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.
Sailendra Nath Mahata Vs. Satish Chandra Bhattacharjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal136
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad, dated the 9th January 1925, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Munsiff of Berhampore, dated the 30th April 1923.2. The appeal arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff for rent for the last kist of 1325 and for the years 1326 to 1328 B.S., in respect of a tenure which was held by the defendant respondent under the plaintiff-appellant. Defendant's plea was that he was dispossessed from a portion of the land which he purchased at a rent sale in February 1920 and of which he got possession in May 1920 His case is that, after he had purchased the disputed tenure at a sale held at the instance of the plaintiff, he was dispossessed from plots 1 and 5 of the sale certificate 1921. The rent was a consolidated rent.3. A local investigation was directed at the instance of the defendant for the purpose of determining as to whether the land from which he alleged he had been dispossesse...
Sm. Jugal Kishore Debi Vs. Baidya Nath Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal952
Page, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Asansole of the 7th August 1925, dismissing an objection by a judgment-debtor to the execution of a decree passed by the High Court of Patna on the 6th December 1920. The present execution proceedings were commenced on the 23rd March 1925, and, therefore, prima facie were time-barred. The decree-holders contended that the present application for execution was not barred by limitation, because (1) on two previous occasions, 15th April 1921, and the 11th January 1924, applications had been made 'in accordance with law' to execute the said decree in the proper Court,' namely, the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dhanbad and, therefore, under Article 182(5), Statute of Limitation (Act 9 of 1908), the present application was presented within the time limited by the Statute; (2) on the 6fch December 1920, when the decree which it is now sought to execute was passed, two of the three decree-holders were, and still...
Nripendra Nath Mukerji and anr. Vs. Dharendra Narayan Nandi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal115
Rankin, C.J.1. This is the defendant's appeal from the judgment, and decree of my learned brother Mr. Justice Majumdar affirming a decision of the lower appellate Court.2. The plaintiff is one of several co-owners of four revenue-paying estates with separate touzi numbers. It appears that the whole of the area of these four touzis has been settled in talukdari right with the defendants for a consolidated jama of Rs. 179-2-8 gandas. In my judgment, the circumstance that the tenure is coextensive with the whole area of the four touzis is of no importance for the present purpose, but it is a fact, as I understand, that the whole of the land comprised in the four touzis is comprised in this tenure at the consolidated rent of Rs. 179-2-8 gandas.3. The facts are these: that the plaintiff is registered in the colleetorate as having in three of the touzis a share of 4 annas 8 gandas and in one of the touzis aa having a share of 19-1/4 gandas not quite one anna. The suit was brought on the foot...
Magnamoyi Rai Vs. Brojendra Lal Das Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal127
1. The plaintiff and defendants 6 to 8 in the first suit who are defendants 2 to 4 in the second suit, were partners in a business. They fell out and the present suits were brought by the plaintiff. The first suit which we will call the money suit was for recovery of a sum of money, being one-third share of the plaintiff in certain ornaments and cash which were in the iron safe of the firm and were wrongly taken away by the defendants. Her case against defendant 1 was that he in collusion with the partners, misappropriated the ornaments and cash taken out of the iron safe. There were four more defendants, the neighbouring shop-keepers, who were said to have helped the other defendants in the taking out of the money and articles. The defence was that the plaintiff's brother Rama Charan was at one time acting as the manager of the firm and he was dismissed because 01 his defalcations, and defendant 1 was requested by the other partners to help them in the payment of creditors and for tha...
Mahesh Chandra Sadhu and ors. Vs. Jogendra Lal Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal222,107Ind.Cas.79
Page, J.1. The determination of this appeal depends upon the true construction of Order 21, Rule 29, Civil P.C. The question raised is one of first impression, for in none of the High Courts in India does it appear to have been considered or decided. Order 21, Rule 29 runs as follows:Where a suit is pending-in any Court against the holder of a decree of such Court, on the part of the person against whom the decree was passed, the Court may, on such terms as to security or otherwise, as it thinks fit, stay execution of the decree until the pending suit has been decided.2. The question to be determined is whether the words 'until the pending suit has been decided' mean until a decree has been passed by the Court in which the suit is pending, or until the claim in the pending suit has finally been determined. The material facts are not in dispute.3. The present appellants or their predecessors-in-title obtained a decree in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Asansole against the respond...
Gohali Saha and ors. Vs. Debendra Nath Mukherjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal285
Mallik, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of the plaintiffs' dues amounting to Rs. 1,110-8-0 on a mortgage bond executed by the father of the defendants, one Luski Shaha, in favour of the plaintiffs. The defence was that the defendants and their father were members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, that the mortgaged property was the paternal property of the defendants' father and the defendants had a vested right therein, and that Luski Shaha, therefore had no right to create a mortgage alone on the property in excess of his own share. The trial Judge held that the mortgaged property was the paternal property of Laski and that the defendants had a vested right therein. He held also that there was an antecedent debt of Rs. 335 which has paid off with the consideration money received by Luski for the bond in suit and that the mortgaged property was liable for satisfaction of that amount only; and on these findings the trial Judge decreed the plaint...
Susil Kumar Biswas and ors. Vs. Rajani Kanta Chakrabutty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal737
1. These appeals are by the plaintiffs and arise out of two suits for rent. The suits are based upon two kabuliyats Exs. B and B(1), which refer to eight-annas share each of the land in question which originally belonged to two owners. The plaintiffs have purchased the interest of both the landlords and. Thus they are entitled to both the shares. The fact that there were two kabuliyats was the reason for bringing two suits. The question in both the appeals is the same. The defendant pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; and secondly, that the whole rent had been suspended as they have been dispossessed of some portion of the demised premises. The following may be taken from the judgment of the lower appellate Court which; dismissed the plaintiffs' suit affirming the decision of the Munsif.The defendant is an auction-purchaser of the tenancies at a rent sale held at the instance of the plaintiffs. SD the defendant is a tenant under the plaint...
Madhu Sudan Kundu and ors. Vs. ChhalimaddIn Ahammad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal167
B.B. Ghose, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents that this appeal is incompetent. The appeal is against the preliminary decree passed on a mortgage, dated the 24th January 1924. The final decree was made on 28th February 1924. The appeal against the preliminary decree was filed on 27th May 1924. It is, therefore, contended that having regard to some of the cases decided in this Court, this appeal is incompetent. Personally I am of opinion that the cases which have been decided after the passing of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 have not laid down the correct rule. Under this Code, a preliminary decree has an independent existence and by the appeal against the final decree one cannot attack the preliminary decree. The case was different under the old Code. What is now a preliminary decree was supposed to be a preliminary order and the final decree was held to absorb that order and by an appeal against the final decree that order might ...
Mahim Chandra Saha and ors. Vs. Esahak Sikdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal954
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs which arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of a certain land. The defendants admitted the title of the plaintiffs but pleaded that an agreement in favour of them was executed by the plaintiffs dated 16th May 1919, to sell the property to them and they received Rs. 50 as the earnest money. Afterwards the plaintiffs put the defendants in possession of the property and, therefore, the plaintiffs are incompetent to sue for recovery of possession. The suit was instituted on the 12th January 1923. The trial Court disbelieved the story of the execution of the bainapatra, and also held that the defendants had entered into forcible possession. Upon that finding it decreed the suit and directed the defendants to remove their huts and other belongings from the suit lands within 15 days from the date of the decree and also allowed the plaintiffs mesne profits. From that decree defendant 2 appealed, and in that appeal the Subordinate J...
Maharaj Bahadur Singh of Baluchar District Vs. Sm. Achala Bala Devi an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal106
Page, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the learned District Judge of Murishidabad affirming a decree of the learned Munsif of Jangipur. The material facts are as follows : The appellant brought a suit and obtained a decree, and in execution of that decree attached certain standing crops. The respondent claimed that the land and the crops standing upon it belonged to her and on 25th January 1919 her claim was upheld. Meanwhile, notwithstanding the claim which had been presented by the respondent, the sale was held in execution of the decree, and the standing crops were sold to a servant of the appellant. The day after the respondent had vindicated her right to the crops and had obtained an order that the crops belonged to her the appellant himself or by his agents came upon the land, out the crops, look them away, and subsequently took possession of the proceeds of the sale. Thereupon, within three years of the decision in the claim case the plaintiff' brought the present suit ag...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »