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.
Ram Chandra Gope Vs. Srimati Parameswari Gopini and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.358
1. The plaintiff brought a suit out of which this appeal arises to redeem a mortgage on the allegation that he had purchased the equity of redemption from the mortgagor, Parameswari. The first Court passed a preliminary decree directing the plaintiff to pay into Court Rs. 200 within seven days from the date of the judgment and that the principal defendant mortgagee would thereupon re-transfer the property to the plaintiff free from the mortgage and from all incumbrances created by defendant No. 1 and put the plaintiff in possession of the property. The plaintiff duly paid the money into Court and a final decree was passed on the 13th. August 1920. On the 10th September 1920 Parameswari filed an appeal against the preliminary decree only. In that appeal she was successful and the judgment and decree of the lower Court were set aside.2. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the appeal to the lower Appellate Court is not competent as there was no appeal against the final decree....
MamIn Khan and ors. Vs. MoizuddIn Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal647,91Ind.Cas.348
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Third Court of Mymen singh, affirming the decision of the Munsif, Second Court of Netrokona. The suit was for declaration of a right of way brought by the plaintiffs for themselves and for the general public of the village on the allegation that the plaintiffs as well as the villagers had used the land in dispute as a pathway for their daily necessary purposes for over hundred years from generation to generation with their cattle openly, peacefully, without dispute and as of right. They, however, described the a pathway as a gorat starting from a different village and leading to another over the disputed land.2. The Trial Court found that there was a pathway. The Munsif says 'I have no doubt on the evidence on the record that before the alleged obstruction the plaintiffs and people having homestead nearby had used the disputed land for various purposes, for an indefinite length of time without ...
Kirtibash Dubey Vs. the Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal536,91Ind.Cas.480
1. These four appeals arise out of four suits which were tried together. The plaintiffs in these suits are the superior landlords of different shares and the defendant Company is the purchaser of the interest of two tenants under the plaintiffs and their co-sharers. The names of these tenants are Thakurdin and Chakar Hazra. Since its purchase the defendant company has erected buildings on the land purchased by it. The principal relief sought in these suits was a permanent injunction restraining the defendant Company from building on the land for a direction that the buildings should be removed. There was a further claim for compensation for use of water of a tank and for khas possession. Except as regards one or two details which are now unimportant the plaintiff's suit was decreed by the Court of first instance. On appeal one of the four suits was dismissed entirely and in the other three suits the only relief granted to the plaintiffs was for damages for use of the,- water of the tan...
Gulam HusaIn Pradhania Vs. K. S. Bonnerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1169,95Ind.Cas.525
Mukerji, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two applications made by the plaintiff landlord for settling fair and equitable rent under the provisions of Sction 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defendant's have been recorded in the Record of Rights as occupancy raiyats. Appeal No. 22 relates to Khatian Nos. 196, 201 and 288 of Mouza Pathair and Appeal No. 510 relates to Khatians Nos. 29, 43, 55, 59 and 120 of Mouza Bardeil. The Assistant Settlement Officer held that the tenants had succeeded in proving that they were holding the jamas at a uniform rate of rent for twenty years prior to the institution of the proceedings and that, therefore, the jamas were not liable to enhancement having regard to Section 50, Sub-section (2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. On appeals being preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of the Settlement Officer, the Special Judge set aside the decision of the primary Court holding that the jamas were liable to enhancement and ordered enhancement at the r...
Baldeodas Lohea Vs. Shubchurndas Goenka and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal327
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against an order made by my learned brother, Mr. Justice Page, on the 22nd of July 1924' : AIR1925Cal627 2. The facts which it is necessary for mo to state are as follows:3. The plaintiff filed the plaint on the 28th of February 1924, and summary proceedings were taken under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code. On the 15th of April 1924, the plaintiff obtained a decree which was made ex parte. The plaintiff, having obtained his decree, attached certain premises in Calcutta. On the 24th of June, notice of an application was issued on behalf of the defendants for an order that the ex parte decree of the 15th of April 1921 and the attachment effected in execution thereof on the interests of the defendants in the premises thereon mentioned should be sat aside and that the defendants should have unconditional leave to defend the suit.4. The learned Judge heard the application, and on the 22nd of July 1921 made an order that the decree an...
Jnan Chandra Dhupi and ors. Vs. Ray Satish Chandra Chaudhury Bahadur a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal645,91Ind.Cas.451
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Fourth Court of Mymensingh, reversing the decision of the Munsif, First Court of Jamalpur.2. The plaintiff's suit was for possession of 2/3rds share of a certain piece of land and a tank by ejecting the defendant. His case was that the property in dispute was given to one Har Kishore, the father of the defendants as a service-tenure, free of rent, in lieu of service as washerman. The Subordinate Judge finds that owing to no service being rendered the defendants were trespassers and that they had no right to retain possession of the lands as against the plaintiff. It appears, however, that the plaintiff's case was that the tenancy terminated with the death of Har Kishore, the last service-holder and the defendants had no right to be on the land. The Munsif dismissed the suit on the finding that it was the ancestral lakheraj land of the defendants. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge refers to certain ...
Damodar Poddar and anr. Vs. Jadunath Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.449
1. In this case the plaintiff sued for a declaration that the land of the Cadastral Survey plot No. 321 appertained to his jote of 8-annas held by him under defendants Nos. 1 to 3. The suit was. dismissed by the Trial Court but on appeal that decision was reversed and the plaintiff was granted a decree. Against that decree defendants, Nos. 4 and 5 have appealed. The land in suit is included within the brohmottar land of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and defendants Nos. 4 and 5 have been granted a lease of this land. The Record of Rights which was finally published in 1914 records the land as being, held by defendants Nos. 1. to 3 through their, bargadar defendant No. 12. The lease to the appellants was granted in 1323 B.S., The first Court held that the presumption arising from the entry in the Record of Rights has not been rebutted. The lower Appellate Court held to the contrary.2. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that in coming to the conclusion favourable to the plaintiff the lo...
Sukhdeodas Ram Prosad Vs. Jaintilal Jamunadas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal697,92Ind.Cas.392
1. This is a Rule obtained at the instance of the landlords and directed against an order passed by the Rent Controller on the 25th September 1924 purporting to fix a standard rent of the premises in suit.2. The material facts are as follows. On the 21st March 1922 the tenants applied for standardization of rent and a written statement was filed by the landlords on the 27th April in that year. On the 8th June the tenants' case before the Rent Controller was dismissed for default. On the 29th. April 1922 the landlords served a notice to quit on the tenants and the determination of the tenancy was to take place as from the 1st June 1923. In the following December the landlords commenced a suit on the Original Side of this Court for ejectment for non compliance with the notice and for arrears of rent and mesne profits. Subsequent to this on the 20th June 1923, the tenants whose previous application before the Rent Controller had been dismissed, again applied for standardization of rent. O...
The Firm of Ram Prosad Ram Kissen Agarwalla, Ram Prosad Poddar Vs. Har ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1017,92Ind.Cas.298
B.B. Ghose, J.1. A preliminary objection has 'been taken as to the competency of this appeal on the ground that the order against which this appeal has been filed is an order of dismissal for default which does not come within the definition of decree under Section 2, Sub-section (2), Clause (d) of the C.P.C. The appeal is not maintainable.2. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs, hearing fee three gold mohurs.3. There is however an application by the decree-holder, and we are asked to interfere in revision with the order of the Subordinate Judge dismissing the execution case for default. The matter stands thus: Stay of execution was directed by this Court on furnishing security within a specified time. That date expired on the 20th February 1925. The judgment-debtor failed to furnish the required security on that date and the Subordinate Judge directed the decree-holder to take steps for execution at once. The next order dated the 20th February, proceeds thus: 'The decree-hol...
Gora Chand Haldar and anr. Vs. Prafulla Kumar Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal907
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Birbhum holding the decree sought to be executed by the Appellant incapable of execution and dismissing his application for execution. In 1910 Appellant obtained the mortgage decree which he is now seeking to execute in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Birbhum in respect of properties, some of which were in the District of Birbhum and some in the Santhal Parganas. In this execution case the judgment-debtors have taken exception to the execution on the ground that when the decree was passed, some of the mortgaged properties situated in the Santhal Parganas were under settlement, and so under Section 2 of Act 37 of 1855 the Birbhum Court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree; the decree having thus been passed without jurisdiction is void and incapable of execution. The Court below has found that one of the Santhal Parganas properties Mouzah Mouloti was under settlement when the decree was passed and held,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »