Kolkata Court January 1926 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.
Dwarka Nath Karmakar Vs. Lalit Mohan Karmakar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.576
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of winch this appeal arises are these the decree-holder who is the appellant before us applied to execute a certain decree which he had obtained against the respondent. The suit in which this decree was obtained was decreed on a solehnamah. When the decree-holder attempted to execute his decree the judgment-debtor put in an objection that it was agreed between the parties that the original suit should be decreed on a solehnamah on the understanding that a petition admitting full satisfaction would be filed without any money being paid by the judgment-debtor. Both the lower Courts seem to have found that this contention of the judgment debtor has been proved that there was no intention that the decree should be executed. The decree-holder has appealed to this Court and he contends that this is not a question that falls within the provisions of Section 47, because it does not relate to discharge, execution or satisfaction of the decree. He contends ...
Radhamatulla Mondal and ors. Vs. Lokeman Dafadar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.544
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal arises are these. The plaintiffs brought a suit with regard to a certain land in the Court of the Munsif at Ranaghat. At the time of the trial it was objected that the land in dispute did riot lie within the jurisdiction of the Munsif at Ranaghat but lay within the jurisdiction of the Munsif at the head-quarters of the Nadia District. This objection seems to have been overruled by the first Court and the Munsif proceeded to try the suit arid decreed it with costs. On appeal the same objection was raised, namely, the land in dispute did not lie within the jurisdiction of the Munsif at Ranaghat but lay within the jurisdiction of the Munsif at the headquarters of the JNadia District. The learned Subordinate Judge found that this was so and for that reason set aside the decree and ordered that the case should be remanded to him to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper Court.2. The plaintiffs have appea...
Upendra Nath Bose Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. K.B. Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.562
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of a decree for costs. The appellants were the plaintiffs in a certain suit. The final decree in the High Court was made against them and they were made liable for payment of costs of the trial Court as well as of the High Court. The decree of the High Court was dated the 5th of July, 1917. Execution for costs was applied for on the 23rd of March, 1918, and it was for the realization of costs both of the Appellate Court and the trial Court. That application was dismissed in August, 1918, and it is unnecessary to state the reason for the order. The second application for execution was made on the 5th of July 1920 and in that application the decree-holders sought for executing the decree for costs allowed by the High Court only; and the argument of the appellants is based upon this fact. On that application partial satisfaction was obtained by the decree-holders. The third application for execution was made on the 31...
Maharaja Sashi Kanta Acharjee Bahadur Vs. Fooljan Bewa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1184,96Ind.Cas.567
Cuming, J.1. A preliminary objection is raised to this case that no appeal lies Mr. Roy, who appears for the appellant, has attempted to distinguish this case on the ground that in the present appeal a question of service of notice under Order XXI, Rule 66, C.P.C. was determined, and that, therefore, this must be considered as an order determining a question which arises under Order XXI, Rule 66. Admitting for the sake of, argument that this is correct, there is no appeal against an order, determining a question under Order XXI, Rule 66, C.P.C. See the case of Deoki Nandan Singh v. Bansi Singh 10 Ind. Cas. 371 : 16 C.W.N. 124 : 14 C.L.J. 35 which is followed in the case Of Panch Duar Thakur v. Mani Raut 17 Ind. Cas. 88 : 16 C.W.N. 970.2. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as incompetent. The respondents will get their costs. Hearing fee one goldmohur.3. There is an application in the alternative in connection with this appeal. After considering all the circumstances in the case we are...
Sriharijana and ors. Vs. Satya Charan Dulia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.961
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for a declaration that they had occupancy right in the jote in suit and that defendants Nos. 2 to 6 were their under-raiyats: and for rectification of certain entries in the Record of Rights which recorded the plaintiffs as tenure-holders and the defendants Nos. 2 to 6 as occupancy raiyats. The defendant No. 1 was the Receiver of the estate of the landlords. No lease was obtained before the institution of the suit from the Court appointing the Receiver. In the written statements of defendants Nos. 2 to 6 an objection was taken that the suit could not proceed in the absence of such leave, but no issue was framed on the point. The Receiver appeared in the suit and contested that the plaintiffs were not occupancy raiyats but tenure-holders. But he raised no objection with regard to the absence of leave to institute the suit against him. At the time of the argument before the Trial Court the Receiver s...
Jogesh Chandra Roy Vs. Annada Charan Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1065,95Ind.Cas.831
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and it arises out of a. suit for ejectment of the defendants after service of notice to quit. The facts, shortly stated, are these: On the 10th April 1884, the. Collector of Chitagong representing the-Court of Wards granted a lease of the land in suit to one Mobarak Ali Mistri for six years---the estate to which the said land belonged having been in the possession of the Court of Wards. The estate was subsequently released in July 1897. It appears that Mobarak Ali and, after his death, his, heirs continued to be in possession of the land even after the expiry of the lease and they transferred the leasehold interest to one Pitamber who in his turn transferred it to the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in 1913. The plaintiff served a notice on the defendants to quit in 1914 and the present suit wa9 brought on the 26th July 1915. The defendants answer was that no notice was served on them and that the notice purported to have been served was not ...
Srihari Jana and ors. Vs. Satya Charan Dulia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1040
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for a declaration that they had occupancy right in the jote in suit and that Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 where their under-raiyats, and for rectification of certain entries in the Record of Rights which recorded the plaintiffs as tenure-holders and the Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 as occupancy raiyats. The Defendant No. 1 was the Receiver of the estate of the landlords. No leave was, obtained before the institution of the suit from the Court appointing the Receiver.2. In the written statements of Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 an objection was taken that the suit could not proceed in the absence of such leave, but no issue was framed on the point. The Receiver appeared in the suit and contested that the plaintiffs were not occupancy raiyats but tenure-holders. But he raised no objection with regard to the absence of leave to institute the suit against him. At the time of the argument before the trial Court the Receiv...
Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi and ors. Vs. Rajendra Kishore Nath Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1236,97Ind.Cas.306
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal arises are these: the decree-holder obtained a decree for rent against the judgment-debtors and in execution of this rent-decree the property was sold on the 26th November, 1923. Then on the 2nd January, 1924, when the Court re-opened after the Christmas holidays two petitions were filed one by the judgment-debtors in which they stated that their property had been sold at an auction sale on the 26th November, 1923, and that they had paid the whole amount of the decree in case to the decree-holder amicably and deposited in Court the sum of Rs. 38-8-0 by means of a chalan as compensation money to the auction-purchaser, and they prayed that the money deposited by the auction-purchaser might be transferred from the account of the auction-purchaser, or in other words it should be paid back to the auction-purchaser. Along with this petition of the judgment-debtors an application was presented by the decree-holder in which she stated...
Satis Chandra Giri Vs. Benoy Krishna Mukhopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1092,96Ind.Cas.30
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant, Satis Chandra Giri against two orders dated respectively the 9th May 1925 and the 7th July, 1925. By his first order which was made on an application dated the 1st November, 1924, the learned District Judge of Hooghly against whose order this appeal is presented directed that a Receiver should be appointed for the custody and administration of the properties of the endowment to which the application related. By his order of the 7th July, 1925 the Receiver who is now in possession was actually appointed. The application arises out of a suit commenced under the provisions of Section 92 of the C.P.C. The suit was commenced on the 10th September, 1922 and the application for the appointment of a Receiver was made on the 1st November, 1924 more than a year and a half after the institution of the suit. That, we think, is a matter that has to be borne in mind in considering the appointment of a Receiver, for in a case of this kind such a...
Sukh Lal Shah Vs. Prosanna Kumar Shaha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1199
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Chakravarti by which he modified the decision of the Subordinate Judge. The facts relevant to the present appeal may be shortly stated thus: The plaintiffs allege that the defendant's predecessor was granted a lease of a piece of land as a homestead in about 1850, that the predecessors of the defendant and after them the defendant have been in possession since then and the plaintiffs served upon the defendant a proper notice to quit and on that the tenancy has terminated. The plaintiffs therefore brought the suit for the purpose of ejecting the defendant from the land.2. The defendant raised several objections, but the plea which it is now necessary to state was that the defendant had taken in the year 1916 a certain piece of agricultural land in the same village from some other landlord which he had been holding as a raiyat. He therefore claimed that his tenancy with regard to this homestead should...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »