Kolkata Court December 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.
Sahebzada Faridun Seko Vs. Sahebzadi Jehanara Begum
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal382,101Ind.Cas.104
Mukerji, J.1. Zuhura Begum, one of the wives of Tipoo Sultan, by a deed, dated 1255 B.S. (1848), founded a wakf, to which the proceedings which form the subject-matter of this Rule relate. By this deed one Haider Seko was appointed the first mutwalli and he was to remain in possession of the endowed property naslan bad naslan. Haider Seko was succeeded in the office of mutwalli by his son Mahomed Seko and then by his granddaughter Rowshan Jehan Begum. In 4909 one Fakir Mahomed and another, person instituted a suit (No. 37 of 1909) for removing Rowshan Jehan Begum from the mutwalliship. Daring the pendency of this suit, and in January 1910, Rowshan Jahan Begum died leaving an infant daughter Jehanara Begum by her first husband and cousin Asab Seko. The said Jehanara Begum is the opposite party in this Rule. Rowshan Jehan Begum had been married a second time on the death of her first husband to Faridun Seko who is the petitioner before us. On the death of Rowshan Jehan, Begum, Suit No. 3...
Shyama Charan Ghose Vs. Fakir Chandra Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal546,101Ind.Cas.45
Graham, J.1. These appeals, in which the defendant is the appellant, arise out of suits for enhancement of rent on the ground of increase in the price of staple foodcrops. The plaintiff claimed that the tenancies in question are occupancy holdings and liable as such to enhancement under the provisions of Section 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The main defence was that -the tenancies are holdings at fixed rate and are not liable to enhancement. The Court of first instance found in favour of the plaintiff and gave a decree. On appeal by the defendant that decision was affirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge, the appeals being dismissed and the cross-appeals of the plaintiff allowed with costs.3. The defendant has now appealed to this Court and two points have been urged on his behalf. The first contention has reference to Sections 50, 102(b) and 115 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and it is argued that the entry in the Record of Eights describing the tenancies as kaimi settled raiyats' is ...
Dwijendra Krishna Dutta Vs. Surendra Nath Nag Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal548,101Ind.Cas.112
1. A sale which took place in execution of a mortgage-decree in respect of the properties mortgaged having been set aside under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., by the Subordinate Judge, Third Court, 24 Parganas, the decree-holders have preferred an appeal to this Court being appeal from Original order No. 200 of 1926, and the said appeal is yet pending. After preferring the appeal the decree-holders applied for the appointment of a receiver in respect of the mortgaged properties. By orders-passed on the 17th and 19th August 1926 this Court appointed a receiver to continue in office till the disposal of the appeal. As the result of further orders to which it is not necessary to refer Mr. Dwijendra Krishna Dutt, a Vakil of this Court, was finally appointed as such receiver with all the powers provided for in Order 40, Rule 1, Clause (d) of the Civil P.C., and a writ of appointment was issued in his favour on or about the 28th September 1926. The writ directed 'that the said receiver do at...
Sabjan Bibi and anr. Vs. Asanulla Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal411,101Ind.Cas.622
Mitter, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs and is directed against an order of remand. Plaintiffs' case is that the defendants kept the plaintiffs out of possession of the lands in suit and the plaintiffs consequently had to bring a title suit for recovery of possession of the lands. In that suit plaintiffs got a declaration of title in respect of 10 annas 71/4 pies share. On appeal by the defendants the extent of the plaintiffs' share was reduced to 9 annas 10-23/28 pies and plaintiffs' decree for khas possession in respect of that share was confirmed in appeal by the decree, dated the 31st of May 1919. The plaintiffs asked the defendants to have the lands partitioned amicably and to give up possession of plaintiffs' share of the lands but the defendants refused to give up possession and have been exclusively possessing all the lands. It may be mentioned here that it does not appear that the plaintiff s made any attempt to execute the decree for recovery of joint po...
Debendra NaraIn Sarkar and ors. Vs. Satya Charan Mukerji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal783
Mitter, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiffs for a declaration of the plaintiffs' right to supervise the Saradiya Haragouri puja in village Narainpur, to prepare and offer certain offerings on that occasion and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with plaintiffs' right of management. The defence is a denial of plaintiffs' right of management. The Court of first instance decreed the suit with costs and declared plaintiffs' right of management over the worship of the image Hara Gouri Thakurani, performed annually at the autumn season at village Narainpur, and also made certain declarations with regard to plaintiffs' exclusive right to offer offerings. On appeal by the defendants, the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, holding that such a suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court. As the suit has been thrown out on the ground that such a suit cannot be entertained in the civil Court, it becomes necessary t...
Chairman, Municipal Corporation of Faridpore Vs. Gour Gopal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal592,101Ind.Cas.755
Mukerji, J.1. The Chairman of the Municipal Corporation of Faridpore who was the defendant in the suits out of which these appeals have arisen and who was unsuccessful in the Courts below has preferred these appeals. The facts relating to the suits may briefly be stated as follows:There were two plots of land with a building on each of them. One of these buildings was divided into three compartments and the other into two, and these five compartments are, it is alleged, now in the occupation of five different I tenants. In September 1922 the Municipality assessed taxes on these lands and buildings on the footing that they consisted of five different and separate holdings. This position was resisted on behalf of the plaintiff and he then instituted the two suits which have give to rise to these appeals. In both these suits the prayers of the plaintiff substantially were to the effect that the assessments made after splitting up the two holdings into five were ultra vires, that the extra...
Kshetra Lal Singha Roy Vs. Prohlad Chandra Majumdar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal603,101Ind.Cas.800
Mitter, J.1. These two appeals have been preferred by the plaintiff and arise out of two suits which were tried together by consent of parties. The plaintiff, the landlord, brought a rent suit against the Mazumdars. The landlord sued for rent at the rate of Rs. 55-14-0 with cess and damages for the years 1325-to 1328. He based his claim on a decree under Section 105 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer under Chap. X of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The other suit was filed by the tenant Mazumdars against the landlord alleging that the disputed property in respect of which the rent suit was brought was lakharaj tank and that no rent was ever paid in respect of it to the landlord. It was further alleged in the plaint in that suit that the Assistant. Settlement Officer had no jurisdiction to assess rent of tanks as they were not agricultural holdings and that consequently the decree under Section 105 is not binding on them. The Court of first instance decreed the title suit of the tenants...
Brojendra Nath Seal and anr. Vs. Lalit Mohan Seal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal262,102Ind.Cas.409
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of my learned brother, Mr. Justice Page delivered on the 18tb August 1925.2. The facts giving rise to this litigation may be shortly stated as follows:One Gopal Chandra Seal who was a Hindu inhabitant of Calcutta, died some time in September 1911, leaving him surviving his widow, Srimati Badam Moni Dassi, and three sons, namely, the plaintiff, Lalit Mohan Seal and the defendant Dulal Chandra Seal and one Akhoy Kumar Seal, and after having executed his last Will and testament on the 20th day of August 1910. Akhoy Kumar Seal died some time thereafter, leaving him surviving his two sons, the defendants Brojendra Nath Seal and Banamali Seal. Probate of the said Will was granted, on the 16fch June 1916, to the defendants Brojendra Nath Seal and Banamali Seal, and subsequently on the 10th June 1922 grant of probate was also made to the defendant Kartick Chandra Seal, who is a son of the defendant Dulal Chandra Seal. Gopal Chandra Seal pos...
Radhika Mohan Das Vs. Hamid Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal405
1. The facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner is a Sub-Inspector of Salt and Excise. On receipt of certain information he prosecuted the opposite party for selling liquor without a license. On trial the opposite party was acquitted. The Court held that the case was false and ordered the Sub-Inspector to pay Rs. 51 as compensation to the opposite party under Section 250. Against this order the petitioner has moved this Court and was granted a Rule on the ground that the case not having been instituted on complaint or information to a Police Officer or Magistrate as contemplated under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code the order directing payment of compensation is ultra vires.2. The argument put forward by the petitioner is this. The Excise Officer acted upon the information of an informer. He. then under Section 73 and Section 74 of the Excise Act investigated the matter and under Section 74(4) submitted a report to the Magistrate, that under Section 74(4) the report ...
Monohar Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal515
1. This is a complaint made by the Sessions Judge of Noakhali under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, against one Monohar Ali on the ground that this person gave false evidence in his Court. In his complaint the learned Judge states that Monohar appears to have given false evidence before him in the Sessions Case No. 1 of April 1926, having made the following statement:I know Golam Rahaman, son of Idris constable's sister. He married P.W. Monu Chowkidar's sister now dead.2. The learned Judge is of opinion that this statement that 'Monu Chowkidar's sister now dead' is false because it was contradicted by Manu Chowkidar himself. He states that his sister is not dead but has been divorced and is still living. It may here be stated that the case in which this false evidence is alleged to have been given was a case of theft brought against Noab Ali by one Nazir Ahmed. It was alleged in that case that Noab Ali had entered Nazir Ahmed's house and stolen a number of articles. Mr. Khundkar,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »