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.
Srimati Sarajubala Roy Chaudhurani Vs. Kamini Kumar Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal765,94Ind.Cas.811
1. The plaintiffs who were mortgagees in respect of a certain taluk sued on their mortgages and obtained a preliminary mortgage-decree on the 17th January 1916, and a final decree on the 9th June 1917. On the 26th April 1916 the landlords instituted a suit for rent in respect of the taluk and obtained a rent-decree on the 1st September 1916, and in execution of the said decree purchased the taluk on the 11th August 1917 and the plaintiffs deposited the decretal amount on the 11th September 1917 under Order XXI, Rule 89, C.P.C., and got the sale set aside. On the 24th October 1916, the defendant No. 1 purchased the taluk from the mortgagors the defendants Nos. 2 to 5, and on the 8th February 1918 the defendant No. 1 paid up the sum due on the final mortgage-decree. On the 14th September 1920 the plaintiff instituted the present suit for recovery of the amount deposited by him to set aside the sale of the 11th August 1917. The plaintiff has been successful in both the Courts below. The d...
Krishna Das Roy Vs. Manindra Chandra Nandi Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal954
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued the defendant for recovery of arrears of rent with the usual cesses and damages. His case was that he was a part-proprietor of a certain deara mehal bearing Touzi No. 6504 of the Faridpur Collectorate, his share being one anna three three-fourths gundas odd and that the defendants had taken an ejara lease of the whole mehal from the plaintiff's predecessor in interest and his cosharers at a certain jama.2. The plaintiff's case was that he collected his share of the rent separately and as the defendants had failed to pay his rent for the years 1326 to 1329 B.S. he brought the suit.3. The case of Defendant No. 1 who contested the suit was that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between him and the plaintiff, that the mehal had been temporarily settled with him (Defendant No. 1) by the Secretary of State for India in Council for 15 years and also that the suit was bad for misjoinder and non-...
Jagannath Mondal Vs. Bhajahari Nath and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1206,96Ind.Cas.360
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiffs sued to eject the defendant on the following allegations. Their case was that the defendant was their under-raiyat holding some 11 bighas of land tinder thorn at a rental of Rs. 13 per year. Notices had been duly served under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act but the defendant had not quitted the land and hence the suit. The defendant's case was that he was a raiyat with the right of occupancy and he farther contended that his nephews being his co-sharers were necessary parties to the suit.2. The Court of first instance held that the case must fail owing to defect of parties, being of the opinion that the nephews of the defendant were necessary parties and he further held that the defendant being an occupancy raiyat was not liable to be evicted. In appeal these findings were reversed. The lower Appellate Court held that the respondent was an under-raiyat, and he further held that the nephews of the responden...
Manicklal Dey Chaudhuri Vs. Kadambini Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal763,94Ind.Cas.156
Buckland, J.1. This is a suit to recover possession from the defendant of the premises No. 16, Prem Chand Boral Street and for damages at the rate of Rs. 130 a month.2. The plaintiff is a tenant from the superior landlord of the premises in question and the defendant is his sub-tenant. The case made in the plaint is that on the 11th June 1924 the sub-tenant was given notice to vacate premises on 17th July 1924; The defendant failed to vacate the premises and the suit was filed on 28th August 1924.3. The facts are admitted. The defendant has paid Rs. 130 a month, month by month to the Rent Controller. No question arises under the Calcutta Rent Act and whether this is the proper amount payable as rent is immaterial. Subsequently and after the suit had been filed, the plaintiff withdrew from the Rent Controller the money so deposited by the defendant. The whole point in the case is whether or not by withdrawing from the Rent Controller the amount so deposited, the notice to quit has been ...
Gadadhar Mandal Vs. Sreemati Manaka Dassi and Nagendra Nath Saha and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal859,94Ind.Cas.391
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal by the defend- ant No. 3 is against the decree of the Second Additional District Judge of Alipur affirming the decree of the Subordinate Judge of that place. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that the properties described in the plaint were subject to the charge of her maintenance which was decreed in Suit No. 23 of 1911. The plaintiff brought that suit in forma pauperis for recovery of certain properties and in the alternative for a charge for her maintenance on those properties. She failed in her claim for recovery of the properties, but her right of maintenance was declared as a charge on those properties and costs were decreed in favour of the Government to be recovered from the arrears of maintenance due from the defendant in that case who is the defendant No. 2 in the present suit. The Government, however, proceeded to sell the property in the hands of defendant No. 2 for the realization of the Court-fees and it was purchased by defendant No. 1. De...
P. Banerjee, Sanitary Inspector, Howrah Municipality Vs. BipIn Behary ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal691,95Ind.Cas.79
1. This Rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate and the accused why the order of the 25th August referred to in the petition should not be set aside and the case tried according to law.2. The facts are as follows:---It appears that on the 8th November, 1924, the Sanitary Inspector of the Howrah Municipality filed a complaint before the Deputy Magistrate of Howrah against the accused under Section 21 of Act VI of 1919 (the Bengal Food Adulteration Act 1919) for selling adulterated milk in contravention of Section 6, Sub-clause (1) of the said Act. The prosecution of the accused was under the orders of the Chairman of the Municipality and at the time the prosecution was instituted there was no order or consent in writing of the Municipal Commissioners, of Howrah within the meaning of Section 15 of the said Act. In that state of things the Deputy Magistrate, before whom the case, was pending, passed the following order:---'The offence as taken cognizance of stands ipso facto ...
Azizur Rahman and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal590
1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Chittagong to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners should not be set aside or such other or further order made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.2. The facts, shortly stated, are as follows: The petitioners are seven in number and they together with some other persons were put upon their trial before Mr. S.P. Banerjee, Deputy Magistrate with 2nd Class powers at Chittagong, under Section 147, I.P.C. The Petitioners 1 to 4 were all charged under Section 325, I.P.C., and the Petitioner No. 7 was further charged under Section 324, I.P.C. The case for the prosecution was that one Basarat Ali was in possession of certain lands. On the 30th December 1923, Basarat's cousin, Rufia Khatun, was plucking brinjals from Basarat's land. Thereupon several persons came up and asked her to leave the field, but she refused to do so. Thereafter a large body of men, including the present petitioners, came upon ...
Appul Gafur Vs. Mannalal Agarwala and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Cal239
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the Officiating Subordinate Judge of Jalpaiguri affirming an order of the Munsif of the First Court of the same place. The matter is a short one. A certain debtor was arrested before judgment in a money-suit. The appellant became surety for him and the surety bond provided that the surety was to be liable in case the suit was decreed against the defendant and the decretal amount was not realized from him in execution. Eventually, a compromise decree was obtained in the suit whereby Rs. 80 claim was remitted and a period of one month was given within which the money was to be paid. The judgment-debtor, as a result of the execution proceedings paid two sums of Rs. 150 and Rs. 50 and decamped. Thereupon the decree-holders attempted in these proceedings to enforce the liability of the surety for the balance of the decretal amount.2. The surety has taken a point that he is not liable because one month was given by the compromise dec...
Satish Chandra Ray and ors. Vs. Joy Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.120
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff against a judgment and decree of the First Additional District Judge of Dacca, affirming a decision of the Subordinate Judge. It is unnecessary to state the facts of the suit in detail. The facts relevant for the purpose of the appeal may be shortly stated thus--the defendant obtained a decree for possession of certain immoveable properties in which an order had been made under the old C.P.C. for ascertainment of mesne profits in the Execution Department. When an application was made for attachment before judgment in the matter of ascertainment of mesne profits in the execution proceedings a claim was preferred by the plaintiff which was dismissed on the 28th of February 1914. The execution case was then dismissed on the 22nd of January 1915. The defendant-respondent ultimately succeeded in obtaining an order from the Appellate Court allowing their right to prosecute the application for ascertainment of mesne profits in 1918...
Sasadhar Choudhury Vs. Bishnu NaraIn Kunda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.292
George Claus Rankin, J.1. The question arising on this Rule is a proper one to be decided on revision. One Mahendra was a patnidar, and he was sued for rent by three persons who added as pro forma defendants two others as being co-sharer landlords with the plaintiffs. Decree was obtained and this decree was put in execution by the procedure laid down in Ch. XIV of the Bengal Tenancy Act as distinct from the procedure of the Code. At the sale on 12th May 1924 the present applicant became the purchaser for a price of Rs. 1,375 He now says that a relation of his had purchased Mahendra's interest in 1922 at a sale under a mortgage-decree and that he has discovered that in the rent suit two other co-sharer landlords were not parties, with the result that the decree was not such a decree as is contemplated in Ch. XIV. Accordingly, he says the sale of 1924 passed to him only the right, title and interest of Mahendra and took effect only as a sale under a money decree. As the whole of Mahendra...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »