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.
Ram Kumar Das Vs. HaranaraIn Das Alias Dinabandhi Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal727,92Ind.Cas.104
1. This is an appeal against the decree which the plaintiffs have obtained for khas possession of the land in. dispute on establishment of. their niskar right thereto. The only point urged in this appeal is that in coming to a finding in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents the lower Appellate Court has relied on certain documents which are inadmissible in evidence. These documents are Exs. 10, 101, 11, 13, 14, 4, 2, 8 and 9. Exhibits 10, 13 and 14 are the decree plaint and soldnama in a particular suit. In this suit the lands in suit are described as the niskar property of Shama Gharan Das which; had been inherit-. ed by his heirs who were parties to that suit.2. It is contended that these documents cannot be admissible as in that suit there was no contest as to the plaintiff's right and it cannot be said that this right was asserted or claimed within the meaning of Section 13 of phe Evidence Act. The latest ruling on this point is the case of Gopi Sundari Dasi v. Kherod Gobinda Ckowd...
Susil Chandra Guha and anr. Vs. Gouri Sundari Devi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1015
Cuming, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Asansole rejecting an application under Order 9, 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.2. 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.It seems to me that the application was rightly rejected. Order 9, 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; and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›