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.
Munni Lal Kshetry Vs. Sasi Bhusan Adhikari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal339
Mukerji, J.1. The petitioner had a decree for money against one Rajendra Nath Adhikari and in execution thereof attached certain properties. Upon that one Nani Bala Debya, widow of a deceased brother of the judgment-debtor, filed an application under Order 21, Rule 58, claiming a 1/5th share in the attached properties, and it is said that the application was dismissed for default on the 25th April 1922. The properties were put up to sale and were purchased by the petitioner. The sale was confirmed on the 25th April 1922, and possession was delivered to the petitioner on the 28th April 1925. On the 21st May 1925, the opposite party Sashi Bhusan Adhikari alleged to be the son-in-law of Nani Bala applied under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P.C., alleging that he had purchased Nani Bala's 1/5th share in execution of a decree against Nani Bala and was in possession of that share.2. The claim preferred by Sashi Bhusan Adhikari has been allowed by the learned Munsif. Against this order the presen...
Kumar Birendra Nath Ray Bahadur Vs. Satis Chandra Joardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.1003
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiffs sued to recover possession of some 155 bighas of land on the ground that they form part of their ancestral patni taluk. Their case is that these lands were formerly in their possession as part of their taluk and that they were diluviated many years ago when the whole mouza was diluviated and was under water. In the year 1896 they began to reform but remained unfit for cultivation up to the year 1905, that when they went to take possession of the lands on the strength of their former possession before the diluvion and their putni right they were resisted by the defendant who declared that he had obtained possession of these lands in Assar 1312 corresponding to June, 1905 in execution of a decree. The defendant resisted the plaintiffs' suit, on various grounds one of which was that the suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiffs were not in possession of the lands within 12 years of the date of the suit.2. Th...
Devendra Narayan Majumdar and ors. Vs. Jhumur Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.622
1. This appeal arises but of a suit in which the main relief claimed by the plaintiffs was the declaration of their title to some land in Mas khawar right, the eviction of the defendant from the land or assessment of fair rent therefor, and other incidental reliefs. The plaintiffs' case was that the land was recorded as being in the defendant's possession in 'bargabhag' under the plaintiffs, that the defendant used to deliver bdrga-produce but set up his jote right for the first time in 1914 in a suit for recovery of bargar produce and on this denial of the plaintiffs' right to barga-produce the suit was dismissed The plaintiffs alleged that since then the defendant was holding the land as a trespasser. The defence, on the other hand, was that the defendant and his ancestors had jote right to the land, that it formed part of the defendant's tenancy under the plaintiffs and their co-sharers at a rental of Es. 34-3-5, that on partition the rental in the plaintiff's share became Its. 15-1...
Raja Manindra NaraIn Roy Shebait of Idol Krishna Ray Jiu Vs. Executors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal913,95Ind.Cas.644
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff who is the appellant in this appeal sued as shebait of a certain deity for a declaration that the deity has got lakheraj title to the lands in suit. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance but has been dismissed on appeal.2. The plaintiff's case was that the lands were dedicated to the deity by his ancestor Raja Rudranarain Roy but the defend ante have got themselves recorded in tie Settlement papers as the owners of the lands, and the said entry has thrown & cloud over the deity's title to the land?3. The case of the defendants, was that the lands ware the niskar property of Raja Rudranarain Roy that the said Raja had never dedicated the lands to the deity, but had mortgaged them to one Joynarain Maiti, and that their predecessors had purchased them at au auction sale in execution of the decree on the said mortgage and since then they or their predecessors have been in possession thereof.4. The learned District Judge held in his judgment that th...
(Kumar) Birendra Nath Ray Bahadur Vs. Satis Chandra Joardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1166
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiffs sued to recover possession of some 155 bighas of land on the ground that they form part of their ancestral patni taluk. Their case is that these lands were formerly in their possession as part of their taluk and that they were diluviated many years ago when the whole mouza was diluviated and was under water. In the year 1896 they began, to re-form but remained unfit for cultivation up to the year 1905; that when they went to take possession of the lands on the strength of their former possession before the diluvion and their putni right they were resisted by the defendant who declared that he had obtained possession of these lands in Assar 1312 corresponding to June 1905 in execution of a decree. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit on various grounds, one of which was that the suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiffs were not in possession of the lands within 12 years of the date of the suit.2. T...
Muktakeshi Pal Vs. Ramani Mohan Bhattacharya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal195
1. The sole question that arises in this appeal is whether the mortgagee, after relinquishing his claim on a portion of the mortgaged property, can throw the whole, burden of the mortgaged debt on the remainder of the property. The learned Judge has held that he cannot. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the mortgagee is entitled to pursue his remedy for the entire mortgaged property. What happened in this case was that the mortgagee did not desire to proceed against certain portions of the mortgaged properties which were purchased by her husband and her husband's brother at sales by which only the equity of redemption passed to them.2. The only relevant authority that has been cited in favour of the contention of the appellant is that of the Full Bench case of Perumal Pillai v. Raman Chetty [1917] 40 Mad. 968 in which the Madras Court differed from the decisions of this Court holding a contrary view upon their construction of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act...
Joyman Bewa Vs. EasIn Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal877,95Ind.Cas.483
Page, J.1. This is an appeal from an order refusing to permit execution to be levied against a person who is alleged to have stood surety for the judgment-debtor in execution proceedings.2. The suit out of which the controversy arose resulted in a consent-decree under which the judgment-debtor was ordered to pay Rs. 330 and the costs of the suit. An execution case followed. In the course of that case an agreement was arrived at between the surety, who is the present contending respondent, the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor. The decretal amount was not paid by the judgment-debtor, but after an application had been made to execute the decree against the surety, a petition was filed on behalf of all the parties concerned stating the terms of the tripartite agreement which had been arrived at, and praying that the execution case might be withdrawn. That petition bears a Court-fee stamp appropriate to a petition, but is not stamped either as a contract of suretyship or as a security ...
Satya Charan Mitter Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal586,94Ind.Cas.266
Ewart Greaves, J.1. This Rule was granted by my learned brother Mr. Justice C. C. Ghose sitting with Mr. Justice Mukerji and the object of the Rule was to secure the quashing of an order of commitment passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta. The statement contained in the petition upon which the Rule is based is that on the 10th November one Girija Bhusan Sarkar on behalf of his mother-in-law preferred a complaint before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, charging the petitioner and the petitioner's son and another person with forgery, cheating, theft etc., and it is said that the Chief Presidency Magistrate, therefore, took cognizance of the complaint under Section 190, Cr. P.C., examined the complainant under Section 200 and directed an enquiry under Section 202 and that under these circumstances a certain statement which was taken from the petitioner by an Investigating Police Officer is not admissible in evidence under the provisions of Section 162 of the Cr. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›