Kolkata Court May 1926 Judgments
Asutosh Ghosh and anr. Vs. Indu Bhusan Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal158
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this Rule arises are these : The opposite party brought a money suit against the petitioner claiming a sum of Rs. 1,800. In the course of this suit certain interrogatories were delivered to the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff did not answer these interrogatories by the date fixed by the Court. On the date fixed for the delivery of the answers to the interrogatories by the plaintiff, the opposite party's pleader stated that he had no further instruction. On this the Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for non-prosecution tinder Order 11, Rule 21, Civil P.C. The plaintiff then moved the Court under Order 9, Rule 9 and Section 151 of the Civil P.C., praying to have the suit restored for various reasons which it is not necessary to set forth.2. The learned Judge thus dealt with the matter. He stated that it seemed a fit case for restoration. He noted that it had been argued that neither Order 9, Rule 4 nor Section 152 applied to a ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohini Mohan Banerjee and ors. Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal298,101Ind.Cas.537
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the claimants Mohini Mohan Banerjee and others against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge of Hooghly, D/- the 9th of June 1924.2. The case arises out of certain land acquisition proceedings. The Collector made his award and upon the request of the claimants he made a reference to the learned District Judge of Howrah.3. The land in question is a small piece. 10 cottas 10 chittacks in area, and it is described in the Collector's reference to the learned Judge as 'brick-field' land. The claimants contended before the learned Additional District Judge that the valuation of the land should be taken on the basis that the land was 'brickfield' or that there was a reasonable probability of its being used as a 'brickfield' but for the acquisition in question. The learned Judge decided that the claimants had not made out the case on which they relied and confirmed the award.4. There is no doubt that the plot of land which is No. 27 was in...
Tag this Judgment!Rajtilak Narayan Sur Vs. Mufizuddi Topadar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal193
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of certain execution proceedings. One Osman Ali and another held a mortgage from one Abdul Sobhan. The appellant before us is the purchaser of the equity of redemption in the mortgaged proparties. The mortgagees obtained a decree nisi on the mortgage on the 11th July 1921, and then a final decrees for sale on the 11th August 1921. They then transferred the decree to one Mofizuddi Tapadar. The latter applied on the 15th November 1924, for execution of the decree. The appellant objected inter alia on the ground of limitation. The decree-holder relied upon a payment by the mortgagor in respect of the principal and interest alleged to have been made in June 1924, an endorsement whereof had been made on the back of the copy of the decree nisi. The Munsif in whose Court the decree was sought to be executed held in favour of the appellant upon his other objections, viz., that the kobala by the mortgagees in favour of Mofizuddi was a benami transaction and ...
Tag this Judgment!Benoy Chandra Bose and ors. Vs. Kala Chand Bhuimali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1049,97Ind.Cas.59
Duval, J.1. In this matter, there was a dispute in connection with two plots of land which the opposite party was endeavouring to use as a hat. Certain proceedings under Section 144, Cr.P.C., were drawn up in respect of them; but the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under that section was set aside by the Additional District Magistrate. On the case then coming up before the Sub Divisional Officer again, he had before him a Police report; but he refused to pass any order for a proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C., in respect of these two plots and proposed to proceed against the opposite party only under Section 107, Cr.P.C. Thereupon, an application was made to the Additional District Magistrate under Section 528, Cr.P.C., for the transfer of these-proceedings under Section 107, Cr.P.C., on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer had himself been to the spot with the Police and made enquiries into the matter. On the case coming up before the Additional District Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Chandra Basu Vs. Hujjatali Akon and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1240,97Ind.Cas.470
Cuming, J.1. This appeal raises a somewhat novel point for our consideration and unfortunately there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. The plaintiff sued the defendants for rent of a certain nim-howla the rent of which had been settled under Ch. X of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The defence was that the land had been totally diluviated.3. The trial Court found that a certain portion of the land had been diluviated and allowed the defendants abatement of rent to the extent of the land diluviated by the river. An appeal against the decree of the first Court was allowed in part and the decree of the first Court was modified to some extent. The lower Appellate Court allowed the defendants abatement of rent for the area which it was found had been diluviated.4. The plaintiff has applied to this Court and he contends that under the provisions of Section 113 of the Bengal Tenancy Act the rent of this tenure is not liable to be reduced on account of any reduction in the area. This po...
Tag this Judgment!Debendra Lal Khan Vs. Pitambar Bera
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal177
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff's case, shortly stated, is as follows : In mouza Maida there were 61 bighas 15 cottas of nishkar lands which were included in old Register No. 115 and present Register Nos. 105-B and 4171-C of the Midnapur Collectorate. The said lands are included in Chak No. 1 of the thak map of Mouza Gaighatta with which Mouza Maida was measured at the time of the thak. The lands on actual measurement were found to be 64 bighas. At one time these lands, together with other lands, were the nishkar properties of one Ram Narain Pal and they were confirmed as lakheraj under a sanad dated 1876. Under some sort of compromise, the details of which are neither clear nor material eight annas of the said lands came to be in the possession of one Raja Sree Narayan Pal and the other I eight annas in the possession of one Narayan Pal and one Darpa Narayan Pal. Sree Narayan 'a wife Kshirode Mohini purchased the eight annas interest of Nara Narayan and Darpa Narayan under a kobala and in...
Tag this Judgment!Binoy Krishna Mukerjee and anr. Vs. Satish Chandra Giri and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal481,103Ind.Cas.561
Chatterjea, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against an order passed by Greaves and Panton, JJ., on the 8th Jan. 1926, directing the removal of the Receive appointed by Dist. Judge of Hooghly from a portion of the property in suit.2. The suit was instituted on the 8th January 1922 by certain persons (who may be referred to as the original plaintiffs) under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, with the sanction of the Collector, for the removal of the defendant from the office of mohunt of Tarakeswar, for appointment of a fit person as mohunt or trustee, for a declaration that the properties claimed by the defendant as his personal properties are debutter, for framing a scheme of management and for various other reliefs. The Defendant was charged with having attempted to set up a title adverse to the trust with respect to many properties, with misappropriation of large sums of money and moveables belonging to the debutter, with mismanagement a...
Tag this Judgment!Bisseswar Roy Garia Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal961
Rankin, J.1. The petitioner in this case, while in custody under Section 54, Criminal P.C., was served on the 7th of this month with a warrant under Section 4 of the Goondas Act signed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bengal. The warrant was in the form which had been duly notified under the Goondas Act in the Calcutta Gazette by virtue of Section 4 of the Act and it required the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Calcutta to arrest the petitioner and it was provided by the form of the warrant that, if the petitioner should give bail himself in the sum of ten thousand rupees with two sureties in the sum of five thousand rupees to attend before the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, and to continue to attend, ha may be released. That part of the warrant follows without variation the form which is the second form in the Fifth Schedule to the Criminal Procedure Code, It is a form which is drawn up with reference to Section 76 of the Code.Any Court issuing a warrant for the arrest of...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Khayerunnessa Bibi and anr. Vs. Fazar Ali Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal25,97Ind.Cas.755
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued to recover khas possession of some three plots of land set forth in the schedule to the plaint after declaration of her title thereto. Her case was that the lands in suit together with some other lands formed the raiyati jote of one Arashali Prodhan who was the great-grandfather of the plaintiff. Arashali died leaving behind him four sons, Manik, Baramdi, Nandoo and Sonaulla. Nandoo and Sonaulla died childless and so the jote came into possession of the plaintiff's grandfather Manik and his brother Baramdi. Manik died and was succeeded by his son Azim. There was a private partition between Baramdi and Azim by which Azim got possession of the three disputed plots of land whereas Baramdi got the other plots. On the death of the plaintiff's father Azim the plaintiff came into possession as heir and was in possession of the disputed lands till Bhadra 1326 when she was dispossessed by the defendants and hence th...
Tag this Judgment!ishan Chandra Banikya Vs. Moomraj Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1101,97Ind.Cas.770
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge affirming the decree of the Munsif. The appeal is by the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit for arrears of rent claimed at the rate of Rs. 12-1-9 per year. The rent was at the rate of Rs. 3-8-0 per year in 1892, as it appears from a decree. In 1912 plaintiffs brought a suit against the predecessors of the defendants for enhancement of rent which ended in a decree passed on a compromise by which the rent was settled at the rate now claimed by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have also produced an ex parte decree of a subsequent date under which they were allowed to recover rent at that rate. The present suit for rent was brought in April, 1922, on the basis of the decree of 1912. The Subordinate Judge has held that the decree of 1912 was without jurisdiction and a nullity. He has also held that the subsequent ex parte decree being based on the previous decree on compromise which was a nullity, realisa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »