Kolkata Court April 1925 Judgments
Mohini Mohan Saha Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Meajan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.673
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises is based upon the following facts. There were five plots of land which were settled at a consolidated juma with the tenant-defendants by the pro forma defendants who claimed an exclusive title to the lands. The plaintiffs thereupon brought a suit against the pro forma defendants and the tenant-defendants claiming exclusive title to the land and for khas possession. The suit was decreed in the plaintiffs' favour in the first Court and their title to the lands was declared, but their claim for khas possession was refused. The pro forma defendants preferred an appeal against that decision; and in the Appellate Court the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants came to a compromise under which the plaintiffs got three of the plots and the two remaining plots remained the property of the pro forma defendants. The tenant defendants were parties in the suit as well as in the appeal, but they were not parties to the compromise. Under the compromise th...
Tag this Judgment!Walter Mitchell Vs. A.K. Tennent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1007,90Ind.Cas.59
Page, J.1. By consent the evidence which has been adduced before me is to be treated as evidence in both suits subject to the extent to which the evidence or any part thereof may be relevant to particular issues in either of the two suits.2. The matters in controversy arise out of a dispute relating to an alleged order given by Tennent to Mitchell to back a horse called 'Better Hope' at the Barrackpore Races on the 2nd April, 1923. I take Colonel Tennent's suit first.3. The claim in this suit is to recover the sum of Rs. 9,000, being the balance of a sum which it is alleged was received by Mitchell as the proceeds of a bet made by Mitchell on behalf of Tennent, the residue Rs. 11,000, having been paid on the 4th April, 1923, by Mitchell to Tennent. There is an alternative claim to recover Rs. 20,000 under an alleged agreement set out in the plaint.4. Now, in my opinion, the first claim in this suit is wholly misconceived. Neither in this country nor in England has the Legislature gone ...
Tag this Judgment!Walter Mitchell Vs. A. K. Tennent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal677
Page, J.1. By consent the evidence which has been adduced before me is to be treated as evidence in both suits subject to the extent to which the evidence or any part thereof may be relevant to particular issues in either of the two suits.2. The matters in controversy arise out of a dispute relating to an alleged order given by Tennent to Mitchell to back a horse called 'Better Hope' at the Barrackpore Races on the 2nd April 1923. I take Colonel Tennent's suit first.3. The claim in this suit is to recover the sum of Rs. 9,000 being the balance of a sum which it is alleged was received by Mitchell as the proceeds of a bet made by Mitchell on behalf of Tennent, the residue Rs. 11,000 having been paid on the 4th April 1923 by Mitchell to Tennent. There is an alternative claim to recover Rs. 20,000 under an alleged agreement set out in the plaint.4. Now, in my opinion, the first claim in this suit is wholly misconceived. Neither in this country nor in England has the Legislature gone so fa...
Tag this Judgment!Sreemati Rakhya Mani Debi Vs. Paramesh Chakrabarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.89
Cuming, J.1. In the suit oat of which this appeal arises the plaintiff sought to eject the defendant from a certain parcel of land, the area being about 1 bigha 10 cottas, on the ground that the defendant was tenant-at-will and had no transferable and permanent right to the land and that the plaintiff had served a notice on the defendant to quit.2. The case of the defendant was that the case was governed not by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act but by the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, that the land was originally obtained for horticultural purposes and hence the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act did not apply but the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act would apply.3. Both the lower Courts have decided against the plaintiff, holding on a consideration of all the facts and on a construction of the kabuliyat (Ex. No. 13) that the land was taken for horticultural purposes. After a careful consideration of the kabuliyat Ex. No. 13 I am not prepared to say that...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gopaldas Aurora
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal640,94Ind.Cas.793
Buckland, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 8 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act against an order of the Registrar in Insolvency refusing to adjudicate the petitioner insolvent upon his own petition. That the matter is one with which the Registrar has been duly empowered to deal is not in question.2. The petition is in form No. 7 to be found in the appendix of forms to the Insolvency Rules of this Court made under Sections 112 and 114 of the Act, and, as pointed out by learned Counsel, it contains averments which will bring the application within the relevant sections of the Act, and are, therefore, necessary for the purpose of obtaining the order.3. Section 9 states that a debtor commits an act of insolvency: '(f) if he petitions to be adjudged an insolvent.' Section 10 provides that subject to the conditions specified in the Act if a debtor commits an act of insolvency, he may present an insolvency petition and the Court may on such petition make an order adjudging him an inso...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chandra Banerjee Vs. Bhutnath Sasmal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.411
Duval, J.1. In this case the plaintiff brought a suit in ejectment and for an cars of rent and damages in respect of a piece of land, said to measure 1 bigha, 17 cotlas, which was leased to the defendants by a pottah dated the 27th November 1889. The plaintiff's case was that he served on the defendants a notice to quit and determined the lease. The first Court found that the defendants' tenancy was a tenancy under the Bengal Tenancy Act, that notice was not duly served under that Act and that the defendants could not be ejected except tinder the provisions of Section 25, Bengal Tenancy Act. The learned Subordinate Judge on appeal confirmed this order and against his order the present appeal is brought.2. Now the main point in this appeal is whether on the construction of the pottah this tenure is one which comes under the Bengal Tenancy Act at all or is a tenancy which comes under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. It appears that on the land in suit at the time of the le...
Tag this Judgment!Priya Nath Chatterjee and anr. Vs. Lakshmi Narayan Bhattacharjee and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1139
Suhrawardy, J.1. The facts upon which the present suit was brought by the plaintiff-respondents are these: On the 18th September 1896 and 1st July 1899 one Sashi Bhusan Bhattacharji husband and father of the plaintiffs borrowed certain sums on notes of band from Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. On the 5th December 1902 Sashi Bhusan Bhattacharji and his co-sharers, including Defendant No. 2, executed a deed of crust in favour of two co-sharers, one of whom was Defendant No. 1 Priya Nath Chatterji. Under the deed the trustees took upon themselves the charge of all necessary duties for the management and protection of the joint estate. In December 1903, Sashi Bhusan died leaving a widow Plaintiff No. 2 and two sons Plaintiff No. l and one Haladhar who subsequently died childless leaving his mother, the second plaintiff, as heir. On the 3rd April 1904 the defendants Nos. l and 2 sued the two sons of Sashi Bhusan on the hand notes and on. the 23rd August obtained a decree' against them as represent...
Tag this Judgment!Pria Nath Chatterjee and anr. Vs. Lakshmi Narayan Bhattacharjya and an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.835
Suhrawardy, J.1. The facts upon Which the present suit was brought by the plaintiffs-respondents are these: On the 18th September 1896 and 1st July 1899 one Sashi Bhusan Bhattacharjee husband and father of the plaintiffs borrowed certain sums on notes of hand from defendants Nos. 1 and 2. On the 5th December 1902 Sashi Bhusan Bhattacharjee and his co-sharers including defendant No. 2 executed a deed of trust in favour of two co-sharers one of whom was defendant No. 1 Priya Nath Chatterjee. Under the deed the trustees took upon themselves the charge of all necessary duties for the management and protection of the joint estate. In December 1903 Sashi Bhusan died leaving a widow plaintiff No. 2 and two sons plaintiff No. 1 and one Haladhar. Haladhar subsequently died childless leaving his mother the 2nd plaintiff as heir. On the 3rd April 1904 the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 sued the two sons of Sashi Bhusan on the hand-notes and on the 23rd August obtained a decree against them as representi...
Tag this Judgment!Francis Higgins Pell Vs. Minnie Gregory
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal834
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Reference by my learned brother, Walmsley, J., and me to a Full Bench.2. The facts of the ease are set out in the referring judgment and it is therefore not necessary for me to state them again.3. My learned brother and I decided that Article 183 of the Limitation Act of 1908 does not apply to the Appellant's application for a decree under Order 34, Rule 6 of the first schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.4. We were of opinion that Article 181 is applicable, but we found that there is decision of a Division Bench of this Court, viz., Biswambhar Shaha v. Ram Sundar Kaibarta [1915] 42 Cal. 294, to the effect that Article 181 does not apply to an application under Order 34, Rule 6. The basis of that decision was that, in a mortgage suit in which there has been a decree for sale and in which the plaintiff had his personal remedy at the date of the institution of the suit, no exception by way of limitation would arise with regard to an application under ...
Tag this Judgment!F. H. Pell Vs. M. Gregory
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal828
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a reference by my learned brother, Walmsley J., and me to a Full Bench.2. The facts of the case are set out in the referring judgment, and it is, therefore, not necessary for me to state them again.3. My learned brother and I decided that Article 183 of the Limitation Act of 1908 does not apply to the appellant's application for a decree under Order XXXIV, rule 6 of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.4. We were of opinion that Article 181 is applicable, but we found that there is a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, viz., Bisivambhar Shaha v. Ram Sundar Kaibarta (1914) I. L. R. 42 Calc. 294, to the effect that Article 181 does not apply to an application under Order XXXIV, rule 6. The basis of that decision was that, in a mortgage suit in which there has been a decree for sale and in which the plaintiff had his personal remedy at the date of the institution of the suit, no exception by way of limitation would arise with regard to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »