Kolkata Court February 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.
Srinath Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. Jotindra Mohan Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.892
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a decision of the Second Additional District Judge of 24-Parganas reversing a decision of the Subordinate Judge. The suit out of which this appeal irises was a suit by the plaintiff to enforce specific performance of an agreement for sale of certain premises dated the 10th December 1919, whereby certain persons agreed to sell premises No. 18 Haldar Ba Gan Lane as therein mentioned to the. plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 5,000. The contract was entered into by Srinath Bhattacharjee, Krishna Lal Bhattacharjee, Makhan Lal Bhattacharjee, Ananta Lal Bhattacharjee, Narain Chandra Bhattacharjee and Bolai Chandra Bhattacharjee, a minor, by his guardian Sreemuty Bhajahari Devi who was Balai's mother. The contract was executed by all the parties other than Narain and it was duly registered. Subsequently an unregistered document was entered into by Makhan Lal dated the 26th of December 1919 whereby he purported to convey his interest in t...
Jamini Mohan Sarkar and ors. Vs. Jagabandhusingh Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal295
Chakravarti, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to enforce three mortgage bonds said to have been executed by one Raja Balabhadra Singh. The suit was decreed partially in the Court below and against that decision the Defendant No. 29 has preferred this appeal. The bond dated the 11th July 1905 is the only bond which is contested before us and the present appeal relates to that bond and that bond alone.2. There were numerous defendants in the suit. The defence of the Defendant No. 29 was that the bond in question dated the 11th July 1905, was not a genuine document and that no consideration was paid for it. The plaintiff is a purchaser of the mortgage bond from the original mortgagee one Srinath Sahu. He bought it on the 1st July 1909 and instituted the present suit on the 9th March 1918, and, in addition to the representatives of the original mortgagor, numerous other defendants, were impleaded as subsequent mortgagees or as purchasers of portions of the equ...
Srinath Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. Jotindra Mohon Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal445
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a decision of the Second Additional District Judge of 24 Parganas reversing a decision of the Subordinate Judge. The suit out of which this appeal arises was a suit by the plaintiff to enforce specific performance of an agreement for sale of certain premises, dated the 10th December 1919, whereby certain persons agreed to sell premises No. 18, Haldar Ba Gan Lane, as therein mentioned to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 5,000. The contract was entered into by Srinath Bhattacharjee, Krishna Lal Bhattacharjee, Makhan Lal Bhattacharjee, Ananta Lal Bhattacharjee, Narain Chandra Bhattacharjee and Balai Chandra Bhattacharjee, a minor, by his guardian Sreemuty Bhajahari Devi who was Balai's mother. The contract was executed by all the parties other than Narain, and it was duly registered. Subsequently an unregistered document was entered into by Makhan Lal dated the 26th of December 1919, whereby he purported to convey his interest in the...
Matiur Rasul Vs. Abdul Said
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal109,89Ind.Cas.765
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of My mensingh refusing to set aside a sale held in execution of a mortgage-decree The appellant was one of the judgment debtors against whom the said decree was passed. A preliminary decree was passed on the 27th December 1922 and. the final decree on the 23rd January 1923. The sale took place on the 15th March 1924, the decree-holder being the auction-purchaser at the sale. The application on which the order which forms the subject-matter of this appeal was passed was made by the appellant on the 15th April 1924. The application purported to be one under Section 47 of the C.P.C. and also under Order XXI, Ruler 90 of the came Code. The objections that were put forward on behalf of the appellant in the said application in order-to bring it under Section 47 were mainly to the effect that the properties were not liable for the decree inasmuch as they belonged to the mother of the appellant and the decree had...
Maurice Mayahas Vs. W. Morley and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal937,87Ind.Cas.508
Buckland, J.1. This is a suit to re-cover a sum aggregating Rs. 4,069 as the balance of the price of goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff sues two defendants, William Morley and Percy T. Andrews, who, he says, until January 1921 were carrying on business in partnership under the name and style of Morley and Andrews. While they were so carrying on business in partnership, he supplied, at the end of October or beginning of November 1920, the goods specified in the first bill annexed to the plaint, and on the 17th November 1920 the goods specified in the second bill annexed to the plaint. Subsequently more goods were sent to the defendants on inspection. That was in the month of December. In the month of January 1921 the firm was dissolved and later some of the goods were returned. Ha accordingly made out against the defendants the third bill for the value of the goods retained.2. The defence put forward by the defendant Morley, who is appearing in person, is a denial that he at any ti...
Fazara Khatun Bibi Vs. Matior Rahman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1255
Suhrawardy, J.1. In this suit for dower by a Muhammadan widow, one of the pleas raised by the defendants is that the suit is barred by the Law of Limitation. According to the plaintiff her husband died on the 27th February 1914. According to the defendants his death took place sometime in 1913. There were several issues raised in the case but the only issue tried by the Courts below was one of limitation. The learned Munsif was of opinion that Article 103 of the Limitation Act, was applicable; but he proceeded to examine the case on the assumption that it was governed by Article 116, and found on the evidence that Yar Ali (the husband of the plaintiff) bad died more than six years before the institution of the suit. He, therefore, held that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge - did not agree with the Munsif that Yar Ali had died more than six years ago as alleged by the defendants. He was inclined on a consideration of the evidence to ...
Hari Mohan Dalal Vs. Purendra Nath Nag Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.955
Ewart Greaves, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Third Subordinate Judge of Alipur dated the 6th of December 1924. For an understanding of the matters that arise in the appeal and the Rule it is necessary to state a few facts. One Raj Mohan Nag Choudhury was the owner of certain property. He died leaving a son Chandra Nath Nag Choudhury who had married a lady named Nisadini. Chandra Nath had six sons one of whom named Bhupendra Nath Nag Choudhury was: dead at the time of the events hereinafter referred to and his interest has passed to his son Chandi Charan Nag Choudhury. After the death of Raj Mohan who had left all his properties by Will to his grandsons, the sons of Chandra Nath, a suit was commenced for partition of the estate of Raj Mohan and for administration thereof and a Receiver was appointed. In order to clear off the debts of Raj Mohan's estate it was necessary to raise money in some way or other and the Receiver applied for and obtained an order for the sale of ...
Upendra Nath Ghosh and ors. Vs. Bhusansahana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.970
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. The plaintiffs prefer this appeal. They sued to obtain a declaration of their right to take water from the defendants' tank for the purposes of irrigation and for orders directing the defendants to abstain from obstructing them.2. The defendants denied the existence of the right and said that the plaintiffs had never been in the habit of taking water from the tank, and that they could not acquire any right by prescription against the defendants, as they were both the tenants of the same landlord. Another defence was that if the right existed at all it was confined to three plots immediately adjoining the tank and that the plaintiffs by breaking down an ail on the further side of those plots had increased the area to which water would flow and had thereby added to the burden and in consequence forfeited the right altogether. Defect of parties was also pleaded.3. The learned Munsif found that the suit was not bad for defect of parties and that the plaintiffs had prove...
Upendra Nath Ghosh and ors. Vs. Bhusan Sahana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal462
Walmsley, J.1. The plaintiffs prefer this appeal. They sued to obtain a declaration of their right to take water from the defendant's tank for the purposes of irrigation and for orders directing the defendants to abstain from obstructing them.2. The defendants denied the existence of the right and said that the plaintiffs had never been in the habit of taking water from the tank, and that they could not acquire any right by prescription against the defendants, as they were both the tenants of the same landlord. Another defence was that if the right existed at all it was confined to three plots immediately adjoining the tank and that the plaintiffs by breaking down an ail on the further side of those plots had increased the area to which water would flow and had thereby added to the burden and in consequence forfeited the right altogether. Defect of parties was also pleaded.3. The learned Munsif found that the suit was not bad for defect of parties and that the plaintiffs had proved lon...
Baikuntha Kumar Shil Vs. Sarat Chandra Nath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1257
1. This Rule is directed against) an order of the Munsif, Comilla, adding the opposite party as defendants in a suit brought by the petitioner under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act. The petitioner's case is that one Jaladhar San executed a kobala in his favour which the petitioner presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar. Execution was denied by Jaladhar and registration was refused by the Sub-Registrar as well as by the District Registrar on appeal and the petitioner consequently brought the present suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act for the purpose of having the document registered by the civil Court. The opposite party applied to the Munsif to be added as defendants on the ground that they had previously purchased the property purporting to be conveyed by the kobala. The learned Munsif admits that the only real issues in the suit are first: whether defendant has executed the deed and secondly, whether the document is a genuine one. But as he is of opi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »