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.
Hem Chandra Jelia and ors. Vs. Satya Kinkar Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.835
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the market value of the paddy and straw reserved as rent in a kabuliyat, or to the price of the same stated in it.2. The material portion of the kabuliyat is as follows: 'I having prayed to you for being granted a Permanent Settlement of about 7 bighas of land comprising jore, hasil and patit and described in the boundaries given in the Schedule out of the same and which is held in khas by you, you have been pleased to grant me in accordance with my prayer a Permanent Settlement at a jama of 10 (ten) maps of sanja paddy, measured with a Rajhati pai of full measure, (the price where of is Rs. 50) and 10 (ten) pons of straw (the price whereof is Rs. 2) at a jama of the said sanja paddy, etc., the total price being Rs. 52 per annum. Accordingly I give in writing this kabuliyat that I shall deliver the said sanja paddy and straw without variation every year in the month of Magh, to you and la...
Emperor Vs. Ekabbor and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal925,94Ind.Cas.361
1. This is a Reference under Section 307, Cr.P.C. by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Pabna who was unable to agree with the unanimous verdict of the Jury-finding the accused Nos. 2 to 6 guilty under Section 395, Indian Penal Code. With regard to accused No. 1 who was also found guilty under Section 395, the learned Judge has accepted the verdict of the Jury and sentenced him to transportation for life. In respect of the other accused persons the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has made no definite recommendation in referring the case to this Court under Section 307, Cr. P.C. but it seems from a perusal of this letter of reference that he is of opinion that these five accused should be acquitted.2. All the six accused were charged under Sections 395, 412 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code. The facts which gave rise to the prosecution are that there were two dacoities committed on the 10th June 1923 in the houses of two persons Prasunno Kumar Guha and Girish Chandra Ghose. There were several ...
Gopiram Behariram Vs. Agent, East Indian Railway and Agent, Oudh and R ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal612,94Ind.Cas.762
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover Rs. 709-10 as compensation for goods consigned by the plaintiff's agent for carriage by Railway which were not delivered to the plaintiff.2. It appears that 13 tins of ghee, and one tin of mustard oil, in 7 packages were consigned by the plaintiff's agent at Shahgunj a Station on the Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway to the plaintiff at Howrah. Only one package (containing 1 tin of ghee and 1 tin of mustard oil) arrived at Howrah and the plaintiff was asked to take delivery thereof on giving a full acquittance receipt which he refused to do. The other 6 complete packages did not arrive at Howrah at all and were not delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereupon served a notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act upon the defendants and brought the suit for compensation.3. The Court of first instance allowed the claim in part. The Court of Appeal below dismissed the claim altogether. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court.4. Under ...
Rajani Kanta Ghose Vs. Nagendra NaraIn Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Cal232
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the Defendant No. 1 against a decision of the District Judge of Murshidabad confirming a decision of the Second Court at Jungipur. The only question that arises in the appeal is whether there has been a complete abandonment by the tenants of the holding so as to entitle the plaintiffs to the relief which they seek in the suit, namely, recovery of possession. On the 8th of May 1910, the tenants executed in favour of the appellant a usufructuary mortgage. The area stated in the mortgage is 26 bighas 7 kotahs of land 'as per boundaries given below.' The boundaries and the plots comprised in the mortgage are set out in detail in the schedule to the deed. On the 20th of May 1911, the tenant sold 16 bighas 12 kotahs of the land to the appellant by a kobala of the date which I have mentioned. The area is stated in the document as 16 bigbas 12 kotahs land out of the 26 bigbas 7 kotahs mortgaged to the appellant. Subsequently, on the 31st of May 1918, the tena...
Basanta Kumar Choudhury and anr. Vs. Rai Baikunta Nath Chakravarty Bah ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal610,91Ind.Cas.819
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the judgment-debtors and it arises out of an order which, purports to has been made under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 66, C.P.C. the execution proceeding in connection with which, the order in question has been passed relate to a mortgage decree. The judgment-debtors put in an objection on the 21st March 1925 dealing with various matters. One of those objections was to the effect that the Cadastral Survey Dags should have been inserted in the description of the properties mentioned in the application for execution. Another objection was that the values of the properties had been understated in the application for execution. A third objection related to one of the plots mentioned is the decree, namely, plot No. 11 it being stated that, so fax as that plot was concerned, the mortgage was only in respect of an eight-annas share and not in respect of the entire sixteen-annas. There was also an objection relating to the number of the taluq as ...
Sivadas Dutta and anr. Vs. Birendra Krista Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.844
Mukerji, J.1. The appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The plaintiff claims in his one-anna share, rent for certain lands at the rate of Rs. 89-10-101/2 gandas per year from 1324 to 1327, alleging that the defendants hold 2610 bighas odd at a rental of Rs. 1,434-8-8 gandas. His case is that the area and the rental were fixed in a suit inter partes, i.e., Rent Suit No. 49 of 1887 of the first Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore. The defendants contend that they hold about 1002 bighas of land under two pottas dated 4th Jaistha 1242 and 5th Falgoon 1247, that since the grant of the said pottas the plaintiff and his co-sharers have got remission of 25 per cent. of the rent payable by them to the Government under whom they hold, and that by the terms of the aforesaid pottas the defendants are legally entitled to get a deduction at the same rate. They further say that some of the lands hare been washed away or rendered unculturable and under the terms of the pottas they are entitled t...
Bengaram Changa and anr. Vs. Bejoy Govinda Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal513,91Ind.Cas.738
Cuming, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for rent of a certain parcel of land for the years 1325 to 1327. The rent claimed was at the rate of Rs. 14-14-6 per annum. The defence was that the area now was 6 pakhis and that there had been diminution of the area of the tenancy and hence the defendants were entitled to an abatement of rent. The first Court gave effect to this contention of the defendants and held that there had been decrease in the area and gave a decree for a proportionate amount of rent.2. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Court and before the District Court it was argued first that the question of any abatement of rent to be allowed for decrease in the area was res judicata between the parties and secondly that Section 109 of the Bengal Tenancy Act was a bar to this question of abatement of rent being considered in the present rent suit. The lower Appellate Court decided this question of res judicata against the app...
Shaikh Belait Ali and ors. Vs. Hari Prosad Moitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.741
1. This Rule is directed against an order of the learned District Judge of Birbhum refusing to entertain an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C., on the ground that Order IX, Rule 13 had no application to proceedings for the appointment of a common manager under Section 95 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The facts appear to be these the opposite party applied to the District Judge of Birbhum for the appointment of a common manager under Section 95 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The petitioner wishing to file objections to the application engaged a certain Pleader to appear for him. The learned Pleader was unable to appear for the petitioner as he gave up his practice in Birbhum and went to the Sub-Division of Kissengunge in the District of Purnea where he began to practice. The petitioner then endeavoured to instruct another Pleader but was unable to instruct him in time. As no time was granted to him the matter was decided ex parte against him on the 25th March 1925. He then filed an ap...
Nagendra Nath Palit Vs. Robindra NaraIn Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal490,94Ind.Cas.212
Page, J.1. This case raises an issue of deep and general interest to the Hindu Community, viz., whether a shebait is entitled to transfer the rights and duties which appertain to his office.2. On the 19th April 1867 Raja Sir Radha Kanto Deb died. He was an erudite Sanskrit scholar, and a personage of culture and distinction. He left surviving him three sons and numerous other relations of whom the following is a pedigree: RAJA RADHA KANTO DEB BAHADUR, K.C.S.I., (dead) | ------------------------------------------------------- | | | (Kumar) Mahendra Raja Rajendra Narayan (Kumar) (Kumar) Debendra Narayan, Narayan x Kristo Ramani, (left one eon and four daughters) (dead.) (dead.) (dead.) | | | ------------------------------ ----------------------- | | | | | | Brojendra Narayan, Surendra Narayan,S.M. Brajo Coomary, S.M. Kamal Coomary, | (dead) (dead.) (dead.) (dead.) | | | | | | -------------------- | --------------------- | | | | | | | | | | Monindra Jatindra Narayan, |Nagendra Nripendra ...
Amiya Pal Chowdhury Vs. Srimati Rani Sharba Mangala Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal737,91Ind.Cas.657
Cuming, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent The plaintiffs who are three in number sued as legal heirs of one Bipradas, the defendant, who is a purchaser from the original tenant, one Banwari Das for the rent of the years 1324 to 1327 with cesses and interest at the rate of Rs. 135 a year. The defendant, it may be noted here, purchased by a kobala from Banwari in Magh 1325. The defence was that the defendant was not liable for rent for the year 1324 because she was not in possession and she further pleaded payments over and above those that had been credited in the plaint and also she objected to the claim for cesses and interest as excessive. The First Court held that she was. not liable to pay rent for 1324 and 1326'and gave the plaintiff a proportionate decree. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court with regard to the rent for 1324 which had been disallowed by the First Court. The lower Appellate Court held that the defendant was not liable to pay rent for 1324 as s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »