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.
Monoranjan Adya Vs. Bijoy Kumar Adya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.729
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge in Probate proceeding, holding that a certain person had a locus standi to oppose the application for the grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed. A preliminary objection was taken that no appeal lay and we think that the objection is well-founded. Apparently, there is some conflict of decisions in this Court and it is urged before us that by virtue of the provisions of Section 86 of the Probate and Administration Act there is always an appeal from an interlocutory order in Probate and Administration proceedings and it is stated that the reference to the C.P.C. in the section is merely referable to the procedure to be adopted in such an appeal. We think that it is not so and that the appeal by Section 86 is subject to there being a right of appeal against an interlocutory order under the C.P.C. This is the view taken in the case of Lakhi Narain Shaw v. Dhanada Kumar Ghose 15 Ind. Cas. 686 : 17...
Hazi Munshi FazuluddIn Mahammad Vs. Khetra Ghorai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.866
Suhrawardy, J.1. The facts of this case are that defendant No. 3 brought a suit (being Mortgage Suit No. 79 of 1914) against the plaintiffs and obtained an exparte decree against them in execution of which the properties in suit were sold and purchased by defendant No. 1 who obtained symbolical possession of the properties on the 20th February 1916. The present suit was brought on the 28th February 1920 in which the plaintiffs prayed 'to have their possession confirmed after declaration of their alleged title to the lands in suit or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the disputed lands, after declaration that the decree in the mortgage Suit No. 79 of 1914 and the auction-sale in execution thereof were fraudulent and void, and if necessary, after setting aside the decree.' One of the pleas raised by the defendants was that of limitation and that is the only point pressed before us on behalf of the defendants-appellants. The plaintiff in his plaint alleged that he came to k...
(Hazi Munshi) Fazlu-uddIn Mohammad Vs. Khetra Ghorai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal167
Suhrawardy, J.1. The facts of this case are that Defendant No. 3 brought a suit (being Mortgage Suit No. 79 of 1914) against the plaintiffs and obtained an ex-parte decree against them in execution of which the properties in suit were sold and purchased by Defendant No. 1 who obtained symbolical possession of the properties on the 20th February 1916. The present suit was brought on the 28th February 1920 in which the plaintiffs prayed 'to have their possession confirmed after declaration of their alleged title to the lands in suit, or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the disputed lands, after declaration that the decree in the Mortgage Suit No. 79 of 1914 and the auction sale in execution thereof were fraudulent and void, and if necessary, after setting aside the decree.' One of the pleas raised by the defendants was that of limitation and that is the only point pressed before us on behalf of the defendant-appellant. The plaintiff in his plaint alleged that he came to k...
Bejoy Chand Mahatab Vs. Beni Madhab Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal936,90Ind.Cas.71
Chakravarti, J.1. (S.A. No. 676 of 1923).--This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit brought by him for assessment of fair and equitable rent for the lands in suit on the ground stated in Section 30, clause (6) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and after assessment of fair and equitable rents for a decree for rent payable for the years 1324 to 1327 B.S. The defence of the defendants was that no between the parties, and secondly that the rent ought not to be varied or enhanced.2. The Court of first instance raised three issues-first, whether there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; secondly, what was the tjama, and whether the rent was liable to be enhanced; and if so, what should be the enhanced rate. The third issue was a general issue as to the relief to which the plaintiff was entitled. The trial Count, upon the evidence, decided the first issue against the plaintiff, and held that no relationship of landlord and tenant was established by the...
Bejoy Chand Mahatab Vs. Beni Madhab Chaudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal689
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit brought by him for assessment of fair and equitable rent for the lands in suit on the ground stated in Section 30, Clause (b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and after assessment of fair and equitable rent for a decree for rent payable for the years 1324 to 1327 B.S. The defence of the defendants was that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, and secondly that the rent ought not to be varied or enhanced.2. The Court of first instance raised three issues---first, whether there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; secondly, what was the jama, and whether the rent was liable to be enhanced and if so, what should be the enhanced, rate. The third issue was a general issue as to the relief to which the plaintiff was entitled. The trial Court, upon the evidence, decided the first issue against the plaintiff, and held that no relationship of landlord and tenant was...
Satish Chandra Ghosh Vs. Debendra Nath De and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal264,90Ind.Cas.820
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Mukerji, dated the 24th March 1924. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff to eject defendant No. 1 from the land in suit as a trespasser. Defendant No 2 is the malik of the land and he granted a permanent lease of the land which consists of two plots to the plaintiff. The plaintiff went to take possession of the land and found the first defendant in occupation of the land. The first plot consists of two bighas and 13 cottas odd and the second of some 11 cottas and 15 chhataks. Both are situated in the town of Hooghly and the main contentions addressed to us in this appeal have been with regard to the first plot because I understand that the appellant admits that if he fails in his appeal with regard to the first plot he cannot succeed with regard to the second plot as his contentions with regard thereto are not so strong as with regard to the first...
Gus Alexander Mackenzie Vs. Himalaya Assurance Co., Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal745,94Ind.Cas.381
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff Mr. Gus Alexander Mackenzie against the decision of my learned brother Mr. Justice Pearson which was delivered on the 17th of April 1924.2. The plaintiff sued to recover a large sum of money as damages from the Himalaya Assurance Co., Ltd., for the alleged breach of an agreement by which the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, Rajabally, were appointed Managing Agents of the Company.3. The 2nd defendant was joined as a party to the suit, because it was alleged that the plaintiff had requested Rajabally to join as a plaintiff in the suit but Rajabally had declined so to do. Therefore, the plaintiff had joined him as a defendant.4. The plaintiff and Rajabally were in partnership. There were two agreements which dealt with the matter of partnership. The first was dated the 24th of September 1919 and the second one was dated the 29th of May 1920. In the interval, the Company had been registered on the 27th of October 1919 and the a...
Hari Mati Dasi Vs. Hari Dasi Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal991
1. This is a Reference under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Districts Magistrate of Howrah recommending that an order passed by the Deputy Magistrate under Section 147 (2) of the Code be set aside.2. The facts are that the first party complained that the second party raised a wall on her own land blocking the windows in the house of the first party and thereby shut out light and air from the western room in that house. The Deputy Magistrate found that the first party was enjoying the right of access to light and air through the windows in question for the last two years, and as the putting up of the wall by the second party was admitted, he held that it was not necessary for him to discuss the evidence in the case. The only point that he considered to be important was whether there was likelihood of a breach of the peace and he held tinder the circumstances, although there was no direct evidence in support of his finding, that there was likelihood of a breach of the ...
Dhirendra Nath Ghose and ors. Vs. Charushashi Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.431
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs under Section 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Mr. Justice Duval. The suit was one for rent and the contention of the tenant was that he was only liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 30-10-8 gandas whereas the landlord claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 39. Before I state the questions that arise in this appeal it is necessary to state a few facts. On the 15th June 1914 proceedings were started by the landlord for enhancement of rent under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The judgment in that case was delivered on the 24th December 1915 fixing the rate of rent at Rs. 39 in accordance with an entry in the Record of Rights. In the meantime subsequent to the institution of the proceedings under Section 105 and whilst these were pending the landlord commenced a suit for rent against the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent, Beni Kanta Banerjee. The decree was passed in that suit on the 25th August 1915 on t...
Dukhu Mia and ors. and Vs. Maharaj Jagadish Nath Roy Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.564
Duval, J.1. These two appeals are brought by two tenants against an order of the Additional District Judge of Dinajpur in appeal upholding the respondent landlords, contention that he was entitled to get enhanced rent from these tenants under Section 30, Bengal Tenancy Act, the presumption arising under Section 50 having been rebutted. The landlord's case was that rent was not fixed and that the presumption under Section 50 did not arise as the rent varied at various items since the time of the Permanent Settlement. The Munsif found that the presumption of fixity of rent had not been rebutted as there had been no change in the rate of rent anyhow since 1849 and that jamawasilbaki papers of an earlier date were not conclusive to show that the jamas did not exist back to the time of the Permanent, Settlement. The Munsif, therefore, disallowed the claim for enhancement and decreed the rent at the former rent. In appeal the learned Additional District. Judge has mainly relied on the jamawa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »