concerned were that the defendants were to relinquish possession of the lands in suit and that the plaintiff would grant to the defendants in the suit a settlement of a certain portion of the lands in suit. It was agreed thata pottah and a kabuliyatrelating to the settlement were to be executed within a month from the date of the decree, costs of the documents being borne by the defendants. There was a further condition by which the defendants agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 200 as costs and wasilat. The defendants apparently did not give up possession, and the plaintiff applied to the Court and obtain...
Rajmohini Dasi Vs. Nagendra Kumar Talpatra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal887,94Ind.Cas.310
1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of khas possession of certain lands. The plaintiff's case was that the lands comprised a non-transferable occupancy holding and the holding had been transferred by the previous tenants in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff, therefore, asks for khas possession. The suit was decreed in the Court of first instance. The lower Appellate Court has reversed that decision and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has, therefore, preferred this appeal.2. The first contention urged on behalf of the appellant is to the effect that the lower Appellate Court was in error in applying to the case the presumption contained in Clause (2) of Section 50, Bengal Tenancy Act. The suit being against a person who is said to be a purchaser of a non-transferable occupancy holding is not a suit under the Bengal Tenancy Act and it is urged that in a suit of this description the presumption to which I have referred is not applicable. Th...
Barada Chandra Dhar Vs. Assam Bengal Ry.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal983
1. This is an action against Defendant No. 1 (A.B. Railway Coy. Ltd.) and two others for recovery of compensation or price of two bales of cloth out of 8 bales delivered by the plaintiff to Defendant No. 1 for carriage to Chittagong. The plaintiff states, and it is not disputed, that he received 6 bales instead of 8 bales. The defence of the defendants is that they are not liable as the bales were sent from Chandpur in a sealed van and were stolen between stations Gunabati and Feni while the train was in motion. They deny any negligence or carelessness on their part. On these pleadings and the evidence the trial Court decreed the suit as against Defendant No. 1 alone who appealed to the District Judge who set aside the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs.2. The plaintiff appeals and several grounds have been urged on his behalf, the most important being that the learned Judge has not found all the facts which it would be necessary to find before di...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »