Kolkata Court April 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.
Dwarka Nath Chakrabarti Chowdhury Vs. Atul Chandra Chakrabarti Chowdhu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1927
Reported in: 106Ind.Cas.509
Roy, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge Second Court, Mymensingh amending the decree passed by his predecessor in the suit brought by the plaintiff. We learn that the plaintiff commenced this action in the Munsifs Court but the valuation of the suit was found to be over Rs. 5,000 and it came eventually before the Subordinate Judge. It is said that the defendants Nos. 4 and 5 were owners of some parcels of land in villages Gangatiya and Saidpur lying within Kharija taluk No. 1760-28 of the Mymensingh. Collectorate and that they were in exclusive possession of some of the plots and were in possession of some shares in the other plots with the other defendants Nos. 1-3 he owned the remaining shares. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants Nos. 4 and 5 sold half of what they had in these plots to the plaintiff by a kobala dated the 26th June, 1915, but the said defendants subsequently colluded with defendants Nos. 1-3 and allowed the latter to...
Mawazzam Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Shebash Chandra Pakrashi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal598
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a somewhat unusual case and in certain aspects it is regrettable.2. It appears that there was an election, the date of which is not given in the paper-book, for the Serajgunj Local Board. One of the thanas that sent representatives to that Local Board is called the Chauhali Thana, and it appears that a certain Babu Shebash Chandra Pakrashi was declared elected to the Local Board for that thana. There was then a suit for setting aside that election and on the 9th May 1925, by the judgment of the Munsif that election was declared invalid and Shebash Chandra Pakrashi was restrained from acting as a member. There was a meeting of the Local Board on the 3rd July 1925, apparently for the purpose of electing a Chairman and Vice-Chairman, and for electing nine persons to represent the Local Board on the District Board.3. It was at one time alleged that, apart from the circumstance that there was no representative from the Chauhali Thana, other illegalities affected what ...
Krishna Chandra Dutta Chowdhury Vs. Dina Nath Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal94
Mitter, J.1. This Rule was issued on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Subordinate Judge of Pabna, dated the 30th July 1926, refusing to entertain the claim of the petitioners under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C, should not be set aside. The facts which have given rise to this Rule are:That Rai Bahadur Dinanath Biswas, who is the opposite party to the Rule, is the 8-annas owner of certain mehals and he created a patni tenure in respect of 9-annas share of his interest, treating the 8-annas as 16-annas, in favour of the Sanyals; that on the 22nd of Falgoon, 1317 B.S., the Sanyals sold the patni tenure by registered deeds of sale to the petitioners before this Court; that riot-withstanding, notice of purchase of patni by the petitioners, the zemindar brought a suit for rent in respect of the said patni against the Sanyals, who had parted with their interest in the patni at the date of the said suit and obtained a decree for arrears of rent on the 7th July 1925; that th...
J.C. Galstaun Vs. Banku Behary Dhar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal621
Cuming, J.1. This is a Rule granted by my learned brothers Mr. Justice Suhrawardy and Mr. Justice Mitter calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the order of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate discharging the accused, the opposite party in this Rule, should not be set aside on the ground that the Magistrate has erred in holding that the Land Acquisition Collector is a Court and as such his sanction was necessary for a prosecution under Section 207, Indian Penal Code.2. The facts of the case are briefly these : The petitioner sought to prosecute the opposite party for having fraudulently claimed the compensation awarded in respect of Premises No. 10, Howe's Lane, before the Second Land Acquisition Collector knowing that he had no right or rightful claim to such award intending thereby to prevent that money from being taken in execution of a decree or order which had been made or which he knew was likely to be made further by a Court of justice in a civil Court suit ...
Rakhal Douli and anr. Vs. Makham Lal Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal701
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case on which this rule has been granted are these; the petitioners ware convicted under Sections 143 and 379, I.P.C., and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 in default to three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 379. No separate sentence was passed under Section 143, I.P.C.2. The case against them was that, on 1st November 1925, they cut and took away the complainant's paddy. The defence was that the petitioners grew the paddy and so cut it.3. The Magistrate found that the complainant was in possession and grew the paddy. Hence he convicted the petitioner as stated above. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that there had been certain proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C., and the result of those proceedings was that, on the 28th of January 1925, the complainant was declared to be in possession, and further, that he would remain in possession till evicted in due course of law. Hence the learned Judge argued that it was idle fo...
In Re: J.M. Gregory
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal50
Page, J.1. On the 4th February 1915, John Marchmont Gregory was adjudicated insolvent, on his own petition, No assets were recovered by the Official Assignee in that insolvency, and on the 3rd August 1920 the insolvent obtained an unconditional discharge.2. On the 18th February 1925 John Marchmont Gregory on his own petition was again adjudicated insolvent, and his property thereupon became vested in the Official Assignee for distribution among his creditors under Sections 17 and 52, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (Act 3 of 1909).3. On the 13th July 1926, as a result of the transaction into which the insolvent had entered after he had obtained his discharge from the first insolvency, and before the second adjudication, a sum of Rs. 97,670-12-0 was acquired by the insolvent, and passed into the hands of the Official Assignee as assets distributable in the second insolvency. Meanwhile, on the 30th April 1925 the order of discharge of the 3rd August 1920 was rescinded, on the ground that...
Surendra Kumar Roy Chowdhury Vs. Sushil Kumar Roy Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal256
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has bean preferred from certain orders passed by the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Backergunge, on 17th February, 26th February and 1st March 1927, by which the learned Judge appointed a receiver in respect of properties which form the subject-matter of a suit now pending in his Court.2. It is necessary, in order to deal with the contentions that have bean urged on behalf of the appellant in this appeal, to set out a few facts. One Babu Raj Chandra Roy Chowdhury died leaving three sons and two daughters. For the purposes of this appeal we are concerned with one of his sons, namely, Babu Behary Lal Roy Chowdhury, and the two daughters named Adya Sundari and Bidya Sundari. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are two of the sons of Babu Behary Lal Roy Chowdhury and defendant 1 is another son and the plaintiffs 3 and 4 are the sons of a daughter of a predeceased son of the said Babu Behary Lal Roy Chowdhury. Defendant 2 is Bidya Sundari, herself and defendant 3 is a daughter of ...
Bengal National Bank Ltd. Vs. Janoki Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal725
Rankin, C.J.1. Plaintiffs are lessors of 31-3, Marquis Street and the Anglo-American Motor Gar Company were lessees under a registered lease, dated 21st December 1920, for a term of three years from 6th November 1919 at a rent of Rs. 500 per month. That lease contained the following clause:Provided further that if the lessees shall regularly and punctually pay the rent hereby reserved and duly observe and perform the covenants and conditions on their part to be observed and performed, then the lessees shall be entitled to a renewal of this demise for a further period of three years on the same terms and conditions as are contained in these presents except that the monthly rent shall be six-hundred rupees instead of five-hundred rupees and that there will be no covenant for a further renewal.2. Also a covenant not toassign or sub-let or part with the possession of the said demised premises without the consent in writing of the lessors first had and obtained, but such consent shall not b...
Gopal Chandra Maiti and ors. Vs. Sm. Monmohini Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal118
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal arises are as follows. There is a tract of land in the Sunder buns of which defendant 1 took a lease from the Government and in 1901 the plaintiff's vendor obtained a lease of some 100 bighas of this land from defendant 1. In 1906 the lease which had been granted to the plaintiff's vendor's lessor was cancelled by the Government and a fresh lease was granted on the 16th August 1907. The plaintiff purchased the lease of Kalachand in the year 1910. It was his case in the first Court that he was in possession of his land by cutting wood and exercising other acts of possession till he was dispossessed by defendants 2 and 3 in 1914. Defendants 4 and 5, the purchasers of the interests of defendants 2 and 3, contested the, suit. Their main ground was that the suit was barred by limitation both general and special and that the plaintiff had acquired no title to the land in suit by his purchase which was not a genuine transaction, that...
Rahimaddhi Matabbar Vs. Naimaddi Howladar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal565
Graham, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for ejectment. The facts appear to be shortly as follows : The plaintiff-appellant is owner of a 13 annas odd share in Estate No. 6592 of the Faridpur Collectorate, the remaining 2 annas odd belonging to Defendants Nos. 1 to 7. On the 22nd Chaitra 1300, B.S. corresponding to the 15th March 1894 a tenure was created in respect of the lands comprised in Schedule ka of the plaint in favour of the Defendants Nos. 1 to 4. At that time it appears that the lands of this schedule only were in existence, and that the lands of Schs. kha and ga came into existence at a subsequent date. The present suit was instituted on the 11th August 1920 and the case set up by the plaintiff was that he was entitled to get khas possession of the lands of plots kha and ga inasmuch as they are not covered by the tenancy created in 1894, and further that, as the lands in question are re-formations in situ of his estate, and are not accretions...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›