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.
Ambika Charan Roy Barman and anr. Vs. Har Kishore Chakravarti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal825,103Ind.Cas.707
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tipperah, dated the 28th August 1924, which affirmed a decree of the Munsif of Nabinagore, dated the 3rd July 1923.2. The suit to which this second appeal relates was brought by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 361-8-0 due on the mortgage bond which was executed by Kshiroda Sundari Devi (who is now represented by defendants 1 and 2) en the 21st Aghrayan 1316 B.S. Defendants 3 to 5 were made parties to the suit as subsequent purchasers of the equity of redemption in execution of a decree for money; defendants 6 and 7 were 'impleaded as they were purchasers of the taluk in question at a sale at the instance of the landlord in execution of a decree for rent; plaintiff asked for the usual mortgage decree for sale and made an alternative prayer that in the event of the sale in favour of defendants 6 and 7 being held to be a sale in execution of a rent decree he may be allowed to get the decretal amount from the surplu...
Mt. Syamness Bibi and ors. Vs. Abdul Gani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal882
1. The predecessors of the plaintiff and their co-owners had a certain taluk in which lay 13 cottahs of land which formed the subject-matter of the suit. In April 1910 two of these co-owners, namely, one Ramdas and one Radha Charan who claimed to have been in exclusive possession of the said 13 cottahs of land granted an ordinary kasra lease without any term fixed in respect of the said lands to one Umesh Pandit. In December 1910 Umesh Pandit sold his lease-hold interest to defendant 4. In 1911 a partition suit was commenced between the plaintiff's predecessors and their co-sharers. During the pendency of this suit Ramdas and Radha Charan sold their taluki right to defendant's Nos. 1 to 3. In 1913 the partition suit terminated in a final decree and under the said decree the then co-owners were put in possession of their respective allotments. In 1921 the plaintiff acquired his interest in the allotment which fell to his predecessors. The present suit was thereupon commenced by the plai...
Rajani Kanto Pal Vs. Mohim Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal847,103Ind.Cas.698
1. The present appeal in so far as it relates to the order under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., is not maintainable as no second appeal is allowed under the law so far as that order is concerned. In so far as the appeal before us relates to the order under Section 47, Civil P.C., the appellant's contention in the appeal is that the attachment of the properties was defective. The learned Subordinate Judge has referred to the ruling of this Court in the case of Sasirama Kumari v. Meherban Khan [1910] 13 C.L.J. 243 where it has been laid down that when a sale of immovable property has actually taken place, and its validity is impeached on the ground that the property was not attached, the absence of attachment does not, by itself, vitiate the sale. Following that decision, we are of opinion that there is no substance in this appeal and it should be dismissed with costs, hearing-fee one gold mohur to be divided amongst the several sets of respondents....
Jotindra Nath Ghosh and anr. Vs. Sourindra Nath Mitra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal928
Cuming, J.1. The facts are as follows - The petitioner brought a suit No. 12 of 1926 in the Court of the Additional Judge of Barisal.2. The 19th May was fixed for the hearing of the suit. Petitioner did not appear and the suit was then dismissed for default. He then made the usual application under Order 9, Rule 9. This application was fixed for hearing on 14th August. He again failed to appear and the application was dismissed for default. He then again applied to have the dismissal set aside under Section 151 and Order 9, Rule 9.3. The learned Judge heard the pleaders. He held that the petition could not be held to be under Order 9, Rule 9 because in his opinion Order 9, Rule 9 could not be applied with the help of Section 141 to the case of an application under Order 9, Rule 9 which had been dismissed for default and he therefore rejected the petition. The petitioner moved this Court and obtained this rule.4. Mr. James who appears to oppose the rule contends that Section 115, Civil ...
Jatindra Nath Ghosh and anr. Vs. Sourindra Nath Mitra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1927
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.468
1. The facts are as follows: 2. The petitioner brought a Suit No. 12 of 1926 in the Court of the Additional Judge of Barisal.2. The 19th May was fixed for the hearing of the suit. Petitioner did not appear and the suit was then dismissed for default.3. He then made the usual application under Order IX, Rule 9. This application was fixed for hearing on 14th August.4. He again failed to appear and the application was dismissed for default.5. He then again applied to have the dismissal set aside under Section 151 and Order IX, Rule 9.6. The learned Judge heard the Pleaders. He held that the petition could not be held to be under Order IX, Rule 9 because in his opinion Order IX, Rule 9 could not be applied with the help of Section 141 to the case of an application under Order IX, Rule 9 which had been dismissed for default and he, therefore, rejected the petition. The petitioner moved this Court and obtained this Rule.7. Mr. James who appears to oppose the Rule contends that Section 115 of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›