Kolkata Court May 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.
Radha Ballabh Guha Vs. Panchkari Sil and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal153
Mitter, J.1. This rule was issued on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca, dated 17th February 1927, entertaining and allowing an appeal preferred by the opposite party from a decision of the Munsif of Dacca, dated 30th September 1926, should not be set aside.2. It appears that the plaintiff, who is the petitioner before this Court, instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Dacca for recovery of a certain sum as the price of trees which had been cut by the defendant. The defendant is plaintiff's tenant, and the plaint alleged that the defendant had, as such tenant, no right to cut away and misappropriate any tree without the permission of the plaintiff either under the local custom or under the law, and, as the defendant wrongfully and illegally cut away two hijal trees from the land, he was liable to pay compensation. 3. The Munsif decreed the plaintiff's suit and ordered that 'the suit be decreed in part for Rs. 5-2-6 with proportiona...
Hem Chandra Datta and ors. Vs. Uma Sadhan Mukhopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal834,103Ind.Cas.695
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has bean preferred from an order passed by the Additional District Judge of Howrah in an insolvency case, by which the learned Judge has refused to set aside sale of a property which is alleged to belong to the insolvent, and he has directed the purchaser to deposit the purchase money in full within a week, failing which he has ordered the amount of deposit to be forfeited. The property in question is said to be a garden, consisting of 28 bighas of land including some paddy lands with a brickbuilt house standing thereon. It was under a mortgage in favour of one Mul Chand Baisya whose dues have coma up to about Rs. 30,000, the principal amount secured by the mortgage being Rs. 15,000. It was put up to sale free from all incumbrances and the appellants purchased the same at the auction for Rs. 15,050 being the highest bidder therein. They deposited 25 per cent, of the bid, i.e., Rs. 3,672-8. The contesting respondent in the appeal is the mortgagee Mul Chand Bais...
Fakir Chand Mondal and anr. Vs. Daiba Charan Parui and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal904
Page, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned District Judge of Je3sore, affirming an order of the learned Munsif of Bongaon. The material facts are simple, and can be stated concisely. The respondent brought a suit against the two appellants and a third person, and obtained an ex-parte decree against all the three defendants. No appeal has been preferred against that decree which was passed on the 2nd March 1922. On the 27th March 1922 the judgment-debtor other than the appellants applied under Order 9, Rule 13 for an order setting aside the ex-parte decree. The application was dismissed on the 9th September 1922,and this judgment-debtor preferred an appeal against the order refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree, but this appeal was dismissed on the 29th January 1923. On the 27th March 1925 the respondent, as decree-holder, applied for execution of the decree against all the three defendants. That application for execution, having been presented. more than three years ...
Jagathari Saha Vs. Medini Mohan Burdhan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal642
Page, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Additional District Judge of Tipperah remanding a case for rehearing and disposal to the Munsif's Court at Comilla. Under Order 43, Rule 1(u)an order under Rule 23 of Order 41 reminding a case, where an appeal would lie from the decree of the appellate Court,is appealable. If is conceded that an order of remand made under the Code is not appealable unless it is within the ambit of Order 41, Rule 23. Order 41, Rule 23 reads as follows:Where the Court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed of the suit upon a preliminary point and the decree is reversed in appeal, the appellate Court may, if it thinks fit, by order remand the case, and may further direct what issue or issues shall be tried in the case so remanded, and shall send a copy of its judgment and order to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, with directions to re-admit the suit under its original number in the register of civil suits, and proceed to ...
Baneswar Singh and ors. Vs. Abdul Hassan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal752
Suhrawardy, J.1. The petitioners as plaintiffs brought a rent suit against the opposite parties 5 to 10 for recovery of arrears of rent and obtained an ex-parte decree. The decree was passed on the 30th November in the following, terms:The defendants do pay to the plaintiffs the decretal amount mentioned therein within 15 days from the date on which the decree is signed. In default the defendants be ejected from the land in suit within 15 days from the date of the decree.2. The opposite parties 1 to 4 claiming to be transferees of a portion of the holding deposited the decretal amount on their own account as such transferees. It is conceded that the holding was a non-transferable occupancy holding and that the opposite parties 1 to 4 are transferees of a portion of the holding. The landlord objected to their right to make the deposit but the Munsif accepted the deposit. The plaintiffs moved this Court as wall as preferred an appeal in the lower appellate Court. The appeal in the lower ...
Aswini Kumar Dutta and ors. Vs. Raj Kumar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal845,103Ind.Cas.705
1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Tippra reversing an order of the Munsif of Commilla. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. The order was made upon an application to set aside a sale upon the grounds of material irregularity and fraud, under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. It is conceded by the learned vakil on behalf of the appellants that no second appeal lies from an order made under Order 21, Rule 92, but he contends that a second appeal lies under Section 153, Bengal Tenancy Act. With respect to this contention, however, he further concedes that unless he can succeed upon the allegation of fraud this appeal is incompetent under Section 153. The lower appellate Court has found that there was no fraud or material-irregularity in the conduct of the sale, and that the applicants sustained no substantial injury in consequence of any such fraud or irregularity. The finding of the lower appellate Court upon the issue of fact as to whether there...
Sm. Radha Rani Dasi and anr. Vs. Sukdeb Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal92,103Ind.Cas.811
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by two persons as plaintiffs for recovery of khas possession of some lands by evicting the principal defendant and for mesne profits.2. The case as laid in the plaint was that the two plaintiff's acquired jamai right to the plaint lands on taking settlement thereof from the owners, that one Panchu Gope and one Bhupati Ghose used to hold the lands as korfa tenants under the said owners, that the said Panchu Gope and Bhupati Ghose mortgaged their rights, to the principal defendant who sued upon the mortgage, and in execution of the decree which he obtained, purchased the same. The plaintiff's alleged that the principal defendant acquired no title by his purchase and was accordingly liable to be evicted. It is not necessary to refer to the defence for the purposes of this appeal.3. The Munsif decreed the suit in part with proportionate costs. He gave the plaintiffs a decree directing that they do get khas possession of the plaint l...
Mathura Nath Choudhury Vs. Sreejukta Bageswari Rani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal57
1. The facts which have given rise to the suit and this appeal are that the plaintiff was the owner of an elephant by the name of Lal Bahadur. Defendants 1 and 3 carried on the business of catching wild elephants and the plaintiff's case is that defendant 1 and his servant defendant 2 hired from her the elephant for the purpose of employing him in their business. There was an agreement between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 of which the materia portion was to the following effect:I remain liable to pay to you Rs. 5,000 as the price of the elephant and Bs. 00 as the balance of the hire (money); if during the period the elephant remains in my possession, it be broken in health or becomes unfit for work or dies and I cannot return it to you at the stipulated time.2. Under this agreement defendant 1 took possession of the elephant and used it for shikar or catching wild elephants in the Garo Hills up till the 29th December 1923 when it was found that the animal was ill and it died so...
A.B. Mitchell Vs. J.C. Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal209
Gregory, J.1. This is an application under the Calcutta Municipal Act (3 of 1923 B.C.), for an order declaring the election of Mr. J.C. Dutt as Councillor for the Corporation for the Waterloo Street Constituency Ward No. 12 of the Corporation of Calcutta at the second Municipal General Election null and void. It ft also prayed that one Mr. S.J. Cohen, the next candidate, be declared duly elected for the said ward.2. The petitioner, Mr. A.B. Mitchell, is a gentleman whose name is enrolled in the electoral roll as a voter, and he disputes the validity of Mr. Dutt's election in the present proceedings which have been instituted under Section 46, Municipal Act. By this section any person enrolled in the electoral roll may apply to the High Courtif there is any dispute as to whether any person whose name is published under Sub-section (8) of Section 29 is qualified to be elected a Councillor, or if the validity of any election is questioned, whether by reason of the commission of any corrup...
Bhuban Chandra Prodhan Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal627
1. This appeal must be dismissed. What has happened in this case is this : A trial was going on before the learned Sessions Judge in which the accused had been charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 395, I.P.C. It appears that certain other people had been committed to take their trial in the Sessions Court in respect of an offence punishable under Section 412, I.P.C. There was an order made in the last-mentioned case that the trial of the accused under Section 412, I.P.C., should be taken up after the trial of the case under Section 395 had been concluded. It appears further that one of the accused in the case under Section 412, I.P.C., was the tadbidkar of the accused in the case under Section 395. The appellant before us is the President, Panchayat of the Union, and it is said that he noticed on one particular day that the foreman of the jury, who were trying the accused under Section 395, I.P.C., was talking to the accused in the case under Section 412, w...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »