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.
Satindra NaraIn Sinha Vs. Chunilal Jamadar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal818,103Ind.Cas.621
Rankin, C.J.1. This is appeal from an order made by Mr. Justice Greaves upon, the application of an auction-purchaser at a sale held by the registrar of the original side under a mortgage decree.2. The sale was held on the 20th of March 1926 and the question before us concerns lot 3. Now lot 3 is described in the notification of sale as aparcel of land containing by measurement an area of 8 cottahs 1 chittack and 32 square feet, be the same a title more or less, within the municipal limits of the town of Calcutta, being premises No. 5 Ahiripukur 1st Lane, and situate in (a certain district) and being a portion of holding No. 161 (formerly holding No. 43) in Subdivision A, Division V, within the district of the 24-Parganas and paying an annual rent of Rs. 2-13-9 in respect of the entire holding.3. It is further described as bounded on the north by a certain land and on the eastby No. 6 Ahiripukur 1st Lane (formerly by old holdings Nos. 44 and 45).4. The sale was held under the rules of ...
Kesoram Poddar Vs. Banamali Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal941,103Ind.Cas.93
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Pearson dated the 1st February 1926, by which he decreed the plaintiffs' claim for rent aggregating to a sum of Rs. 1511-14-0 and for ejectment from premises No. 1, Raja Brojendra Narain Roy Street, against the defendant Kesoram Poddar.2. The facts, shortly stated, are as follows : It appeal's that the property in question is one of several parcels comprised in a lease for 25 years from the 23rd July 1919, granted by the Maharajah Sir Manindra Chandra Nundy on the 29th July, 19.19, in favour of three persons who are described as the Kallas. On the 22nd December 1919, there was an assignment of the lease by the then original lessees to the present defendant Kesoram Poddar. The premises in question were busti lands and the defendant Kesoram shortly after the last mentioned date proceeded to divide the said busti lands into two portions, one of which was called the eastern portion and the other the wes...
India General Navigation and Ry. Co. Ltd. Vs. Girdharilal Gobardhone D ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal394
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Bankura which reversed the decree of the Munsif of Bankura, The India General Navigation and Railway Co., Ltd., and Rivers Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. have preferred this appeal which arises out of an action commenced by the plaintiffs' firm for recovery of damages for short delivery of goods. The plaintiffs' case is that one Rambilas Muralidhar consigned 129 maunds 31 seers of betel-nuts in 71 gunny bags to defendants-appellants at Daulat Khan Steamer Station for delivery to them at Bankura. The Defendant No. 4, appellant, undertook to carry the goods from Daulat Khan to Bankura via the Eastern Bengal Railway (Defendant No, 3), the East Indian Railway (Defendant No. 2) and the Bengal-Nagpur Railway (Defendant No, 1).2. The plaintiffs further alleged that when they went to take delivery of the goods at Bankura Station there was short delivery by 31 maunds 281/2 seers of which the then current price was at Rs. 19 per...
Durga Charan Chandra Vs. Ambica Charan Chandra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal393,101Ind.Cas.130
Mukerji, J.1. The facts as they may be gathered from the record, are these : The petitioner had mortgaged some lands to one Ishan Chandra Dutta on the 3rd Jaistha 1324. He then executed another mortgage in respect of the same lands to the opposite party on the 11th Ashar 1325. Ishan Chandra Dutta sued on his mortgage, obtained a decree and advertised the mortgaged properties to sale The opposite party deposited the decretal amount due to Ishan Chandra Dutt any saved the mortgaged properties from sale and then institued the suit out of which this Rule has arisen for recovering the amount so deposited by him together with costs of the deposit. The Munsiff decreed the suit, and that decree has been affirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge. The petitioner then obtained this Rule.2. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the suit as laid was not maintainable and that the rights acquired by the opposite party under Section 74 of the Transfer of Property Act are the only ...
Jnanendra Chandra Ghose Vs. Royman Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal513
Mukerji, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order passed by the Munsif, 1st Court, Khulna, on the 12th November 1925. The petitioner before us obtained a rent decree1 against the recorded tenant in respect of a non-transferable occupancy holding and in execution of that decree the said holding was advertised for sale. The Opposite Party, who claims to have taken an under-raiyati lease in respect of the said holding from the said recorded tenant, applied to deposit the decretal amount in accordance with the provisions of Section 170, Clause (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The learned Munsif allowed the said application of the Opposite Party being of opinion that notwithstanding the provisions of Section 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the Opposite Party being in possession of the holding must be regarded as one having an interest therein which was voidable on the sale of the holding and being further of opinion that on a previous occasion the said Opposite Party had been allowed to make...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›