Kolkata Court March 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.
Debi Ram Patni Vs. Mobeswar Ali Laskar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.621
Page, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit an which the plaintiff claimed possession of certain lands which belonged to one NararPatni. The lower Court decreed the suit, narai Patni. The lower Court decreed the suit. Narai Patni was a co-sharer of the lands with his prother Devi Patni. In 1914, Narai Patni sold his interest in the lands together with other lands to Chomroo Shah and after diverse mesne assignments the lans in dispute passed to Abdul Gaffur. In due course Abdul Gaffur died. And his heirs namely, two brothers and his widow who represented certain minor sons by a kobala dated the 18th September, 1912, purported to sell these lands to the plaintiff. The plaintiff now sues the defendant No. 1 and other persons to recover possession of the lands covered by the kobala dated the 18tu December, 1921, and his claim is to recover possession of this land after having dispossessed the defendant No. 1, the brother of Narai Patni, his predecessor intitle. Admittedly the defendant is ...
Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur and on His Death His Heir an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.142
Ewart Greaves, C.J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the, Special Judge of Noakhali confirming a decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer of Feni. The appeal arises out of a proceeding by the landlord under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to enhance the rent of certain holdings after the final publication of the Record of Rights. The material facts and dates are as follows: The Record was finally published on the 31st March, 1917. The application for enhancement was made by the landlord on the 21st May in the same year, that is to say, within the period of two months prescribed by Section 105(1). On the 8th August, 1917, some of the tenants against whom the enhancement was sought filed written statements in which they alleged that some of the recorded tenants were dead. Thereupon on the 15th August, 1917, the landlord applied for substitution of the names of the heirs of the tenants who had died. This application was made as will appear from the dates more than two m...
Kshetra Nath Dutt and ors. Vs. Nityananda Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.667
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.2. The defendants contended on the contrary that they were not bargadars but they held the lands on a money rent.3. 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 en titled 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 r...
Maharaja Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Ambika Charan Dutta Ma ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1037
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Special Judge of Noakhali confirming a decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer of Feni. The appeal arises out of a proceeding by the landlord under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to enhance the rent of certain holdings after the final publication of the record-of-rights The material facts and dates are as follows:2. The record was finally published on the 31st March 1917. The application for enhancement was made by the landlord on the 21st May in the same year, that is to say, within the period of two months prescribed by Section 105(1). On the 8th August 1917 some of the tenants against whom the enhancement was sought filed written statements in which they alleged that some of the recorded tenants were dead. Thereupon on the 15th August 1917 the landlord applied for substitution of the names of the heirs of the tenants who had died. This application was made as will appear from the dates more than two months after t...
Abdul Kader Vs. Ambika Charan Bhuiya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal57,97Ind.Cas.697
1. This appeal is directed against the appellate order of the Additional District Judge of Howrah by which he set aside the order passed by the Court of first instance dismissing the application of the appellant under Section 47, Civil P.C., and Order 21, Rule 90 of that Code and directed further investigation into matters which arose on that application in so far as it purported to be one under Section 47 of the Code. The decree in connexion with which the execution proceedings were started was passed in 1910. There were several execution proceedings with which we are not concerned at the present stage, but the sale in connexion with which the present application was filed took place on the 15th May 1923. The decree-holder purchased the property which had been put up to sale in execution of the decree the sale was confirmed on the 25th June 1923. On the 9th June 1923 the judgment-debtors put in an application under Order 21, Rule 90 for setting the sale aside. This application was dis...
The Official Trustee of Bengal, Trustee to the Estate of Late Manick L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.590
1. These appeals arise out of suits for rent. The plea of the defendants was that they were entitled to remission of rent on account of damages caused by inundation. The Record of Rights shows that the tenants recorded with regard to the holdings are entitled to remission of rent in cases of inundation, draught and so on. Relying on that Record-of-Rights both the Courts below have allowed the tenants a remission of rent. The plaintiff appeals against the decision of the District Judge affirming that of the Munsif. The main contention on behalf of the plaintiff is that the Settlement Officer had no jurisdiction to enter in the Record of Rights any such fact and to state that the tenants are entitled to remission of rent under the circumstances stated therein. We are, however, of opinion that the Settlement Officer was bound to record these conditions under Section 102(h) of the Bengal Tenancy Act which enacts that the record should contain 'the special conditions and incidents, if any, ...
Raja Rishee Case Law Vs. Manik Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.64
Page, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by certain auction-purchasers to recover khas possession of property which they had bought at a sale in execution of a decree obtained by defendant No. 35 against defendants Nop. 1 and 2. In the alternative, the plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to be refunded the amount of the purchase price if in the event it transpired that the judgment-debtors possessed no saleable interest in the property. The Trial Court dismissed the claim for khas possession, but decreed the plaintiff's suit for a refund of the purchase-money and interest thereon. Defendant No. 35 the decree-holder preferred an appeal, but the lower Appellate Court affirmed the decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The learned Advocate for defendant No. 35 who has prosecuted a further appeal to this, Court contended that no suit lies for the recovery of the price paid for property purchased at a sale in execution of a decree. In support of hi...
Raja Risheecase Law Vs. Manik Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal971
Page, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by certain auction-purchasers to recover khas possession of property which they had bought at a sale in execution of a decree obtained by Defendant No. 35 against Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In the alternative the plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to be refunded the amount of the purchase price if in the event it transpired that the judgment-debtors possessed no saleable interest in the property.2. The trial Court dismissed the claim for khas possession, but decreed the plaintiff's suit for a refund of the purchase money and interest thereon. Defendant No. 35, the decree-holder, preferred an appeal, but the lower appellate Court affirmed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.3. The learned advocate for Defendant No. 35, who has prosecuted a further appeal to this Court, contended that no suit lies for the recovery of the price paid for property purchased at a sale in execution of a decree. In support...
Upendra Nath Brahmachari and ors. Vs. the Union Drug Co., Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal837,95Ind.Cas.667
1. This is a Rule granted by my learned brother Mr. Justice Gregory calling upon the defendant Company to show cause why an injunction should not be awarded against them restraining them, their servants and agents, until the determination of this suit, from using the name 'Urea Stibamine' and selling an antimony compound manufactured by them under the said name, and from selling or offering or exposing or advertising for sale or procuring to be sold the said compound, under the name of 'Urea Stibamine' or with a get-up calculated and likely to deceive the public into thinking that the said compound is of the manufacture of the said plaintiff, Upendranath Brahmachari, or from in any manner passing off their goods as those of the plaintiffs. This Rule came on for hearing before me on the 15th, 16th and 17th days of March, when after hearing Counsel on both sides reserved judgment until this morning.2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation and to the application on which the pre...
Madhab Chandra Saha Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1202
Duval, J.1. In this case the accused was put on his trial under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code and tried summarily. The charge against him was brought by one Kuki Bewa who, in her statement of complaint, said:While I was sleeping in my room Madhab entered my room by opening the door and touched my body. I at once took up a bamboo piece and hit him and shouted. Drawn by my cries there came Pagal and others. The accused ran away bat was seen by Gada and Pagal.2. The Magistrate thereupon proceeded to try the accused summarily under Section 260 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and in the end the petitioner was sentenced to nine weeks' rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence were upheld in the Court below.3. In this Court this Rule has been obtained on two grounds: (i) that the learned Magistrate was wrong in law in trying the case summarily; and (ii) that the accused was prejudiced by the omission to frame a charge, specially as the intention has not been definitely found b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »