Kolkata Court February 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.
indu Bhusan Bose and ors. Vs. Sarajubala Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal741
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of right to and recovery of possession of fishery-right in a piece of water, described as a jala or kole, lying within the estate of defendants 1 to 9 called Chandahar, by virtue of the plaintiffs' right to two jalkars named Bartail and Chandraghopa Nayaganga. Plaintiffs allege that Bartail appertains to touzi No. 9316 and Chandraghopa Nayaganga to touzi No. 1180 of the Dacca Collectorate, both permanently settled estates. Plaintiffs, including the original defendants 42 and 43, who were transferred to the category of plaintiffs, claim 10-annas share of jalkar Bartail and 12-annas share in jalkar Chandraghopa Nayaganga in accordance with their shares in the two estates. Their case is that the two jalkars were different names of portions of a big tidal navigable river now named Dhaleswari. This river flowed to the east of a certain number of mauzas, Chamta, Chandhar and others. In 1897 the river broke through the lands of...
Rajeswar Prosad Bhakat and ors. Vs. Bhupendra Narayan Sinha Bahadur an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal956
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These two appeals arise out of one suit brought by the plaintiff Baja Bhupendra Narain Sinha Bahadur for declaration of his right to a certain hillock within his estate as shebait of idol Parbati Mata, and in the alternative for a declaration, by virtue of his right as zemindar of the estate, that the principal defendants have no right to take away earth and stones and minerals from the hillock in the exercise of the right that the defendants have as darpatnidars under the patnis within his estate. The plaintiff is one of the four sons of Maharaja Ranajit Sinha. The other sons and grandsons by those sons are defendants 16 to 20 in the case. The patni was created of three mehals within the estate No. 1152/1 by a predecessor in interest of the plaintiff's father. The patni was granted to two persons in equal shares by deeds dated the 30th May 1851. The throe mauzahs of which the patni was granted were called Tarof Nal-hati, Hat Nalhati and Kalindipur.2. Out of these thre...
Emperor Vs. Har Mohan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal848
Mitter, J.1. This is a reference under Section 807, Criminal P.C., by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Assam Valley Districts, disagreeing with the verdict of the majority of the jury. The accused Har Mohan Das was charged with an offence under Section 471, I.P.C., read with Section 467, I.P.C. He was charged with having fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine a document, namely, a receipt for Rs. 530 bearing date the 2nd Baisak 1330 B.S. (15th April 1923), purporting to have been executed by Baliram, which he knew or had reason to believe to be a forged document. The accused was originally tried before a Subdivisions! Magistrate and was convicted. That conviction was ultimately set aside by the High Court as it thought that it was a case triable by a Court of Session. The accused consequently was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge with the aid of a jury. Pour of them are of opinion that he is not guilty while one of them says that he is guilty under Sections 476/471 I.P.C.2. Th...
Midnapore Zemindary Co. Vs. Naresh NaraIn Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal844
Mullik, J.1. These two rules are directed against two orders, dated the 30th April 1926, of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia, by which certain persons, Bhowmiks and Chowdhuries, were added as party defendants in suit. It appears that as early as 1912, one Kumar Naresh Narain Roy instituted a suit numbered 557 of 1912 for partition of his 5 annas odd share in three mehals, mehal 814 (with which was incorporated mehal 3514), mehal 815 and mehal 3587 and it appears also that, at the time when the suit was instituted, the Midnapore Zemindary Company were, besides the plaintiffs, the only other proprietors in mehals 815 and 3587. This partition suit was fought up to the Privy Council and the plaintiff ultimately obtained a preliminary decree for partition. After the preliminary decree, but before the final decree in the partition suit was made, the Bhowmiks and the Chowdhuries acquired the interest which the Midnapore Zemindary Company had in mehals 815 and 3587 and they applied before the le...
Debendra Lal Khan Vs. F.M.A. Cohen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal908
Page, J.1. This is a suit brought to recover possession of a block of buildings lying at the corner of Wellington Street and Dhurrumtolla Street in Calcutta. I shall refer to the buildings generally as No. 149-1, Dhurrumtolla Street, the parcels being set out in the lease in suit.2. On the 3rd Augu9t 1906 the predecessor of the plaintiff let the said premises to one Sassoon Ezra Cohen (through whom the defendant claims title) for a term of 50 years. The rent reserved was Rs. 416-10-8, payable on the 25th day of each month succeeding the month for which it became due. The lessee covenanted inter alia that he will at all times during the said term keep the said premises in good and substantial repair and the same in good and substantial repair deliver up to the lessor his heirs or assigns at the expiration or sooner determination of the said term.3. The lessee further covenanted that he would repair the said premises within two months after a notice in writing of the necessary repairs wa...
Somokanta Mohonta and ors. Vs. Sarveswar Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal578,103Ind.Cas.644
1. This Rule is directed against certain decrees of the Munsif at Jorhat and certain orders made by him in execution of those decrees in two suits which arose out of the liquidation of the Nakari Bamangaon Bank, a Co-operative Society registered under Act II of 1912. In the course of this liquidation the liquidator directed payment of Rs. 1,000 by each of two members of the Executive Committee of the society. These two gentlemen sought to recoup themselves by suing the other members of the society for the recovery of these sums. The suits were decreed in the plaintiff's favour by the learned Munsif on the 4th August 1923. Under these decrees the learned Munsif made ail the defendants liable for equal shares of the sum total decreed.2. Certain of the defendants thereafter applied on various grounds to have the decrees as against them set aside, with the result that the suits were restored and re-heard as against these persons. On the 15th of July 1924 the learned Munsif by his judgment ...
In Re: Assessment of Behari Lal Mullick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal553,103Ind.Cas.609
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a Reference made under Section 66 of the Indian Income Tax Act of 1922 by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal. Two questions are referred to us and I will take them separately. The first question is as follows:Is an assessment for a year valid in law when the source of income is non-existent in that particular year? Is not Section 3 itself a bar to making an assessment in such a case? Is not the phrase of which he is the owner in Section 9 a bar to making an assessment in the case of house property?2. The assessment in the course of which this question of law arises was the assessment made upon one Behari Lal Mullick for the income-tax year 1924-25. The assessee was owner of a house property and land owner living apparently an 8 Durpa Narain Tagore Street in Calcutta - a dwelling house in which he had a one-third share. The 'previous year' with which we have to deal is 1923-24 and the assessee in his 'statement of total income during the previous year' declare...
Gangadayal Misir Vs. Srimati Chhakina Bhanu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal806
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff from a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Noakhali, dated the 8th August 1924, which modified a decision of the Munsiff, 2nd Court, Lakhimpur, dated the 7th July 1922.2. The plaintiff's case is that there was a raiyati holding of which three persons were the owners, that is,' Ganga Dayal, the plaintiff, himself, Baldeo and one Ram Prosad who is cousin of the plaintiff. Principal defendants were subtenants under all the three persons whom I have named. In execution of a decree for rent this sub-tenancy which is also described as osat-raiyati was sold and was purchased by Baldeo and Subhadrat the widow of Ram Prosad, on the 9th January 1919. They took delivery of symbolical possession on the 27th August 1919. On the 21st November 1919 Subhadra, the widow of Ram Prosad, executed a deed of relinquishment by which she gave up her interest in all the properties of her husband in favour of the plaintiff who was alleged to ...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Haridas Basu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal691
Mullick, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of money due on a policy of life, insurance effected on the life of one Sashi Bhusan Bhatfcacharji with the appellant company. The said policy had been purchased by the plaintiff-respondent at a sale in execution of a decree in the Bolepur Munsiff's Court against the heirs of Sashi Bhusan. The defence inter alia was that the plaintiff being a pleader practising in the Bolepur Court was precluded by Section 136 of the Transfer of Property Act, from buying the Policy of Insurance or enforcing his claim upon it. This defence found favour with the trial Judge, and the trial Judge on that ground dismissed the suit without determining any of the other issues raised in the case. On appeal the learned District Judge held that Section 136 of the Transfer of Property Act did not apply to the case, and on that finding allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Court of first instance for decision on the merits. It is against this or...
Solema Bibi and ors. Vs. Hafez Mahammad HosseIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal836
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These two appeals arise out of one decree made by the Subordinate Judge for foreclosure of a mortgage, alleged to be by conditional sale by the plaintiff. There were three sets of defendants in the Court below. There were two brothers named Akbar Khan and Amanat Khan. Both of them are dead. The defendants 1 to 9 are the representatives in interest of Akbar Khan. The defendants 10 to 18 are the legal representatives of Amanat Khan. The defendants 19, 20 and 21 are three firms of Marwaris, who may be described as the Marwari defendants, who were made defendants on the ground that they had attached certain of the mortgaged properties for debts alleged to have been due from the mortgagors. The mortgage is dated the 18th March 1921 and it purported to have been made by Akbar Khan for himself and as ammukhtear for Solema Bibi, defendant 10, the widow of Amanat Khan, and also as am-mukhtear for Rohima Bibi, the adult daughter of Amanat, and as guardian on behalf of the minor ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »