Kolkata Court June 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.
Monoranjan Mitra Vs. Fazlar Rahman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal925,103Ind.Cas.823
1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Additional District Judge of dacca of the 8th September, 1925. The order is one the nature of which is not precisely defined. The receiver is an officer of the Court and he must act according to the order of the Court. Under Section 59, Provincial Insolvency Act, the receiver is entitled to sell the property of the insolvent subject to the provisions of that section. On the 24th August, 1925, there was a notification of the conditions of sales published in the panchayet, a local newspaper, and it was upon the terms and conditions of that notice that the appellant must be taken to have bought the property. That notification states that the insolvent's share in certain family property will be sold by public auction subject to the charges that were thereupon imposed. The notice proceeded:according to the terms of the Mahommedan Law, the co-sharers of the said insolvent have and shall have the right of pre-emption.2. In accordance with that...
Surendra Nath Rath and ors. Vs. Sambhu Nath Dobey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal870
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiffs for certain declarations, namely, that the plaintiffs have got brahmottor niskar right to the plaint lands, that the defendants 1 to 8 are not the landlords of the plaintiffs, and further that the solenama and the solenama decree that were respectively filed and passed in Suit No. 958 of 1918 were not binding on the plaintiffs and for other reliefs. The suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below and the plaintiffs have thereupon preferred this second appeal to this Court. Shortly stated, the facts which led to this litigation are as follows:The plaintiffs are the sons of defendant 9 in the suit. The plaintiffs' case is that they belonged to a family governed by the Miteksbara school of law; that defendants 1 to 8 instituted a rent suit being Suit No. 958 of 1918 against their fatfier, the defendant 9, and in that suit the defendant 9 filed a solenama, and a decree was ultimately passed on the ba...
Banka Behari Deb Vs. Birendra Nath Dutta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal850,103Ind.Cas.864
Page, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cachar remanding for re-trial a suit heard by the learned Munsif of Silchar. At the hearing of the appeal a preliminary objection was taken by the respondents that no appeal lay from the order of remand. It appears that after the hearing of the suit had been concluded the defendant raised the question whether a large number of persons, more than twenty in number represented by the plaintiff in the suit, were not members of an unregistered company within Section 4, Indian Companies Act. During the hearing of the suit no issue was raised with respect to this question although a few casual questions were addressed to the plaintiff on the subject and the learned Subordinate Judge took the view that the issue, as to whether the persons represented by the plaintiff were members of an unregistered company formed for the purpose of carrying on a business for gain, ought further to be investigated. Accordingly, the l...
Ramesh Pada Mandal Vs. Kadambini Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal702
1. In this case the learned Additional District Magistrate of Midnapore made a reference to this Court, on the 11th March 1927, recommending that a certain order passed by Babu Sukesh Chandra Deb Roy, Deputy Magistrate of Midnapore, convicting the accused under Section 323, I.P.C., and letting him off with a warning under Section 562(1A), Criminal P.C., might be set aside and the accused convicted either under Sections 323 or Section 324, I.P.C., and given a suitable sentence. The order of the Magistrate is dated the 28th July 1926.2. This Reference came on before us for hearing on the 5th May 1927. The case appeared on the daily printed defended list and the record in this Court was marked with the word 'defended.' Mr. Narendra Kumar Basu, Advocate, appeared for the complainant, but, at the time of the hearing of the Eeference, there was no appearance by any learned counsel, or advocate or vakil on behalf of the accused. Having regard to the fact that the record of the Reference befor...
Rakhal Chandra De Vs. Mt. Kumudini Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal930
1. In our opinion there is no substance in this appeal. Both the Courts below have rejected an application by the appellant to set aside a sale partly for irregularities to which Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. applies, and partly under Section 47 upon the footing that the appellant at the time of the execution proceedings out of which this appeal arises was not properly represented. The only point which is taken on behalf of the appellant by the learned vakil who appears for him is that inasmuch as there was no formal appointment of a guardian ad litem in the execution proceedings the execution proceedings are invalid, and the sale is not a good sale as against the minor. It is conceded that the minor was properly represented in the proceedings up to the passing of the decree by the sheristadar of the Court. It also appears that in the execution proceedings notices were properly served upon the sheristadar of the Court, although some other person than the person who was a guardian ad li...
SarifuddIn Muhammad Vs. MohiuddIn Mohammad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal808
Page, J.1. This case raises questions of general interest to the Mahomedan community relating to the Mahomedan law of gift.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought to recover possession of certain immovable properties after the plaintiff had established his title thereto for partition and other incidental relief. The following geneological tree will show the relationship of the parties to the suit : (See page 810)3. The plaintiff' claimed title to the property in suit partly as the heir of Yusuf, and partly as the heir of Lajman. He also claimed to have purchased the interest of his sisters defendants 9 and 10 in some of the properties.4. Defendant 1 claimed a share income of the properties as the widow and heir of Yusuf, Defendants 2 and 3 claimed the property under an oral gift and a deed of gift from Lajman.5. Defendant 4 was alleged to be another donee from Lajman of some of the properties.6. Defendants 5 - 8 held usufructuary mortgages from defendant 1, and defendan...
Mt. Latifa Khatun and anr. Vs. Tofer Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal902
Mukerji, J.1. (After stating the facts his Lordship proceeded.) The substance of: the plaintiffs' claim was that Ali Hossain or Abdul Karitn Choudhuri did not take the settlement of the lands of Soh. 1 or possess or pay rent for the same, but that Gholam Ali took it in their names; that if this benami nature of the transaction was not proved, then the Government had no right to settle the said lands with Ali Hossain or Abdul Karim Choudhuri as the lands were accretion to the lands of Schedules 2 and 3 of which Gholarn Ali had already obtained settlement in 1901-02 and 1904-05 respectively; and that the plaintiff having acquired Gholam Ali's interest in the original holding as wall as the Schedules 2 and 3 lands, his title to the lands of Schedule 1 should also be declared and his possession therein confirmed.2. The plaintiff and defendant 12, Abdul Karim Choudhuri, settled the dispute between them on compromise. The defence of the heirs of Ali Hossain was, besides a denial of the plain...
Muhammad Yusaf Vs. Ram Govinda Ojha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal177a
Graham, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Second Additional District Judge of 24-Parganas reversing an order of the Munsif, First Court, Sealdah, and it arises out of certain execution proceedings. The facts shortly are as follows : The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit claiming a sum of Rs. 775 and attached certain cattle and moveables belonging to the defendants before judgment. One Ilahi Bux, who has since died and is represented by the appellant in this appeal, stood surety for any moneys which might be decreed in the suit, and thereupon the cattle and moveables, which had been brought to the Court, were released from attachment. Thereafter the suit was taken up and partly heard. The parties then agreed upon a reference to arbitration and the chairman of the Tollygunge Municipality was appointed arbitrator. The result of that arbitration was that the arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 400. The defendant filed an objection which was heard but the Court ultimately accepte...
Mt. Tamijannessa Khatun Vs. Purna Chandra Chakravarti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal821,103Ind.Cas.853
Mukerji, J.1. These two rules relate to two suits for rent which were decreed ex parte on the 24th March 1926, The defendant applied under Order 9, Rule 13 for setting aside the said ex-parte decrees and prayed for exemption from making the deposit necessary to be made under Section 153A, Bengal Tenancy Act. The Subordinate Judge refused to grant the exemption and ordered the decretal amounts to be deposited within seven days, and on the defendant failing to comply with the order rejected his petitions. The defendants thereupon moved this Court and obtained these rules.2. The petitioner's contention in these rules is to the effect that as she had never admitted that any amount is due from her to the decree-holder no deposit is necessary. In support of this contention reference has been made to the observations of the Select Committee which considered the bill which was eventually embodied in Section 153A, Bengal Tenancy Act (Section 47, Act 1, B.C., 1907 and Act 1, E.B.C. 1908) and rel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›