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.
Fazlur Rahman Vs. Sardar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal338
Duval, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued for declaration of his title to and for possession of, certain land. His case was that he purchased it in auction sale in the benami of defendant 6 on 8th August 1908 and that subsequently he got possession in the name of his benamidar who was in possession for some time, but that in 1915 his benamidar sold the land to defendants 1 and 2 and he was dispossessed. He brought a case under Section 9, Specific Belief Act, and lost it and so he brought this suit. The defence set up in the written statement of the vendees was that the plaintiff was never in possession and that defendant 6 was not a benamidar and that the suit is barred under 66, Civil P.C. Defendant 6, who purported to sell the property has put in a written statement stating that he was a benamidar. After issues were framed the first Court tried the issue as to whether the suit lay in view of the provisions of Section 66, Civil P.C., and held that it did not. This finding has been u...
Munshi Fuzlur Rahaman, Mukhtear Vs. Sadar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.67
Duval, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued for declaration of his title to, and for possession of a certain land. His case was that he purchased it in auction-sale in the benami of defendant No. 5 on the 8th August, 1908, and that subsequently he got possession in the name of his benamdar who was in possession for sometime, but that in 1915 his benamdar sold the land to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and he was dispossessed. He brought a case under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act and lost it and so he brought this suit. The defence pet up in the written Statement of the vendees was that the plaintiff was never in possession and that defendant No. 6 was not a benamdar and that the suit was barred under Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Defendant No. 6 who purported to sell the property has put in a written statement stating that he was a benamdar. After issues were framed the first Court tried the issue as to whether the suit lay in view of the provisions of Section 66 of the Co...
Khetra Mohan Saha and ors. Vs. Jamini Kanta Dewan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal472
1. These three Rules are directed against as many orders passed by the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Faridpur, by which that learned Judge directed the petitioners to deposit stamp duty and penalty in respect of three documents. The petitioners had instituted three suits for recovery of money due upon the said documents and filed the same along with the plaints. A Commissioner was appointed for the examination of one of the plaintiffs and documents were proved in the course of the deposition of that witness taken by the Commissioner. Thereafter the suits were adjourned from time to time and ultimately resulted in a compromise on the basis of which decrees were passed on the 25th May 1926. On the 3rd June 1925, the decrees were signed and sealed. On the 2nd July 1926, the sheristadar made a report stating that the documents were not promissory notes that bonds within the meaning of the Stamp Act and accordingly should have been stamped as such. On the said report the Subordinate Judge...
Jogendra Nath Maiti and ors. Vs. Ram Gopal Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal616,103Ind.Cas.639
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a decree by which mesne profits were assessed. The facts are these:One Sib Chandra Das was the tenant with regard to several jamas under Defendants Nos. 3 to 5. The total area of the jamas is 129 bighas. Sib Chandra mortgaged these jamas to the plaintiffs some time in 1901. The Defendants Nos. 3 to 5 brought one suit for rent for all those jamas in 1905 against Sib Chandra. A decree was passed in that suit on 2nd August 1905. The decree was executed in 1906 and Defendants 3 to 5 purchased the interest of the mortgagor Sib Chandra in execution of their decree and took possession. Under the law the landlords could not claim to have purchased the jamas free from in-cumbrance having brought one suit for rent for a number of jamas. The plaintiffs then brought a suit on their mortgage against Sib Chandra in 1909 in which the Defendants 3 to 5 were joined as defendants the Defendants 3 to 5 claimed a paramount title and asked to be discharged fr...
(Srimati) Saroj Bala and ors. Vs. Jatindra Nath Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal619,103Ind.Cas.625
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against a final order made by this Court on the 28th of July 1926 in Appeal from Original Order No. 53 of 1924 arising out of Title Suit No. 191 of. 1920 in the Court of the 2nd Subordinate Judge of the 24 Perganas the order complained of is one which affirmed the decision of the Court immediately below. As regards the amoun for value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of 1st instance and in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council, it is more than Rs. 10,000. In these circumstances the only question that has got to be enquired into is whether the appellant for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council has satisfied this Court that the appeal involves soma substantial question of law. The facts shortly stated are as follows.2. On the 18th of August 1920, the said suit was filed in the Court of the 2nd Subordinate Judge of the 24-Perganas by the plaintiff Profulla Kumar Bose against four...
Raja Sati Prasad Garga Bahadur and ors. Vs. Mahesh Bhunia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal561,103Ind.Cas.542
Mullik, J.1. The plaintiffs brought a suit for the resumption of certain lands on eviction of the defendant on the allegation that the lands were chakran and that the defendant had refused to render service for which the chakran grant had been made. The defence was that the lands were not chakran but niskar lands. The trial Judge decreed the suit holding that the lands were chakran. The defendant came up on appeal and the lower appellate Court disbelieved the story of absolute niskar and also held that the defendant and his people for the service rendered got wages in addition to diet money and on these findings the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit with costs. The plaintiffs have coma up before as on second appeal.2. The principal contention raised before us is that the lower appellate Court on the findings arrived at by it ought to have dismissed the appeal. This contention seems to us to be well founded and must therefore prevail. The case was whether t...
Srimati Saroj Bala Bose Vs. Jatindra Nath Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1927
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.625
Charu Chunder Ghose, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against a final order made by this Court on the 28th of July, 1976 in appeal from Original Order No. 53 of 1924 arising out of Title Suit No. 191 of 1920 in the Court of the Second Subordinate Judge of the 24-Pergannas.2. The order complained of is one which affirmed the decision of the Court immediately below. As regards the amount or, value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance and in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council, it is more than Rs. 10,000. In these circumstances the only question that has got to be enquired into is whether the appellant for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council has satisfied this Court that the appeal involves some substantial question of law.3. The facts shortly stated are as follows. On the 18th of August, 1920, the said suit was filed in the Court of the Second Subordinate Judge of the 24-Pergannas by the plaintiff Profulla...
Loke Nath Roy and ors. Vs. Bazlal Gani Patari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal313
1. In these proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C., there were six parties the first three being the landlords (the first party holding one anna share, the second party three annas share and the third party a twelve annas share in the land in dispute). The fourth party claims to have executed a kabuliyat in respect of the land in dispute in favour of the second and third parties and is now holding over the term of the lease having expired in 1330. The fifth party is the Chittagong Company which claims to hold possession of a portion of the land where it repairs its launches, and sometimes cuts earth and erects a bamboo jetty fencing when the river rises. The sixth party does not claim any title but says he took a verbal bandobust from the maliks. The learned Deputy Magistrate went thoroughly into the evidence and found that none of the parties had been able to produce sufficient evidence of possession within the meaning of Section 145, Criminal P.C., and therefore passed an order...
Tamezkhan and ors. Vs. Rajjabali Mir and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal330
Cuming, J.1. This rule has been granted on four grounds which I propose to deal with seriatim. The first ground is that the trial is vitiated by the fact that the provisions of Section 342, Criminal P.C., were not complied with in the case of the accused Tamejuddin inasmuch as he was not examined under the mandatory provision of that section at the close of the prosecution evidence. It will appear that Tamejuddin, who was represented by a pleader, was ill at the time and was not present when this examination at the close of the prosecution evidence should have taken place. The other accused persons were duly examined but Tamejuddin was not then examined not being -present. He was examined at a subsequent stage, namely at the conclusion of the defence evidence.2. Mr. Chowdhury who appears in support of the Rule contends that this was not a compliance with the terms of Section 342, Criminal P.C. He contends that the provisions of the section are mandatory and that the accused persons mus...
Raja Sati Prasad Garga Bahadur Vs. Broja Gopal Dalapati and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal458
Duval, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the entry in the record-of-rights declaring them as occupancy raiyats was wrong and that they should be recorded as mokarari mourasi raiyats or raiyats at fixed rates. The area of the holding is 14 bighas at a rental of Rs. 56-9-0. The record-of-rights was finally published on the 9th April 1917 and this suit was brought on the 22nd December 1922. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit holding that as there had been a record-of-rights finally published, Section 115 of the Bengal Tenancy Act applies and that, therefore, there was no presumption under Section 50 and that as the plaintiffs had failed to prove uniform payment of rent back to the time of the Permanent Settlement, they were not entitled to have a decree.2. In appeal the learned District Judge held that the suit was one under Section 111A of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which could correct any entry in a finally published record-of-rights ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »