Kolkata Court July 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.
Jatindra Nath Bhattacharyya Vs. Manindra Nath Bhattacharyya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal52
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a small plot of land measuring about 15 cottahs.2. The litigants are two brothers and after the filing of the suit there was a reference to arbitration. The arbitrators made an award and a decree followed upon that. There was an appeal against that decree on the ground that the reference itself was bad and no decree could follow upon that award. The Subordinate Judge upheld the decree of the. Munsiff. The present appeal is by the plaintiff and his case is that the decree should be vacated on the ground that the reference to arbitrators was initially illegal and therefore the arbitrators had no jurisdiction to make an award.3. The facts upon which this contention is put forward are these : The case was filed on the 27th April 1923. On the 28th April 1923 an application was filed in Court by the plaintiff and the defendants which was headed as an 'Agreement to refer'. In that document it was stated thatthere are disputes between the p...
Nasib Ali Vs. Wajed Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal197
Suhrawardy, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent brought the present suit for khas possession basing his title upon a gift by the admitted owner of the property, Etim Meah, in favour of the plaintiff's vendors. The defendant denied the gift and claimed title under purchase from some of the heirs of Etim. The trial Court, on the evidence, found that the gift was not proved and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge found upon the evidence on the record that the oral gift coupled with delivery of possession as alleged by the plaintiff, was satisfactorily proved and made a decree in his favour. This gift was made by Etim Miah on the eve of his departure for Mecca, where he subsequently died. The donees were the daughter's son of Etim. They were fatherless and were brought up from their childhood by him. Etim had a son to inherit his properties; and before he left for Mecca he made a gift of some of his properties in favour of his grandsons. About that time Etim a...
Ranmaya Gaorangini Vs. Betty Mahbert and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal207
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has been preferred from an order refusing to revoke a grant of letters of administration. One Mrs. Benjamin, a native Christian, died leaving three sisters, three nieces by a predeceased sister, and two nephews and three nieces by a predeceased brother. Betty Mahbert who is one of the daughters of the predeceased sister obtained letters of administration from the District Judge on the 3rd January 1924 and she is the principal respondent in this appeal. Ranmaya Gaorangini alias Koili alias Rasidunnissa who is a sister of the said Mrs. Benjamin, on the 23rd July 1924, applied for revocation of the grant and her application being refused has preferred this appeal.2. The application for revocation filed on the 23rd. July 1924 was based upon various grounds of which two only have been pressed in this appeal. The first of these grounds is to the effect that there were two minor sons of Rajman, the deceased brother of Mrs. Benjamin, named Dhan Bahadur and Harka Bahad...
Anukul Chandra Chakravarti and ors. Vs. Chairman of the Dacca Dist. Bo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1928Cal485
Suhrawardy, J.1. The suits out of which these appeals have been brought were instituted by the District Board of Dacca to eject the defendant-appellants from the lands in suit on the ground that the lands belonged to the District Board as part of a public road from Danga to Kaliganj and that the defendants had trespassed into and encroached upon them. Both the Courts below decreed the plaintiff's suits. Out of the five suits instituted which were heard togegether, one was partially decreed and there is no appeal before us arising from it.2. The first question that has been argued on behalf of the appellants is whether Article 146-A, Lim Act, applies to these cases. The defendants claimed title to these lands, firstly, on the ground that they belonged to their taluks and tenancies. It has been found by both the Courts that the defendants have failed to prove this. In the alternative they claimed title to the lauds on the ground of adverse possession against the plaintiff. With regard to...
Lakhi Nath Bera and ors. Vs. Nabadwip Chandra Nandi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal268
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants who were sued under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P.C., as representing all the residents of Mouza Balpai Bamanbarh. The suit was for a declaration that the defendants had no right to out dawn or to appropriate trees on their holdings. A further declaration was asked for to the effect that the plaintiffs as landlords had the right to cut down and appropriate trees on the holdings of the tenants of the mouza. The record of rights is in favour of the defendants and the plaintiffs therefore prayed that it should be declared that the record-of-rights was incorrect.2. The trial Court made a decree to this effect that the tenants of Balpai Bamanbarh had no right to cut and appropriate trees on their jote without the consent of the plaintiffs landlords and that the record of rights was incorrect. The tenants appealed against that decision and the Additional District Judge has varied the de...
Dasarathi Ghose Vs. Kartick Ch. Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal782
Mallik, J.1. This rule was directed against an order passed by the subordinate judge of Hooghly setting aside an order passed by a Munsif, Serampore, whereby an application for execution of a small cause Court decree had been rejected. There had been a small cause Court decree passed and when an application for its execution was made, it was made to the second munsif of Serampore who in his capacity as a small cause Court judge had passed that small cause Court decree. In the application for execution it was stated that as the judgment-debtor had no moveable properties, action might be taken against his immovable properties. The officer before whom this application for execution was filed and who exercised two functions, one as a small cause Court judge and another as a munsif, rejected the application for execution on the ground of limitation. Against this order an appeal was filed before the subordinate judge and the subordinate judge, as stated above, allowed the appeal setting asid...
Anukal Chandra Chakravarti and ors. Vs. the Chairman of the Dacca Dist ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1926
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.24
Suhrawardy, J.1. The suits out of which these appeals have been brought were instituted by the District Board of Dacca to eject the defendants-appellants from the lands in suit on the ground that the lands belonged to the District Board as part of a public road from Danga to Kaliganj and that the defendants had trespassed into and encroached upon them. Both the Courts below decreed the plaintiff's suits. Out of the five suits instituted which were heard together, one was partially decreed and there is no appeal before us arising from it.2. The first question that has been argued on behalf of the appellants is whether Article 146A of the Limitation Act applies to these cases. The defendants claimed title to these lands firstly, on the ground that they belonged to their taluks and tenancies. It has been found by both the Courts that the defendants have failed to prove this. In the alternative they claimed title to the lands on the ground of adverse possession against the plaintiff. With ...
Sm. Mabia Khatun Vs. Sheikh Satkari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal309
1. This Rule arises out of an order of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan refusing the application of the petitioner to sue as a pauper under Order 33, Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner proposed to sue the opposite party as mutwalli with regard to certain wakf property. The learned Subordinate Judge presumably after taking the preliminary stepa laid down in Rr. 3, 4 and 5, did not reject the application. He issued notices to the opposite party and the Government Pleader and received evidence as to the proof of the pauperism of the applicant. The Government Pleader did not raise any objection as to the pauperism of the applicant. But the application was opposed by the opposite party. The value of the property sued for is over Rs. 9,000 and the ad valorem Court-fee payable on the plaint is said by the Subordinate Judge to amount to Rs. 735. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the applicant has no property in her possession as mutwalli, but he considers that she has personal prop...
Saroj Ranjan Sinha and ors. Vs. Joy Durga Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal56
Panton, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for contribution which was instituted on the 6th December, 1921. The parties are co-sharers in a patni taluq and the suit was in respect of a sum of Rs. 3,440 paid by the plaintiff to the landlord of the tenure on the 8th December 1918. On this date the rent of the tenure was in arrears and in the previous month the latter had been sold under the provision of Regulation VIII of 1819. The learned Subordinate Judge who tried the suit has found that this payment was not, as the plaintiff alleged, a payment of arrears of rent made on behalf of herself and the defendants but a payment made in fraud of the defendants in order to induce the landlord to resettle the tenure with herself alone. On this find-ling the plaintiff could not recover contribution, since the payment was not 'lawfully' made within the meaning of Section 70 of the Contract Act; and the learned Subordinate Judge rightly dismissed the suit. This was on the 26th Augu...
Bhuban Mohan Singh and ors. Vs. Ramgobinda Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1218
1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the suit which was brought on a mortgage dated the 27th of April 1908 was barred by limitation or not. The due date was the date of default in making the first payment of interest, that is February 1909. The suit was brought on the 11th February 1922. In the interval, on the 20th May 1912, Defendant No. 3 purchased the equity of redemption in the entire property. Payment of interest was made on the 29th June 1912, and part payment of the interest and of the principal was made on the 9th March 1913. These two payments were made by the purchaser of the equity of redemption, Defendant No. 3. Plaintiff's case was that a fresh period of limitation should be computed from the time of these payments and if the fresh period was computed from the 29th June 1912, the suit would be well within time and this is claimed by reason of the provisions of Section 20 of the Limitation Act.2. Defendants took the plea that Defendant No. 3 not being a person ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »