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.
Sudhir Chandra Das Vs. Srimati Indumati Chaudhurani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.616
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff Sudhir Chandra Dass against the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice C. C. Ghose which was delivered on the 12th of March 1924.2. The facts of this case are, I hope, entirely out of the ordinary at all events, as far as my experience goes, they are unprecedented.3. For the purpose of my judgment it is necessary to state the material facts which are as follows:4. The question arises with regard to the estate of one Srish Chandra Das. He died on the 12th day of December 1904 leaving a widow whose name was Raseswari Chowdhurani his eldest daughter was Sarojini Chowdhurani, who was married to Bankim Chandra Chowdhury. Sarojini had a son whose name was Nirmal Chandra Chowdhury. This son Nirmal was afterwards, as I shall have to mention, adopted by Raseswari, and he took the name of Sudhir Chandra Dass and he is the plaintiff in this case. The second daughter of Srish Chandra Das was Indumati Chaudhurani. She was married to ...
Subashini Dasi Vs. Habu Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal247
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. She is the widow of one Preonath Ghose. Preonath, Gokul and Sahadeb were three brothers. The plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises, impleading therein the two brothers Gokul and Sahadeb, their, mother and certain other persons, who, for the sake of convenience, will be called the Kola defendants. The suit was for declaration of plaintiff's title to the 16-annas of the land mentioned in schedule ka of the plaint on the allegation that the said land had been acquired by her husband Preonath after be had separated from his brothers Gokul and Sahadeb. It was also for a declaration of her one-third share in the land mentioned in schedule kha of the plaint and for recovery of possession thereof on partition by metes and bounds on the allegation that her husband had the said share in the said land which belonged to the joint family of which the three brothers were the members. She also prayed for a declaratio...
Bhola Nath Mondal and ors. Vs. Mohesh Chandra Bera and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1138
1. The case of the plaintiffs in the suit out of which this second appeal arises was that there is khal running along the eastern boundary of their mouza which continues along the northern and eastern boundaries of the neighbouring mouza Beluria and then southwards; and that water from their mouza is discharged through certain sluices from the khal into a river lying further to the east; but that in 1918 the tenants of Beluria made two obstructions: one at the point marked A in the map, obstructing the khal where it entered into mouza, Beluria, and another at the point B obstructing it at its exit from that mouza. The suit was brought by certain representative tenants of the mouza Purusattampur against certain tenants of Beluria as representing all tenants of that village and notices were published under Order 1, Rule 8, in the local newspaper on the spot and elsewhere.2. The learned Munsif found in favour of the plaintiffs and gave a decree on certain terms. He found that the natural ...
Kanak Kanti Roy Chowdhury Vs. Srishtidar Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1211
Greaves, J.1. This Rule was issued on the 2nd January 1925 at the instance of the plaintiff in the suit. On the 11th January 1924 the petitioner who is plaintiff in the suit instituted this suit in the Court of the Second Munsif at Basirhat under Section 46 of the Bengal Tenancy Act ' for enhancement of rent and for khas possession of the holding after ejectment of the tenant in-case of refusal by the latter to agree to pay the rent, which might be determined by the Court to be fair and equitable' I am quoting the actual words of the petitioner as it will show the nature of the suit in the plaintiff's view. For, it has been argued before us that the suit being one merely for ejectment does not fall within the provisions of Section 111 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. But it will be seen from the statement of the case itself as taken from the petition as indeed, from the words of Section 46, that the suit, although in one sense it is a suit for ejectment, is not merely one for such a relief. ...
Kanak Kanti Roy Choudhury Vs. Srishtidar Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.670
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This Rule was issued on the 2nd January 1925 at the instance of the plaintiff in the suit. On the 11th January 1024 the petitioner who is the plaintiff' in the suit instituted this suit in the Court of the Second Munsif at Basirhatunder Section 46 of the Bengal Tenancy Act 'for enhancement of rent and for khas possession of the holding after ejectment of the tenant in case of refusal by the latter to agree to pay the rent which might be determined By the Court to be fair and equitable.' I am quoting the actual words of the petitioner as it will show the nature of the suit in the plaintiff's view. For, it has been argued before us that the suit being one merely for ejectment does not fall within the provisions of Section 111 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. But it will be seen from the statement of the case itself as taken from the petition as indeed from the words of Section 46, that the suit although in one sense it is a suit for ejectment is not merely one for such a re...
Rash Behari Mandal and ors. Vs. Hemanta Kumar Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1023
Greaves, J.1. It will be convenient to deal with Appeal No. 20 of 1925 first of all.2. This is an appeal by the decree-holders against an order of the Subordinate Judge of the 6th of December 1924, quashing the previous order that he made for possession by the decree-holders of certain land. On the 15th of May 1914, certain putni tenures were put up to sale under the Putni Regulation. Plaintiff No. 1 brought the putni at a sale and mutation was effected. On the 20th April 1921, the plaintiff sought to eject from the land which they had purchased some 400 tenants who, it is stated, were in occupation of the land as sub-tenure holders and cultivating tenants. On the 27th September 1924, a decree for ejectment was passed in favour of the plaintiffs against all the 400 tenants and the decree became final on the 12th of November 1924. On the 14th of November the decree-holders applied for delivery of possession of the land and a writ for delivery of possession was issued on that date. This ...
Maharaja Shashi Kanta Acharjya Bahadur Vs. Manu Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1064
ORDER1. This Rule was obtained at the instance of the petitioner to set aside an order of the Subordinate Judge, dated the 16th February 1924. A decree for rent was obtained by the petitioner, the amount being under Rs. 50. In execution of the decree the petitioner brought the property to sale on the 20th February 1922 and himself purchased the property. The opposite party, who was a minor on the 9th April 1923, applied through his father as his natural guardian to set aside the sale, alleging in his application a fraudulant suppression of notices in respect of the sale. The matter came before the Munsif on the 29th September 1923 and he rejected the application to set aside the sale on the ground that there was no irregularity and that the application was barred by limitation. An appeal was preferred against the Munsif's order to the Subordinate Judge who reversed the order of the Munsif stating that on the evidence he was satisfied that the opposite party did not come to know of the ...
Tara Prasanna Sinha and ors. Vs. Jnanendra Narayan Bagchi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal86
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal is by all the judgment-debtors, except Judgment-debtor No. 3, against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Birbhum, dated the 27th May 1924, overruling the objections made by the judgment-debtors to the execution under Section 47, Civil P.C., The main objection which has been pressed before us is that no notice under Order 21, Rule 22 having been served on Judgment-debtor No. 3 who is not an appellant before us, the entire execution proceedings are void and without jurisdiction and, therefore, the sale effected in these proceedings must be set aside. The decree obtained was for rent in respect of a darpatni under the plaintiffs who are the patnidars. The darpatni was held by Tara Prasanna, Shyama Prasanna and Bazrangi Prosad. On the death of Bazrangi Prosad his widow Sabitri Kumari Barmani (Judgment-debtor No. 3) was treated as his representative. But it is the case of the appellants that the share of Bazrangi Prosad was sold by him to the appellants...
Monmotho Nath Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Puran Chand Nahatta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal703
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decision of my learned brother Mr. Justice C.C. Ghose which was delivered on the 12th of March, 1924. That judgment was given with respect to exceptions which were taken to a report which had been made by the Official Referee with respect to the title of certain premises, namely, No. 13, Marsden Street, Calcutta, which the defendant had agreed to purchase from the plaintiffs by an agreement, dated the 28th of February, 1920.2. The Official Referee reported that the plaintiffs had failed to make out a good or marketable title to the premises in question.3. The plaintiffs filed exceptions to that report; and the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the exceptions should be discharged and in effect he affirmed the report of the Official Referee and declared that the plaintiffs had failed to make a good title to the premises.4. The facts which it is necessary for me to state for the purpose of my judgment are as follows...
G.M. Hay and anr. Vs. Bonomali Mullick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal791,88Ind.Cas.589
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Defendants against the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Pearson which is dated the 10th of January 1924.2. The suit was brought for ejectment, mesne profits and damages.3. The Defendants were the tenants and occupiers of the premises Nos. 171, 172 and 174, Dhurmtollah Street, in Calcutta. The premises were held under a lease for a term of ten years from the 1st of January 1911, which term expired on the 31st of December 1920.4. The plaintiff is the lessor and Messrs. Breakwell and Co. were the lessees. In November 1918 the remainder of the term was assigned to Messrs. Hay and Porker, who are the Appellants in this ease: and, the rent for the whole of the premises was Rs. 1,050 per month;5. At the end of the term there were negotiations between the parties with a view to the renewal of the lease. But these came to nothing and, on the 20th of April 1921, this suit was brought.6. The Defendants remained in possession until the 31st of J...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »