Kolkata Court April 1925 Judgments
Surendra Nath Banerjee and ors. Vs. Shoshi Bhusan Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal437
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is a Reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Hughli, 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 6 C.W.N. 548 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The right is alleged to be a right to go upon 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 Bekari Das [1910] 37 Cal. 578, in support of his conclusion.4. It is contended on behalf of the first party th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A.E. Alexander and Co. Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal852
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In this matter the applicants, who are the liquidators of the above Company, apply for an order that the persons named in the prayer of the petition may be ordered to attend before this Court and be examined under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act as to certain charges made against them in the petition and be ordered to pay forthwith to the applicants as liquidators the sums mentioned against their names with such interest thereon as may be allowed.2. As regards one of the said persons, namely, Mr. the matter was gone into at some length before me on the 25th March, 1925. On the next day i.e., the 26th March, 1925, I was informed by Mr. Avetoom, Counsel for the applicants, that his clients had arranged with Mr. certain terms of settlement and that they desired that the application as against Mr. should stand over till the 30th June, 1925. One of the liquidators, Mr. Law, made an affidavit to the effect that he had considered the terms of settlement between the...
Tag this Judgment!Behari Lal Manna Vs. Mural Dhar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal287,90Ind.Cas.567
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit in which the plaintiffs sued for enhancement of rent on the ground of rise in the price of staple food crops. The facts are that the land was debutter of certain Barals of which one Radhamadhab was the shebait who on the 27th September 1889 granted a mourashi mokarrari patta to the defendant's predecessors. There was a suit in the original side of the High Court for the better management of the property and the land now in suit was directed by the Court to be sold, presumably as a secular property for the realization of the costs of the suit. It was purchased by one Haridhon Dutt whose estate afterwards went into the hands of a Receiver from whom the plaintiff purchased the property. The defendant was in possession of the land at an annual jama of Rs. 62 and the present suit is for enhancement of the rent of that jama. The learned Munsif decreed the plaintiffs' claim and enhanced the jama to Rs. 7-15-9. That decree was confirmed on appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Jorina Aktar Khatun Vs. HafezuddIn Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal242,90Ind.Cas.633
Ewart Greaves, J.1. Defendant No. 1 in the suit appeals against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh confirming a decision of the Munsif of Netrakona directing restitution of conjugal rights at the instance of the plaintiff the husband of the appellant.2. Both parties are Sunnis and governed by the Hanafi School. The marriage took place on the 21st Kartick 1315 and the parties lived together as husband and wife. The appellant left her husband in Aswin 1322 and after this as a result of land disputes between defendant No. 7 and the plaintiff criminal proceedings under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code were instituted, these were settled by a compromise which was reduced to writing, one of the terms of the compromise was that the plaintiff should divorce his wife. The compromise was subsequently set aside at the husband's instance and both Courts have found that the plaintiff signed the terms of compromise under compulsion and the question is whether according to the Hana...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahman Mia and ors. Vs. Srimati Salimannessa Bibi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.121
Panton, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Tippera, modifying a decision of the Munsif, Seventh Court, Comilla. The suit was one for enforcement of a mortgage-bond executed in favour of two persons, Aftabuddin and Abdul Waned, Aftahuddm is dead; he left two heirs. One of these is the first plaintiff. The other was Aftabuddin's sister Majidnnnessa. The second plaintiff is Abdul Waited. The learned Munsif was of opinion that the failure to join Majidunnessa's heirs as parties to the suit was in violation of Order XXXIV, Ruler 1, of the C.P.C. and for that reason the suit must fail; he accordingly dismissed the tilt. The learned Subordinate Judge, on the other hand, relying upon certain decisions of this Court, which lie has cited in his judgment, has held that 'the suit is maintainable for plaintiff No l's half the share of Altafuddin's half share.' He adds 'the plaintiff will recover three-fourths of the money due on the mortgage deducting Rs. 125 paid...
Tag this Judgment!DhirajuddIn Bepari Vs. Baharulla Sheikh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal318
Cuming, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a mortgage bond executed by the Defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff on the 2nd April 1909. The amount secured by the bond was Rs. 400 and the total amount claimed was Rs. 1,000. The plaintiff's suit was resisted by Defendant No. 2 who was a subsequent purchaser of the mortgaged property. He contended that the bond was collusive and without consideration. The Defendant No. 1 in his written statement pleaded part payment. He did not, however, appear at the trial to contest the suit.2. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that the transaction was not a real one and that the plaintiff had not proved the execution of the mortgage.3. The plaintiff appealed and on appeal the learned Subordinate Judge admitted certain additional evidence, namely, the statement of one Arabuddin who was the writer of the mortgage-bond and whom the plaintiff desired to examine on commission in the lower Court on the grou...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A.E. Alexander and Co. Ltd. in Liquidation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.672
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In this matter the applicants, who are the Liquidators of the above Company, apply for an order that the persons named in the prayer of the petition may be ordered to attend before this Court and be examined under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act as to certain charges made against them in the petition and be ordered to pay forthwith to the applicants as Liquidators the sums mentioned against their names, with such interest thereon as may be allowed.2. As regards one of the said persons, namely, Mr....the matter was gone into at some length before me on the 25th March 1925. On the next day, i.e., the 26th March 1925, I was informed by Mr. Avetoon, Counsel for the applicants, that his clients had arranged with Mr....certain terms of settlement and that they desired that the application as against Mr....should stand over till the 30th June 1925. One of the Liquidators, Mr. Law madean affidavit to the effect that he had considered the terms of settlement between ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahaman Mia and ors. Vs. Salimannessa Bibi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal416
Panton, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Tippera, modifying a decision of the Munsif, Seventh Court, Comilla. The suit was one for enforcement of a mortgage-bond executed in favour of two persons, Aftabuddin and Abdul Wahed. Aftabuddin is dead; he left two heirs. One of these is the first plaintiff. The other was Aftabuddin's sister Majidunnessa. The second plaintiff is Abdul Wahed. The learned Munsif was of opinion that the failure to join Majidunnessa's heirs as parties to the suit was in violation of Order 34 Rule 1, of the Civil P.C., and for that reason the suit mutt fail; he accordingly dismissed the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, on the other hand, relying upon certain decisions of this Court which he has cited in his judgment, has held that 'the suit is maintainable for Plaintiff No. 1's half, the share of Altafuddin's half-share.' Ho adds; 'The plaintiff will recover three-fourths of the money due on the mortgage deducting Rs. 125 pai...
Tag this Judgment!Durlav Chandra Chowdhuri and ors. Vs. JamiruddIn Ahamed Chowdhuri and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.405
1. This appeal by the darpatnidars raises important questions relating to the rights of the zemindar as against the darpatnidar. The predecessor of the plaintiff-respondent granted a patni settlement to one Lakshmi Narain in 1293 B.S. in respect of three mouzas. The rent reserved was Rs. 256 a year. Of two of these mouzas Lakhsmi Narain granted in 1303 to one Masraf Ali, now represented by defendant No. 9, a darpatni lease on a yearly rent of Rs. 228. Lakshmi Narain died leaving four sons defendants Nos 10 to 13. In 1321 defendants Nos. 12 and 13 executed a darpatni lease in favour of one Madan Mohan of their share in the third mouza on a yearly rent of Rs. 20. In 1322 the other two sons of Lakshmi, the defendants Nos. 10 and 11, granted a darpatni lease in respect of their shares in the third mouza Mahabasi to their own sons defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for a yearly rent of Rs. 20. Plaintiff's case is that his predecessor had obtained a decree against the patnidar for arrears of rent in ex...
Tag this Judgment!DhirajuddIn Bepari Vs. Baharulla Sheikh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.630
Cuming, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a mortgage-bond executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff on the 2nd April 1909. The amount secured by the bond was Rs. 400 and the total amount claimed was Rs. 1,000. The plaintiff's suit was resisted by defendant No. 2 who was a subsequent purchaser of the mortgaged property. He contended that the bond was collusive and without consideration. The defendant No. 1 in his written statement pleaded part payment. He did not, however, appear at the trial to contest the suit.2. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that the transaction was not a real one and that the plaintiff had not proved the execution of the mortgage.3. The plaintiff appealed and on appeal the learned Subordinate Judge admitted certain additional evidence, namely, the statement of one Arabuddin who was the writer of the mortgage-bond and whom the plaintiff desired to examine on commission in the' lower Court on the gro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »