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.
Sudananda Moral and ors. Vs. Rakhal Sana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal920
Mitter, J.1. This rule was issued on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Munsif of Khulna, dated the 11th August 1926, rejecting an application under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C. for review of a contested judgment should not be set aside. It appears that the judgment in the suit which was commenced by the plaintiff against the defendant for declaration of title to and recovery of khas possession of land as also for mesne profits was based on Ex. 1, which was a judgment of the Additional District -Judge of Khulna which held that the plaintiff had no subsisting title to the disputed land. That judgment has to some extent been set aside by a decision of the High Court in the case of Sadananda Mandal v. Kumar Jyotish Kanta A.I.R. 1926 Cal. 952. It has been argued by Mr. Sen that as the judgment on which reliance was placed by the Munsif has been set aside by the High Court, a good ground has been made out for review of judgment. Mr. Sen has argued forcibly that even if a ...
Brajabashi Modak and ors. Vs. Manik Chandra Modak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal694
Mukerji, J.1. (After stating facts, the judgment proceeded.) The objection that was taken to the execution of the decree was as follows: When the lands and homestead of the judgment-debtors had been under attachment in execution case No. 158 of 1922, at the instance of the decree-holder Khali Mahmud, as stated above, there was a settlement in which three parties took part, viz. the judgment-debtor, the decree holder Khali Mahmud and the respondent. The position at that time was that there were several creditors who had to be paid off. Some of them, rather all with the exception of only five - one of those five being Khali Mahmud were paid off by sale of some of the properties belonging to the appellant, the sale being made by the appellants' mother acting as guardian on their behalf and on the strength of a permission obtained from the Judge. Khali Mahmud, in execution of his decree, had now attached some lands as well as the homestead of the appellants. Finding the helpless plight of ...
(Sreemati) Radharani Santra Vs. Rameshchandra Kalamuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal218,117Ind.Cas.678
Panton, J.1. This appeal arises from an application made to the Munsif under Section 7, Ben. Ten. Act, which resulted in an ex-parte order. He found, on the evidence before him, that the gross collection' from the tenure was 8 aras and 6 kuris odd of paddy and Rs. 32-9-0 in money rent. He valued the paddy at an agreed rate which brought the total gross collection to Rs. 130 after deducting one-third from the value of the paddy for what h& called 'uncertainties in the value of the paddy and for other uncertain elements.' He left to the defendant 50 per cent, of profits and thus fixed the rent of the tenure at Rs. 65. From this decision both parties appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Midnapur. For the tenure-holder it was contended that the learned Munsif should not have heard the case exparte. The learned Subordinate Judge's finding on this point was that the defendants had had enough indulgence and that they could not complain that they did not get more. The second contention for the...
Bhupendra Nath Bhose and anr. Vs. Goonendra Nath Bhose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1929Cal42
Rankin, C. J.1. In this case the plaintiff, Goonendra brought a suit against two defendants originally his stepbrothers Bhupendra and Jnanendra. Janendra has since died pending the suit; but I will omit for the sake of simplicity the complications caused by that event. The plaintiff's case is that his father Wooppendra Nath Bhose was married twice, that by his first wife he had two sons, namely, the defendants, and that, after the death of his first wife, he married one Sushila Sundari Dassi and by her he had two children the elder of the two being a daughter and the younger being the plaintiff. It seems that, in the year 1905 Woopendra practically retired from business and his business affairs were managed by Bhupendra and Jnanendra. In the same year, Sushila Sundari died. Woopendra survived her by some four years till 1909 and, in 1910, the plaintiff attained majority. These are the broadest facts of the family history with which we are concerned.2. The plaintiff's case is that when ...
Rash Behari Mandal and ors. Vs. Hemanta Kumar Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal52
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of an action in ejectment, and is on behalf of some of the defendants in suit No. 55 tried by the Subordinate Judge of Khulna. The facts are these : There is a Sayedpur Trust Estate, which has got the zemindari interest. A patni was created consisting of certain mouzahs; within that estate in 1821 in favour of two persons named Gopi Roy and Kali Roy. Within the patni there was a large-tract of jungle and apparently it was not included within any of the mouzahs. In 1843 some of the persons, who held the property in darpatni interest executed a lease of about 600 bighas of jungle land under certain terms in favour of two-persons, named Ramjiban Jotedar and. Ram Sundar Mandal. Sometime after that the patni interest appears to have come into the possession of certain Boses. On the 9th October 1879 these Boses granted a lease of 600 bighas of patit and jungle lands excluding 400 bighas of dhap lands in favour of four persons, who may be called Jotedar...
Jogesh Chandra Ray Vs. SharfuddIn Ahamad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal857
Mukerji, J.1. The substantial question in controversy in this appeal is whether Rs. 28 mentioned in the respondents' kabuliyat or the price of two he goats which are annually deliverable at the time of the Dusserah puja is an abwab.2. The relevant provisions of the statute are the following : Section 54, Regulation 8, 1793, laid down that all existing abwabs should be consolidated with the asil jama into one specific sum; Section 55 prohibited the imposition of any new abwab or mahtut upon the raiyats upon any pretence whatever upon pain of a penalty of three times the amount imposed for the entire period of the imposition; and Section 61 enacted that in the event of any claim being preferred by proprietors of estates.... On engagements wherein the consolidation of asil, abwab etc., shall appear not to have been effected they are to be nonsuited with costs. Section 3, Regulation 5, 1812, which altered some of the provisions of Regulation 8, 1793, declared that nothing therein contained...
Surajmull Askaran Vs. Chandmull Moolchand and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal601,103Ind.Cas.634
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Page who has set aside an award made by the Committee of the Baled Jute Association upon an appeal, as the proceeding is called, under the rules of that body. Putting the matter quite shortly, it was a dispute between the buyers and sellers of jute. The buyers said that although the original time ended at the end of September and an extension had been granted till the 15th of October 1920 there was a further extension till the 30th of October. The sellers denied that the extension bad been given and accordingly they refused the claim of the buyers that they were in default for not delivering at the end of October.2. What happened was in effect this : There was first of all an abortive arbitration before a Mr. Holzman and that was followed by proceedings which set it aside and there was another arbitration before two arbitrators, a Mr. Holzman and a Mr. Singleton, These arbitrators disagreed and the matte...
Umamoyee Dasya and anr. Vs. Jatan Bewa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal781
Panton, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Rangpur, reversing an order of the Munsif, first Court, Kurigram. The matter relates to execution proceedings. A decree for rent was made on the 21st February 1922. On the 6th March 1924 the decree-holder sold the decree to appellant 1. On the 29th April 1924 the appellant sought to execute the decree. On the 13th May 1924, he prayed for service of notice on the judgment-debtors. This notice was in the form prescribed for a notice under Order 21, Rule 22. But in the body of it mention is made of the fact of the appellant's purchase of the decree. The order sheet in the case records that this notice was served. On the 5th July 1924, the appellant purchased the property at the execution sale and was thereafter put into possession. On the 13th November 1924, the judgment-debtor made an application purporting to be an application under Order 21, Rule 90, and Section 47, Civil P.C. to have the sale set aside on the gro...
Jnanendra Mohan Bhaduri and anr. Vs. Sm. Annapurna Debi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal562
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order male by Mr. Justice Greaves upon a motion on notice, dated the 12th of July 1926 headed. 'In the matter of an arbitration and in the matter of the state of Babu Eajendra Lal Goswami.' It appears that Rajendra Lal Goswami died in August 1917 and that he left a Will which was proved on the 19fch of December of that year. By that Will be left various items of immovable property to various persons and made very complicated provision for the discharge of certain monies which were owing by him more particularly to persons who had money with him on deposit. Disputes and complications having arisen, there was an arbitration under the Indian Arbitration Act by Mr. Byomkesh Chakravarti. He filed, his award which is dated the 29th of July 1918.2. Now, according to the procedure provided under the Indian Arbitration Act that award when filed could be challenged under the Act on various grounds, but if it was upheld by the Court as a good award, the po...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›