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.
Shaik Ohid Bux and ors. Vs. Sheikh Dorshu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal959,95Ind.Cas.144
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, modifying a decision of the Munsif of the Third Court of the same place. The defendant demised to the plaintiffs in this suit certain plots of land in consideration of a selami of Rs. 400 and a payment of an annual rental of Rs. 6-4-0. The lands are described as extending to 5 bighas of land as set, out in the schedule. The schedule sets out four plots with certain boundaries. Plot No. 4 is described as having an area of 1 bigha. The plaintiffs contend that there is no such plot in existence and that it is merely, a fictitious plot and they accordingly commenced this suit for partial cancellation of the lease on this ground. Both the Courts decreed the suit and in the results the lease was varied by reducing the amount of rent.2. Three points were urged before us on appeal, first, that the suit is not maintainable; secondly, that on the contract only 5 bighas were let out; thirdly,...
Gosto Behary Gorai and ors. Vs. Hari Hara Ram Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.199
1. This Rule was obtained by the plaintiffs who were the appellants before the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan in an appeal against a judgment and decree of the Munsif of Katwa. After the appeal was partly argued, the petitioners put in an application for leave to withdraw from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action. On that application being filed, it appears that the hearing of the case was stopped. The learned Subordinate Judge instead of making an order then and there took time and finally dismissed the appeal, as he says in the last line of his judgment, for non-prosecution. I think the learned Judge's order is wrong. If he was of opinion that the application for the withdrawal of the suit as prayed for by the plaintiffs could not be granted, it was his duty to hear the appeal. He should have either acceded to the prayer for withdrawal on the terms indicated in the petition or he ought to have heard the appeal. I think, therefore, that th...
S. G. P. Singh Vs. Probodh Kumar Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal681,95Ind.Cas.289
Ghose, J.1. These two Rules arise out of the same proceedings taken before the Rent Controller at the instance of a subtenant for fixing standard rent with regard to certain premises against his own landlord, the tenant under the superior landlord. These two persons will be called tenant and landlord henceforth. The Rent Controller fixed the rent of the premises which is called premises No. 6 at Rs. 155 (one hundred and fifty-five) per month including the occupier's share of the taxes as the standard rent. The landlord made an application for revision before the President of the Tribunal. The President framed several issues in his Court and he has fixed the standard rent at Rs. 230 (two hundred and thirty) per month inclusive of taxes.2. The landlord has obtained a Rule against the decision of the President; it is numbered 1020. The tenant has also obtained a Rule against the same decision which is Revision Case No. 818. It will be convenient to dispose of the Rule obtained by the land...
Bhuban Mohan Basak and ors. Vs. the Chairman of the Municipal Commissi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.231
Cuming, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Bhuban Mohan Basak on his own behalf and on behalf of the rate-payers of Dacca against the Chairman of the Municipal Commissioners of Dacca for a declaration that the last assessment made by the Dacca Municipality is null and void, illegal and ultra vires and that there is no Municipal tax payable for the years 1923-24. He also prayed for a permanent injunction to restrain the Municipality from realising the taxes.2. His case was briefly as follows:On the 28th June 1922 the Commissioners passed a resolution that the general revision of the assessment of holdings be undertaken without delay as it was overdue. In pursuance of this resolution an Assessor was appointed to value the holdings and also an Assistant Assessor. Valuation was duly made and accepted and the new assessment was made. There was no change in the percentage charged on the valuation, which remained as it was before. This assessment was brought into force for t...
Radha Kissen Goenka Vs. Thakursidas Khemka
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal713
Rankin J.1. (His Lordship after setting out the facts proceeded as follows.) To begin with, the claim for interest was denied and it is entirely a wrong practice under Ch. 13A. for a learned Judge to order security merely because looking at the statements on either side he rather thinks that the plaintiff has a better prospect of success than the defendant. There was a specific denial with respect to this agreement and it would be quite impracticable to decide that matter under Ch. 13A.2. As regards the main question, it is clear that the plaintiff was an accounting party and though he gave a version of an adjustment, he did not profess to be at all sure that it amounted to a promise by the defendant to pay the sum so 'found because he submitted that it amounted to an adjusted account and he asked for an account by way of an alternative relief.3. So far, therefore, it seems to me that this case is one in which the proper order would have simply been an unconditional leave to defend; bu...
Moulavi Abul Khairat Mahommad (Ahamad in Vakalatnama) Vs. Hrishikesh D ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.6
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 several o...
Srish Chandra Sanyal and anr. Vs. Kadambini Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1175,97Ind.Cas.685
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal is against an order granting Probate of a Will. The Will was executed nearly 50 years ago--on the 3rd October, 1877 by one Karuna Kanta Sanyal who is said to have died on the 5th October, 1877, according to the applicant for Probate, and two days earlier according to the objectors. Karuna had a brother named Rukmini. Rukmini's son Rohini was married to Kadambini the present applicant for Probate. The objectors are the nearest agnates of the testator.2. It appears that so far back as the 21st May, 1878, an application for Probate was made by Rukmini. Probate was granted, but only a limited grant was made in respect of the debts mentioned in para. 3 of the Will. Karuna Kanta left a widow Raj Kumari and she died in 1919. Rohini predeceased Raj Kumari, and Kadambini made the present application for Probate in 1922. The Court below was of opinion that the Will had been proved, especially having regard to the fact that it had been proved in 1878 and accordin...
Mahendra Nath Sasmal and ors. Vs. Probal Chandra Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal980,95Ind.Cas.87
1. These two appeals arise out of two suits for rent which were decreed by the Trial Court but were dismissed on appeal. The suits were for two jamas, one being alleged to bear a rental of Rs. 19-3 and. the other of Rs. 3-3 and the claims were laid on the basis of the said rentals as the plaintiffs had previously obtained decrees at the said rates for the said two jamas. Subsequent to the said decrees the Record of Rights was published in which one jama of Rs. 15-10-5 gundas was recorded for both the holdings. The plaintiff then applied under Sections 10 and 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act but the applications were dismissed far default. The Munsif dismissed the suits holding that Section 109 of the Bengal Tenancy Act is a bar to the maintainability of the claims The Subordinate Judge has reversed that decision and decreed the suits. Hence these appeals by the defendants.2. It is contended on the authority of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bechgram Choudhuri ...
Shib NaraIn Kaibarta Das and ors. Vs. Sheikh Abdul Gani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.417
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit for redemption of an alleged usufructuary mortgage. The defence was that the property never belonged to the plaintiffs and that there was no mortgage but the property belonged to the defendants.2. The Trial Court accepted the story of the plaintiffs and made a decree in their favour. On appeal by one of the defendants the Subordinate Judge has reversed that decree on the finding that the property has not been proved to have ever belonged to the plaintiffs or that there was any mortgage on that property by the plaintiffs to the defendant. On that finding he dismissed the suit.3. No question of law arises upon this finding. But it is contended by the learned Vakil for the appellants that the appeal to the lower Appellate Court was incompetent as all the parties were not joined in the appeal and secondly, the appeal was preferred only against the preliminary decree on the mortgage after the final decree had been...
Mahendra Kumar Chakravarti Vs. Narayani Kar Purkaistha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal912,95Ind.Cas.170
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal is against an order of remand by the Subordinate Judge who in his judgment has observed that he upholds the finding of the learned Munsif with regard to two points and says that the appeal is allowed in part and the decree of the Trial Court is set aside and the suit remanded for a fresh trial after local investigation. What he does in effect is that he affirms certain findings of the learned Munsif but sets aside the decree and remands the case for a fresh trial. This as has been pointed out by this Court in numerous cases he has no authority to do. If the learned Subordinate Judge thought it necessary that a fresh local investigation should be held he might have ordered it himself or he might have directed the lower Court to direct a local investigation to be held and to send back to him the result of such local investigation. After having done so the Subordinated Judge himself ought to have decided the appeal finally.2. The order of remand made by the Su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »