Kolkata Court June 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.
Chaudhuri Upendra Nandan Das Mahapatra and anr. Vs. Umai Set and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1180
1. The appellants are the proprietors of the estate bearing Touz. No. 598 in the Midnapore District Their property including this estate came under the management of the Court of Wards in 1905 and at their instance a record-of-rights was prepared which was finally published in 1911. The plaintiffs-respondents are the owners of a holding of which, according to their case, the proprietors of Estates Nos. 597 and 598 are the superior landlords in equal undivided shares. In the record-of-rights of 1911, the plaintiffs holding was recorded as appertaining to Estate No. 598 only. The appellants then applied under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, for settlement of fair and equitable rent of this and other holdings. The application in respect of each holding was numbered as a separate suit and these suits were heard together by the Revenue Officer. At the trial before him the first of the issues which were framed was:Does Section 188 of the Bengal Tenancy Act operate as a bar to the main...
Jadunath Guha Ray and ors. Vs. Abdul Hajee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.459
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent and also for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to additional rent for additional area. Only two points have been urged in this appeal. The first is that the lower Courts were wrong in refusing the plaintiffs' interest at the rate of 75 percent, stipulated for in the kabuliyat. The second point is that the lower Appellate Court is wrong in reducing the enhancement of rent which had been granted by the first Court. The kabuliyat in this case was executed in the year 1874 before the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The lower Courts have held that the stipulation for interest at that rate is penal and consequently instead of interest, allowed the plaintiffs' damages at 25 per cent. We are unable to agree with the finding that the stipulation for payment of interest at that rate is penal. But we hold that the plaintiffs' claim on this point failed on another ground. The kabuliyat in this case appears to be in all its essential term...
L.R. Counsell Vs. Srimati Sukumari Devi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.417
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This Rule was obtained at the instance of the petitioner L.R. Counsel against an order of the President of the Tribunal, dated the 4th April 1925, refusing to fix a standard rent in respect of the premises referred to in the petition on the ground that they were outside the provisions of the Calcutta Rent Act.2. The facts are these. On the 30th November 1922 a lease was entered into between Sukumari Devi of the one part and Lionel Rose Counsell, the petitioner of the other part. By the lease the upper flat of No. 6 Rawdon Street and the out offices thereof together with a piece and parcel of land for 'pleasure garden' situate at Mudi Shahnagore within the jurisdiction of the Tollygunge Municipality were demised to the petitioner for a term of five years from the 1st December 1922 to the 30th November 1927 at a clear monthly rent of Rs. 450. The other provisions of the lease are not material for the purposes of this application. The schedule to the lease sets out in ...
Mir Azizar Rahaman Alias Syed Azizar Rahaman Vs. Ram Chandra Poddar an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.461
1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 7 in a mortgage suit. The mortgage is dated the 25th February 1911 and is executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. The last due date for payment under the mortgage was the 13th April 1908. On the 26th January, 1919, the martgagor executed in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to15 a kobala in respect of some of the mortgaged properties which refers to the mortgage as still subsisting. The suit was commenced on the 12th April, 1920 and was brought against the mortgagor alone. Subsequently, on the 22nd November, 1920 defendants Nos.2to 15 were added as parties and it is contended by one of them--defendant No. 7 who is the appellant before us, that the claim is barred by limitation. The only question that really arises is whether the statement contained in the kobata of the 26th January 1919 has the effect of an acknowledgment so as to create a new period of limitation as from the 26th January 1919.2. It is argued before us on behalf of the ap...
Azizur Rahaman Vs. Ram Chandra Poddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal686
1. This is an appeal by Defendant No. 7 in a mortgage suit. The mortgage is dated the 25th February 1911 and is executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. The last due date for payment under the mortgage was the 13th April 1908. On the 26th January, 1919, the mortgagor executed in favour of Defendants Nos. 2 to 15 a kobala in respect of some of the mortgaged properties which refers to the mortgage as still subsisting. The suit was commenced on the 12th April 1920, and was brought against the mortgagor alone. Subsequently on the 22nd November 1920 Defendants Nos. 2 to 15 were added as parties and it is contended by one of them--Defendant No. 7 who is the appellant before us--that the claim is barred by limitation. The only question that really arises is whether the statement contained in the kobala of the 26th January 1919 has the effect of an acknowledgment so as to create a new period of limitation as from the 26th January 1919.2. It is argued before us on behalf of the a...
Ekabbar Ali Sha Pagal Panthi Fakir Vs. Sheikh Alim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal696
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the Defendant No. 1 against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh modifying a decision of the Munsif of the Second Court of Netrokona.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff against 41 defendants for khas possession of certain disputed land by demolition of the huts alleged to have been wrongfully erected on the land by these defendants. Forty of the defendants did not appear in the suit and it was only contested by the present appellant, Defendant No. 1. The Munsif decreed the plaintiff's suit as to two-thirds of the land in dispute but as to one-third of the land he found that it formed part of a chak of Defendant No. 1, and accordingly, he passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for joint possession with the defendants of two-thirds of the land in suit. Defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal against the decision of the learned Munsif. In this appeal, the only respondent was the plaintiff and the other 40...
Ananda Chandra Kacharu Vs. Barada Kanta Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal177,90Ind.Cas.509
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff. He brought a cargo of oranges to the Madaripore Bazar where there was a quarrel between him and the ijaradar of the market about the payment of tolls. In consequence, the ijaradar informed the Police and the result was that the boat of oranges was detained at the thana for some days and, while so detained, the oranges deteriorated. The plaintiff brought the suit for compensation on account of the oranges so damaged. The learned Munsif found that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs. 143 odd and gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 68-13-6 against certain of the defendants who had not compromised the case with the plaintiff as the defendant No. 2 had done. These defendants then preferred an appeal to the District Court and the learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below held that the suit was barred by limitation. The suit was brought exactly three years after the date on which the boat was taken to the thana and the lear...
Syed FaizuddIn Ali and anr. Vs. Mirza Iyahiya Siraji and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal583,91Ind.Cas.352
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This was a suit brought by one member of a Committee of a religious endowment governed by the Religious Endowments Act XX of 1863 against two other members forming the Committee for a declaration that resolutions passed at certain meeting held on the 3rd August, 2nd October and 25th October 1920 are ultra vires and invalid. The findings of fact are all against the defendants. It has been found that the notice given by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to the plaintiff of the meeting that was to be held on the 3rd August 1920 was not proper, inasmuch as there was no agenda of the business to be done at the meeting, sent with the notice. The learned Judge, therefore, held that the resolutions arrived at the meeting of the 3rd August are invalid. Similarly, it is found that the other two meetings were also not legally held.2. The findings of fact are conclusive and no question can be addressed to us, on behalf of the appellants with regard to this. The only question that was urged ...
Monohar Mukherjee Vs. Suresh Chandra Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.423
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued for recovery of possession on establishment of title of two rooms and a certain varandah. The case of the plaintiff was that these rooms together with a very large property belonged to Babu Joy Kissen Mukherji of Uttarpara. This gentleman had three sons Hara Mohan, Raja Peary Mohan and Raj Mohun. Hara Mohan had two sons Rash Behari and Shiv Narayan. During Babu Joy Kissen Mukherji's lifetime the three sons Hara Mohan, Peary Mohan and Raj Mohan acquired considerable, properties of their own and these properties were managed by Babu Joy Kissen Mukherji in conjunction with his own property. About 9 years before his death Babu Joy Kissen Mukherji in 1879 executed a Will by which he dedicated certain of his properties, to a library. In this will he set out in detail which of the properties, under his management belonged to his sons. It is admitted that any property dealt with by him as his own is his own propert...
isharani Nirupoma Devi Vs. Victor Nitendra Narain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal871,96Ind.Cas.598
Gregory, J.1. In this case the petitioner sues for a dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on the ground of his cruelty and adultery. The respondent has entered appearance under protest, and in his answer denies these charges and in the alternative pleads condonation. He takes objection to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition on the ground that he is a foreign subject domiciled in Cooch Behar; he also denies that he was residing within the appellate jurisdiction of this Court when, the petition was presented, and it is consequently contended that the petition cannot be entertained by this High Court. After taking evidence bearing on the question of jurisdiction, I intimated to the parties that, in my opinion, this Court has jurisdiction. The petitioner's case then proceeded on the merits but the respondent took no further part in the proceedings.2. The respondent is a member of the Cooch Behar family and his marriage with the petitioner was contracted in C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »