Kolkata Court March 1927 Judgments
Harendra Nath Singha Ray Vs. Purna Chandra Goswami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal199
Mukerji, J.1. The plaint in this suit relates to five items of properties, which for the sake of convenience may be called A, B, C, D, and E. The plaintiff claims to be the reversionary heir of one Rashbehari Goswami. He also claims to be the shebait of the deity Nandadulal Thakur, installed by the ancestors of the said Rashbehari Goswami, on the ground that according to the rule and practice prevailing in the family, from the time of his ancestors, the shebaitship has all along vested in the heirs according to the law of inheritance. The plaint states that Rashbehari Goswami left a widow Tarini Debi, and one Susil Kumar alias Sachindra, whose widow is defendant 1, had set up a claim that he had been adopted by her as her son. The plaintiff seeks to have his title declared as owner in respect of properties B, C, D and E, and the title of the deity Nandadulal Thakur to property A and asks for recovery of possession of properties B, C, D and E as such owner and of property A as such sheb...
Tag this Judgment!Behari Lal Sen Vs. Indra Narayan Bandopadya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal665
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Defendant No. 1 against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Birbhum, whereby a preliminary decree for sale on mortgage has been passed against the interest of Defendant No. 1 in certain properties belonging to the defendant's family. The interest of the Defendant No. 1, which by this decree has been made answerable for the mortgage money, is a 5/12ths interest in the mortgaged properties.2. The position is this : There were two brothers belonging to the Dayabhaga School. One brother died leaving three sons, Behari Lal Sen, Dafendant No. 1, Tarini Raman Sen, Defendant No. 2, and Bepin Behari Sen. Bepin died leaving Bahuballav Sen, Defendant No. 3, and Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 who were minors. The other brother, when he died, left a widow who was Defendant No. 4, and the mortgage transaction was constituted by a registered mortgage bond executed by Behari, Tarini and Bahuballav, That was a document dated the 24th June 1908 and the form of the docum...
Tag this Judgment!Goculdas Vs. Chaganlal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal768
Page, J.1. This is a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 6,492 being part of the, proceeds of the sale of a dwelling house at Bhawalpore in the Punjab. The premises in suit are situate in the Native State of Bhawalpore, and are not within the jurisdiction of the High Court at Fort William in Bengal.2. The plaintiffs' cause of action is set out in paras. 9-12 of the plaint.Para. 9. - The plaintiffs and the defendant9 as members of an undivided Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law hid been in joint possession and enjoyment amongst others of the said ancestral house and premises in Bhawalpore, having inherited the same from their common ancestor the said Sundar Shah Rathi as stated above, till the same with all additions and alterations and improvements made thereupon with the advance of time were disposed of about three years ago as stated below.Para. 10. - About three years ago the defendant Chaganlal acting for himself and as the constituted attorney of the other defend...
Tag this Judgment!Tamirannessa Bibi and Khatimannessa Bibi, Minors, Represented by their ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal202
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of certain proceedings taken at the instance, of some of the judgment-debtors to set aside a rent sale. The Subordinate Judge refused to set aside the sale. The District Judge, on appeal, set it aside. The auction-purchasers have preferred this appeal.2. The application to set aside the sale was under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., as, well as under Section 173, Clause (3), Ben. Ten. Act. Under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., it was alleged that the sale processes were not duly served, and that there was material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale and that substantial injury in the shape of gross inadequacy of price resulted there from. As resting on Section 173, Clause (3), Ben. Ten. Act, it was alleged that one of the judgment-debtors Tahed Mahmud Mandal, in collusion with, the decree-holders, managed to purchase the properties in the benami of his daughters.3. The sale was held on 5th October 1923. The present application was origi...
Tag this Judgment!Girindra Nath Banerjee and anr. Vs. Birendra Nath Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal496
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case an application was made to Mr. Justice Buckland, purporting to be in the Original Civil v Jurisdiction of this Court for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, on behalf of one Girindra Nath Banerjee whom I will call 'the applicant.' The general circumstances giving rise to the application are these. The applicant wa3 arrested on the 25th day of October 1924 at his the then Residence No. 4/3 Malanga Lane in the town of Calcutta. He was kept in custody at the Alipore Central Jail and afterwards at the Midnapore Central Jail. After he had been in custody for some time an order, dated the 19th January 1925, was made under Ordinance No, 1 of 1924 that he should be committed to custody in the Midnapore Jail. On the 12th June 1926 he was served with an order made by the Government of Bengal under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1925, by which he wa3 directed to proceed to Midnapore, to report himself to the Superintendent of Police there, to proceed afterwar...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Mukunda Bisseswarlal Vs. Bengal-nagpur Railway Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal652,103Ind.Cas.740
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has been preferred from an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Alipore, dismissing the appellant's application for execution of a decree.2. The decree was passed in a suit in which the plaintiffs prayed that they might be given a decree for Rs. 5,000 as compensation for destroying certain godown and buildings and for Rs. 500 as compensation for wrongfully taking away certain articles which were kept therein. The Subordinate Judge who tried the suit passed a decree in this form:It is ordered and decreed that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in part after contest for the recovery of Rs. 3500 as damages and for the recovery of the moveables claimed in the Schedule Ka of the plaint; that if the moveables be not delivered the plaintiffs shall recover Rs. 500 as price thereof; that the said decretal amount and the sum of Rs. 490-5-0 only being the proportionate costs of this suit be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs with interest at th...
Tag this Judgment!Dharani Mohan Ray Vs. Kshitipati Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal62
1. Having heard the, learned Counsel who appeared in support of the rule and the learned vakil for the judgment-debtor, we are satisfied that the order made by the Subordinate Judge on the 7th March 1927, was not in accordance with law. In the first place, there was no evidence before him on which it was possible for him to arrive at the decision that the judgment-debtor was a person, who for any 'other sufficient cause' within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 40, was unable to pay the amount of the decree. The mere statement made at the bar to the effect that he was owner of landed property is insufficient for the purpose. In the next place, it was clearly wrong for the learned Subordinate Judge to release the judgment-debtor on his personal security, which was absolutely ineffective. Order 21, Rule 40, Sub-rule (3) provides that the Court may release the judgment-debtor on his furnishing security, which means furnishing proper security and not the illusory security with which the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Bhuban Mohan Basak and ors. Vs. Chairman, Dacca Municipality and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal704,103Ind.Cas.890
Graham, J.1. These four appeals are against judgments and decrees of the Additional District Judge of Dacca, revering decisions of the Munsif, 4th Court, Dacca, and arise oat of a Municipal election held on the 3rd March 1925. One of these suite (Suit No. 802 of 1925) was brought by three rate-payers of the Dacca Municipality to set aside the whole election, while the remaining three suits were instituted by unsuccessful candidates for the purpose of setting aside the election in the particular wards in which they failed. All the suits were decreed by the Court of first instance. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge reversed those decisions and dismissed the suits. The plaintiffs have now appealed to this Court.2. Appeal No. 636, arising out of suit No. 802, in which the entire election is sought to be set aside, may be conveniently dealt with first. The facts are briefly as follows:3. The general election of the Commissioners of the Dacca Municipality was notified to be hel...
Tag this Judgment!Mafizaddi Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal644
Cuming, J.1. This is an appeal by one Mafizaddi against the order of the learned Additional Scions Judge of Dacca, Mr. K.N. Roy who agreeing with the verdict of the jury found the accused Mafizaddi guilty under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to four years rigorous imprisonment.2. I may here point out that one of the difficulties with which we are confronted in dealing with this case is that it is impassible to ascertain what is the offence of which the appellant has been found guilty. For this reason he was charged that he on or about the 26th day of November 1925 at Rahapara kidnapped or abducted Jamila Khatoon and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 366 Indian Penal Code. The jury in delivering their verdict found the accused person guilty under Section 366 Indian Penal Code; whether, therefore, he was found guilty of kidnapping or whether he was found guilty of abduction it is impossible to say. I need hardly point out that kidnapping is an entir...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Girija Bala and ors. Vs. Manindra Lal Singha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal654,103Ind.Cas.692
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Chittagong in an application for grant of letters of administration with the Will annexed to the estate of one Ram Das Dutta who died in 1879. The learned District Judge has made a partial or limited grant to the applicants in respect of the properties comprised in Schedules 3 and 4 of the Will. The applicants appeal on the ground that they desire a grant which would cover Schedules 1 and 2 as well. The matter is one of some complication and a good deal of misconception seems to have encrusted round it.2. The Will of Ram Das divided his properties into five schedules. The 5th Schedule property was left to his nephew Ram Kumar, and in 1915 a grant of letters was made to Ram Kumar limited to properties comprised in Schedule 5. So far as understand the only power to grant letters of administration with the Will annexed, limited to certain specific assets, is the power conferred by Section 42 of the Probate and Admin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »