Kolkata Court May 1925 Judgments
Ramesh Chandra Guha Bahadur and ors. Vs. Dinesh Chandra Guha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1010,90Ind.Cas.512
1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Dacoa, dated the 6th February 1925, by which the learned Subordinate Judge held that the application by the petitioners under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, could not be maintained. The facts are that a suit for accounts and declaration of title was instituted and subsequently referred to the arbitration of three arbitrators. The arbitrators submitted their award to which the defendants took several objections. On the date of hearing the petitioners applied for time for summoning their witnesses which was refused. Thereafter the Court pronounced judgment in accordance with the award. Subsequently the petitioners filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, which has been rejected on the ground that it is not maintainable. Two objections have been taken against this order. In the first place it is argued that the order of the Court below is wrong inasmuch as the order decreeing the suit was an order passed un...
Tag this Judgment!Sourab Bibi and ors. Vs. Abbas Ali Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.725
Ewart Greaves, J.1. It is necessary first of all to state the facts which arise in this appeal. There was a raiyati holding which was the property of two brothers Molam and Madhab. Molam died without leaving any issue and the whole 16 annas there upon passed to Madhab who died in the year 1904 or 1905 leaving him surviving three sons and two daughters one of whom is the plaintiff No. 1 in the suit, the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 being the heirs of the 2nd daughter. In 1914 the holding was attached at the instance of one Ijjatulla. As the result of a compromise Ijjatulla got 6 1/2 annas and the heirs of Madhab the remaining 9 1/2 annas. Madhabs three sons in the year 1919 transferred their interest in the property to defendant No. 1 in the suit. Up to that time the heirs of Madhab, that is to say, his three sons had been in possession of the property.2. The First Court decreed the plaintiffs' suit which was to establish their title to 4 annas of the property and for joint possession thereto...
Tag this Judgment!The Port Canning and Land Improvement Company Limited Vs. Heirs of Lat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.37
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a decision of the learned District Judge of 24-Pargannas, affirming a decision of the Subordinate Judge of the Third Court of Alipur. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the Port Canning and Land Improvement Company, Ltd., as landlords to recover from the defendants who were non-occupancy raiyats rent for a period of seven years from 132U to 1326.2. There is no dispute with regard to the years 1323 to 1326 inclusive. But the dispute between the parties is as to whether or not the rent for the years 1320; 1321 and 1322 is barred by limitation. The appellants contend that their claim for these three years is not barred and they say that this is so because during these years they were prosecuting a claim under the provisions of Section 46 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. These proceedings were commenced on the 28th of March 1913. Now, the suit under Section 46 was dismissed by the first Court, and by the lower A...
Tag this Judgment!Port Canning and Land Improvement Company Ltd. Vs. Achhiruddi Mollah a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal693
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a decision of the learned District Judge of 24-Parganas affirming a decision of the Subordinate Judge of the 3rd Court of Alipur. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the Port Canning and Land Improvement Company, Ltd. as landlords to recover from the defendants who were non-occupancy raiyats rent for a period of seven years from 1320 to 1326.2. There is no dispute with regard to the year's 1323 to 1326 inclusive. But the dispute between the parties is as to whether or not the rent for the years 1320, 1321 and 1322 is barred by limitation. The appellants contend that their claim for these three years is not barred and say that this is so because during these years they were prosecuting a claim under the provisions of Section 46 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. These proceedings were commenced on the 28th of March 1913. Now, the suit under Section 46 was dismissed by the first Court and by the lower appellate Court. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bejoy Singh Hazari Vs. Mathuriya Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1182
Panton, J.1. It remains to consider the subject of the other Rule, No. 3 of 1925, which has been obtained by Bijoy Singh Hazari who is one of the three persons in respect of whom an application was made to the learned Subordinate Judge for the institution of criminal proceedings.2. It is necessary to deal very shortly with certain matters which led up to the making of this application. In the year 1910, one Sattan Kumari obtained a decree for arrears of maintenance for Rs. 2,500 against Mathuriya Debya and others. Thereafter, numerous applications for execution of this decree appear to have been made-whether they were in fact made or whether the entries relating to them which appear in the Court registers are forgeries is a matter of dispute, However, the material applications were: No. 104 of 1911, which the register would show was made by Sattan Kumari. Then again No. 736 of 1914 and No. 1255 of 1918 and finally No. 152 of 1921. Sattan Kumari died on the 20th of March 1922. By her wi...
Tag this Judgment!Chunder Kumar Sen Vs. Mathuriya Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1228
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Rule obtained on behalf of Chunder Kumar Sen on the 23rd of April 1925 calling upon the District Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause, why the order complained of should not be set aside or such other order passed in the matter as to this Court might seem fit and proper.2. The order complained of was made by the learned District Judge of Chittagong on the 31st of January 1925, whereby the learned Judge directed that criminal proceedings should be instituted against Chunder Kumar San and Bejoy Singh Hazari for offences under Sections 209 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code and for abetment of these offences.3. This Rule deals with the case of Chunder Kumar Sen only. I think it to necessary to mention certain date?. It appears that an application was made to the learned Subordinate Judge for filing a complaint against the petitioner Chunder Kumar San. That application was disposed of on the 1st of October, 1923, By that time the amendment of the Crimin...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Kumar Sen Vs. Mathuria Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal1009
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Rule obtained on behalf of Chandra Kumar Sen, on the 23rd of April 1925, calling upon the District Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside, or such other order passed in the matter as to this Court might seem fit and proper.2. The order complained of was made by the learned District Judge of Chittagong, on the 31st of January 1925, whereby the learned Judge directed that criminal proceedings should be instituted against Chandra Kumar Sen and Bijoy Singh Hazari for offences under Sections 209 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code, and for abetment of these offences.3. This Rule deals with the case of Chandra Kumar Sen only. I think it is necessary to mention certain dates. It appears that an application was made to the learned Subordinate Judge for filing a complaint against the petitioner Chandra Kumar Sen. That application was disposed of on the 1st of October 1923. By that time the amendment of the Cri...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Kumar Sen Vs. Srimati Mathuriya Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.529
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Rule obtained on behalf of Chandra Kumar Sen on the 23rd of April 1925, calling upon the District Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside or such other order passed in the matter as to this Court might seem fit and proper.2. The order complained of was made by the learned District Judge of Chittagong on the 31st of January 1925, whereby the learned Judge directed that criminal proceedings should be instituted against Chandra Kumar Sen and Bijoy Singh Hazari, for offences under Sections 209 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code and for abetment of these offences.3. This Rule deals with the case of Chandra Kumar Sen only.4. I think it is necessary to mention certain dates. It appears that an application was made to the learned Subordinate Judge for filing a complaint against the petitioner5. Chandra Kumar Sen. That application was disposed of on the 1st of October 1923. By that time the amendment ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajani Kanta Biswas and ors. Vs. Panchanon Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.793
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia reversing a decision of the Munsif, Second Court of Kushtia. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of mourasi mokarrari lands alleging that they belonged to one Mohan Pramanik and that on his death it devolved on his widow Bama Sundari and that upon her death in 1913 the plaintiffs as reversionary heirs of Mohun were entitled to the properties.2. Defendants, on the other hand, contended that they had purchased the lands from Bama Sundari for legal necessity and they further asserted that they were co-sharer landlords and that two years' period of limitation provided by Article 3 of Schedule III to the Bengal Tenancy Act applied, and that the suit was, therefore, barred by limitation.3. The Munsif decided the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. He held that there was no necessity for the sale by Bama Sundari and that no question of limitation arose as there was no dispossession...
Tag this Judgment!Kajani Kanta Biswas and ors. Vs. Panchanon Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.792
Greaves, J.1.This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia reversing a decision of the Munsif, Second Court of Kushtia. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of mourasi mokarrari lands alleging that they belonged to one Mohan Pramanik and that on his death it devolved on his widow Batna Sundari and that upon her death in1913 the plain tiffs as reversionary heirs of Mohun were entitled to the properties.2. Defendants, on the other hand, contended that they had purchased the lands from Bama Sundari for legal necessity and they further asserted that they were co-sharer landlords and that two years' period of limitation provided by Article 3 of Schedule III to the Bengal Tenancy Act applied, and that the suit was, therefore, barred by limitation.3. The Munsif decided the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. He hald that there was no necessity for the sale by Bama Sundari and that no question of limitation arose as there was no dispossession by th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »