Kolkata Court April 1925 Judgments
Ramchandra Agarwala and anr. Vs. Syameswari Dasya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1171
Duval, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment. The mother of the present plaintiff bad a house in Gouripur Bazar in the District of Goalpara and in 1901 the defendants became her tenant at the rental of Rs. 90 a year and bad a shop in the premises. In 1910 the house having been found to be dilapidabed the parties met and it was arranged that the lease should continue at Rs. 150 a year after repairs but as the lady had no money the defendants would advance the money for putting the house in order without interest and that the money would be recovered by a deduction of Rs. 75 a year from the present rent of Rs. 150 a year. There was a further term that until the money due on the repairs was repaid the defendants would not be ejected. Shortly after this the mother of the plaintiff who was an old lady of 90 years of age died and has been succeeded by her daughter the present plaintiff. In 1920 the present suit was brought to eject the defendants from the house. The defendants s...
Tag this Judgment!Girish Chandra Choudhury and ors. Vs. Gopal Chandra Poddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1184
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit brought by them under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C. Defendant No. 1 obtained a decree against two persons Kailash and Prokash, said to be tenants of the disputed land, and in execution of that decree he attached the property in suit, The plaintiffs preferred a claim against the attachment which was rejected on the 6th October 1917. Thereafter the property was sold and purchased by Defendant No. 1. Having lost the claim case the plaintiffs brought the present suit for a declaration of their title and for a permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1, restraining him from taking possession of the property sold in execution of the decree and purchased by him. 'The suit was decreed in the first Court, but that decree was reversed in appeal. The facts established by the findings of the lower appellate Court are that Kailash and Prokash obtained a settlement of this land in 1878 before the Transfer of Property Act was passed for the purpose o...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra Agarwala and anr. Vs. Syameswari Dasya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.98
Duval, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment. The mother of the present plaintiff had a house in Gouripur Bazar in the District of Goalpara and in 1901 the defendants became her tenant at the rental of Rs. 90 a year and had a shop in the premises. In 1910 the house having been found to be dilapidated the parties met and it was arranged that the lease should continue at Rs. 150 a year after repairs but as the lady had no money the defendants would advance the money for putting the house in order without interest and that the money would be recovered by a deduction of Rs. 75 a year from the present rent of Rs. 150 a year. There was a further term that until the money due on the repairs was re-paid the defendants would not be ejected. Shortly after this t(SIC) mother of the plaintiff who was an old lady of 90 years of age died and has been succeeded by her daughter the present plaintiff. In 1920 the present suit was brought to eject the defendants from the house. The defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Karuna Charan Das Vs. Krishna Sundar Majumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal179,90Ind.Cas.480
1. In this suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued for a declaration of his title to and for recovery of possession of the land in suit, for compensation for damages and for an in junction on the defendant.2. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and the plaintiff appealed to the District Court. The learned District Judge held that the question of the plaintiff's title was res judicata by reason of a previous decision of the same Court in 1915; and on that finding the learned Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the Court of first instance and ordered that the plaintiff would get a decree declaring his title to the land subject to the defendant's right of way. It was further ordered that each party would bear their own costs.3. The defendant has appealed to this Court and the learned Vakil for the appellant has contended first of all that the judgment of 1915 does not operate as res judicata; secondly, that, the subject-matter of the previous suit i...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Marwari Vs. Upendranath Das Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.463
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a Suit instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,662-8-0 due on an instalment bond executed by the defendant on the 13th May 1899, in favour of the plaintiff and his deceased brother, Ram Kumar Marwari. The suit has been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge and the plaintiff has, thereupon, preferred this appeal. The execution of the bond was not denied by the defendant in his written, statement but several objections were taken by him as to why the plaintiff should not be granted a decree on the bond. Apart from the objections of a formal nature, the first objection was that the bond was not executed by the defendant out of his free will; the second objection was that the sum of Rs. 18,051 that was mentioned in the bond as being the amount for which the defendant had been found liable on adjustment of accounts was not really due to the plaintiff as the accounts has not been properly adjusted and the third objection was tha...
Tag this Judgment!Sarba Sundari (Baxi) Dassi Vs. Panchanon Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.675
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this Rule arises are as follows:2. The petitioner obtained a money-decree against the opposite party and in execution of this decree certain properties belonging to the judgment-debtor opposite party were put up to sale and purchased by the petitioner decree-holder on the 26th March 1924. On the 25th April 1924, the opposite party put in an application under Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C. for setting aside the sale and various dates were fixed for the hearing of the case the last date fixed was the 21st June 1924. On that date the applicant judgment-debtor the opposite party was not present and the application was dismissed for default. On the 18th July 1924 the judgment-debtor opposite party put in an application under Order IX, Rule 4, C.P.C., for setting aside the order of dismissal, the ground apparently being that he was unable to be present on account of the illness of his mother and of himself. The learned Subordinate Judge entirely di...
Tag this Judgment!Prasanna Kumar Datta Vs. Kedarnath Samanta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.497
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued to eject the defendant on the ground that he was an under-raiyat and that he had served upon him notice to quit.2. The First Court decreed the suit.3. The defence of the defendant was that he was not an under-raiyat but a raiyat with a right of occupancy, the plaintiff being a tenure-holder. He also appears to have contended in his written statement that the holding in question was not an agricultural holding. The Trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit holding that the plaintiff was an occupancy raiyat and the defendant an under-raiyat. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that the land in question was governed not by the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act but by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and that the kabuliyat on which the defendant relied granted a permanent right. He further held that even if the land was not governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act but ...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Chandra Kundu and ors. Vs. Jnanendra Chandra Kundu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal116,90Ind.Cas.624
1. These two appeals are both preferred against the same order of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 20th February 1922, by which he directs that a certain award be filed. The parties to this case are members of a joint family being the descendants of one Hira Lal Kundu, The appellants in Appeal No. 133 of 1922 represent all the members of one branch of the family, being Hem Chandra Kundu the son of Hira Lal's son Trilochan, Srimati Madhabi Sundari Dasi, the mother of Hem Chandra and Srimati Bhupati Sundari Dasi his wife. The other parties to this litigation are Kumud Kamini Dasi, widow of Hira Lal's son Gour Mohan Kundu, and the descendants of Gour Mohan. The appellant in appeal No. 210 is Atulashi Dasi widow of Rampada Kundu son of Gour Mohan. In 1915 Bibhuti Bhusan Kundu grandson of Gour Mohan instituted a suit for partition of the family property. That suit was decreed on compromise on the 21st December 1916. The solehnama which was filed on behalf of all the parties was m...
Tag this Judgment!Eseruddi Howaldar and ors. Vs. Otaruddi Akon and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1234
1. We make this Rule absolute.2. In the ease proceedings were instituted under the provisions of Section 145 of the Criminal P.C., and the Honorary Magistrate to whom the case was made over disposed of it in favour of the second party.3. The first party then made an application to the Additional District Magistrate with the prayer that he should refer the case to this Court for setting aside the trying Magistrate's order. The learned Additional District Magistrate, instead of referring the case to this Court, set, aside the decision of the lower Court and sent the case back with directions to the learned Magistrate to hear the evidence of both parties and to try to determine the question of possession in accordance with law.4. It is conceded by the learned pleader, who appears on behalf of the first party, that this order cannot stand and that it ought to be set aside.5. Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute and the order of the Additional District Magistrate passed on the 16th of Dec...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Nath Banerjee Vs. Shashi Bhushan Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal959,92Ind.Cas.223
Ghose, J.1. This is a Reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Hooghly recommending that an order passed under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be set aside.2. The dispute between the parties was with regard to the performance of the puja of an idol. There was no dispute as regards the temple or any land belonging to the idol. The whole question in controversy is whether the right claimed by the first party is a right of user of any land, as explained in Section 145, Sub-Section (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The right is alleged to be a right to go into the temple and to perform the puja, and to take a portion of the offerings made to the idol.3. The learned Sessions Judge is of opinion that this right is not included within the words 'right of user of any land.' He refers to a decision of this Court in the case of Guiram Ghosal v. Lal Behari Das (1910) I. L. R. 37 Calc. 578., in support of his conclusion.4. It is contended on behalf of the first party that ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »