Kolkata Court April 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.
Shama Charan De Vs. Srimati Reebala Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal792,96Ind.Cas.682
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of, certain proceedings in connection with revocation of a Probate granted in respect of a Will of one Basanta Kumar De. Basanta. Kumar De died leaving a widow Reebala Daesi, his brother Sital Chandra De, and-three nephews, Biman Chandra De, Probodh Chandra De and Shama Charan De. The last mentioned person is the appellant in this appeal. After the death of Basanta Kumar De, the widow, Reebala Dassi, and her brother one Poran Chandra Sen applied for Probate of the Will. The application was made on the 9th January, 1923, and the usual notices and special citations were ordered to be issued upon the brother Sital Chandra De and the nephews Biman Chandra De, Probodh Chandra De and Shama Charan De. The nephews did not enter appearance, but the brother Sital Chandra De, on the 10th March, 1923, put in an objection to the grant of the Probate and in the application which he filed on that day he stated that the Will had not been executed by Basanta Kumar D...
Chandi Charan Law Vs. Meher Banu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal910
Cuming and Chakravarti, JJ.1. These five appeals raise a point of some importance. The plaintiff in all the five appeals is the landlord and he sues for arrears of rent of 1323, 1324, 1325 and 1326 B. S. in respect of a certain taluk and four jotes. The suit for rent was brought under the terms of a kabuliyat for additional rent for an additional area which had been found in certain settlement proceedings under v Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It would appear that there were certain settlement proceedings under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act and during the course of those proceedings the landlord applied under Section 105 for settlement of fair rents in respect of the taluk and the four jotes on the ground of additional rent for additional area The Settlement Officer has given an increased rent for the increased area. The landlord has now sued for rent of the original area plus the back rents for the additional area which has been found to be in the defendants' possession ...
Chandi Charan Law Vs. Meher Banu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.1016
1. These five appeals raise a point of some importance. The plaintiff in all the five appeals is the landlord and he sues for arrears of rent of 1323, 1324, 1325 and 1326 B.S. in respect of a certain taluk and four jotes. The suit for rent was brought under the terms of a kabuliyat for addition al rent for an additional area which had been found in certain settlement proceedings under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It would appear that there were certain settlement proceedings under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act and during the course of those proceedings the landlord applied under Section 105 for settlement of fair remits in respect of the taluk and the four jotes on the ground of additional rent for additional area. The Settlement Officer has given an increase I rent for the increased area. The landlord has now sued for rent of the original area plus the back rents for the additional area which has been found to be in the defendants' possession by the Settlement Officer....
Suresh Chandra Samaddar and ors. Vs. Mathura Nath GaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1187,90Ind.Cas.47
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the Plaintiffs against a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Backerganj, confirming a decision of the Munsiff of the 3rd Court of Perojpur. The plaintiff sued for rent for the years 1322 to 1325 under a lease dated the 5th March 1879; whereby in respect of the demised area of 8 bighas rent at the rate of Rs. 35 a year was reserved for the whole area comprised in the demise. The defence of the defendants was firstly, that the rent had been paid and secondly, that after the lease the plaintiffs in the year 1897 let out a portion of the land comprised in the demise of 1879 to other persons. Consequently, they contend, and the Courts have so found that the defendants were dispossessed of roughly half of the demised area and they accordingly say that under these circumstances they are not liable to pay rent. Both the lower Courts have taken this view and have dismissed the suit.2. Various arguments were urged before us on behalf of the appellants...
Husena Banoo and Ors. Vs. Hon'ble Brojendra Kishore Roy Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal82,89Ind.Cas.373
Cuming, J.1. In the three suits out of which these three appeals have arisen the plaintiff sued the defendants for arrears of rent on the following facts. In a Settlement Record the three holdings for which the plaintiff now sues were shown as liable to assessment of rent. The plaintiff brought proceedings under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act against the defendants for assessment of fair and equitable rent. While these cases were pending defendants No. 1 and 2 executed a kabuliyat on their own behalf and defendant No. 1, on behalf of defendants Nos. 3,4 and 5 in respect of the three holdings and upon this the proceedings under Section 105 were withdrawn. The plaintiff, has now sued for rent for these three holdings on the basis of the kabuliyats. The defence was, firstly, that the kabuliyats were brought about by undue influence, fraud and coercion and that, therefore, they were not binding on them; and secondly, that defendant No. 1 is a parddnashin lady and that defendant No. ...
Kali Das Raha Vs. Deodhari Mistri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1214
1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 341, Indian Penal Code. He was clearly to blame in not clearly raising in the lower Courts the defence that he was entitled to the Exception to Section 339, Indian Penal Code. He foolishly denied having erected a wail as alleged by the complainant. But at the same time he contended that the wall which had been erected was on his own land. The dispute between the parties is evidently one which can better be determined in the civil than in the criminal Court. The complainant's own case is somewhat vague, and we are not even now sure whether he claims an absolute right to the strip of land in dispute, or whether be claims a public right of way, or private right of way, for all purposes, or a mere right to go over this land, when it is necessary to do so in order to repair the south wall of his house. However that may be, we can see no reason to doubt that the obstruction put up by the petitioner was put up in good faith because the believ...
Narendra Chandra Rudra Pal Vs. Sabarali Bhuiya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal822,(1925)ILR52Cal721
Walmsley, J.1. The question referred is whether the provisions of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code are applicable to an enquiry under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The difficulty arises from the requirement that the deposition of each witness should be read over to him in the presence of the accused, if in attendance, or of his pleader, if he appears by pleader, and the question for our decision becomes nothing more than this, viz., whether persons against whom proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code have been initiated are accused within the meaning of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The word ' accused ' is one of the words that have not been defined in any statute. Our attention has been drawn to various decisions in which a definition has been attempted. For the purpose for which those decisions were given they may be accepted as correct; but I do not think it necessary to consider whether the definition may be regarded as s...
Gajendra NaraIn Maity Vs. Sita Nath Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.637
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal raises a question which is not covered directly by authorities of this Court. It appears that the defendant borrowed Rs. 350 from the plaintiff on a note of hand dated the 4th April 1916. The present suit was brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of principal with interest at the stipulated rate of 36 per cent per annum. The defendant admitted execution of the note of hand but pleaded tender of the amount due on the 13th July 1916. It is found by the lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff unlawfully refused to accept the money that was tendered to him. It was first sent by the defendant through his servant and on the refusal of the plaintiff to accept it, it was sent by money order on the 15th July 1916. The lower Appellate Court, therefore, held that the tender was good and that the defendants' plea was substantiated. But as the defendant did not deposit the' money in Court either before or after filing of the written statement, the learned Judge though...
Ram Pada Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Basanta Baishnabi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.881
1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Rajshahi recommending that the order made by the Deputy Magistrate of Malda, dated the 30th September 1924, under Section 3 of the Eastern Bengal and Assam Disorderly Houses Act (Act II of 1907), be set aside.2. On a petition submitted to the Magistrate of Malda by 25 residents in the vicinity summonses were served on 31 persons, described as owners and 87 persons described as occupiers directing them to appear before the Magistrate on the 30th September 1924. After questioning the persons who appeared before him and examining witnesses, but without administering any oath to the witnesses, or recording their evidence or the statements of the persons, against whom the proceedings had been taken, the Magistrate passed the following order: 'I am satisfied that the houses occupied by the women named below are used as brothels and for the purpose of habitual prostitution and they and the owners of the houses occupied by them named...
Rama Pada Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Basanta Baishnabi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal307
1. This is a Reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Rajshahi recommending that the order made by the Deputy Magistrate of Malda, dated the 30th September 1921, under Section 3 of the Eastern Bengal and Assam Disorderly Houses Act (Act II of 1907) be set aside.2. On a petition submitted to the Magistrate of Malda by 25 residents in the vicinity summonses were served on 31 persons described as owners and 87 persons described as occupiers directing them to appear before the Magistrate on the 30th September 1924. After questioning the persons who appeared before him and examining witnesses, but without administering any oath to the witnesses or recording their evidence or the statements of the persons against whom the proceedings had been taken, the Magistrate passed the following order: 'I am satisfied that the houses occupied by the women named below are used as brothels and for the purpose of habitual prostitution and they and the owners of the houses occupied by them named in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »