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.
Jatindra Nath Mukerjee and ors. Vs. Suradhani Debi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal102
Page, J.1. These appeals are against the two orders of the learned Additional District Judge of Howrah, dated the 13th December 1926. Two appeals had been preferred to the learned Additional District Judge from an order of the learned Munsif of Howrah, dimissing certain objections by the appellant to the recording of a solenama and dismissing an application by the appellant to set aside the confirmation of a sale under Order 21, Rule 92. On the 2nd December 1926, when the appeals were fixed for hearing, the appellant was ill, and the appeals were dismissed under Order 41, Rule 17. Thereupon, the appellant preferred an application under Order 41, Rule 19, for the purpose of obtaining the re-admission of each of these appeals. On the 13th December the appellant filed a petition stating that he was suffering from malaria and kalaazar and was too ill to attend, and prayed for an adjournment and there was already upon the file the certificate of a medical gentleman to the effect that he was...
Bhodai Sheikh Vs. Barada Kanta Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal116
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Murshidabad, dated 10th February 1925, which affirmed a decision of the Munsif of Jangipur, dated 18th December 1923.2. The appeal arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff to recover possession of a plot of 2 bigbas 6 cottas odd in area. The case of the plaintiff is that this land originally belonged to one Jhabu Sheikh who mortgaged this plot along with three other plots to one Bogdad Jiswas in the year 1900. In 1908 Jhabu mortgage plot 1 with the plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted a suit on his mortgage and obtained a decree in the year 1915, and in execution of that decree he purchased plot 1 on 19th August 1916. Some time in 1920 Bogdad obtained a decree on his mortgage with reference to the four plots mortgaged to him and in execution of that decree he purchased the mortgaged property namely, the four plots. On 9th December 1920 he sold this property to the present defendant. The plaintiff alleges that...
Nafar Chandra Pal Choudhury Vs. Murali Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal496
1. Second Appeal No. 1223 is by the landlord against the decision of the Special Judge modifying the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer allowing an increase of rent to the appellant, but reducing the rate of increase allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer. A preliminary objection has been taken by the defendants that no second appeal lies against the decision under Section 109-A, Clause 3, Ben. Ten. Act. The learned advocate for the appellant contends that as it is a decision not falling within the provisions of Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, there is a second appeal or, in other words, his argument amounts to this that where various questions are raised in the Court below, namely, whether the tenancy is a permanent mokarari one or not, and whether the landlord is entitled to an increase of rent for an increase of area under Section 52, Ben. Ten. Act, there is a second appeal although the decision of the Special Judge professes to settle a fair and equitable rent. In suppor...
Gopal Lal Sanyal and anr. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal751
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case the appellants before us are two in number and they have been convicted by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 124A, I.P.C., the first appellant being sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs. 350 and in default one month's simple imprisonment, the second appellant being sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 and in default simple imprisonment for two months.2. The prosecution is in respect of an article contributed by one Jnananjan Neogi, which appears in Vol. I, Part II, at page 5 of a Bengali weekly newspaper published in Calcutta called the 'Atma Sakti.' The original of the article which is in the vernacular has been handed to us and we have had the advantage of perusing the translation thereof which is Ex. (1) in this case.3. The principles which should guide us in finding out for ourselves the intention of a person who is charged under Section 124A. I.P.C. have been recently referred to by us in our judgment in the c...
Makram Ali Molla and ors. Vs. Abdul Hamid Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal880
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal, has arisen are shortly these : Two parsons, by name Pana Mea and Ayub Ali, lent a certain sum of money on mortgage to the present respondents. A suit was brought on the mortgage-bond against the defendants. It was brought in the names of the two mortgagees Ayub Ali and Pana Mea. As a matter of fact at the time when the suit was brought Ayub Ali was dead. It would appear that the plaint had been verified by Mokram Ali, the father of Ayub Ali, apparently signing his name. The defendants, in their written statement, contended that the suit was'-not maintainable as Ayub Ali was dead at the time of the institution of the suit. Then Mokram Ali, who was the heir of Ayub Ali, put in a petition to be substituted in the place of his deceased sou Ayub Ali. This was allowed and the suit proceeded to judgment, the suit being decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed to the District Court. The learned Subordinate Judge w...
Dwarkanath Mandal and anr. Vs. Sreegobinda Choudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal906
Cammiade, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs in a suit for damages for money said to have been twice recovered from them by the defendant. The facts of the case are as follows : The plaintiffs held three different tenancies under the defendant. Thre6 suits for rent were instituted for arrears of these tenancies-and decrees were obtained in these suits. The total amount due under these decrees was Rs. 495 odd. The plaintiffs-then sued the defendant and two other persons for recovery of possession of two of these tenancies and for mesne profits and obtained a decree in the first Court, namely, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge and the defendant who is the respondent before us appealed. The decree of the lower Court was varied by this-Court only on the question of the liability of the present defendant to the mesne profits granted under the decree. The relevant portion of that decree is as follows:It is ordered and decreed that the decree of the Court below, dated the 14th August 1...
Maharaj Bahadur Singh of Baluchar Vs. Srimati Achala Bala Devi and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.763
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 the 25th of 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, cut the crops, took 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 presen...
indu Bhusan Basu Vs. Jatindra Nath Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1927
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.148
George Claus Rankin, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment and decree of my learned brother Mr. Justice Cammiade. The suit was a rent suit and the plaintiff in his plaint set out certain survey plots, fifteen in number, as being the subject-matter of the tenancy. He did this in compliance with Section 148 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and also in compliance with the rules under the first Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Court. The jama which was claimed was Rs. 8-4-0. The defendant resisted on the ground that there was no relation of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and himself in respect of these survey plots. He admitted that he held a jama at Rs. 8-4-0 under the plaintiff but not as he says, for these lands. The first thing that happened was that a local investigation was made by a Commissioner and the learned Subordinate Judge of the slower Court on appeal, came to the conclusion that it was not proved that there was any tenancy hel...
Basanta Kumar Adak Vs. Khirode Chandra Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal25
Page, J.1. This is an appeal against two orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Howrah on the 18th December 1926, by one of which the learned Judge dismissed the judgment-debtor's application for an order setting aside an execution sale under Order 21, Rule 90, and by the other he confirmed the sale. Now, the order dismissing the judgment-debtor's application to set aside the sale was passed upon the application of the opposite party who was present, and urged that the application should be dismissed because neither the applicant nor any pleader on his behalf was present to support it when called for hearing.2. A preliminary objection was taken to the competency of this appeal upon the ground that the order dismissing the judgment-debtor's application to set aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 90 was not an order under Order 21, Rule 92, refusing to set aside a sale,' and, therefore, was not within Order 43, Rule 1(j). In my opinion, the preliminary objection fails. In Basarat...
Saroj Bandhu Simlai Vs. Mati Lal Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal112
B.B. Ghose, J.1. In this case the learned Additional District Judge has held that, having regard to the terms of the kabuliyat, the money that has been put down in the kabuliyat as payable in lieu of 13 aris of paddy is payable by the tenant if he does not deliver the paddy. Where a sum is fixed as payable by the tenant in lieu of paddy which is to be delivered by him as rent, unless there is a strong indication that this money value was placed for some other purpose than that of giving the tenant a choice either to pay money or to deliver the paddy, it must be taken that the tenant has the choice either to pay money or to deliver paddy as stipulated. It cannot generally be asked by the landlord that the tenant is bound to pay the present market value of the paddy if he does not deliver the paddy as rent in kind. In that view, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.Roy, J.2. I agree....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »