Kolkata Court July 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.
Mahim Chandra Sarkar Vs. E.i. Ry. Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal544
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case I am of opinion that the appeal must be allowed. The judgments of the Courts below are singularly deficient in dates of the material transactions, but the facts appear to be as follows : Dana Premji & Co. consigned a wagon of coal from Pathardihi station to Sahebganj station on the E.I. Ry. This coal was consigned to the Loco Foreman of the E.I. Ry. Co., and was intended for use by the R.I. Ry. That consignment was on 9th February 1922, and there was a consignment note. The next thing which happened, so far as Dana Premji & Co. are concerned, is that they received a notice from the R.I. Ry. Co., stating that that coal was unsuitable for their purposes and that it was rejected. The date of that notice is not given in the judgments. The next thing that happened was that they resold that wagon of coal to defendant 3. Defendant 3, at some date before 13th March 1922, sold it again to the plaintiff, the plaintiff being a person at Kushtia on the E.B. Ry. The exac...
Chandra Kishore Chakravarty Vs. Biseswar Pal and Sachindra Kumar Goswa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal216
Page, J.1. This is a suit brought by cosharers against another cosharer of immovable property to recover compensation for occupation by the defendant of more than his share in the land of which all the cosharers are tenants-in-common. The appeal depends upon an issue of fact, for, when that issue has been decided, the Court will be enabled to-determine whether this particular case falls within the ambit of decisions such as Robert Watson and Co. Ltd. v. Ram Chanel Dutt [1891] 18 Cal. 10, Robert Watson and Co. v. Ram Chand [1900] 23 Cal. 799, Midnapur Zamindari Co. Ltd v. Nares Narain Roy A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 144, or within the principles laid down in Lachmeswar Singh v. Manowar Hussain [1892] 19 Cal. 253, Mohes Narain v. Nowbutt Pathak [1905] 32 Cal. 837, Debendra Narayan Singha v. Narendra Narayan [1919] 23 C.W.N. 900. Now, it has been found or admitted that the defendant was in possession of land in excess of the share that he would receive on partition; that the plaintiffs have never so...
Dasharathi Ghosh Vs. Khondkar Abdul Hannan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal68
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff who was successful in the Court of first instance but whose suit has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court has preferred this second appeal.2. The suit was for setting aside a revenue sale, held on the 27th June 1921, in respect of Towzi No. 1366/2 of the Hooghly Collectorate, named mehal Anantarampur in Pargana Balia, Thana Chanditala, District Hooghly. The towzi belonged to the plaintiff. The revenue payable for it is annas 14, and cesses annas 12 pies 9 only. The amount is due on the 28th March every year. The plaintiff sent the amount due for 1921 on the 18th March 1921, through the Post Office. It was received in the Collectorate on the 24th March 1921, but it was not credited in the proper register as in the money-order the number of the towzi was given as 66 and the name of the thana as Jangipara. The Collector's Office on receipt of the money noted on the acknowledgment that there was a discrepancy and so the money was kept in deposit in the Co...
Upendra Lal Gupta and ors. Vs. Jogesh Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal186
Mukerji, J.1. The facts relating to the litigation which has given rise to this appeal and the circumstances under which the appeal has come up for hearing before us are as follows:The plaintiff instituted the suit for ejecting the defendants from a tenure after service of a notice to quit, and in the alternative for enhancement of the rent of the tenure either at the customary rate or up to such limit as the Court thinks fair and equitable. The defence was that the tenure was an etmam, and that it was held as a permanent tenancy at a fixed rate of rent, and that therefore the plaintiffs' claim should be dismissed.2. The plaintiffs' case was that the tenure was a temporary one bearing a rental of Rs. 12 and was created by a kabu.liyafc in 1212 M.E. (=1851). The trial Court held that the question whether the kabuliyat was genuine or not was barred by re3 judicata, and though it was inclined to hold that it was genuine, it felt constrained to hold otherwise because it had been so found i...
Ashoke Kumar De Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal542
Buckland, J.1. This is a suit against the Corporation of Calcutta, in which the plaintiff claims as the only son and sole heir of his deceased father to recover from the Corporation of Calcutta the sum of Rs. 1,236-13-7 on account of his father's Provident Fund, unpaid salary and contributions for the purchase of a war bond.2. The defences put forward on behalf of the Corporation are two. It is first objected that the suit is barred by limitation under Section 538, Calcutta Municipal Act (1923). That is a section which prescribes a period of limitation for suits in respect of any act purporting to be done under the Act or under any rule or by-law made thereunder. The plaintiff does not sue in respect of any act purporting to be done under the Act or any rule made under it, nor has learned Counsel for the Corporation been able to point out to me that the Provident Fund is in any way within the Calcutta Municipal Act. There is no question of anything done under the Calcutta Municipal Act...
international Continental Caoutchoue Compagnie Vs. Mehta and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal779
Buckland, J.1. When this suit, which is undefended, was before me for hearing, I found that there was no affidavit forth-coming as to the fitness of N.C. Dutt who has signed and verified the plaint on behalf of the company to do so. I accordingly asked the registrar to report as to what had been done in this respect and reserved judgment lest the competency of the suit might thereby ha affected.2. I am informed that the suit being by a corporation and there being a statement in the plaint that, Mr. Narayan Chandra Dutt is the banian and constituted attorney of the Calcutta branch of the plaintiff company and, as such, a principal officer of the plaintiff company. He has power to sign the plaint and the warrant on behalf of the plaintiff company and he is able to depose to the facts of this case no affidavit has been required. This I understand, is founded upon a judgment of Sale, J., in Sreenath Banerjee v. E.I. Ry. Co. [1894] 22 Cal. 268 in which the learned judge held that if a plain...
Sali Bewa Vs. AjijuddIn Shaikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal911
Cammiade, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit in which she prayed for a declaration that a kabuliyat executed by her in Baisakh 1316 was void as having bean obtained by undue influence and coercion and also had been in contravention of the provision of Section 29, Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff also prayed that a decree for arrears of rent obtained against her on the basis of the kabuliyat in Bent Suit No. 959 of 1919 be declared fraudulent and void and be set aside. The first Court gave the plaintiff a decree granting the reliefs prayed for. The learned Court of appeal below reversed this decree. The learned Court of appeal below found on the admission of the plaintiff that her story of coercion in connexion with the execution of the kabuliyat was untrue and that the matter ha9 not been pressed in appeal. The only matter which has really been pressed is the question whether or not the kabuliyat offends against the provision of Section 29, Bengal Tenancy Act. As regard...
Siba Kumari Devi Vs. Doshi Ghosain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal146
Rankin, C.J.1. These are three appeals from a decision of the District Judge of Nadia, sitting as a special Judge affirming a decision of the Assistant Seltlement Officer of Krishnagar.2. In each of these cases the landlord appellant made an application to the Settlement Officer for a settlement of fair and equitable rent. The application appears, to be in a printed form, and it is somewhat difficult to make sure of the nature and exact scope of the claim intended to be conveyed by it. The body of the document appears to raise every possible claim including questions of excess area of lands. However, taking the document as a whole, we are not satisfied that the only matter dealt with by that application is settlement of rent within the meaning of those words in Section 109A, and we are not prepared to say that in these cases there is no right of second appeal. Accordingly it becomes necessary to examine into the particular facts.3. In S.A. No. 1159 it appears that an application was ma...
Nripendra Bhusan Roy and ors. Vs. Raja Pramatha Bhusan Deb Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal907
1. The facts of the case in which this Rule has been granted are briefly these : The plaintiff-opposite party on the 12th January 1927 filed a suit for rent against the present petitioners. The amount claimed in this suit was Rs. 12,394 odd, being the balance of the rent due for one year and eight months only. The area of the demised land which comprises some 24 mouzas is about 5,000 bighas. The defendants-petitioners appeared on the 17th February. After various adjournments they finally filed their written statement on the 30th April. Then on the 28th June the defendants filed an application for a local investigation. It was apparently a part of their defence that they had been dispossessed by the plaintiff from a portion of the demised land and hence they were entitled to total suspension of rent. It will also appear that the area of the land from which the alleged dispossession took place is some 100 bighas. The learned Subordinate Judge apparently was not satisfied that the applica...
Akshoy Kumar Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. Ashutosh Bhattacharjee and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal73
1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of the 24-Pargannas whereby he purported to grant an application to review an order dated the 6th August 1925.2. A preliminary objection was taken to the maintenance of this appeal upon the ground that if this is an appeal against an order of review passed on an application under Order 47, Rule 1, then an appeal will only lie upon the grounds set out in Order 47, Rule 7. We are of opinion that the preliminary objection is pro tanto a good one and that in so far as the order under appeal is an order granting an application for review it is not subject to an appeal. But in our opinion, the learned Subordinate Judge in considering the application for review and in making an order thereon made an order which went beyond the scope of the application for review, because the application was to review the order of the 6th August 1925, whereby the report of a commissioner appointed to determine the boundaries of the land for...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »