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.
Nirmala Sundari Dassi Vs. Deva Narayan Das Choudhuri and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal868
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sylhet, dated the 30th June 1924, reversing a decision of the Munsif, Habigunj, dated the 29th May 1923. The plaintiffs, who are now the respondents, commenced the present suit to set aside a deed of gift executed by a lady of the name of Baisakha in respect of property which the plaintiffs alleges, was acquired by her with the surplus-income of her deceased son's estate. The plaintiffs claim as the reversionary heirs of Krishna Chandra Das Choudhuri, son of Baisakha, who inherited her son's estate after his death. The present suit was commenced about five years after Baisakha's death. The defence of the defendant to the suit is that she obtained this property by a deed of gift which was executed by Bisakha a short time before her death which took place in the year 1917. The property in question was purchased in the Dame of one Krishna Gobinda by Baisakha. The date of acquisition of this property does no...
Berhampur Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. Firm of S.B. Lahiri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal830,103Ind.Cas.700
1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad returning the plaint in the suit to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper Court, upon the ground that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad. The question depended upon the facts which were proved. There were two witnesses called on behalf of the plaintiffs and one witness on behalf of the defendants and there was an entry in the plaintiffs book which was also before the Court. Upon the evidence adduced before the learned Subordinate Judge he came to the conclusion that there was no agreement for payment of the purchase price at Berhampur, or that delivery should be taken having regard to the contract between the parties at Berhampur. It is upon those two grounds, which depend upon the evidence before the Court upon which the learned advocate on behalf of the appellants has strenuously urged that the trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain t...
Priya Nath Manna and ors. Vs. Official Trustee of Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal43
Mukerji, J.1. The two main contentions of the appellants in these appeals being, first that the remand is bad, and second that Section 158, Bengal Tenancy Act, has been misappreciated by the Court, below, it is necessary to examine the precise character of the suits which have given rise to the appeals and the nature of the reliefs asked for therein.2. These six appeals arise out of as rainy suits for recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants paid rent at a certain rate for the holdings, and that in the record of rights no rent was entered, but it was only stated the holdings were liable to assessment of rent. The plaintiffs prayed; (1) for rent at the said rates, and (2) that if the defendants denied those rates and the plaintiffs failed to prove them, they might be given decrees for fair and equitably rents, and they said that the rents they claimed represented such fair and equitable, rents for the holding and that those rents should accordingly be sett...
Sadhu Shaikh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal260
1. The appellant was unanimously found guilty by the jury of offences under Sections 147 and 325, I.P.C.; and he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 100, and in-default to further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The ground on which this appeal must succeed is that the learned Judge who tried the case did not give the appellant an opportunity of cross-examining a certain. witness named Abbas with reference to statements made by that witness during the investigation by the police. The learned Judge has recorded in his order that the statements of this witness were recorded by the police under Section 172, Criminal P.C. That section does not provide for the recording of statements of witnesses. Any statements of witnesses that are recorded, in whatever form those statements may be recorded, are recorded under Section 161, Criminal P.C., and the defence have the right to ask for a copy of such statements and to use the statements for the purpos...
Shiba Kali Kumar and ors. Vs. Chuni Lal Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal748,103Ind.Cas.674
Cuming, J.1. (After stating facts the judgment proceeded.) It has first of all been argued that the land was not taken for an agricultural purpose and so it could not be governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act. The findings on this point are conclusive. The land was obviously taken for the purpose of a garden which has been held to be an agricultural purpose,2. The next point taken is that the land is no longer governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act, but by the Transfer of Property Act; that it ceased to be governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act, when Act 1 of 1907, came into force and that the defendant's non-occupancy right was then extinguished. To support this part of his case, the appellant relies on Section 19(1), Bengal Tenancy Act as now amended by Act 1 of 1907. His argument is that Section 19(1), Bengal Tenancy Act, preserves, so far as land which was excluded from the operation of the Bengal Tenancy Act, by Act 1 of 1907, only the right of occupancy and that hence non-occupancy rights ar...
Secretary of State Vs. Altaf Hossein
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal827,103Ind.Cas.714
Roy, J.1. This appeal is by the Secretary of State for India in Council and against the decision of the Special Land Acquisition Judge, 24-Perganas. Lands, were acquired for a new road between Paddapukur Road and Michael Dutt Street in Kidderpore. This was one of the references made under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act. It concerned two plots of land, viz., plot 111, with an area of 4 cottas 5 chattaks odd. The Collector's award was at the rate of Rs. 450 per cotta. The second plot is plot 6, with an area of 13 cottas & chattaks odd. This was divided by the collector in two sections and his-award was at the rate of Rs. 400 per cotta for 9 Cottaks 10 chattaks and odd and at the rate of Rs. 300 for the rest amounting to 4 cottas 2 chattaks. The owner who is a mutwalli asked for a reference and the Special Judge has increased the award by Rs. 100 per cotta in each case. It is contended by the Government pleader that the Judge having practically discarded the evidence of the sale adduced...
Nakul Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Rajendra Chandra Gangopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal873
Graham, J.1. In this case a Rule was issued on the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decree of the officiating Subordinate Judge of Barisal, dated the 4th August 1926, reversing a decision of the 1st Munsif of Barisal should not be set aside. Two points only have been argued before me on behalf of the petitioners : firstly, that the sale was bad by reason of failure to comply with the provisions of Section 158-B(2), Bengal Tenancy Act; and secondly, that one of the judgment-debtors, who was a minor not having been properly represented in the execution proceedings the sale was bad in law.2. On the first point, the trial Court, relying upon a decision of this Court reported as Ahamad Biswas v. Bejoy Bhusan Gupta [1919] 23 C.W.N. 931 held that the provisions of Section 158-B(2) are mandatory and that the omission to serve the notice invalidated the sale. The learned Subordinate Judge, dissenting from this view, held that the non-service of notice upon the co-sharers in acc...
Emperor Vs. Rajab Ali Fakir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal631,103Ind.Cas.790
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is a reference under Section 374, Criminal Procedure Code, the reference being numbered 4 of 1927. There is also an appeal by the accused which is numbered 208 of 1927. The accused was charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324, Indian Penal Code and the case for the prosecution shortly stated is as follows:It appears that the accused has a younger brother named Kaseem. The latter had helped the accused for a long series of years in the cultivation of his lands, and it appears that by the profits of the successful cultivation of his lands other lands had been acquired. Kaseem, not unnaturally put forward a claim to a share in the acquired lands, but the accused was not prepared to admit Kaseem's claim. In the end the accused got dissatisfied; and shortly before the date of the occurrence he had separated from his brother and retained all the lands. There were therefore disputes between the brothers and their mother tried to interv...
Manindra Chandra Nundy Vs. Velji Mulji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal773
Buckland, J.1. The Master has refused to admit this plaint on the ground, that there is no affidavit proving the fitness to verify of Mr. Edwin Greaves, the gentleman who purports to have verified it. The circumstances are these:The plaint is in a suit by the Honourable Sir Manindra Chandra Nundy, who is stated in the cause title and in the first paragraph of the plaint to carry on business by Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., as his managing agents. It is signed by Susil Kumar Bose, as constituted attorney of the plaintiff Maharaja. As to his authority to sign the plaint no question arises. Para. 18 says that Edwin Greaves is a Chief Assistant of the Firm of Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. and is able to depose to the facts of the case. The verification is in the usual form and is signed 'Edwin Greaves.'2. Now this does not conform to Order 6, Rule 15, Civil P.C., which provides thatevery pleading shall be verified by the party or one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the...
Mohanta Ramnibash Chaubay Vs. Jyoti Prosad Singh Deo Bahadur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal921a
Roy, J.1. The plaintiff has appealed from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge dismissing his suit for a declaration that the entry in the record-of-rights in respect of Mouzah Chota Digari that it is a rent-free tenure held under the Pachete Raj, is wrong. The plaintiff brought the suit on behalf of the idol Raghunath Jiu and being a minor was represented by his aunt. The first and principal defendant is the Raja of Pachete. Defendant 2 is the former Mohanta who is said to have resigned his office of Mohanta on account of the infirmities of age and installed the present plaintiff in the guddee. The claim made on behalf of the idol is that Ghota Digari is an independent revenue-free estate. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff had failed to make out his claim and he thereupon dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has appealed.2. The immediate circumstances leading up to the suit are as follows : The Raja of Pachete gave a prospecting lease to one Rasaraj Riswas in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »