Kolkata Court February 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.
Kailash Chandra Tarafdar Vs. Gopal Chandra Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal798,95Ind.Cas.494
Cuming, J.1. (December 7, 1925.)---This appeal arose out of an application, for execution of a certain decree in a mortgage suit.2. Certain properties belonging to the judgment-debtor were attached including a certain basha. On 18th December, 1916, one Mohim Chandra Chaudhuri filed a claim alleging that the basha in dispute belonged not to the judgment debtor but to him and his brother Girish. Girish also filed a separate claim. Both these claims were dismissed and the basha sold and purchased by the decree holder. Girish and Mohim filed a suit asking for a declaration that the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest in the property and the plaintiff had a putni right.3. The suit was decreed in full but modified on appeal, the plaintiff's putni right being declared but no further relief being given.4. The auction-purchaser who happened also to be the decree-holder applied for delivery of possession under Order XXI, Rule 95. The Executing Court held he was only entitled to possession u...
Nrisingha Ranjan Mukherjee and anr. Vs. Sm. Soudamini Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.516
Cuming and B.B. Ghose, JJ.1. (December 2,1925.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought for khas possession of a piece of homestead land on ejectment of defendant No.1 after service of notice to quit. The facts on which the question of law which arises for decision in this appeal may be shortly stated thus: The land in dispute along with other properties belonged to one Kshetra Mohan Mukherji and his cosharers, Kshetra Mohan being entitled to l/5th share of the whole. He died leaving his childless widow Tripura Sundari as his heir. During her lifetime her co-sharers who had a 4/oth share in the property granted a mokarrari mourashi lease of the land in suit to one Dina Nath Mukerji by accepting a kabuliyat executed by the tenant, dated 30th September 1891. Tripura Sundari died sometime in 1904. Plaintiff inherited the properties as the reversionary heir of her husband. Defendant No.1 obtained by assignment the interest of Dina Nath in the land in dispute. Under a decree fo...
Niranjan Mukherjee Vs. Soudamini Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal714
N.R. Chatterjea, Ag. C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is:Whether a person to whom a parcel of land has been allotted by a decree for partition of a Civil Court takes it subject to a permanent lease granted by his former co-owners without his concurrence when the land was the joint property of all the co-sharers.2. The plaintiffs predecessor-in-title had 1/5th share in the land in dispute along with other properties. His co-sharers who owned the remaining 4/5ths share granted a permanent lease in respect of their shares to the defendant's predecessor-in-title. The plaintiff brought a suit for partition in the Civil Court, and the disputed land was allotted to him in his share on partition. He then brought a suit for ejecting the defendant after service of notice to quit. The defence was that the Plaintiff's predecessor-in-title also had granted the lease, but the finding is against the defendant. It is not disputed that the plaintiff is entitled to joint possession in resp...
Tarap Sheikh Vs. Kunja Behary Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1226
1. This is an appeal against a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge reversing a decree of the Munsiff. The suit was one for rent based on a kabuliyat dated some time in March or April 1911. In the kabuliyat three plots of land appear to have been let out to the tenants. The area given by guess was 18 bighas. It is stipulated among other things that if by measurement the lands are found to be in excess of 18 bighas the tenant will be liable to pay Rs. 2 as rent for each bigha of land found in his occupation. The plaintiff's allegation was that the defendants were in possession of 25 bighas of land and on the basis of the agreement referred to he claimed Rs. 50 as rent. The Munsiff dismissed the suit mainly upon the ground that within the area demised the plaintiff admitted that two persons named Saiyed and Manulla held lands under him on the basis of the kabuliyats executed by those persons in favour of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had obtained a decree against Saiyad. T...
Hara Mohan Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.119
1. In this case the accused has been convicted under Section 196, Indian Penal Code. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Magistrate shown that there should not have been a conviction under Section 196 having regard to the facts found see in this connection Empress v. Kherode Chunder Mozumdar 5 C. 717 : 6 C.L.R. 118 : 3 Shome L.R. Cr. R. 20 : 2 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1063. The facts found -show that the section of the Indian Penal Code under which the accused should uava been charged is Section 471, Indian Penal Code. An offence under Section 471 is exclusively triable by a Court of. Session, and on the findings arrived at by the Magistrate, it would appear that there is a prima facie case against the accused under Section 471, Indian Penal Code.2. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 196, Indian Penal Code, and direct the Magistrate to commit the accused to the Court of Session to stand his trial under Section 471, Indian Penal Code. With these remarks let ...
The Chairman Howrah, Municipality Vs. Ramsarup Serougee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.726
Graham, J.1. This appeal, in which the Chairman of the Howrah Municipality is the appellant, arises out of a certain proceedings which were taken against the plaintiffs, one of whom is now respondent (the other having since died) for the removal of certain alleged encroachments and obstructions from a Municipal road. The plaintiffs were owners of the premises known as 128 and 137 Khurut Road Howrah, and upon a report submitted by the Municipal Surveyor that they had encroached on the road a notice was issued upon them under Section 204 of the Bengal Municipal Act to remove the said encroachments within eight days. Upon their failure to comply with the requisition the Municipality applied to the Magistrate for an order for removal of the obstructions. The Magistrate after local inspection and after hearing the parties directed the plaintiff to remove a portion of the encroachments. That order also was not complied with, and the plaintiffs subsequently brought this suit for a declaration...
Chairman, Howrah Municipality Vs. Ramsarup Serougee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1073
Graham, J.1. This appeal, in which the Chairman of the Howrah Municipality is the appellant, arises out of certain proceedings which were taken against the plaintiffs, one of whom is now respondent (the other having since died) for the removal of certain alleged encroachments and obstructions from a Municipal road. The plaintiffs were owners of the premises known as 128 and 137, Khurut Road, Howrah, and upon a report submitted by the Municipal Surveyor that they had encroached on the road a notice was issued upon them under Section 204 of the Bengal Municipal Act to remove the said encroachments within eight days. Upon their failure to comply with the requisition the Municipality applied to the Magistrate for an order for removal of the obstructions. The Magistrate, after local inspection and after hearing the parties directed the plaintiff to remove a portion of the encroachments. That order also was not complied with, and the plaintiffs subsequently brought this suit for a declaratio...
Thomas Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1203
1. This is an application by O.W. Thomas who is a prisoner in the Presidency Jail, for leave to appeal, after determination of his status, against his conviction and against the sentence passed on him by Mr. Justice B.B. Ghose presiding at the Fourth Criminal Sessions held in this Court in July 1925.2. The prisoner was found guilty by a special jury of having committed an offence punishable under Section 471, and thereafter the learned Judge presiding at the Sessions sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. This was on the 27th July 1925.3. The present application was not presented to the learned Acting Chief Justice till the 16th February 1926. The question, therefore, arose whether, if the appeal itself had been presented on the 16th February 1926, it would have been within time. Learned Counsel, who appears in support of the application, suggests that the only matter for our determination at this stage is one under Section 449, Sub-clause 1(c) read w...
Santosh Kumar Mullick Vs. Ganesh Chandra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal160
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit, instituted by a reveraioner during fine life time of a Hindu widow for a. declaration that the alienation made by her is not binding on him. The suit has been decreed by the trial Court. The alience has preferred this appeal. The undisputed facts in this case are very few. There is a lamentable lack of restraint on the part of the parties and their witnesses. Each party has immensely exaggerated its own allegations and has either totally denied or tried its utmost to minimize the effect of the facts alleged on behalf of the other.2. Ramlal and Kedar were two brothers, and one Basanta, who is alive, was their sistar. Ramlal and Kedar had separated during their life time and their ancestral house had been partitioned between them. The relations as between them were rather indifferent. Kedar died leaving a son Ganesh who is the plaintiff in this suit. Ramlal was without employment for seyeral years and was ill for a few months at the end of ...
Dasarathy Chakravarty Vs. Maharaja Khaunish Chandra Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal938
1. The appeal raises the question whether Order 9, Rule 9, Civil P.C. is applicable to an application made for setting aside a sale in execution of a decree under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. The question arises in this way : The appellant before us presented an application for setting aside a sale under Order 21 Rule 90. On the date fixed for the hearing of the case the applicant was not ready with his evidence and he asked for time. Time was granted on one occasion but on the next occasion he was still not ready with his evidence. Further time was asked for and the learned Subordinate Judge refused to grant time and thereupon the pleader for the applicant stated that he had no evidence and no further instructions. Upon that the application for setting aside the sale was rejected for default of the applicant. This order of dismissal was passed on the 23rd August 1924. On the 20th September 1924 one of the judgment-debtors put in an application purporting to have been made under Order...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »