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.
Ram Chandra De and anr. Vs. Gajendra Nath Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1926
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.204
1. The facts giving rise to the prosecution out of which this Rule has arisen, shortly stated, are as follows: The complainant sold two thatched huts to the accused No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 150. The complainant's case is that the said consideration was to be paid in the following manner, i.e., a sum of Rs. 47 was to be set off on account of a debt which the complainant owed to the accused No. 1 and the balance, namely, a sum of Rs. 103 was, to be paid to the complainant by the accused No. 1 on the execution of the document. It is said that the complainant was in a hurry to leave Calcutta and that it was arranged between the parties that the kobala in respect of the huts should be executed and registered forthwith by the complainant and that the said sum of Rs. 103 being the balance of the consideration should be paid by the accused No. 1 afterwards. The complainant complains that although the kobala was executed and registered in accordance with the said arrangement, the accused No. 1 fa...
Sheikh Alfoo Vs. Baburali Mia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.414
Cuming, J.1. This is as appeal against an order of my learned brother Mr. Justice Chakravarti setting aside a decree of the first Appellate Court and remanding the case to that Court for re-trial.2. The suit was a suit for recovery of arrears of rent at an enhanced rent; and one of the points of difference between the parties was what was the initial1 rent of the holding on which enhancement was to be calculated. It was the ca3e of the plaintiff that the initial rent was Rs. 6 odd which it was the case of the defendant that the rent was Rs. 6 odd.3. The trial Court decided in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal the, learned Subordinate Judge relying together with other evidence on a certain kabuliyat, Ex. A, decided in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to this Court and Mr. Justice Chakravarti holding that the kabuliyat, Ex. A, which the learned Subordinate Judge had taken into consideration in coming to his finding was not admissible in evidence set aside the judgment of ...
Bhusan Shahana and ors. Vs. Upendra Nath Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.665
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal is against a judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Waimsley. The appeal arises out of a suit for establishing a right of easement with regard to certain lands for taking water from the defendants' tank for the purpose of irrigation and for an injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs in drawing water.2. The defendants are the appellants before us and two points have been urged in support of the appeal. The first point is that some ladies, the daughters of one Susa, have not been made parties defendants to the suit and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The Munsif found that these ladies were not in actual possession of the tank, and that they had no hand in resisting the plaintiffs in taking water from the tank: and thereupon he rejected the plea, but this was given effect to by the Subordinate Judge; Mr. Justice Walmsley has held that that was not a defect; in the suit for which it is liable to be dismissed. I quite ...
Beni Madhab Chaudhury and anr. Vs. Moharajadhiraj Sir Bejoy Chand Maha ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.570
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the suits brought by the plaintiff against the defendants in which certain prayers were made which I shall, relate later on. Issues were framed in the Court of the Munsif as to whether there was the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants with regard to the jama in suit certain other issues were also framed relating to the right of enhancement and so forth. The Munsif decided the question as regards the relationship of landlord and tenant against the plaintiff and in that view dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. The claim in each of these cases was below rupees fifty and the Munsif was authorised under Section 163 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to decide suits for recovery of rent finally under that value.3. There, was an appeal by the plaintiff to the Subordinate Judge. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the defendants before the Subordinate Judge that the appeals before him were not maintainable...
Srikrishna Mandal Vs. Khadiar Chand Pali and Srimaty Biradasundari Das ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.581
Ewart Greavesa, J.1. These two appeals arise out of suits brought by two persons, named Nadiar Ohand Pali and Khadiar Chand Pali, claiming either joint khas possession or separate khas possession in respect of the land in suit to the extent of their 1/3rd share, that is to say, 2/3rd to each plaintiff after declaration of their title. The facts are shortly as follows. The property in suit originally belonged to one Fagu Mandal. Fagu, who was by caste Pali, married first of all a wife by whom he had one son Sukh Chand. Then after the death of his first wife or during her lifetime, 1 am not sure which--Fagu lived with one Rupasundari by whom he had two sons, the two plaintiffs Nadiar and Khadiar. Apparently, although Fagu belonged to Pali caste, there has been a recent movement according to the finding of the Munsif among this caste to claim the position as Khatriyas. For instance, they have assumed the sacred thread and have done other things to establish their claim to be Hindus belong...
Safitannessa Khatun and ors. Vs. Megh Lal Gope and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal735,94Ind.Cas.172
George Claus Rankin, J.1. In this case the auction-purchaser who had been in possession of the property purchased for a substantial period--it is alleged for some three years--found that the Court had made an order under Rule 90 of Order XXI setting aside the sale upon the application of a person who claimed to be a mortgagee and who claimed that at the time of the sale no notice had been served upon him. The auction-purchaser claimed that the mortgagee had got the sale set aside by suppressing the service of all notices of the application under Rule 90. When he came to learn of the order made setting this sale aside, he applied to the Munsif under Order IX as a person who had not been properly served and against whom an ex parte decree had been made in his absence. The Munsif dismissed that application on the ground that Order IX was inapplicable to execution proceedings and that position seems, so far as the Vakil for the petitioner is concerned, to be uncontested before me.2. There ...
Beni Madhab Chaudhury and anr. Vs. Bejoy Chand Mahatap Bahadur of Burd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1182
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the suits brought by the plaintiff against the defendants in which certain prayers were made which I shall relate later on. Issues were framed in the Court of the Munsif as to whether there was the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants with regard to the jama in suit, certain other issues were also framed relating to the right of enhancement and so forth.2. The Munsif decided the question as regards the relationship of landlord and tenant against the plaintiff and in that view dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The claim in each of these cases was below rupees fifty and the Munsif was authorized under Section 153 of the Bangal Tenancy Act to decide suits for recovery of rent finally under that value.3. There was an appeal by the plaintiff to the Subordinate Judge. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the defendants before the Subordinate Judge that the appeals before him were not maintainable ...
Deven Mandal and ors. Vs. Dhurba Kumar Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal916
B.B. Ghose, J.1. The only point involved in this appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The trial Court made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. On appeal by the defendants that decree was reversed by the Subordinate Judge who held that the suit was barred by one year's rule of limitation under Article 11-A, Indian Limitation Act. What happened was this the plaintiff obtained a decree against third persons in a previous suit. In execution of that decree they obtained symbolical possession against the judgment-debtors. They, however, wanted to remove certain huts which were on the land and to take khas possession. These huts were claimed by the defendants, who resisted the plaintiff's in taking possession on the ground that they were on the land as tenants in their own right. The executing Court rejected the plaintiffs' application for khas possession on the finding that the defendants were on the land in their own right. That order is dated the 28th February 1918. The pr...
Upendra Nath Mukhopadhya and anr. Vs. Kiran Chandra Ghore and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1046,97Ind.Cas.149
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the daughter's sons of one Peary Mohan Goswami for recovery of captain properties belonging to their maternal grandfather which had been alienated by their mother Uma Sundari. Uma Sundari died in November, 1912, and the present suit was brought in November, 1919.2. The. Munsif gave a decree in favour of the plaintiffs with regard to all the lands claimed except four plots. The defendants appealed to the District Judge and the plaintiffs preferred cross-objections. The appeal of the defendants was decreed by the learned Judge and the cross-objections dismissed. In the result the entire suit was dismissed on appeal. The plaintiffs appeal to this Court and they attack the decision of the, District Judge on the ground that the alienations made by their mother who had Hindu widow's estate in the property left by her father were not justified by legal necessity.3. The defendants allege that some of the properties did not belong to ...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Naresh Chandra Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1000,95Ind.Cas.459
Greaves, J.1. These three appeals arise out of land acquisition proceedings in respect of lands acquired by Government for an extension of the Gun and Shell Factory at Ichapur in the 24-Perganas. The lands acquired which form the subject-matter of these three appeals extend to 255 bighas 15 cottas and three chittaks in all, the lands covered by Appeal No. 26 which, arises out of Case No. 88 of 1918 extend to 5 cottas 4 chittaks, those of Appeal No. 27 which arises out of Case No. 90 of 1918 to 12 bighas 4 corns and 13 chittaks, and those of Appeal No. 28 which arises out of Case No. 100 of 1918 to 243 bighas & cottas 6 chittaks. The appeals have all been heard together and are governed by one judgment in the Court below and the same questions arise in all of them.2. The declaration for the acquisition of the lands was published on the 5th December 1917 and the declaration itself is dated the 3rd December 1917. The award of the Land Acquisition Deputy Collector is dated the 26th-July 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »