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.
Bhagaban Chandra Kundu Vs. Tarak Chandra Basak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal259
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff which arises out of a suit by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of certain lands. His case shortly stated may be summed up in this way. In 1308 B.S. Defendants Nos. 4 to 8 gave the land in dispute with other lands in usufructuary mortgage to the plaintiff for 15 years, which was to remain in force till the end of 1322 B.S. In the year 1317 B.S. those defendants gave a second mortgage of those lands to Defendant No. 3 who was their landlord. The mortgagors after the execution of the usufructury mortgage in favour of the plaintiff remained in possession of the property as lessees under the plaintiff. The mortgagors defaulted in payment of the rent due to the plaintiff who obtained some rent decrees as against them. In the year 1321 B.S. the plaintiff purchased 4f bighas out of the mortgaged lands in satisfaction of his rent decrees and for some outstanding rent due to him for the previous period. In 1326 B.S. Defendant No. 3 brought a suit on ...
Pran Kumar Pal Chaudhury Vs. Darpahari Pal Chaudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal281
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Pran Kumar Pal Chaudhury against the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Gregory, delivered on the 23rd of March 1926. It appears that certain probate proceedings were pending in the Court of the learned District Judge of Barisal in which the appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant.2. A Rule had bean granted by a learned Judge, sitting on the Original Side of this Court, calling upon the appellant to show cause why the Probate Suit No. 2 of 1925 pending ins the Court of the District Judge of Barisal should not be removed from the said Court at Barisal to this Court for trial of the same by the High Court.3. The Rule was heard by Mr. Justice Gregory and on the merits, he came to the conclusion that, for the purpose of justice and on considerations of convenience, it was proper that the probate case pending at Barisal should be removed and tried and determined in the High Court He therefore, made the Rule absolute and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›