Kolkata Court August 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.
Raj Rajeswari Bigraha Beni Madhab Mukhopadhya and anr. Vs. Sarbananda ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal698,95Ind.Cas.130
Cuming, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent.2. The plaintiff sued for the rent for the years 1324 to 1327. The suit was brought against three persons a father and his two sons. The holding originally belonged to the defendant No. 2. It was sold for arrears of rent and was purchased by his two sons defendants Nos. 1 and 3. The case of the plaintiff was that the rent of the holding was Rs. 8 per annum. The case of the defendants was that the rent of the holding was Rs. 6-11-0 per annum.3. The first Court held that the rate of rent was as claimed by the plaintiff and decreed the suit accordingly.4. On appeal to the District Court the learned Subordinate Judge held that the rent was as contended by the defendant.5. Hence the appeal to this Court.6. The first contention of the appellant is that the learned Judge erred in law in saying that the decision in the suit of 1911 concluded the plaintiff as to the rate of rent in 1911. He contended that this decree showed at the most rate...
Khorshedennessa Khatoon and Mahammad Bazlar Rahaman Chowdhury Vs. Haki ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal845,94Ind.Cas.228
Ewart Greaves, J.1. These two appeals are by-defendants Nos. 3 and 1 respectively in a partition suit for setting aside an ex parte decree that had been passed for partition of certain properties. Defendant No. 3 is a pardanashin lady and her case is that she was never served. Defendant 'No. 1 who is appellant in Appeal No. 64 of 1924 says that he was unable to present his case to the Court owing to the negligence or collusion of one Bhola Nath an employer of his who had been entrusted by him with the conduct of the case. So far as the lady is concerned, defendant No. 1, the appellant in Appeal No. 63, it appears that the service was effected by serving summons on her third son who lives in the same house as the lady. Under the circumstances it seems to me that it must be taken to be a proper service on this lady and we have not the slightest doubt that she knew all about the suit and that she had ample opportunity of giving due and proper instructions with regard to the conduct of the...
Fazalar Rahman and ors. Vs. Abdul Samad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.960
1. This is an appeal against an order granting an application for restitution. The original decree was passed on the 12th June 1916. In execution of that decree certain money was realised by the appellants on the 17th February 1917. The decree was reversed on appeal on the 7th January 1920. There was a further appeal to this Court and the decree of the Appellate Court was affirmed on the 20th December 1921. This application for restitution was made on the 9th February 1923. On the authorities it is clear that the period of limitation is three years under Article 181 of the Limitation Act see Asutosh Goswami v. Upendra Prasad Mitra 38 Ind. Cas. 17 : 21 C.W.N. 564 : 24 C.L. 467. The point we have to decide is whether this period of limitation runs from the 7th January 1920 when the decree of the first Court was set aside or from the date of its confirmation on second appeal to this Court.2. In our opinion the lower Courts are right in holding that the time should be calculated from the l...
Fazalar Rahaman and ors. Vs. Abdul Samad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal981
1. This is an appeal against an order granting an application for restitution. The original decree was passed on the 12th June 1916. In execution of the decree certain money was realized, by the appellants on the 17th February 1917. The decree was reversed on appeal on the 7th January 1920 There was a further appeal to this Court and the decree of the appellate Court was affirmed on the 20th December 1921. This application for restitution was made on the 9th February 1923. On the authorities it is clear that the period of limitation is three years under Article 181 of the Limitation Act: see Asutosh Goswami v. Upendra Prosad Mitra 21 C.W.N. 564. The point we have to decide is whether this period of limitation runs from the 7th January 1920 when the decree of the first Court was set aside or from the date of its confirmation on second appeal to this Court.2. In our opinion the lower Courts are right in holding that the time should be calculated from the later date. Though the facts are ...
Ray Satindra Nath Choudhury Vs. Ray Jatindra Nath Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Cal425,101Ind.Cas.530
1. These two appeals arise out of two suits upon mortgages. It appears that one Khagendra mortgaged the eastern part of the house (the property mortgaged) to the plaintiff Jatindra and his brother Satindra for ERs. 20,000 on the 7th January 1918. On the 30th September 1918 Surendra mortgaged the western part to both Jatindra and Satindra for Rs. 20,000.2. On the 18th March 1921 there was a deed of partition between the two brothers and their mother. The material portion so far as the present case is concerned runs as follows:Whenever any money, on account of ijmali (joint) money lending business or decree be realised, the same being at the same time divided in two equal parts, the second party and third party (i.e., the two brothers) will get it in equal shares.3. On the 27th April 1922, both Surendra and Khagendra sold the equity of redemption in the house to Satindra alone for Rs. 94,000 out of which Rs. 54,000 was due on the mortgages, the balance Rs. 40,000 being paid in cash. On t...
Midnapur Zemindary Company Limited of Kuthi Shikapur Vs. Dayardra Nath ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.433
Ewart Greaves, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken on the hearing of these Hales that the requisite Court-fee was not paid and that accordingly they are barred by limitation, no proper application for revision having been made within the period of 90 days or within such further period as may be allowed for taking copies of the judgment and decree. It appears that there are two Rules and two applications for review of judgments. These were filed 11 days after the re-opening of the Court after the long vacation, namely, on the 24th. November 1922. They were all stamped with a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 2. These, stamps were adequate for, the Rules but were, inadequate in respect of the applications, as clearly these should have been stamped either with half the value if presented within 89 days, or with the full value if presented after 90 days, that is to say, within the additional period allowed for taking copies. Clearly, therefore, there could have been no mistake or inadvertence...
Sreeput Singh Dugar Vs. Ram Sarup Surjiya Prosad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal982,95Ind.Cas.463
Duval, J.1. These two appeals are directed against certain orders of the District Judge of Murshidabad in an insolvency proceeding. It appears that one Chhattarpat Singh applied for insolvency on the 21st May 1909. In his first application he set forward a large number of debts some of which were contested as being benami. The first Court and the High Court dismissed his application for adjudication but in appeal to the Privy Council the petition for adjudication was admitted on the 20th November 1916. Thereafter a Receiver was appointed in the insolvency proceedings Chhattarpat Singh died on the 25th April 1918 and after his death his sons made an application to the Court stating that they were prepared to come to an arrangement with the creditors in respect of all just debts. Proceedings were subsequently taken before the District Judge for the creditors to prove their debts and on the 6th April 1923 one Ram Sarup Surja Prosad appeared to prove his debt of Rs. 20,765-7-6 (rupees twen...
Ranjit Chandra Talukdar and ors. Vs. Bissay Ram Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1018,94Ind.Cas.115
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this petition has arisen and the Rule has been granted are as follows : On the 29th of August 1923 the plaintiffs brought a suit against a number of persons and on the 11th June the case by consent of parties was referred to arbitration. Certain time was allowed to the arbitrators to submit their report. On the 16th July they asked for further time and time was extended till the 9th of August. On the 7th August apparently the arbitrators filed their award and on the 9th August 1924 the following order was recorded by the Court ' The arbitrators filed their award on the 7th August 1924. Put up on the 20th August for objections if any'. When the case was put up on the 20th August the plaintiffs asked for further time to file objections. The Munsif refused to grant any further time and disposed of the case on the 21st August.2. The plaintiffs have moved this Court and the first ground which was taken and which, in my opinion, is sufficient t...
The Official Trustee of Bengal and as Such Trustee to the Estate of th ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.30
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are these. This suit was tried along with two other suits. The suit is one for rent brought by the landlord against six persons. These persons are the heirs of one Broja Mohan Bera, who is now dead and with whom the original settlement was made. The case of the plaintiff was that the rent of the plaint land was Rs. 103-8-2.2. The case of the defendants was that the rent was Rs. 54-8-6 and that they were entitled to a remission of some Rs. 6-6-8 for Mamulchar for some of the plaint lands and that the rent of remaining plaint: lands was Rs. 38-8-5. They further claimed that they were entitled to an abatement of rent as the area was less than had been stated in the plaint.3. The first Court allowed the claim of the defendants with regard to an abatement for decrease in area; it did not allow the claim of Mamulchar, and gave the landlord a modified decree. Both parties appealed to the District Court; the plaintiff on th...
Barada Prosad Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Tarak Nath Mandal and on His ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.147
Ewart Greaves, J.1. Appeals Nos. 358 and 359 are by the defendants. In the suits out of which these appeals arise, namely, 484 and 485...the plaintiff sued for recovery of khas possession of certain land on declaration of his title thereto. The plaintiff based his title on a purchase in the year 1911 in execution of a money decree against two per-sons Rati Kama and Kshetra, the purchas being of a jama which these two persona held under the zemindar. The defence in these suits was that in the year 1915 the zemindar had brought a rent suit against Rati Kanta and Kshetra the recorded tenants and brought the tenure to sale and himself purchased it thereafter settling it with the defendants. In the year 1911 sale it was not expressly stated that the property was a tenure and it appears that no landlord's fee was paid and no notice was given to the landlord under the provisions of Section 13 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Under these circumstances it is urged before us in this appeal that the ti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »