Kolkata Court July 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.
Srimati Sarat Kamini Dasi Vs. Nagendra Nath Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal65,89Ind.Cas.1000
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. The plaintiffs prefer this appeal. The facts are as follows: Their predecessors bought certain property in execution of a mortgage-decree on 6th May 1913, but the sale was not confirmed until 28th January 1914 when the judgment-debtor's application to have the sale set aside was rejected. In the interval between the decree and the sale, the mortgagor executed usufructuary mortgages in favour of the defendants, and the latter realized rents from the tenants. The suit was brought to recover the sums realized by the defendant as rent for the Baisakh and Bhadra kists of 1320 Fasli which fell due after the date of plaintiffs' purchase. It was instituted on 16th September 1916.2. The question of plaintiffs right to recover has been finally determined in their favour. It is also settled that Article 109 of the Limitation Act is the Article applicable to the case.3. The learned Judge, after remand, has found that some items were realized within three years of the suit, and ...
Bangshi Badan Haldar Vs. Ratan Ijardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.961
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment of the defendants. The plaintiff alleges that he purchased the jama which belonged originally to one Madhab Sardar in March 1908, the defendants are under-raiyats on whom he served notice under Section 49(6) of the Bengal Tenancy Act and that he is entitled to khas possession. Various pleas were raised in defence such as the plaintiff had not purchased any interest in the property; that he is not the sole owner of the holding and that the defendants were occupancy raiyats who had a heritable interest in the land and that no notice had been served under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Munsif found all the questions against the defendants and passed a decree in ejectment. On appeal by the defendants the lower Appellate Court found all the questions except one against the defendants. The point on which the lower Appellate Court disagreed with the Munsif was with regard to the nature of the interest the defendants as...
D.D. Barbar Vs. I.W.C. Debenham and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.4
Ewart Greaves, J.1. By an agreement in writing contained in two letters dated respectively the 29th and 31st August 1923, the first of which was addressed by the petitioner to the respondent Debenham and the second by Debenham to the petitioner, the respondent Debenham agreed to let and the petitioner agreed to take for a period of 21 months from the 1st September 1923 with an option of renewal as therein mentioned, the Lower Flat of No. 4 Rawdon Street comprising the following accommodation, sitting room with one electric fan and, lights, three bed rooms with bath rooms each bed room with one electric fan and lights also lights in the bath room, south verandah with space under stairs with electric lights and other accommodation as therein mentioned at a rental of Rs. 320 per month inclusive of taxes and without any other extra charge but excluding the cost of electric current. An application was subsequently made to the Rent Controller by the petitioner to fix the standard rent of the...
Maharani Dassi Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.895
1. It appears from the report of the Police Surgeon that the girl Maharani Dassi is over 16 years of age. She was removed from a brothel under the provisions of the Calcutta Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1923, and placed in a girls' school where she was receiving education. When the school closed for the annual vacation, she was placed in charge of a gentleman of the locality in compliance with the request made by a respectable gentleman who is interested in her. The Police took all possible care for the welfare of the girl. It took charge of her under Section 5 of the Act as she appeared to be below 16 years of age. This Rule was issued under Section 491 Cr.P.C., for an order of this Court that she might not be further kept in charge of the Police and be set at liberty. Now it appears that according to her own and her mother's statement as also in the opinion of the Police Surgeon she is over 16 The Police has no further jurisdiction to exercise under the Act of 1923. We, theref...
Abdul (Bari) Mallick and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.887
Suhrawardy, J.1. The two appellants have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of 24-Parganahs in agreement with the verdict of the majority of the Jury under Sections 304 and 326, Indian Penal Code. The first accused was convicted under Section 304 and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The second accused was found guilty under Section 326 and sentenced to undergo the same terin of imprisonment. Various objections have been taken on the ground of in is directions in the learned Judge's charge to the Jury; but it is not necessary to consider them as we find ourselves constrained to order a re-trial on the ground that the, provisions of Section 360, Cr.J.C., have not been complied with. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the accused in which it is stated that the deposition of each of the prosecution witnesses was not read over or explained to him after it had been recorded and before the examination of the next witness was commenced; but that the depositions...
Abdul (Bari) Mallick and anr. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal157
Suhrawardy, J.1. The two appellants have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of 21 Parganahs in agreement with the verdict of the majority of the jury under Sections 304 and 326, Indian Penal Code. The first accused was convicted under Section 304 and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The second accused was found guilty under Section 326 and sentenced to undergo the same term of imprisonment. Various objections have been taken on the ground of misdirections in the learned Judge's charge to the jury; but it is not necessary to consider them as we find ourselves constrained to order a re-trial on the ground that the provisions of Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code, have not been complied with. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the accused in which it is stated that the deposition of each of the prosecution witnesses was not read over or explained to him after it had been recorded and before the examination of: the next witness was commenced; but that the ...
D.D. Barbar Vs. I.W.C. Dabenham and. anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal469
Greaves, J.1. By an agreement in writing, contained in two letters, dated respectively the 29th and 31st, August 1923, the first of which was addressed by the petitioner to the respondent Debenham and the second by Debenham to the petitioner, the respondent Debenham agreed to let and the petitioner agreed to take for a period of 21 months from the 1st September 1923 with an option of renewal as therein mentioned, the lower flat of No. 4, Rawdon Street, comprising the following accommodation: sitting room with one electric fan and lights, three bedrooms with bathrooms, each bedroom with one electric fan and lights, also lights in the bathrooms, south verandah, with space under stairs with electric lights and other accommodation as therein mentioned, at a rental of Rs. 320 per month inclusive o taxes and without any other extra charge' but excluding the cost of electric current. An application was subsequently made to the Rent Controller, by the petitioner to fix the standard rent of the...
Kanai Lal Ghosh and ors. Vs. Basanta Behari Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.451
Mukerji, J.1. The facts necessary to be stated for the purposes of this appeal are these: In 1309, the plaintiff and his co-sharer obtained a darpatni settlement of 4-annas share of three villages from the predecessors of defendant No. 1 and executed a kabuliyat in their favour hypothecating the said 4-annas share of the three villages as well as seven other mouzahs as security for the payment of the darpatni rent and for the performance of obligations and discharge of liabilities incidental to the darpatni. In 1312 they sold the said darpatni to the defendant No. 2; and the defendant No. 1 recognized the transfer and accepted rent from the defendant No. 2. In the kobala by which the darpatni was sold there was a stipulation that the defendant No. 2 would furnish security to the defendant No. 1 or to the plaintiff and his co-sharer in order to re-place the security given by the plaintiff and his co-sharer. On the defendant No. 2 failing to furnish the said security the plaintiff, to wh...
Srijut Manohar Das Mahanta Vs. Brojendra Lal Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal552,91Ind.Cas.411
Cuming, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 615-2-5 gandas by the sale of Mouza Jonardanpur which belongs now to defendants Nos. 12 and 13. The case of the plaintiff who is the Mohanta of the gadi of Rajgunj Asthal is that this property is charged with a yearly payment to him of Rs. 129-1-1-1 kant. One Baidya Nath Tewari who was the predecessor of defendants Nos. 3 to 11 promised to pay Rs. 120 (sicca) per year to the then Mohanta Udbadhas for the expenses of the idols of the Asthal and as security for the payment of the said annual amount he first of all promised to make over 101 bighas of land. This land, however, not being demarcated it was not made over to the Mohanta. But subsequently a partition having taken place between Baidyanath Tewari and the heirs of his brother Gopinath Tewari under the partition deed it was provided that the predecessor of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 should pay to the Mohanta at the rate of Rs. 120 (sicca) per annum from the income of Jo...
Sushil Chandra Guha and anr. Vs. Gouri Sundari Devi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.946
Cuming, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Assansole rejecting an application under Order IX, Rule 13 to set aside two decrees which had been passed ex parte. The ground for refusing the application is that 'it was not maintainable. The facts appear to be these. A certain suit was instituted on the 13th February 1922 for recovery of certain royalty which had been made a charge on the property. A preliminary decree was passed on the 31st October 1924 and the final decree was passed on the 17th November 1924. Both these decrees were passed ex parte. The present applicant is a puisne mortgagee under a mortgage deed executed in June 1921 and is now in possession. Admittedly he was not a party to the suit.2. It seems to me that the application was rightly rejected. Order IX, Rule 13 provides that 'In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »