Kolkata Court November 1926 Judgments
Rajah Janaki Nath Roy and ors. Vs. Nawab Khawaja Habibulla Saheb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal359
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits which ware dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Dacca on the 12th of September 1924. The plaintiffs sued for possession of 17 gandas 6 dantis 4 jobs and 34 renus share of four zamindaries on the allegation that they had purchased that share on July 9, 1913, in execution of mortgage decree obtained by them against their mortgagors. Two suits were brought in two districts as the properties were situated in different districts and one of the suits was transferred to Dacca under the orders of this Court. The questions involved in the two suits being the same they were tried together and were governed by the same judgment. The two appeals have also been heard together and will be disposed of by one judgment.2. The mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs was executed in May 1906 and the suit out of which these appeals arise were brought in May 1916. There wore four mortgagors but the mortgage suit against one of the legal representative...
Tag this Judgment!Rajani Kanta Shaha Banik Vs. Ramani Mohan Goswami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal934
1. The question raised in this appeal is that the decision of the lower appellate Court is wrong by which that Court has confirmed the decree of the Court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's suit on his failure to put in proper Court-fees on the plaint. The property is claimed by the plaintiff under a mortgage-decree and the subsequent purchase by him in execution of the mortgage-decree against the insolvent who is Ms father-in-law. His case is that subsequent to his purchase his father-in-law took a lease of the house and has been living in it. The insolvency Court ordered the property to be sold as that of the insolvent. The plaintiff applied to that Court for determination of his title to the property but the insolvency Court upheld the order passed by it for the sale of the property and refused to go minutely into the question of title. Thereupon the plaintiff brought the present suit for a mere declaration of his title to the property. Both the Courts below found tha...
Tag this Judgment!Ebad Ali and ors. Vs. Mt. Fatema Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal951
1. In this case the plaintiff sued for rent for the years 1323 to 1326 for three kanis of land at the rate of Rs. 13 per kani and also prayed for additional rent for additional area according to the terms of a lease. The defendants put up various defences alleging that they held all the lands within certain boundaries; that there was no excess land; that they had been dispossessed of some of their lands and that they had paid rent for 1323 and part of 1324. The Munsif dismissed the suit holding that there had been partial dispossession and holding too that the rent for 1323 and part of 1324 had been paid. In appeal the Subordinate Judge has given the plaintiff a decree to this extent that he has remanded the case to the lower Court to ascertain by actual measurement the exact extent of land held by the respondents within the boundaries given in the kabuliyat and to assess the excess land at Rs. 13 per kani. He does not appear to have disturbed the finding that the rent for 1323 and par...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Chaitanya Krishna Mandal and ors. Vs. Jagat Chandra Banikya and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal240
Mukerji, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Tippera dated the 26th of April 1926 and also against an order passed by the Munsif, 3rd Court of Chandpur, dated the 14th of November 1925. The facts which led up to the application upon which this Rule has been issued are the following:The petitioners in this Rule obtained a decree for money against the opposite party. The said decree was passed in a suit which had been instituted by the petitioners for recovery of money and during the pendency of the said suit on or before the 11th of June 1923, the petitioners attached before judgment three properties belonging to the opposite party. The decree was passed on the 26th of September 1923 and in execution of the said decree the three properties were advertised for sale. In the meantime another person, namely, one Nagarbashi obtained another money decree against the opposite party and attached one of the properties namely Lot No. 1 out of the aforesa...
Tag this Judgment!Ashutosh Seal Vs. Gouripore Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal286
1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (8 of 1923). The facts are that the Appellant - a workman employed by (the Gouripore Company, Ltd. - suffered an injury to his left hand causing, according to the medical evidence, an abrasion on the outer side of the left index finger and an injury exposing the subcutaneous tissue It is not disputed that the injury was caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. This happened on the 25th June 1925. He was treated by the doctor attached to the Mill till the 30th June. He then, it appears, went to the Imambara hospital in Hughly on the opposite side of the river where he was treated from the 2nd to the 8th July. On the 8th July he wanted to become an indoor-patient of the hospital, but he was asked by the doctor to get a letter to that effect from the Mill. On that day, according to the appellant's evidence at about noon he went to the Mill and obtained the necessary letter. Sometime after...
Tag this Judgment!Karuna Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal413
Mitter, J.1. These two appeals have been preferred by the plaintiffs and arise out of two suits filed on their behalf' under Section 104(h) of the Bengal Tenancy Act to correct an entry in the Record of Rights wherein the plaintiffs have been recorded as tenure-holders. The plaintiffs-claim their status to be that of raiyats. The plaintiffs ask for the further relief that it be declared that the entry with regard to rent was wrong. In Appeal No. 1765 the lands are covered by two leases, Exs. 1 and 2 and the area in each lease is much in excess of 100 bighas. In appeal No. 2018 of 1924 the area is also over 100 bighas. In each of these appeals the plaintiffs have consequently to rebut the statutory presumption arising under Section 5 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. They have also to rebut a further presumption arising out of the entry in the Record of Rights. That presumption is sought to be rebutted by the description of the plaintiffs in the kabuliyat in the first case as a raiyat and by t...
Tag this Judgment!Dwijapada Das and ors. Vs. Kalipada De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal421
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 8 against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 19th June 1921. The suit was instituted by three persons for possession of B-annas share of certain properties which originally belonged to one Durga Charan Baral The Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 claimed as heirs of one of the daughters of Durga Charan named Nistarini Dasi and Plaintiff No. 1 claimed on the strength of purchase of the share of another heir named Jogesh Chandra Dhar, and a portion of the shares of Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3. Durga Charan had two daughters, Nistarini and Gokul Sundari. He died in 1872 after having executed a Will. Letters of Administration with the Will annexed were, obtained by Nistarini and Gokul Sundari, the two daughters of Durga Charan. After that this property-was the subject of various legal proceedings. Two attempts were made during the lifetime of those ladies for revocation of the Probate on various grounds whi...
Tag this Judgment!Brojo Gopal Naik Vs. Lakshmoni Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal791
Pearson, J.1. This is an application for transfer to this Court of a suit pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hooghly. The application is on the part of defendant 4 in that suit, one Rash Behary Mondal, and is supported by all the appearing defendants, but opposed by the plaintiff.2. Ramdhone Khan and Rameswar Khan were two brothers possessed of considerable joint properties moveable and immovable; the pedigree which is exhibited shows their descendants and their relationship. It appears that there was certain litigation in this Court concerning the joint estate. In 1914 Ramdhone's widow Lakshimoni filed a suit for partition in this Court, as a result of which certain properties were allotted to her, the rest remaining joint. In 1919 a suit was instituted against Lakshimoni, also in this Court, for a declaration that certain transfers by her of Government securities were invalid, and for other reliefs. That suit never came to a hearing.3. In June 1920, a suit (1172 of 1920...
Tag this Judgment!Barada Prosad Roy Chowdhury Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal218
Cuming, J.1. The facts of this case appear to be these : The petitioner is the owner of a certain bustee at 32, Ballygunge Circular Road. On the 13th August 1925 a notice was issued on him under Section 346 of the Calcutta Municipal Act requiring him to carry out certain improvements in the bustee. The petitioner failed to comply with this notice and was fined Rs. 50 on the 10th December 1925 for failing to do so. On the 16th of Dacembar 1925 the petitioner served a written notice on the Corporation under Section 359 stating that he intended to remove all the huts standing on the land. The Corporation, as far as can be ascertained, refused to accept this notice. Meanwhile the petitioner had served notices on the tenants of this bustee to remove their huts. I may here note that it was by a letter dated the 13th January 1926 which was received by the petitioner on the 15fch January by which the Bustee Surveyor informed the petitioner that the Standing Committee had refused to accept the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Gouribala Debi and ors. Vs. Probhas Chandra Batabyal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal931
Mukerji, J.1. The defendants are the appellants in this appeal. The suit out of which it arises was instituted by the plaintiffs for establishment of their title to a tank and its banks which bear Nos. 1621 and 1622 in the settlement map of village Ajabnagar The plaintiffs claimed nishkar right in this property alleging that it is included in the Taidad of Bhagirath Batabyal, and asked for the declaration of title, confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession and a declaration to the effect that the record of right is wrong. In the record of rights, it may be stated here, the property is recorded in the names of the defendants. The defendants' case shortly stated was that the property is included in another Taidad called Becharam Batabyal's Taidad and that in the ordinary course of succession they have acquired title to it and are in possession of it.2. The Munsif made a decree declaring the plaintiffs' niskar right to an undivided 2/15th share of the pro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »