Kolkata Court May 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.
Chandra Mohan Banikya and ors. Vs. Srimati Meherjan Banu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal191
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs arising out of a suit for ejectment of the defendants from lands which are alleged to be held by them as under-raiyats under the plaintiffs. The suit was brought after service of notice to quit under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The lands consist of certain arable lands, a piece of land on which the defendants have got their homestead and certain Bhita lands comprised within certain settlement dags. The trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. On appeal by the defendants, that decree has been modified by dismissing the plaintiffs suit for khas possession of the Bhita lands as well as the land on which the defendant's homestead stands. With regard to the arable lands the decree of the Munsiff has been affirmed. The plaintiffs contend that this decision of the lower appellate Court is erroneous and that they are entitled to khas possession of all the lands in question. The first thing that strikes us with regard to the decis...
AseruddIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal257
1. In this case the accused Aseruddin, alias Botu, has been convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code on two charges,: first, for causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon to one Rahimuddin, and secondly, for causing the same offence upon one Aseruddin, and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment on the first count, and to three years rigorous imprisonment on the second, the sentences to run concurrently. The case for the prosecution is that there was some dispute with regard to possession of a piece of land. The complainant was in possession of the land, and as he was late in transplanting the crop, he called in a number of friends and dependents to help him in the matter on the 16th September 1925. On that date he went with a large number of men and started transplanting paddy. About three bighas of land lay to the west of a path, and when the men came to that part the accused Botu, with his brother Anaruddin and one Moji, came on to the land and protest edsayin...
Meghraj Kanyalal and ors. Vs. Durga Sahai Baldeodas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal291
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Buckland which was delivered on the 24th of April 1925.2. The suit was brought to recover Rs. 6,520 which was made up of Rs. 4,496 the principal sum claimed with interest amounting to Rs. 2,023.3. The plaintiffs alleged that a contract had been made between him and the defendant firm on the 1st of April 1920, whereby the plaintiff agreed to sell to the defendant firm five cases of Hazel Poplins of a certain quality to be shipped in July, August and September 1920 at Re. 1-4-0 per yard on the terms and conditions which are set out at the end of the contract. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants raised certain objections as to the quality, finish, and shades but that upon a reference to the Tribunal of Arbitration it was ordered that the goods which had been offered to the defendants were a fair tender and it was further ordered that the defendants should take delive...
Gobinda Chandra Pal and ors. Vs. PulIn Behari Bannerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal102
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale based on a simple mortgage bond. The bond was executed by Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 or their predecessors in favour of the plaintiff's father on the 21st June 1885. It was an instalment mortgage bond by which the executants promised to pay 191 maps of paddy at the rate of 7 maps per annum from the years 1293 to 1316 B.S. and the balance of 5 maps in the year 1317 B.S. The bond stipulated that in default of the payment of any one instalment the mortgagee would be entitled forthwith to realize the whole of the paddy then remaining due with interest at a certain rate. Subsequent to the execution of this bond and on the 7th June 1901, the mortgagors executed another mortgage bond in respect of the same mortgaged properties in favour of the plaintiffs' mother the plaintiffs' mother instituted a suit on the basis of this latter bond, obtained a decree and in execution of the decree the mortgaged properties were put up to sale and purchased...
Mrigendra Nath Bir and ors. Vs. Dibakar Bir and Satish Chandra Ghose a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1231,97Ind.Cas.573
Ewart Greaves, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Bankura of the 27th September, 1924 refusing to restore an appeal. The appeal which, was only a few months old came on for hearing on the 20th September, 1921. No one appeared on behalf of the appellants and the respondent being present the learned District Judge made an order dismissing the appeal with costs. The order wa3 made at about 1 o'clock or a few minutes thereafter. A week after, namely, on the 27th September the appellants applied for re-admission of the appeal. The order passed by the District Judge was that he saw no good reason to set aside the order of dismissal and he accordingly rejected the application and it is against this order that the present appeal is preferred. The petition upon which the application of the 27th September, 1924, was made is before us and it appears that the Pleader who had been engaged on behalf of the appellants was absent in another Court arguing a small appeal...
Jharu Mondal Vs. Khetra Mohan Bera and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal934,96Ind.Cas.363
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether a purchaser of the whole or portion of a non-transferable occupancy holding who has not been recognised by the landlord has an interest in the holding which is voidable on the sale and so, entitled to make a deposit under Section 170(3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. Section 158B of the Bengal Tenancy Act, provides that where a tenure or holding is sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent (under the provisions of Chap. XIV of the Act), the tenure or holding shall (subject to the provisions of Section 22) pass to the purchaser. Section 159 lays down that such purchaser shall take subject to certain interests defined as 'protected interests' and with power to annul the interests defined in Chap. XIV as 'incumbrances.' That being so, the holding itself passes to the purchaser, subject only to the 'protected interests' and with power to avoid incumbrances.3. In the present case, the petitioner is the unregister...
Tirthamayi Dassi Vs. Atikulla and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal140
Cuming, J.1. The fasts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are these.2. The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of possession of a 4-annas share in some 8 and odd kedars of land. Her case was that one Nabin Chandra Deb who was a co-sharer in a certain mehal Madanraja had opened a separate account for this share. The land now in dispute lies within this mehal. In 1906 Nabin made a gift of his share covered by the separate account No. 69 to his son-in-law Girish Chandra. Pour days later Girish granted a patni lease of the major portion of the land to his brother-in-law Satis who is the respondent in the present appeal. The rent reserved was Rs. 361. After that the mehal was sold several times for arrears of revenue. Finally in 1913 it was once more sold for arrears of revenue, and purchased by one Baikuntha, Dianath Ram (the husband of the plaintiff) and some others.2. It was again put up for sale on Janua-ary 15th, 1915, and purchased by Dianath and one Naba Kishore. In 19...
Manindra Nath Roy Choudhury and ors. Vs. Rasik Lal Pakhira
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal69,97Ind.Cas.463
Cuming, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application by four persons constituting a firm of the name of Rajnarayan Rasik Lul Pakhira to be declared insolvent. There was also a petition by one of their creditors asking them to be declared insolvent. These applications were opposed by a number of creditors. The learned District Judge of Alipur hold that the firm was entitled to be declared insolvent and he made the necessary order. Against this order some of the opposing creditors have appealed to this Court. The first point raised by Mr. Roy on behalf of the applicants is that the variation of the mill which is one of the main assets of the debtors was made without any notice to the creditors and, therefore, cannot stand, and a fresh valuation should be made.2. A reference to the judgment of the learned District Judge would show that the creditors were actually informed by the Receiver of the date on which the valuation was going to be made. No doubt in his order of the 23rd of May the...
iswar Chandra Agradani and ors. Vs. Jogendra Lal Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal126
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arise out of suit instituted by the plaintiff for declaration of his title by purchase of a homestead and for recovery of possession thereof by ejecting the defendants who according to the plaintiff are tenants-at-will with respect to the homestead. The Court of first instance declared the plaintiff's title and gave him a decree declaring his right to joint possession with the defendants to the extent of 8-annaa share. The plaintiff preferred an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge by his decree dated the 11th December 1923, decreed the plaintiff's suit in full. The defendants have thereupon preferred this appeal.2. The plaintiff's case shortly stated was that in the subject-matter of this suit, namely, the homestead, one Kala Chand had nishkar right. Kala Chand's son Kali Kumar mortgaged the said homestead to Kula Chandra Bisharad. The latter sued on the mortgage, obtained a decree and in execution of it he put up the homestead to sale. One Nanda ...
Upendra Nath Chattopadhya and ors. Vs. Radha Govinda Bandopadhyay
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal189
Greaves, J.1. These appeals arise out of a decision of the District Judge of Bankurah reversing the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer of the same place. The appeals arise out of proceedings under Sections 105 and 105-A of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The entry in the Record of Eights was that the lands in question were not rent-free tenures, but were liable to pay rent. The defendants contended that the lands in fact were rent-free and the application was dismissed by the Judge in the first Court who held that the tenures were rent-free tenures.2. Three points have been urged in this appeal on behalf of the appellants. Firstly, it is said that the District Judge was wrong in relying on certain evidence namely, a chitta and jamabandi prepared in connexion with the resumption proceedings in 1843, but prepared before such resumption proceedings; Secondly, it is said that the appellate Court has not considered the presumption which arises from the fact that there is no evidence that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »