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.
Nazoo Meah Vs. Mazar Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1003,95Ind.Cas.1011
Suhrawardy, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Hathazari in the District of Chittagong for declaration that the mortgage-bond, dated the 13th July 1919, purporting to have been executed by him in favour of the defendant was a forged document without consideration. The suit was dismissed on the merits--the Trial Court being of opinion that the document was a genuine one executed by the plaintiff. But at the same time it found that out of the consideration money mentioned therein, namely, Rs. 800, only Rs. 174 was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in discharge of a previous mortgage-bond executed; by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. The decree passed in the suit declared that the consideration for the bond having been fixed at Rs. 174 the suit is dismissed inter partes, each party bearing his own costs. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge against this decree and the defendant filed a cross-appeal The plaintiff's appeal was on...
Uma Charan Panda Vs. Lakshmi Narayan Panda and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal214
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which-this appeal has arisen the plaintiffs sought to eject the defendant on the allegation that he was an under-raiyat and notice has been duly served upon him. The defendant resisted the claim on the ground that he was not an under-raiyat but that his status was that of an occupancy raiyat and that notice had not been duly served and that he was not liable to be evicted. He further pleaded that the land in suit was not a. complete-holding but it formed part of a larger holding of which the jama was Rs. 9-4. He raised various other objections which, it is not necessary to deal with.2. The first Court decided this case in favour of the plaintiffs. He held that the defendant was an under-raiyat and further that he was precluded by Section 104J of the Bengal Tenancy Act from giving evidence that his holding forms part of a larger holding. In appeal to the District Court this finding was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.3. The defendant has appealed to t...
Chand Meah Vs. Mohummad Muzaffar Howladar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.313
1. This appeal is by the judgment-debtor and it arises with regard to the enforcement of a solenamah by which the parties agreed that an execution sale should be set aside on certain terms. The judgment-debtor's property had been sold and he preferred an application for setting aside the sale under Order XXI, Rule 90. In that proceeding a compromise was arrived at and it was agreed that if the judgment-debtor paid into Court the sum of Rs. 350 within the month of Magh of that year the sale would be set aside; and at the end of the joint application of the parties it was prayed that 'an order be made fixing 30th Magh next for compromising the case in the way mentioned above.' There was no 30th Magh in that year as the month of Magh terminated on the 29th. The appellant deposited the sum on the next day which would have been 30th Magh if that month had 30 days in it, but the month having expired on the day previous, that is, on the 29th day, it was the first of Falgoon. The short questio...
Upendra Nath Jana Vs. Jogendra Nath Mana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1088,95Ind.Cas.761
1. It appears that in this case the petitioner applied on the 8th October 1925 for issue of summons on four of his witnesses and that he paid the necessary costs on that day. An order was made on the 10th October 1975 by the learned Magistrate directing the issue of summons on the petitioner's witnesses, but through some mistake or other the order was not carried out and the summonses were not issued at all. The case came on for hearing on the 12th October when the petitioner's witnesses did not attend the Court. The petitioner thereupon prayed that the case might be adjourned to a later date and that meanwhile his witnesses might be summoned. This application was rejected. The petitioner complains that he had not had sufficient opportunity given to him to produce his witnesses before the learned Magistrate. In our opinion, an order having been made for the issue of summons on the petitioner's witnesses that order should have been carried out, inasmuch as the order in question was not ...
Subal Chandra Namadas Vs. Ahadullah Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal795,95Ind.Cas.388
Page, J.1. This case raises a question of importance relating to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to issue process in a criminal case.In the Or. P. C. (Act V of 1898 as amended) it is provided:2. Section 202(1).---'Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorized to take cognizance, or which has been transferred to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit, for reasons to be recorded in writing, postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against, and either inquire into the case himself or, if he is a Magistrate other than a Magistrate of the third class, direct an inquiry or investigation to be made by any Magistrate subordinate to him, or by a Police Officer, or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint:3. Provided that no such direction shall be made:(a) unless the complainant has been examined on oath under the provisions of Section 200,...
Lal Behary Maity and ors. Vs. Rajendra Nath Maity and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal866,95Ind.Cas.353
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of their 6-annas she in Touzi No. 1666 of the Midnapur Collectorate after setting aside the revenue sale of the said touzi held on the 10th January 1921 or in the alternative for a direction upon the defendants to reconvey the plaintiffs' share in the touzi to them. The learned Subordinate Judge in the Trial Court being of opinion that there were no arrears and that there was no publication of the notice under Section 6 of the Revenue Sales Act (XI of 1859) which omission rendered the sale ipso facto void passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs setting aside the sale as null and void and allowing the plaintiffs to recover possession of their 6-annas share in the mehal. On appeal the learned District Judge of Midnapur held that the decree of the Trial Court was apparently wrong in setting aside the entire sale when the other proprietors of the touzi did not object to it. The only decree in...
Keramat Ali Khan Vs. Kumar Krishna Nandi Choudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.291
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sought to evict the defendants from some 8 bighas odd of land on the ground that this land appertained to his Taluk No. 148 of the 24-Parganas Collectorate and that the defendants were trespassers. The case of the defendants was that the land did not appertain to Taluk No. 148 but was his lakhiraj land bearing No. 127 and that the suit was barred by limitation.2. The first Court decided against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The second Court allowed the plaintiff's suit with costs setting aside the judgment and decree of. the first Court. Defendant No. 1 has appealed to this Court.3. In appeal the learned Vakil who has appeared for ,the appellant contends that the plaintiff is barred by the principle of res judicata from proving a certain kabuliyat in which there -was an admission by defendant No. 1 that this land did appertain to Taluk No. 148. His case is that whether the defendant No. 1 did or did not ...
Keramat Ali Khan Vs. Krishna Nandi Ghoudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1228
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sought to evict the defendants from some 8 bighas odd of land on the ground that this land appertained to his Taluk No. 148 of the 24 Parganas Collectorate and that the defendants were trespassers. The case of the defendants was that the land did not appertain to Taluk No. 148 but was his lakhiraj land bearing No. 127 and that the suit was barred by limitation. The first Court decided against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The second Court allowed the plaintiff's suit with costs setting aside the judgment and decree of the first Court. Defendant No. 1 has appealed to this Court.2. In appeal the learned vakil who has appeared for the appellant contends that the plaintiff is barred by the principle of res judicata from proving a certain kabuliyat in which there was an admission by Defendant No. 1 that this land did appertain to Taluk No. 148. His case is that whether the Defendant No. 1 did or did not execu...
Emperor Vs. Indu Bhusan Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal819,95Ind.Cas.539
Cuming, J.1. This is a Reference tinder Section 66 (2) of the Income Tax Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the question of law referred for decision is.2. Is the income from the jalkars, which were included in the assets upon which the jamas of the Estate Touzi Nos. 106 and 107, Dacca Collectorate and Touzi No. 6301 of the Faridpur Collectorate were assessed under Regulation I of 1793 at the time of the Permanent Settlement, liable to assessment to income-tax under Act XI of 1922? I am of opinion that the answer must be in the negative. The sections of the Income Tax Act on which the Commissioner relies are--3. Section 4 which provides that save as hereinafter, provided this Act shall apply-to all incomes, profits or gains as described or comprised in Section 6 from whatever source derived, accruing, or arising or received in British India or deemed under the provision of this Act to accrue or arise, or be received in British India.4. Section 6 provides: 'Save as otherwise prov...
Sheik KetabuddIn and ors. Vs. Nafar Chandra Pattok and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal230
B.B. Ghose, J.1. The only question argued on behalf of the appellants in this case is that the finding of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court was based partly on evidence which is not admissible under the law. This objection refers to three documents Exs. 3, 5 and 6 which dealt with lands lying on the different boundaries of the land in dispute. They have been used for the purpose of showing that in describing the boundaries of those lands the land in dispute in the present suit has been described as being in the possession of the plaintiff which the learned advocate for the appellants contends is not permissible under the law. His contention is that those documents cannot be taken into consideration and as the judgment of the lower appellate Court on the facts depends partly on a consideration of those documents this judgment should be set aside and the case sent back for decision on the evidence excluding these three documents. The question of the admissibility of such docum...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »