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.
Mahammad MoyenuddIn Basunia and ors. Vs. BaharuddIn Choudhuri and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal113,90Ind.Cas.557
1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the finding of the Court of Appeal below that the defendants are liable to pay additional rent for additional area is correct. The plaintiff landlord brought a suit for recovery of enhanced rent on the ground of excess area as well as under Section 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The First Court decreed the suit; but on appeal the learned District Judge dismissed the plaintiff's claim under Section 30, Bengal Tenancy Act maintaining the order of the First Court for additional area. This appeal is by the defendants and it is argued that the learned Judge has erred in law in holding that the defendants are liable to pay enhanced rent for the additional area. The learned Judge has found that there has been a uniform payment of rent for more than 50 years, that the presumption raised by Section 50 has not been rebutted, that it is not known how the lands were first let out or what were their boundaries at the time, jamas were created, t...
Purna Chandra Singha and ors. Vs. Radhika Mohan Dey and ors. and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.722
Cuming, J.1. These two Appeals Nos. 328 and 329 of 1924 arise out of two suits. The first suit out of which Appeal No. 329 arises was a suit for partition of a certain howlah and the suit out of which the second appeal arises was a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession on the basis of a previous partition of the property in 1212 by virtue of a certain chitta. With regard to the first suit, it was dismissed by the First Court on the ground that the property had already been partitioned. The lower Appellate Court held that no previous partition had been proved and made a preliminary decree for partition, With regard to the second suit the First Court decreed it on the finding that there was a previous partition and, therefore, the chitta of 1212 B.S. on which the plaintiff in that suit relied was genuine. The Second Court dismissed the suit finding that there had been no previous partition. The defendant in the first suit who is the plaintiff in the second suit has...
NasaruddIn Mandal Vs. Anath Nath Chowdhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal279,90Ind.Cas.700
Duval, J.1. In this matter the plaintiff-respondent brought a suit to have the election of one Nasaruddin Mandal as President of Bhandarhati Union Board declared void. The facts of this case are as follows and are not disputed. The period of office of the members of this Union having come to an end a fresh election and nomination of members took place and the names of the members elected and nominated were notified in the Calcutta Gazette on the 5th March 1924. In accordance with Rule 32 of the Rules issued under the Government Notification No. 630, T.L.S.G. of the 13th October 1919, the Magistrate of Hooghly on the 1th March passed an order on the Sub-Divisional Officer to proceed with the election of a new President. Under Rule 36 of these Rules the members had to elect the new President within one month of the order and on the 17th March 1923, the Sub-Divisional Officer posted notices on the new members and to the old President for service on them, fixing the 26th March as the day o...
Purna Chandra Singha and ors. Vs. Radhika Mohan Deb and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal370
Cuming, J.1. These two appeals Nos. 328 and 329 of 1924, arise out of two suits. The first suit out of which Appeal No. 329 arises was a suit for partition of a certain howlah and the suit out of which the second appeal, arises was a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession on the basis of a previous partition of the property in 1212 by virtue of a certain chitta. With regard to the first suit, it was dismissed by the first Court on the ground that the property had already been partitioned. The lower appellate Court held that no previous partition had been proved and made a preliminary decree for partition. With regard to the second suit the first Court decreed it on the finding that there was a previous partition and, therefore, the chitta of 1212 B.S. on which the plaintiff in that suit relied was genuine. The second Court dismissed the suit finding that there had been no previous partition. The defendant in the first suit who is the plaintiff in the second suit h...
Sudhamoy Das Vs. Chairman, Krishnagar Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1026
1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act for having contravened an order of the Chairman of the Krishnagar Municipality prohibiting the plying of motor-taxis and lorries for the purpose of gain within the jurisdiction of that Municipality on all its roads without the special permission of the Chairman. It is not disputed that this special prohibition was issued in order to enable a tax of Rs. 25 to be levied on motor-taxis. It appears that up to now no rules have been passed under the Motor Vehicles Act to enable municipalities outside Calcutta at any rate to impose a tax on motor vehicles plying, for hire. We are told that such legislation or rule-making is contemplated. But until such taxation is sanctioned by law the Municipalities cannot take advantage of Rule 19 to impose this tax. Rule 19 is in the following terms: 'No motor vehicles shall be driven on any street or other public place where the use of motor vehicles is prohibited in the case...
Pratap Chandra Guha Roy Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1121,90Ind.Cas.387
Newbould, J.1. The petitioner, Pratap Chandra Guha Roy, was tried and convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Faridpur on three charges of defamation and was sentenced under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code to one year's simple imprisonment for each offence, the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal to the Sessions Judge of Faridpur his conviction on the third charge was set aside and the sentences were reduced to six months' simple imprisonment on each of the two charges on which the conviction was upheld, these sentences also running concurrently. The petitioner has obtained an open Rule from this Court calling upon the District Magistrate and the complainant to show cause why the conviction of and the sentence passed on the petitioner should not be set aside or such other orders passed as to this Court may seem fit.2. The two charges in respect of which the petitioner's conviction has been upheld are as follows:Firstly: That you on or about the 13th day of June 1923 at ...
Jotindra Nath Dutt Vs. Debendra Nath Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal998,95Ind.Cas.259
ORDER3. The Sheriff of Calcutta to make over to the Registrar the said G. P. notes and the Registrar to sell the same and the sale proceeds to be placed to the credit of this suit, and but of the sale proceeds the applicant's claim in this suit be paid first, and if any balance is left the same to be placed to the credit of Suit No. 2985 of 1923 and paid to Surendra....
Eastern Mortgage and Agency Co., Ltd., and T.C. Tweedie Vs. Muhammad F ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal914
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the second and fourth defendants, that is the Eastern Mortgage and Agency Company Ltd., (1902), the new-Company and Mr. Tweedie. The other defendants were the old Company and its liquidator: against them, the suit was dismissed, and they are not parties to the appeal. There was a fifth defendant, Mr. A. M. Parukh added pro forma on account of a financial arrangement between him and the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff is Moulvi Md. Fuzlul Karim: he bought from the defendant Company, on December 1919, the Company's interest in an estate called Haturia. The purchase price was Rs. 3,20,000. It was also agreed that a sum of Rs. 80,000 should be paid to Mr. Tweedie, the Company's Manager, as brokerage. There is no dispute about the payment of these sums. It is also agreed that a further sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid, but the parties differ as to the reason for this payment. The defendants assert that the back rents were not included in the transaction, and ...
The Eastern Mortgage and Agency Co., Ltd. and ors. Vs. Moulvi Mohammad ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.851
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the second and fourth defendants, that is the Eastern Mortgage and Agency Company Limited, (1902) the new Company and Mr. Tweedie. The other defendants were the old Company and its Liquidator: against them, the suit was dismissed, and they are not parties to the appeal. There was a fifth defendant, Mr. A.M. Parukh added pro farma on account of a financial arrangement between him and the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff is Moulvi Muhammad Fazlul Karim: he bought from the defendant Company on December 1919 the Company's interest in an estate called Haturia. The purchase price was Rs. 3,20,000. It was also agreed that a sum of Rs. 30,000, should be paid to Mr. Tweedie, the Company's Manager as brokerage. There is no dispute about the payment of these sums. It is also agreed that a further sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid, but the parties differ as to the reason for this payment. The defendants assert that the back rents were not included in the transact...
Eastern Mortgage and Agency Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Mahammed Fazlul Kari ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal385
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the second and fourth defendants that is the Eastern Mortgage and Agency Company, Ltd., (1902), the new Company and Mr. Tweedie. The other defendants were the old Company and its liquidator: against them the suit was dismissed, and they are not parties to the appeal. There was a fifth defendant, Mr. A.M. Parukh, added pro forma on account of a financial arrangement between him and, the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff is Moulvi Md. Fazlul Karim: he bought from the defendant Company, on December 1919, the Company's interest in an estate called Haturia.... The purchase-price was Rs. 3,20,000. It was also agreed that a sum of Rs. 30,000 should be paid to Mr. Tweedie, the Company's manager as brokerage. There-is no dispute about the payment of these sums. It is also agreed that a further sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid, but the parties differ as to the reason for this payment. The defendants assert that the back rents were not included in the transaction, an...