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.
Sailabala Deb and ors. Vs. Baikuntha Nath Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.186
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Sub ordinate Judge, Record Court of Sylhet, reversing those of the Munsif, second Court of Maulvi Bazar.2. The suit was for recover of certain plots of land on the allegation that the plaintiffs were the reversionary heirs of one Baidranath, Baidyanath was the son of one of three brothers Jithram, Mouhuram and Kalicharn. Baidyanath was the son of Kali Charan. The plaintiffs are the descendants of Jithram and Mohouram. Baidyanath died leaving a widow Chandramoni and an unmarried daughter Sukhomoni. Chandramoni died on the 1st July, 1908. She had during her lifetime executed a deed of gift in favour of her daughter Sukhomoni and her husband. Brindaban of 12-annas share of her husband's estate on the occasion of the marriage of Sukhomoni. Afterwards, Chandramoni and Sukhomoni jointly sold certain properties to the defendant No. 1, plaintiffs' sued for the recovery of all those properties on the allegation that there...
Dwarka Nath Dutta Vs. Chandra Mohun Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.642
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises under the following circumstances: it appears that the Mainamati Union Board had to elect a President of the Union. The Circle Officer fixed the 28th of March 1925 as the date of election and the Cutchery of the Maharaja of Hill Tipperah at Manamati was originally fixed as the place of election and the time fixed was 9 o'clock in the morning. It appears that altogether six of the voters were present when the meeting was held. The plaintiff obtained three votes and was declared to have been duly elected. It appears that the Magistrate of the District was moved and he on the 3rd April 1924 declared election as invalid and a fresh election was made in which defendant No. 1 was elected as the President of the Union. The plaintiff then brought this suit on the 5th of April of that year for a declaration that the election was duly held and that he was duly elected as the President and was entitled to exercise the function of tha...
Brojo Dhabal and ors. Vs. Prem Chand Kundu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.726
1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bankura by which they were held liable to pay rent for the Bengali year 1327 to the plaintiff.2. The main contest between the parties was as to the plaintiff's title. Somewhat complicated evidence bearing on this dispute has been discussed in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. But sitting in second appeal we must accept the finding of facts and need only state the more important points. The plaintiff claimed as a transferee from one Ram Kamal, The defendants main allegation on the question of title was that Ram Kamal was a benamdar for his three brothers Brojo, Surendra and Jugol. Brojo is now dead and his interest is now represented by his daughter Kishori who is wife of Ram Kamal. On the question of title the lower Appellate Court held that Ram Kamal was not a benamdar for Brojo, Surendra and Jugol. It further found that as the defendants had executed a kabuliyat in favour of Ram Kamal they we...
ArpIn Khan and ors. Vs. Chandi Charan Guha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal950,95Ind.Cas.252
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of the Second Court of Bakargunj, affirming a decision of the Munsif of the Sixth Court at Barisal.2. The suit out of which the appeal arises was one by the landlords for possession of certain lands which formed the subject-matter of a permanent tenure held at a fixed rent by defendant No. 1. The defendant No, 1 purported to transfer to the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the tenure in suit and the plaintiffs contended that by virtue of a covenant contained in the lease the transfer was bad and the plaintiffs were entitled to re-enter under the terms of the kabala. I shall refer in a moment to the terms of the covenant but the two points urged before us in second appeal on behalf of the appellants are that on the terms of the covenant itself it cannot be enforced by the appellants who are successors of ills original lessor, it being contended, that upon the true construction of the cov...
Gour Chandra Das Vs. Subashini Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal240,90Ind.Cas.523
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These two appeals are against the judgments and decrees of the District Judge of Murshidabad, modifying those of the Munsif of Jangipur. There were two suits for declaration of title and khas possession of two jamas. The lands originally belonged to Gagan Chandra Majhi and Uday Chandra Majhi and were mortgaged by them to one Keshab Choudhury. Keshab Choudhury died some time in 1889 and left a widow, a grandson and two grand-daughters by his predeceased son. The widow was named Rukmini. The grandson Asutosh died in the year 1899 leaving a widow Rajabala. The two grand-daughters of Keshab were named Subashini and Bindubashini. Rukmini, as guardian of Keshab's grandson Ashutosh, enforced the mortgage and purchased the mortgaged property in execution of the mortgage decree on the 16th June 1892. Thereafter, Rajabala brought a suit against her for possession of the properties left by her husband Ashutosh. This suit was compromised by a solenama dated the 22nd January 1902. ...
Abdul Karim and ors. Vs. Chhale Ahamed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.688
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession on declaration of the plaintiffs' title to 9 annas odd share of cartain land. Two schedules of land were set out in the plaint. The plaintiffs have obtained a decree in respect of the land of Schedule No. 2. The land in Schedule No. 1 consisted of two Cadastral Survey Dags Nos. 6460 and 6449. The decree of the lower Appellate Court dismissing the plaintiffs' claim as regards Dag No. 6460 is not now attacking.2. The only point urged, and we think that is a good point, is that the lower Appellate Court in deciding the question of limitation with respect to Cadastral Survey Dag No. 6449 has taken into consideration cartain documents which are not adnmissible in evidence. These documents are Exs. E, F, G and they relate to land on the boundaries of the land in suit and were use for the purpose of showing that the defendants and there predecessors were in Possession of the dispute land. At one time there was some conflict of dec...
Nil Madhab Mahapatra and ors. Vs. Joy Gopal Mahanti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal560,91Ind.Cas.719
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a puisne mortgagee for redeeming a prior mortgage of the defendants and for recovery of possession of the mortgaged property. The defendant's mortgage, is dated 21st Asar 1301. A suit was brought on that mortgage to which the plaintiffs, the puisne mortgagees, were not made parties. In execution of the decree obtained by the defendants the mortgaged property was sold and purchased by them on the 7th February 1910 and they took delivery of possession through Court on the 2nd October 1911. The date of the plaintiffs' mortgage is 8th Aswin 1304. The plaintiffs sued on that mortgage without making the defendants parties. In execution of that decree the mortgaged property was purchased by the plaintiffs on the 22nd February 1913. This suit was brought on the 17th November 1920. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation. They held, and it has not been disputed by either parties before us, that t...
Mahim Chandra Dey Vs. Ramdayal Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal170,91Ind.Cas.757
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on a mortgage-bond. Both the Courts below found that the mortgage debt was discharged by the defendants depositing Rs. 600 and odd with the landlord with the consent of the plaintiffs. The mortgage-debt on that date came up to Rs. 673-7. Upon the finding that the mortgage-debt was discharged as aforesaid both the Courts below dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff appeals and the sole contention on his behalf is that oral evidence is not admissible to prove the discharge of the debt, inasmuch as it imports an agreement to relinquish Rs. 73 odd of the mortgage-debt. In support of this contention reliance has been placed upon two eases. The first of these, is the case of G.P. Mallapa v. Matura Nagu Chetty 48 Ind. Cas. 158 : 42 M. 41 : 8 L.W. 522 : (1918) M.W.N. 719 : 35 M.L.J. 555 : 24 M.L.T. 400. The head-note of the case runs thus 'A subsequent oral agreement to take less than is due under a registered mortgage-bond is an...
Abdul Karim and ors. Vs. Chhale Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal479
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession on declaration of the plaintiffs' title to 9 annas odd share of certain land. Two schedules of land were set out in the plaint. The plaintiffs have obtained a decree in respect of the land of Sch. No. 2. The land in Sch. No. 2 consisted of two Cadastral Survey Dags Nos. 6460 and 6449. The decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing the plaintiffs' claim as regards Dag. No. 6460 is not now attacked.2. The only point urged, and we think that it is a good point, is that the lower appellate Court in deciding the question of limitation with respect to Cadastral Survey Dag. No. 6449 has taken into consideration certain documents which are not admissible in evidence. These documents are Exs. E, F, G. and they relate to land on the boundaries of the land in suit and were used for the purpose of showing that the defendants and their predecessors were in possession of the disputed land. At one time there was some conflict of decis...
Mahammad Abjal and anr. Vs. Hafizannessa Khatun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal741,91Ind.Cas.567
1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 6 and 7 against a decision of the District Judge of Backergunge, modifying a decision of the Subordinate Judge of the First Court at Backergunge. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs for partition. The share of the plaintiffs was not challenged in the suit by any of the defendants but the real dispute was between the defendants Nos. 6 and 7 on the one hand and defendants Nos. 5, 8 and 38 on the other. The dispute being that the defendants Nos. 5 and 7 contended that one Mahammed Waris had two brothers whereas defendants Nos. 5, 8 and 38 said that he had only one brother. The learned Judge in the Court below decided against the contention of the defendants Nos. 6 and 7 and he has held that Mahammed Waris had only one brother.2. This appeal is preferred, as I have already stated, by defendants Nos. 6 and 7, but they have omitted to make parties the plaintiffs in the suit. Their reason being that there was no disput...