Kolkata Court November 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.
Abdul Bari and ors. Vs. Amirjan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal940
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiffs instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises for setting aside a decree passed in a mortgage suit on the ground that it was fraudulently obtained, and for other reliefs.2. In 1886, two persons Uzir Ali and Khadim Ali executed a mortgage in respect of lands of Schedule 1 to the plaint. In 1892, Uzir Ali alone executed a document, in respect of the lands of Schedules 1 and 2 to the plaint, the exact character of which is disputed in the present suit. The interest of the mortgagee under the document of 1886 ultimately passed on to one Asgar Ali who in 1890 instituted a suit, being suit No. 25 of that year, on the basis of the said mortgage, obtained a decree and in execution thereof purchased the lands of Schedule 1 and then sold them to the predecessors of the present defendants.3. The plaintiffs who are the heirs of Uzir Ali at first instituted suit No. 636 of 1920, practically ignoring the mortgage of 1886 and praying to redeem the lands of Schs. 1 a...
Srimati Giribala Dasi and anr. Vs. Probhash Chandra Batabyal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.278
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 fight in this property alleging that it is included in the Taidabad of Bhagirath Batabyal, and asked for declaration of title, confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession and a declaration to the effect that the Record of Rights 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 Bocharam 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' nishkar right to an undivided 2/15th share of the pr...
AtaharuddIn Taluqdar and anr. Vs. Murari Mohun Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1928Cal193
Suhrawardy, J.1. In a lease executed by defendant 4 in favour of the landlords whose interest has now devolved upon the plaintiffs, creating a miras karsha, there was a covenant that if the tenant transferred the holding without the landlord's consent the landlord would have the right of re-entry. In 1326 defendant 4 sold the holding to defendant 1 who purchased it in the benami of defendant 2. Thereafter the plaintiffs brought the present suit for recovery of khas possession of the holding on the ground of breach of the covenant and also of abandonment. The defence was that defendant 4 was not aware of the stipulation in the lease and that she had a permanent transferable interest in the holding. The most important question raised at the trial was whether the plaintiff's suit was maintainable in view of Section 155, Ben. Ten. Act. There was also a denial of abandonment inasmuch as defendant 4 had taken a sublease from the purchaser (defendant 1) of the holding in suit. The Munsif foun...
Gopal Krishna Saha and ors. Vs. Mati Lal Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal196
Cuming, J.1. The Rule which was granted by my learned brothers Rankin and Mukerji, JJ., was argued before us on four grounds:(1) That the provisions of Section 242 were not complied with.(2) That no charge was drawn up and so accused was prejudiced in his defence as the case was treated as a warrant case.(3) The provisions of Section 360 were hot complied with.(4) An order under Section 522 was passed without notice to accused.2. I propose to deal first of all with the first ground. The first point to be decided is what was the procedure followed by the Magistrate. Did he treat the case as a summons case or a warrant case. This is not easy to determine-Admittedly the Magistrate did not apply the provisions of Section 242 and so it may be argued he treated the case as a warrant case.3. But he also drew up no formal charge from which it might be inferred that he dealt with the case as a summons case. An examination of the record, however, would show that the two sections under which summ...
Sajjad Mirza and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal372,101Ind.Cas.478
Rankin, C.J.1. This Rule was obtained on the single ground that in the course of the trial contrary to Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code certain witnesses namely Prosecution Witnesses Nos. 2, 7 and 10 and Court Witnesses Nos. 2 and 3 had been cross-examined with reference to statements made by them to the police in the course of the investigation under S, 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code,2. It turns out that as regards the Court Witnesses Nos. 2 and 3 they were not cross-examined contrary to Section 162 so far as can be ascertained at all. With reference to the Prosecution Witness No. 2 he was disbelieved altogether, and the learned Judge has in no way relied upon him nor is it suggested that there was anything in the evidence of the prosecution Witness No. 2 on which the defence could rely as proving this defence story. With regard to the Witnesses No. 7 and 10 it appears that these witnesses were treated as hostile witnesses. They came into the witness box and said that th...
Pramatha Nath Mallia Vs. Radha Kishore Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal344
Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendant and arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and confirmation of possession in 15 bighas 8 kattas 9 chataks of land. There is also an alternative prayer for recovery of possession. There was also an allegation in the plaint that the plaintiffs had acquired title Ly adverse possession. But the defence of the defendant was that the plaintiffs had no title to the property as it did not form part of village Luchibad but it formed part of his mouza village Mukandapore,2. The Court of first instance decreed against the defendant on the question of title and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit holding that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the disputed parcels within 12 years before the suit.3. On appeal by the plaintiffs to the lower appellate Court it came to the conclusion that 10 bighas 12 kattas 15 chataks of the disputed land appertained to. Luchibad and the remaining 4 bighas appertained to Khirai...
Japan Cotton Trading Company Ld. Vs. Jajodia Cotton Mills Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal625,103Ind.Cas.629
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Japan Cotton Trading Company, Limited, which presented a petition before Mr. Justice C.C. Ghose for the compulsory winding up of a company called the Jajodia Cotton Mills, Limited. Several points were dealt with by the judgment, but there is a point not dealt with by the judgment, as to which we are not satisfied, that it ever was abandoned and which we think is fatal to the petition.2. It appears that a firm called Sukdeodas Ramprosad were the managing agents of the company. They were also Banians and apparently debtors of the petitioning creditors. They obtained a promissory note for Rs. 6,00,000 from the company payable on the 31st of March 1926 and they endorsed that promissory note to the petitioning creditors. It is as endorsees of that promissory note that the Japan Cotton Trading Company, Limited, claim to be entitled to wind up the Cotton Mills, Limited.3. The first question in such a case, logically no doubt, is the question whether the...
Sm. Kumuda Kumari Dasi Vs. Dilsook Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal918,101Ind.Cas.542
Duval, J.1. These four appeals arise out of four suits brought by the plaintiff to eject certain persons as being tenant-at-will holding over after notices to quit. The plaintiff's case is that the lands in these suits are niskar lands of one Gopal Chandra, Mitra and that they have come into the plaintiff's possession by various deeds of transfer. But they are homestead lauds in which the defendants had no permanent right and, therefore, notices were served on them to quit and as the defendants have not removed, these suits have been brought. The defence is that these lands are not niskar lands at all but are mal lands of the Dighapatia Raj and are held at present under Kumar Sarat Kumar Roy of Dighapatia by the defendants as tenants.2. The first Court gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff for ejectment and for certain other reliefs. The Subordinate Judge in a most elaborate judgment has confirmed the decision of the Munsif as to ejectment, confirming, but varying his order in respe...
Satish Chandra Joardar and ors. Vs. Kumar Birendra Nath Roy Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal225
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case two questions arise for consideration with reference to the value of the subject-matter. The judgment complained of is a judgment of reversal and if the subject matter is of 5he value of Rs. 10,000 the appellants to England are entitled to a certificate.2. It is said first that the appellants to England, namely, the plaintiffs are estopped from alleging that the value of the subject-matter amounts to Rs. 10,000. It appears that in this suit the valuation which was put upon the plaint for the purpose of Court-fee, was, apart from mesne profits a valuation of some Rs. 930 only and it is said that the plaintiffs having failed in the first Court brought an appeal to the Court of the District Judge on the footing that the value of the subject matter was under Rs. 5,000. The District Judge having found in their favour and the High Court in second appeal having been against them and they now being desirous of proceeding further on appeal it is said that they are es...
Narayan Chandra Das Vs. Dulal Chandra Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal477
Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendant and arises out of a suit for the winding up of a partnership business and for accounts. The suit was instituted by Srimati Promoda Sundari Dasi as the next friend of the infant, Dulal Chandra Dutt. One of the objections that was taken by the defendant is that the suit was not maintainable by Promoda Sundari. It transpires in the evidence that at the date of the institution of the suit, the infant Dulal had attained majority and that the suit could not proceed in the form in which it had been laid. I shall state here that this objection was not specifically taken in the written statement. But an issue was raised and the matter was discussed before the Court of first instance, who gave effect to this plea taken by the defendant, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal by the plaintiff to the lower appellate Court, that decision was reversed and the plaintiff obtained a partial decree in the suit. Against that decision this appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »