Kolkata Court March 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.
Agent, Bengal Nagpur Railway Vs. Behari Lal Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal783
Suhrawardy, J.1. This Miscellaneous Appeal (No. 180 of 1924) and the S. A. No. 1016 of 1924 are directed against the same decision of the Court below. There is also an application under Section 115, C. P. C, filed by the appellant against the same order. The explanation is that in the present unsettled state of the law the appellant could not decide on the proper procedure.2. The Miscellaneous Appeal was first heard and the learned Advocate for the respondent took a preliminary objection on the ground that no appeal lay. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff respondent brought a suit for recovery of the value of certain goods which he had despatched from one railway station to another on the Bengal Nagpur Railway but the goods were not delivered to the consignee. He accordingly raised the present suit and in the plaint filed the name of the defendant was given as ' Agent of the Bengal Nagpur Railway Saheb ' Bahadur'. The defendant, Mr. Young, who was the Agent of the Bengal Nagp...
Hari Mohan Ghose Vs. Sourendra Nath Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1153
Buckland, J.1. All that need be said byway of introduction is to be found in my earlier judgments on the questions which arose when learned Counsel submitted the issues to be tried.2. The principal points argued are embodied in issues 1 and 7, but they will be more conveniently considered later.3. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that; Charu Chunder Mitter entered into the transaction with the plaintiff as karta of the family. Nor have I any doubt that this liability after his death was treated as a liability of the family which had the use of the money. In support of these conclusions there is the oral evidence of the plaintiff as to the circumstances in which the loan was made there are the payments by Sourendra Nath of interest endorsed on the note, and the corresponding entries in the family accounts; there are a series of statements made by the parties contained in judicial records; and there are Sourendra's own letters.4. I do not propose to state the material exhaustively n...
Kumar Surendra NaraIn Deb Vs. Prince Victor Nityendra NaraIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.267
Ewert Greaves, J.1. This appeal arises from an order of the 13th of May 1924 made in a suit by the Subordinate Judge and relating to two applications made for substitution in place of the deceased plaintiff No. 2, Kumar Udai Narain. The two applications were made by the only surviving son of Kumar Udoy Narain and by Prince Victor Narain, who claims as an assignee of the interest of the deceased plaintiff, to be substituted in the suit in place of Kumar Udai Narain. The suit relates to the Bijai Raj and it was commenced by two persons, the present plaintiff and by deceased plaintiff No. 2. On the 14th of February 1922 Udai Narain who was then plaintiff No. 2 in the suit executed a deed of conveyance of his interest whatever he had in the raj to Prince Victor. Subsequently a dispute arose between plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2 by an order of the 19th September, 1922, the conduct of the suit was given to plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No. 2 Udai Narain was made a defendant in the suit....
Abhoya Pada Trivedi and anr. Vs. Ram Kinkar Trivedi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal228,89Ind.Cas.770
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued for a declaration of his title as a reversioner to certain property and also for joint possession. The facts of the case are briefly these. The joint family originally consisted of three brothers, Biroja, Satcouri and Nrisingha. Biroja died. leaving a widow Sarojini and Satcouri also died leaving three sons. In 1902 Sarajini executed a certain Nadabiratra in favour of the present plaintiff and the three sons by which she surrendered her interest in the property of her husband, Biroja. There was a further stipulation which was made by an ekrarnama that she would have a certain house for her residence and an allowance of Rs. 12 a month and the right to the fruit of certain cocoanut tree. The widow died in 1916 and Nrisingha who is now represented by his sons brought a suit for declaration of his right as a reversioner to the entire property of which Sarajini was enjoying possession. Both the Courts below have...
Surendra NaraIn Deo Vs. Nityendra NaraIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal173
Greaves, J.1. This appeal arises from an order of the 13th of May 1924 made in a suit 'by the Subordinate Judge and relating to two applications made for substitution in place of the deceased Plaintiff No. 2, Kumar Udai Narain. The two applications were made by the only surviving son of Kumar Udai Narain and by Prince Victor Narain, who claims as an assignee of the interest of the deceased plaintiff, to be substituted in the suit in place of Kumar Udai Narain. The suit relates to the Bijni Raj and it was commenced by two persons, the present plaintiff and by deceased Plaintiff No. 2 on the 14th of February 1922. Kumar Udai Narain who was then Plaintiff No. 2 in the suit executed a deed of conveyance of his interest whatever he had in the Raj to Prince Victor. Subsequently a dispute arose between Plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2. By an order of the 19th September 1922, the conduct of the suit was given to Plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2. Udai Narain was made a, defendant in the s...
Kasiwar De Vs. Aswini Kumar Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal249,90Ind.Cas.527
1. This is a Rule issued against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Nadia rejecting an application by the petitioner for rateable distribution of certain assets which were held by that Court. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the application on the ground that it was not made before the receipt of the assets by the Court. The facts appear to be these--the present petitioner obtained a decree on the 28th May 1924 on the Original Side of this Court and he applied on the 3rd June for the issue of a precept to the Court of the Subordinate Judge to attach any property which belonged to the judgment-debtor meanwhile this property was sold in execution of some other decree by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, on the 26th of June 1924. The present petitioner applied for execution of his decree in the Court of the Subordinate Judge on the 16th July 1924. It will appear that some time before, the date of which the petitioner is unable to give us, he had applied to the Original S...
Sukhamayee Biswas Vs. Monoranjan Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.827
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a decision of the Additional District Judge of Sylhet modifying a decision of the Munsif of the Second Court at Habigunge. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title to and possession of certain property. He also claimed mesne profits which I understand were disallowed and in respect of which there is a cross-objection. 2. The case for the plaintiffs was that one Surjymani Sen was a jotedar that he made during his lifetime a gift of the lands in question to his widowed daughter. The plaintiffs claimed to have purchased the lands in suit after the widowed daughter's death from defendant No. 5 who, the plaintiffs alleged, was the heir of the widowed daughter being her sister's son. The defence of the defendant was this that the property was streedhan property and that on the death of the widowed daughter it descended not on the sister's son but on the step-brother or...
Srish Chandra Ghose and ors. Vs. Abani Nath Hazra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal266,90Ind.Cas.544
1. A case was pending against the petitioners in which they were charged with an offence punishable under Section 427, Indian Penal Code, the opposite party being the complainant in that case. The offence is one which is compoundable under Section 345, Cr. P.C., without the leave of the Court. On the 21st June 1924 both parties filed a petition of compromise agreeing to be bound by the decision of five gentlemen named therein and asking the Court to grant an adjournment for settlement of their dispute. On the 9th July another joint petition was filed reducing the number of arbitrators to three. The three arbitrators visited the locality, but while they were making their enquiry some unpleasantness occurred and one of the arbitrators ceased to take any further part in the deliberation. The two remaining arbitrators made an award which was not accepted by the opposite party. An application being made by the petitioners to the Trying Magistrate to record an order of acquittal under Sectio...
Kumud Charan Roy Vs. Sambhu Chandra Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.827
Suhrawardy, J.1. In this appeal by the defendant two points have been taken: (1) that the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation and (2) that the learned Subordinate Judge of the Court of Appeal below has not considered the question raised and decided by the Trial Court with regard to the identity of the land in suit with the jama alleged to have been purchased by the plaintiff.2. With regard to the first point, the defendant in his written statement took the plea of limitation on the ground that the defendant had been in possession for more than 12 years and also on the ground that the suit was not brought within one year after the dismissal of the claim case. On these pleadings the 4th issue raised in the Trial Court was.--Is the suit barred by the law of estoppel. In deciding that issue the learned Munsif observed as follows: This suit has been brought within one year from the order under Order XXI, Rule 100, C.P.C. He, however, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit upon other grounds on...
Baikuntha Chandra Dhupi and ors. Vs. Prahlad Chandra Dhupi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal426
Cuming, J.1. The facts of this appeal are as follows: The appellant obtained an ex parte decree against the respondents in a certain Title Suit No. 3 of 1917. The respondents then sued the appellant to set aside this ex parte decree on the ground that it was obtained by suppression of processes, by adducing false evidence and by wrongly including certain land within his tenancy which did not belong to the tenancy. The Court of first instance found that there had been no suppression of processes and that the respondent was fully aware of the progress of the suit. He further found that the appellants, suit was wholly false and that the decree was obtained by the production of false evidence and by the practice of fraud on the Court and decreed the respondent's suit. On appeal to the District Court this decision was upheld. The learned Judge there held agreeing with the Court of first instance that the respondent was fully aware of the suit and that processes have been served upon him. He...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »