Kolkata Court March 1926 Judgments
Mahim Chandra Guha Vs. Naba Chandra Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal43
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a mortgage bond, The property belonged to the Defendant No. 12. On the 13th September 1916, he executed a conveyance of the property in favour of certain persons who are represented by Defendants Nos. 1 to 11; and on the same day those defendants executed a mortgage of the property to the plaintiff. On the 4th November 1916, the mortgagors executed a lease of a portion of the property for a term of three years in favour of the Defendant No. 12. The case of Defendant No. 12 is that though he executed the conveyance, there was an arrangement between him and the other defendants that the latter would hold the property in trust for him, borrow money to pay off his debts, and release the property to the Defendant No. 12 after the debts were paid off, and that as the defendant, as pleader, had conducted a number of suits for the plaintiff (among others a wakf case which lasted for about 90 days for which Rs. 9,000 was clue to him as fees), it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra Bandopadhya and ors. Vs. Hasem Ali Kazi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal109
Cuming, J.1. In the suit oat of which this appeal has arisen fch.3 plaintiffs who are the respondents in the present appeal sought to recover possession after declaration of title of certain plots of land in karsha interest. Their case was that they with others held a karsha interest in the land under Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 brought a rent suit and obtained a decree ex parte in a suit for rent No. 961 of 1914, and in execution of the decree pureha ed the property. The plaintiffs were made parties to the suit but they were minors and ware not properly represented. On November 14, 1917, the plaintiffs were fined for cutting away the paddy grown on the land on the ground that it had been grown by the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and after this Defendants No. 1 and 2 dispossessed plaintiffs and their co-sharers. Plaintiffs' casa is that not being properly represented in the Suit No961 of 1914 their interest did not pass. Plence this suit.2. The case of the Defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanada Sundari Mojumdar Vs. Chandra Kumar De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal285
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Noakhali reversing the order of the 1st Munsif of Lakhipur.Facts. - The Opposite Party No. 1 held an under-raiyati under the appellant. In execution of a decree in ejectment the appellant obtained khas possession of the under-raiyati against the Opposite Party No. 1. The superior landlords subsequently obtained a rent decree against the appellant and in execution thereof the holding was brought to sale and purchased by the Opposite Party No. 3. The Opposite Party No. 1 obtained settlement of the land from the auction-purchaser at the execution sale, the Opposite Party No. 3.After this the judgment-debtor applied to set aside the sale by the landlord in execution of the rent decree. This was contested by the auction-purchaser, but a compromise was arrived at and the sale was set aside. Thereupon the appellant applied for restoration of possession against the Opposite Party No. 1 who hel...
Tag this Judgment!Sheik Kachu Vs. Mahammad Ali Mamud
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1926
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.28
Page, J.1. This is a suit for foreclosure on a mortgage. The plaintiff' claims to recover possession of the mortgaged property on the ground that the amount claimed under the mortgage is due. The defendants plead that they had paid off what was due under the mortgage and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession of the mortgaged property. That plea has been found to be bad, and it has been held that if the mortgage is valid in law having regard to Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act the plaintiff is entitled to succeed.2. Now, the material facts are--that the mortgagors, the mortgagee and the attesting witnesses are all illiterate persons and on the date upon which the mortgage was executed the parties and the attesting witnesses were all present, and in the presence of the attesting witnesses the names of the mortgagors were duly placed upon the document by a scribe duly authorised by the mortgagors in that behalf. The names of the attesting witnesses wer...
Tag this Judgment!Sheik Kachu Vs. Mahammad Ali Mahmud
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal926
Page, J.1. This is a suit for foreclosure on a mortgage. The plaintiff claims to recover possession of the mortgaged property on the ground that the amount claimed under the mortgage is due. The defendants plead that they had paid off what was due under the mortgage and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession of the mortgaged property. That plea has been found to be bad, and it has been held that if the mortgage is valid in law having regard to Section 59, Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff is entitled to succeed.2. Now, the material facts are : that the mortgagors, the mortgagee and the attesting witnesses are all illiterate persons and on the date upon which the mortgage was executed the parties arid the attesting witnesses were all present, and in the presence of the attesting witnesses the names of the mortgagors were duly placed upon the document by a scribe duly authorized by the mortgagors in that behalf. The names of the attesting witnesses were als...
Tag this Judgment!Adarpriya Choudhrani Vs. Ramprotap Agarwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1105
B.B.Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal from what must be construed to be a decree of the District Judge with regard to an appeal which was presented to him from a decree of the Munsif of Gauhati. The order of the learned Judge runs thus: 'The appeal being time-barred is not admitted.' The learned advocate Mr. Gunada Charan Sen, for the respondent takes a preliminary objection that there is no appeal from this order as it is an order of the District Judge refusing to admit an appeal. But Mr. Sen has not been able to point out any rule or order in the Civil Procedure Code under which a Judge on appeal may pass suck an order that an appeal should not be admitted. Obviously the meaning of the order of the learned Judge is that the appeal is dismissed as there is no doubt that the appeal was filed with all the necessary preliminaries required under Order 44, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment, therefore, amounts to a dismissal of the appeal and it is a decree, There being thus a...
Tag this Judgment!Ashutosh Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Mono Mohan Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal65,97Ind.Cas.539
B.B. Ghose, J.1. The defendants are the appellants before us. The plaintiff's, brought the suit out of which this appeal arises for declaration of their right m permanent tenure-holders to two plots of land described in schedules 'ga' and 'gha' of the plaint and for confirmation of possession or in the alternative for a decree for possession if it was found that they were out of possession. There were several other prayers which it is not, necessary to state now. The facts on which they base their claim may be shortly stated thus: There is a revenue paying Estate No. 955 known as Ramdeb Basu Choudhuri of which the plaintiffs, the defendants and several other persons wore co-sharers. There was a private partition under which two sets of co-sharers held two plots of land separately and these were recorded in the Record of Eights as Cadastral Survey Plots Nos. 1020 and 1021. Those two sets of Co-sharers created permanent tenures with regard to the two plots of land in favour of the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Kshetra Nath Dutt and ors. Vs. Nityananda Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1118
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued to eject the defendants on the ground that they held the lands under the plaintiffs as bargadars and that they had denied their right to receive the landlords' share of crops, had taken the entire produce and thus dispossessed the plaintiffs. The defendants contended on the contrary that they were not bargadars, but they held the lands on a money rent The first Court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to evict the defendants. He found that the defendants had denied that they held the lands in barga under the plaintiffs and that they having thus denied the plaintiffs' title, the plaintiffs were entitled to get khas possession. In appeal the finding was reversed. The lower appellate Court found that the defendants were bargadars in respect of some of the plots (plots A, B and X), and that they held at a money rent in respect of the rest of the lands. He further found that they were not labourers in respec...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Charan Sarkar Vs. Bishnupada Sana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal833
Chakravarti, J.1. This rule arises out of an application made by the mortgagee a tenant judgment-debtor in a rent decree for setting aside a sale held on the 14th March 1916. The facta shortly stated are these : A holding belonging to one Gopinath Midday was mortgaged to the petitioner. During the subsistence of that mortgage, the landlord obtained a decree for rent against Gopinath and in execution of that decree brought the holding to sale, as stated above, on the 14th Match 1916. The petitioner made an application for setting aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., and also under Section 173, Bengal Tenancy Act, on the 5th January 1925, The auction-purchaser opposed the application on the ground that the application was barred by limitation and that there was neither any fraud nor any irregularity in the conduct of the sale. The property was sold for adequate price and the purchase was made by the auction purchaser for his own benefit and not for the benefit of the judgm...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Mea Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1012
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is a reference under Section 307 by the Sessions Judge of Noakhali disagreeing with the unanimous verdict of the jury who found the accused Ali Mia not guilty of an offence under Section 304, Indian Penal Code. There is no dispute about the facts of the case. The only question is whether the accused has on the facts found and admitted, committed any offence, and if so, what.2. The accused is charged with causing the death of a boy of 15 or 16 years of age named Makbul. The boy Was the accused's distant nephew. The prosecution case, which is not challenged by the defence, is that the boy lived with his own uncle Abdul Majid in a separate house, not far off from that of the accused. On the night of the occurrence Abdul Majid returned home from a hut and found that the boy had already taken his meal and gone out. Abdul Majid went to bed at 10 p.m. About midnight he was roused by the witness Khursed and went to the accused's hut where he found the accused holding Makb...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »