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.
Mahendra Nath Bhunia and ors. Vs. Ashutosh Pradhan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal545,91Ind.Cas.478
1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Midnapur confirming an order of the Munsif Third Court, Tamluk. The order was passed on an application for execution and the only objection taken by the judgment-debtors was that the application was time-barred under Article 6 of the Third Schedule of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Both the lower Courts have over-ruled this objection. On appeal two points have been argued. The first is that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is not in accordance with law as laid down in Rule 31 of Order XLI of the C.P.C. The judgment certainly is very short. But having regard to the simple nature of the issue to be decided in the appeal we are not inclined to hold that we should be justified in setting it aside on this ground. The judgment is one of affirmance and in a judgment of affirmance, it is not necessary for the Appellate Court to deal with the matter in dispute at the same length as would be necessary in a judgment of reversal. Our...
Ahmad Ali and anr. Vs. Malhiul Alam Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.474
1. These five appeals arise out of five suits which were heard together in the first Court. These appeals from those decisions were also heard together in the lower Appellate Court. The plaintiff-respondent in these appeals is the transferree of Sherjan Khan who purchased an estate at a sale for arrears of revenue under Act XI of 1859 on the 4th May 1908. The plaintiff brought these suits to recover khas possession with mesne profits of the lands held by the different principal defendants in each suit as tenure-holders under the proprietor whose interest was sold at the revenue sale. All the suits were dismissed by the Munsif who tried them. On appeal these decisions were reversed and the suits decreed. Against these decrees the principal defendants have preferred these appeals to this Court.2. At the hearing of these appeals before us only three points were urged(1) That the defendants are occupancy raiyats and, therefore, not liable to be ejected from their holdings.(2) That if they ...
Sheikh Moharamdi Vs. Sheikh Asmat and Sheikh Rahamat
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.493
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for khas possession of the land in suit on establishment of his jote right. The defence of the defendant was that al thought the plaintiff was the jote dar of the land in suit he had abandoned the land and that after he had left the village the defendant got a settlement of the land from the landlord and was, therefore, rightfully in possession. The defendant also pleaded the special limitation as a bar to the suit. Both the Courts have decreed the plaintiff's suit.2. In this second appeal the learned Vakil who appears for the defendant-appellant contends that the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff did not abandon the land was erroneous and in support of this contention cited the case of Gober Sheikh v. Alipuddin Sheikh 51 Ind. Cas. 356 : 30 C.L.J. 13. Now the question as to whether there has been an abandonment of the land by the raiyat is primarily a question of...
Baikuntha Nath Kar and anr. Vs. Adhar Chandra Pain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal653,92Ind.Cas.727
Chakravarti, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal by the principal defendants arises was brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that the lands in suit belonged to him and also for an injunction staying sale of the property in execution of a decree obtained by the defendants for money. The plaintiff alleged that the property in suit consisting of about 3 bighas belonged to one Baidya Nath, that Baidya Nath had borrowed Rs. 140 from the plaintiff by signing a hatchitta and that on Baidya Nath's death, plaintiff pressed for payment of the money due to him. The father of the widow of Baidya Nath, who was a minor acting as a de facto guardian of the widow arranged to pay Rs. 40 in cash and also executed a kobala for the disputed lands in favour of the plaintiff in satisfaction of the remaining Rs. 100 of the debt. The plaintiff further stated that he was in possession of the land in suit since the date of his kobala, that the defendants after the death of Baidya Nath instituted a suit...
In Re: Two Attorneys
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal964,90Ind.Cas.468
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Rule which was issued against two attorneys of the Court and which was based upon allegations contained in a petition, presented by the President of the Incorporated Law. Society, Calcutta.2. In view of the course, which has been adopted by the learned Counsel, who appeared for the attorney, whose name stands first on the record, it is possible for me to deal with this matter shortly.3. It appears that one Gora, the plaintiff in a suit Gora v. Templeton, instituted, in the High Court, obtained an attachment of certain furniture before judgment. The furniture was in same premises in Calcutta which were rented at about Rs. 600 per month. Apparently it was thought desirable on the part of the plaintiff that the furniture should be removed to premises which could be obtained at a less rental. The result was, that by an arrangement made by or on behalf of the plaintiff and the person representing a certain trust, the furniture was removed to and stored at premise...
Hamid Ali Bepari Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal149,(1925)ILR52Cal1015
Cuming, J.1. This is a rule granted against the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate of Backergunj upholding the conviction of the appellant but reducing the sentence to a fine of Rs. 100. The rule was an open rule. The learned vakil, who appears for the petitioner, has argued that the facts disclosed do not constitute any criminal offence. The facts of the case are as follows:---One Sona Mia, who is the complainant, was taking two cart loads of hide to Daulat Khan Bandar, when the petitioner seized the hides and took them to his own godown. The complainant's case is that he purchased these hides from one Abdul Aziz. The petitioner's case was that he had kept certain hides in Syedpur in charge of Abdul Aziz, and Abdul Ghani in collusion with Abdul Aziz, with whom the petitioner had partnership business, had disposed of these hides to Sona Mia. The Appellate Court found that the hides which were sold to Sona Mia and which Sona Mia was taking to Daulat Khan Bandar, when th...
Hira Lal Banerjee and ors. Vs. Surendra Nath Sarbanga and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal504,91Ind.Cas.488
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit brought by them against three defendants for ejectment. The plaintiffs' case was that the property in suit originally belonged to the father of these three defendants; and that in execution of a mortgage-decree against their father the property was sold in the year 1907 and purchased by the plaintiffs. They further alleged that after they had taken possession defendant No. 1 and the husband of defendant No. 3 two of the sons of the mortgagor judgment-debtor took a lease of the land in suit under a kabuliyat in the year 1919. Defendant No. 3 is the widow of the eldest son of the mortgagor. Defendant No. 2, the third son, did not join in the kabuliyat. But it appears that after the lease was granted to defendants Nos. 1 and 3 defendant No. 2, as found by the Munsif, also came and lived on the land. The suit was constituted against defendants Nos. 1 and 3 as an ejectment suit against tenants after the expiry of...
Bimala Prosad Mukerji Vs. Lal Moni Devi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.862
1. The plaintiff filed a plaint in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Alipur on the 2nd October 1920 After litigation up to tile High Court. It was decided that that Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper Court on the 31st October 1922. The plaintiff then filed it before the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan on the 14th November 1922. The question that arises in this Rule is: 'What Court-fee should be paid by the plaintiff.' The lower Appellate Court has held that he should pay Court-fees in accordance with the amended Court Fees Act which came into force on the 1st April 1922, after deducting the Court-fees already paid.2. For the plaintiff, the petitioner before us, it is contended that the Court-fee originally paid is sufficient. On behalf of the opposite party, the defendant, who appeared in this Rule it is contended that the plaintiff should pay the Court-fee under the amended Act without any deduction for the cancelled C...
Satya Neranjun Shaw and anr. Vs. the Karnani Industrial Bank, Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal708
B.B.Ghose, J.1. In this rule we are asked to set aside an order of the Rent Controller fixing standard rent with regard to certain premises, dated the 11th March 1924. The lease is dated the 7th October 1920. On the 15th August 1923 the landlords, who are the petitioners before us, served a notice on the opposite party determining the lease on the ground, it seems, of breach of covenants in the lease. On the 10th September 1923, the petitioners brought an action in ejectment on the original side of this Court. During the pendency of the suit, on the 1st December 1923, the opposite party applied to the Rent Controller under the Rent Act for standardization of rent. The Rent Controller fixed standard rent on the 11th of March 1924, as I have already stated. The opposite party vacated the premises on the 24th January 1924. The petitioners applied for revision of the order of the Rent Controller to the President of the Tribunal on the 22nd March 1924. The duration of the old Rent Act expir...
Benoy Krishna GaIn and anr. Vs. Fanindra Nath Roy Choudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Cal100
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a decision of the Additional District Judge of the 24-Parganas reversing a decision of the Subordinate Judge of the Second Court of that place.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises is a suit to recover possession from a tenant whose lease has expired. There were four defendants in the suit, Defendant No. 1 being the lessee of the land who became insolvent in the year 1917. Defendant No. 2 is the Receiver appointed in the insolvency. Defendant No. 3 is a mortgagee in possession from the lessee and Defendant No. 4 is a sub-leseee under the mortgagee. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have taken no part in the suit and the contest has been between the plaintiffs on the one side and the Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 on the other. The lease is dated the 23rd October 1906. It was granted by three persons Brojeswari, Kebal Krishna and Narayan Chandra who purported to be shebaits of a certain deity. Subsequently, there was a suit for partition br...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »