Kolkata Court January 1927 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.
Hashim Ibrahim Saleji and ors. Vs. Secretary of State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal352,101Ind.Cas.539
Panton, J.1. The question in this Rule is whether the learned Additional District Judge of Howrah should have joined the present petitioners as parties in the proceeding resulting from a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The case related to the acquisition of a certain land which it is now admitted formed part of a wakf estate. The declaration for its acquisition was made in the year 1918, and the second opposite party Ismail Ibrahim Saleji preferred a claim to the compensation money alleging that it was his 'ancestral purchased niskar land.' He appears to have been an undischarged insolvent, and in consequence of this the Official Assignee was joined with him the proceeding in the Court of the Collector; and on the 24th January 192 the award was made by the Collector ii the joint names of the Opposite Party No. 2 and the Official Assignee. On the 22nd February 1924 the Official Assignee affirmed to a petition to the effect that he had on investigation discovered ...
J.C. Galstaun Vs. F.E. Dinshaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal581
Mukerji, J.1. By two indentures of mortgage, one dated the 31st March 1921 in favour of Mr. Framroz Edulji Dinshaw and two others, and another dated the 28th June 1925 in favour of Mr. Framroz Fdulji Dinshaw alone, Mr. J.C. Galstaun borrowed 30 lacs and 2 lacs of rupees respectively on hypothecation of some immovable properties. In February 1926 the mortgagees having attempted to sell the mortgaged properties without the intervention of the Court on the strength of a covenant in the deeds, Mr. Galstaun instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore for a declaration that the mortgagees are not entitled to exercise that power of a sale and for an injunction restraining them from doing so and obtained a temporary injunction to that effect in his favour Thereafter the mortgagees instituted two suits in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its Original Jurisdiction for moneys due on the said mortgages being Suits Nos. 1418 and 1420 of 1926, on the basis of the pers...
Fool Kumari Dasi Vs. Khirod Chandra Das Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal474
1. The appeal arises from and the Rule is directed against the appellate order of the Second Additional District Judge of 24-Pargannas, dated the 23rd December 1925.2. One Dulal Chand Datt applied on the 15th June 1923 to be adjudicated an insolvent. The Subordinate Judge passed the order of adjudication. The creditors alleged that the insolvent was the owner of certain properties which stood in the name of his wife, having been transferred to her by a deed of gift dated 1907. The Receiver in insolvency made a report and thereafter advertised the properties to sale as the properties of the insolvent. The insolvent's wife then applied to the Subordinate Judge claiming the properties as her own. The Subordinate Judge held an enquiry in which evidence was adduced on both sides. He held that the gift was bona fide and that the insolvent's wife acquired a good title under it and was in possession of the properties since the transfer. The Receiver preferred an appeal to the District Judge wh...
Sukumari Mitra Vs. Kinu Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal924
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the question arises whether the plaintiff landlord is entitled to an enhancement as against the defendant of the rent of the tenancy. At the trial Court the plaintiff referred to a kabuliat but it was not until the case came before the Court of appeal that the kabuliat was laid before the Court; and in my judgment, the first question before us is to construe this kabuliat and find out what it means.2. There are two clauses which require careful attention. It is quite clear that the tenant held for a jama under the landlord of Rs. 6-8 annas. It is quite clear that the rent had been changed and it is quite clear that the object of this kabuliat is to increase the rent by 14 annas to the sum of Rs. 7-6 annas; and what is stated is that this Rs. 7-6 annas is in respect of about 3 pakhis of land as per boundaries of the different lots given below.3. Now, if the document had stopped there that would have been a very plain case indeed. It would have been as clear a...
Gour Mohan GossaIn and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal801
1. In this case the accused has been convicted under Section 44 Calcutta Police Act, for owning and keeping a common gaming, house, and fined Rs. 50 each. This rule has been issued on the first four grounds mentioned in the petition of which two are of much importance. The first is that the search warrant purported to have been issued under Section 46 of the Act is defective and therefore no presumption should have been raised by the Magistrate under Section 47 of the Act. The second is that the learned Magistrate should not have used the admission made by the accused's brother in another case, to the effect that the house was a common gaming-house. We think that both these objections should prevail.2. As to the first objection it is unfortunate that since the ruling in Walvehar v. Emperor A.I.R. 1926 Cal. 966, the form of the warrant has not been changed. In the one issued in the present case the words 'there is cause to suspect' still exist. According to the authority cited the words...
Sourendra Nath Mitra and anr. Vs. Sreemati Tarubala Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal354,101Ind.Cas.9
Mukerji, J.1. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 318 of 1926 has been preferred from an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Hughli, on the 28th July 1926, and Rule No. 851(m) has been issued by this Court in connexion with the said appeal. The petition upon which the said rule has been issued only prayed for stay of execution of the aforesaid order pending the hearing of the appeal, but the rule purports to call in question the validity of the order and directs a stay of its execution, pending the disposal of the rule, on certain terms as to furnishing of security. Evidently the rule is misconceived, or at any rate its terms are inapposite, but the matter is of no importance now as, in point of fact, the execution of the order was stayed on the requisite security being furnished, and the appeal and the rule are both pending and have come up for hearing together.2. The facts which led up to these proceedings are these: The plaintiff-respondent Tarubala Dasi instituted a suit for ...
Sefatullah Bepari Vs. Sadhu Molla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal495
Mitter, J.1. This rule was issued on the Opposite Party to show cause why the decree passed by the Munsif, 1st Court, Serajgunge, dated the 18th August 1926, should not be vacated and a decree passed in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 84 odd found to be due to the plaintiff, The facts are that plaintiff and defendant and some other persons carried on business in partnership and the partnership was dissolved at the end of the Bengali year 1329. There was an adjustment of account in 1327 B.S. and a sum of Rs. 78-11-3 pies was found due from the defendant. This amount was carried over to the account of 1329 together with two other sums taken by the defendant and the adjustment of account in 1329 showed that the defendant owed Rs. 89 to the plaintiff. Rs. 5 was paid to the plaintiff and the plaintiff seeks to recover Rs. 84 in this suit. The defendant's plea is that the plaintiff's claim for Rs. 78 is barred by limitation as the suit was not commenced within three years of 1327 and this pl...
Bibhuti Bhusan Rai and anr. Vs. Chinibas Makhal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal381
Mitter, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the decree-holders in a suit which purports to be one for rent. The decree was obtained against two judgment-debtors who are the sons of one Prem Chand whom the decree-holders admit to be the original tenant. He died leaving behind him three sons, namely, the judgment-debtors and another son by another wife, Chinibas by name, who was a minor step-brother of the two judgment-debtors and who is the opposite party before me. The rent suit was brought on the basis of a kabuliyat said to have been executed by the two step-brothers of the opposite party. The opposite party preferred a claim on the 26th May 1926, claiming possession of the one-third share in the homestead which was attached by the decree-holders in execution of their so called rent decree, and the claim was allowed by the Munsiff to the extent of one-third of the homestead. Against this order allowing the claim this petition for revision has been put in and a Bale was issue...
NobIn Chandra Bhattacharyya Chowdhuri Vs. Debendra Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal522
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the District Judge of Mymensingh on the 21st December 1925 reversing an order which had been passed by the Subordinate Judge of that District on the 21st October 1925. The appellant before us held a decree for money, dated the 10th September 1923, against a certain judgment-debtor. That judgment-debtor had prior to the date of the said decree mortgaged certain properties in favour of the decree-holder respondent in this appeal. The mortgagee instituted a suit on his mortgage on the 22nd December 1924 and obtained a decree nisi on the 15th April 1925. A final decree was subsequently passed on the 16th May 1925. Between these dates, that is to say, on the 20th April 1925 the appellant in execution of his own decree for money purchased some of the mortgaged properties, that is to say, lots Nos. 1, 2 and 5 and some dags of lot No. 8. The mortgagee after obtaining the final decree and in execution thereof advertised all the mortgage...
NabIn Chandra Bhattacharjya Chowdhuri Vs. Debendra Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1927
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.124
Mukerji, J 1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the District Judge of Mymensingh on the 21st of December, 1925, reversing an order which has been passed by the Subordinate Judge of that District on 21st October, 1925. The appellant before us held a decree for money, dated the 10th September, 1923, against a certain judgment-debtor. That judgment-debtor had prior to the date of the said decree mortgaged certain properties in favour of the decree-holder respondent in this appeal. The mortgagee instituted a suit on his mortgage on the 22nd December, 1924, and obtained a decree nisi on the 15th April, 1925. A final decree was subsequently passed on the 16th May, 1925. Between these dates, that is to say, on the 20th April. 1925, the appellant in execution of his own decree for money purchased some of the mortgaged properties, that is to say, lots Nos. 1, 2 and 5 and some dags of lot No. 8. The mortgagee after obtaining the final decree and in execution thereof advertised all the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »