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.
Shashadhar Chowdhury Vs. Bishun NaraIn Kundu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal738
1. The question arising on this Rule is a proper one to be decided on revision.2. One Mohendra 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 Chapter 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 Mohendra's interest in 1922 at a sale under a mortgage decree and that he has discovered that in the rent suit two other cosharer landlords were not parties, with the result that the decree was not such a decree as is contemplated in Chapter XIV. Accordingly, he says the sale of 1921 passed to him only the right, title and interest of Mohendra and took effect only as a sale under a money decree. As the whole of Mohendra's interest w...
K.S. Bonnerji Vs. Mahamed Foiz and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.884
Ewart Greaves, J.1. Appeals Nos. 1760, 1769, 1776 and 1778 of 1923 have abated and are dismissed with costs.2. The other appeals arise out of proceedings under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and the landlord is the appellant. The appeals are directed against a decision of the Special Judge of Tipperah which eon-firms a decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer of the same place.3. Three points have been urged in these appeals. The first is that certain old papers of 1795, 1798 and 1800 which are Exs. Nos. 12 and 13, the originals of which were produced from the Tipperah Collectorate and which are said to show variations of rent in respect of the premises in suit, have not been given sufficient weight in the decisions of the Courts below. These papers are to few melani papers, and jama wasil bald papers. They were filed, it appears, under Regulation XLVIII of 1793 and they were filed in the Collectorate in 1795. It is urged that if proper attention is paid to these papers the ...
Shib Chandra Banerjee Vs. Umesh Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.536
Walmsley, J.1. These two appeals are preferred by the plaintiff, and they arise from two suits, Nos. 817 and 711, respectively, of the first Court. Those suits and three others, with which we are not concerned, were instituted on the grounds that the lands in suit formed chaukidari chakran lands until they were resumed by Government, that they were then settled by Government with the zemindar by whom they were leased to the plaintiff, and that the defendants are keeping the plaintiff out of possession. The claim was for khas possession, or in the alternative for a declaration that the defendants must pay a fair rent.2. The defence was that the lands were not chakran lands, that in No. 711 the land in suit formed part of a jama of Rs. 11 standing in the name of Sheroo Sekh, and that in No. 817 they formed part of a jama of Rs. 73 odd in the name of Chandra Roy.3. The identity of the lands in suit with certain plots of the land which the Collector purported to resume and settle with the ...
Nandalal Ganguli Vs. Srimaty Nrityakali Devi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal853,94Ind.Cas.170
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows: the respondent has obtained a certain award in an apportionment case from the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal. The appellant in this case raised objections in the apportionment case and the President of the Tribunal decided against him. The appellant appealed to this Court and this Court dismissed the appeal and gave costs to the respondent. The respondent then applied to execute his decree for costs to the Calcutta Small Cause Court. As the appellant had no property within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta Small Cause Court the execution there was infructuous and it was transferred by the Small Cause Court to the Court of the First Munsif, Alipur, for disposal. Various objections were raised in that Court to the execution of the decree. But they were overruled and the learned Munsif proceeded to execute the decree as prayed for by the respondent. The appellant then appealed to the Dist...
Khetra Mohan Saha and ors. Vs. Sarat Chandra Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal830,94Ind.Cas.352
1. As this is an appeal purporting to be against an order which merely refuses to stay execution of a certain decree, there is no appeal under the Code against such an order which is not an order under Section 47, C.P.C.2. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed but without cost as there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent....
Emperor Vs. Rajendra Kumar Dutta and Abdul Khaleque
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.893
1. This is a reference two Pleaders of the Bar, Babu Rajendra Kumar Dutta and Moulvi Abdul Khaleque.2. The facts appear to be these:There was a certain Title Suit No. 265 of the Local Sub-Judge's Court (Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Sonaulla).3. Rajendra Kumar Dutt was the Pleader on behalf of some of these defendants though it does not appear that he had received any vokalatnamah on behalf of Sonaulla. In the course of this suit a certain document was filed on behalf of the; defendants on the 6th July 1923 by Rajendra Kumar Dutta. The plaintiff challenged the genuineness of this document. Certain evidence was taken and on the 7th July Babu Rajendra Kumar Dutt the defendants Pleader retired from the case and the case was decided ex parte. On the same day the plaintiff moved the Court to prosecute Sonaulla for forgery. Notice was issued on Sonaulla and he appeared on 8th September 1922 and showed cause. Moulvi Abdul Khaleque appeared for him on this occasion.4. The Court ordered a prosecu...
Gnanada Gobindo Choudhuri and ors. Vs. Nalini Bala Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal650,94Ind.Cas.837
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent in respect of a patni tenure for the years 1324 to 1327 B.S. The defendants may be classified into two groups, the defendants Nos. 1 to 5, 8 and 9 being the holders of an 8-annas interest, while the other 8-annas which was formerly held by the defendant No. 6 Jamini Kumar Pakrashi is now alleged to be held by the defendant No. 7 Nalini Bala Debi. The plaintiffs' case is that this 8-annas share was purchased by the estate of one Bidhumukhi Debi which now belongs to Nalini Bala Debi. Bidhumukhi is dead, and so is her adopted son Birendra, whose widow is Nalini Bala.2. The Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiffs' suit against the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 9. On appeal preferred by the defendant No. 7 Nalini Bala the learned District Judge absolved her from liability for payment and set aside the decree in so far as it was against her. The plaintiffs have appealed.3. On the merits the learned District, Judge was of opinion that...
SalimaddIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal605
1. In this case the petitioners hate been convicted under Section 225(b) Indian Penal Code and have each been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The facts are as follows: The petitioners were charged for having rescued one Danu Mian from lawful custody and for having assaulted a Collector ate peon who had been deputed to execute a warrant which had been issued under the Public Demands Recovery Act. It appears that a certificate had been issued against Danu Mian for the recovery of a certain sum due from him under the Public Demands Recovery Act. On the 15th December 1924, one Purna, who is a Collectorate peon, went accompanied by some other persons to the house of the judgment-debtor, Danu Mian with a warrant of attachment of his property and a warrant of arrest of his person. The judgment-debtor was found by the Collectorate peon near the bank of a tank and on his being informed that a warrant was about to be executed for his arrest, the judgment-debtor pro...
EasIn Sheikh Vs. Sikandar Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.118
Cuming, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ascertainment of mesne profits. The facts appear to be these: The plaintiff is the landlord. He had let out the land to a certain raiyat who paid money rent to him. The plaintiff in execution of a money-decree of his own against his raiyat purchased the raiyati himself. When he went to take possession he was resisted by the defendants who were subsequently found to be trespassers.2. The Court of first instance awarded the plaintiff mesne profits on the basis of fair and reasonable rent. This decision was upheld in appeal. The plaintiff appeals to this Court and he contends that he is entitled to wasilat on the basis of the produce of the land. He argues that the defendants were in possession of the land actually cultivating it and that he is entitled to the profits which the defendants actually received from the cultivation of his land or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom.3. This contention of the appellant seems to ...
Umesh Chandra Mitra Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal614,93Ind.Cas.1045
1. In this case the accused Umesh Chandra Mitra has been convicted under s. 175/492 of the Calcutta' Municipal Act (Act III B. C. of 1923), and has been sentenced to pay a line of Rs. 75 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.2. The facts are as follows: It appears that on or about the 7th June 1924 a notice was served by the Corporation of Calcutta upon the accused under Schedule VI, Rule 12 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, of 1923, calling upon the accused to take out a license on payment of a fee of Rs. 50 for carrying on the business of a broker during the year 1924-25. The accused thereupon pointed out by a letter dated the 13th June, 1924, addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, that he did not carry on any independent business or trade and that he was merely a salesman in the Hardware Department of the Bombay Co., Ld. and, that, therefore, the notice dated the 7th June, 1924, should be cancelled. In reply to this letter the Corporation wrote on the 1st July,...