Kolkata Court December 1926 Judgments
Munshi Safar Ali Master Vs. Abdul Majid and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal279
Mitter, J.1. These two appeals arise out of one suit commenced by the plaintiff for khas possession of Plots Nos. 1158 and 1159 of the cadastral survey from the Defendants on the allegation that he took settlement of the lands from Waliulla in osat raiyati right of Plot No. 1158 which was in his khas possession and of Plot No. 1159 which was let out to one Arif Meah in meadi osat raiyati right, and that after his death it came into the khas possession of the landlord as it was an under-raiyati right and was neither heritable nor transferable. The defence is that she acquired an interest in the land in suit with reference to both the plots by virtue of her kobala from her husband Arif Meah in consideration of her dower. The first Court held that Plot No. 1158 was outside the kobala and that, in Plot No. 1159 Arif had only a meadi right and was holding the land from year to year and that the Defendant was never recognized by the superior landlord. The first Court decreed the suit with re...
Tag this Judgment!Hyat Mahomed and ors. Vs. Shaikh Mannu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal290
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case a mortgage suit was tried and decreed at Arrah, It would appear that a preliminary decree was passed on the 24th of June 1921and the final decree on the 27th of January 1922. The sale was in April 1922at which the mortgagees purchased the properties. It is true that a writ for delivery of possession was issued in September 1922 by way of execution on the Original Side of the High Court.2. The present application concerns a suit brought by the defendants to that mortgage suit on the 20th of April 1925. It appears that that suit was brought to set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Arrah on the ground of suppression of processes. Curiously enough the writ of summons was not served for more then a year. An application is now made to us by the defendants in the suit for an order that that suit be transferred to the Court at Arrah which is within the limits of the Province of Behar and Orissa.3. It is said that the application is competently brought bef...
Tag this Judgment!Nazir Ahmed Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal478
1. This is an appeal by one Nazir Ahmed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Noakhali who has complained against him in that he brought a false charge of theft against one Nawab Ali. The case of theft was instituted by Nazir Ahmad by giving information to the Police. The Police enquired into the case and sent up Nawab Ali who was committed to the Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge found the case false and complained against Nazir Ahmad under Section 476, Criminal P.C. The first point urged by the learned vakil for the appellant is that the alleged offence was not committed in a proceeding or in relation to a proceeding before the Sessions Judge. The learned vakil contends that the offence, if any, was committed by the institution of the case before the Police and further that Section 476 refers to offences which are committed after the proceedings have begun before the Court.2. We think, however, that the words 'in relation to' are sufficiently wide to cover a case wher...
Tag this Judgment!Kshetra Nath Sikdar and ors. Vs. Harasukdas Balkissen Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal538
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These two appeals are against the preliminary decree and the final decree in the same suit which was brought for enforcement of a mortgage by deposit of title deeds in the town of Calcutta. The appellants are Defendants 3 and 4. The Defendant No. 1 purchased certain properties in the suburbs of Calcutta by a deed dated the 29th of September 1919 for Rs. 1,03,000. The area of the land purchased was 12 bighas odd. Out of this he had sold to third parties about 2 bighas of land which is not the subject matter of the present litigation. The Defendant No. 1 subsequently borrowed a certain amount of money from one Torit Bhusan Roy by depositing the fcitle deed with him. He afterwards approached the manager of the plaintiff firm and asked for a loan of Rs. 70,000 on the security of the property in question. The manager agreed. The plaintiff's case is that on the 21st of January 1920, the manager Kissen Gopal Bagri, advanced Rs. 25,000 which he made over to the attorney who wa...
Tag this Judgment!Umapati Mukerjee and ors. Vs. Sheikh Soleman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal614,103Ind.Cas.233
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Judge of Birbhum affirming a decree of the Munsif of Suri. The appeal has been preferred by the defendants and arises out of a suit (Title Suit No. 29 of 1920) commenced by the plaintiffs, who are the widow and sons and daughters of Milan Sheikh before the Munsif. Plaintiff's case is that Plot No. 2 of the plaint belongs to the widow of Milan and that the other plots of the plaint are not covered by the mortgage executed by the sons of Milan in favour of the father of Defendant No. 1 and were in possession of the plaintiffs even after delivery of possession to Defendant No. 1, but that Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 forcibly took possession of them alleging that they took settlement of them from Defendant No. 1. The defence of the defendants is that the disputed lands were mortgaged by the sons of Milan Sheikh and were sold in execution of the mortgage decree and purchased by Defendant No. 1. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 claim to have take...
Tag this Judgment!Kishen Dayal Chaukidar Vs. Darjeeling Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal574,103Ind.Cas.63
Suhrawardy, J.1. The order complained against in this case was passed by the Deputy Magistrate of Darjeeling on the 21st December 1925. The order was passed under Section 244(S) of the Darjeeling Municipal Act (1 of 1900, B.C.) directing the demolition of an unauthorised structure in the petitioner's house. The Sessions Judge of Darjeeling was moved against the order of the Deputy Magistrate and ha rejected the application on the 31st March 1926. The present Rule was obtained from this Court on the 11th August 1926 calling upon the Deputy Commissioner and the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside. On the face of it this application is too stale. But it is argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that inasmuch as one Division Bench of this Court has issued the Rule we are not entitled to question the propriety of the order on the ground that the application was made too late. We have considered the matter carefully inasmuch as...
Tag this Judgment!Asrafali Saiyal Vs. Nasur Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal343,101Ind.Cas.607
1. This is a reference under Section 438, Ciminal P.C., by the Sessions Judge of Faridpore recommending that the order of the Deputy Magistrate of Madaripur, discharging the accused under Section 119, Criminal P.C., in proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P.C., may be set aside. It appears that on the report of one Asrafali Saiyal, Chowkidar of Tarabunia, proceedings were started against the Opposite Party under Section 107 Criminal P.C., for obstructing a halot. The case was adjourned from time to time till the 10th July 1926 when the following order was recorded by the Magistrate:The petitioner is absent and no P. Ws. are present. There is also no petition on behalf of the prosecution. Accused persons are therefore discharged under Section 119, Criminal P.C.2. Against this order the Sessions Judge of Faridpore was moved and the learned Jude has made the present reference on the ground that Section 119 has no application to the facts of this case and that the order passed by the Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Sarat Chandra Haldar Vs. Mitra Mukerjee and Co. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal420
Mukerji, J.1. As regards the main contention of the petitioner which is to the affect that Order 9, Rule 9 applies to the case of dismissal of execution proceedings for default, we are completely in agreement with the view which the learned Munsif has taken. In an excellent judgment the learned Munsif has dealt with this question of law and has arrived at a conclusion which is to the effect that Order 9 is not applicable to cases where execution proceedings have been dismissed for default. He has also taken the correct view of the applicability of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He, however, proceeds to observe, when considering the question as to whether in the present case, he should exercise his powers under that section or not, that he has considered the allegations made in applicant's petition and has examined the records of the case and that he has come to the conclusion that the facts of the case are not such that he should exercise the extraordinary power which the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sarat Krishna Bose Vs. Bisweswar Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal534,103Ind.Cas.69
1. The petitioner had instituted a suit in the first Court of the Subordinate Judge of Faridpur on the 9th August 1924 for setting aside a revenue sale in respect of a certain taluk. The suit was dismissed for default, as the petitioner did not, or, as he says, was unable to, appear on the 5th August 1925. On the 4th September 1925 he applied under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil P.C., for restoration of the suit. The Subordinate Judge ordered this application to be registered and ordered the petitioner to file talabana and processes on or before the 10th September 1925. This order was not complied with. On the 10th September 1925 the case being put up, an application was made on the petitioner's behalf praying for a reasonable time to enable the petitioner's pleader to communicate with the petitioner who, it was said, was away at a distant place. The Subordinate Judge granted time by the following order : 'On the prayer of the applicant time allowed till 12/9 next for filing talabana and proce...
Tag this Judgment!Midnapore Zamindari Co. Ltd. Vs. Sadhumoni Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal846
Duval, J.1. In these cases the plaintiff-appellant brought five analogous suits. The allegation was that on the 24th June 1921, he purchased a tenure in an auction-sale and subsequently took possession through Court. The defendants were mokarari raiyats under the tenure-holder and so their tenancies, not being protected interests, were liable to be aunulled and accordingly notices were issued under Section 167, Bengal Tenancy Act, in August 1922. The defendants not having vacated the land, these suits were brought. The first Court dismissed the suits and so has the Additional District Judge on appeal. The finding of fact of the lower appellate Court is that these holdings came into existence many years ago, but not before the Permanent Settlement. They were occupancy holdings and were recognized as such. But at the time of the last record-of-rights they were recorded as holdings of raiyats holding at fixed rents. It is also found that the plaintiff recognized the defendants as raiyats ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »