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.
international Continental Caoutchoue Compagnie Vs. Mehta and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal758
Buckland, J.1. It has frequently come to my notice that there is widespread misconception as to the correct course to be followed, where a suit is filed under Order 30, Civil P.C., against a firm, by persons who have been served as partners, but who deny that they are partners. The question arises in a practical form when such persons file, as is often done, written statements on their own behalf in no way putting forward a defence to the suit, but denying that they are partners. In some instances I have found as many as three such written statements simultaneously on the record. The case eventually comes to trial with some person or other defending the suit on behalf of the firm and with other written statements on the record on behalf of the persons who have entered appearance under protest denying that they are partners. Or, as I have also found, there are written statements by such persons, but none on behalf of the firm, with the result that the hearing of the suit which is undefe...
Bonomali Gope Vs. Fakir Chand Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal46
Page, J.1. This is an application under Section 25, Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, to revise a decree passed by the learned Munsiff of the Small Cause Court at Munshigunge. The suit was brought to recover money lent upon interest which was repayable on demand. The money was lent on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th. 5th and 6th May 1923. On the 14th June 1926 the plaintiff filed the present suit. Prima facie his cause of action is time-barred. The learned Munsif, however, held that the claim was not time-barred, and decreed the suit in part.2. Two points are taken by the learned vakil for the opposite party. The first is that the period between the 2nd May 1926 and 6th June 1926 should be deducted from the period of limitation upon the ground that during that period the petitioner was prosecuting in good faith a suit to recover the subject-matter of the present suit in the Union Court in Bihar which Court from defect of jurisdiction or through causes of a like nature was unable to entertain it. I...
Jaladhar Mondal and anr. Vs. Amrita Lal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal87
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These two appeals are by the defendant. They arise out of two suits for ejectment brought by the plaintiff on the allegation that the plaintiff was a ryot with regard to two holdings. The father of the defendant was his under-ryot. The under-ryot having died in 1921, the defendant had no right to remain on the land as the interest of an under-ryot is not heritable under the law. The defendant, therefore, is in the position of a trespasser and is liable to, be ejected.2. The plea of the defendant was that his father was an occupancy-ryot and that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, namely, Jogendra Ghose, was a tenure-holder, and Jogendra having granted a permanent lease to the defendant's predecessors, he was estopped from, asserting that the defendant's predecessors were under-ryots and so the plaintiff who has obtained the interest of Jogendra by purchase at a sale in execution of a decree is also estopped from asserting that defendant's father was an under...
Jaladhar Mondal and anr. Vs. Rai Amrita Lal Rai Bahadur and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.641
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These two appeals are by the defendant. They arise out of two suits for ejectment brought by the plaintiff on the allegation that the plaintiff was a ryot with regard to two holdings. The father of the defendant was his under-ryot. The under ryot having died in 1921, the defendant had no right to remain on the land as the interest of an under ryot is not heritable under the law. The defendant, therefore, is in the position of a trespasser and is liable to be ejected.2. The plea of the defendant was that his father was an occupancy-ryot and that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, namely, Jogendra Ghose was a tenure-holder and Jogendra having granted a permanent lease to the defendant's predecessors, he was estopped from asserting that the defendant's predecessors were underrate and so the plaintiff who has obtained the interest of Jogendra by purchase at a sale in execution of a decree is also estopped from asserting that defendant's father was an under-ryot....
Keshab Lal Dutta and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal272
ORDER1. No cause is shown. We have examined the record for ourselves and we are satisfied that the conviction of the petitioners is illegal in the circumstances stated. There was undoubtedly a notification under Section 30 of the Police Act in 1926, but that could not be held to be operative after the occasion which called for the notification had passed away. In this view of the matter, the Rule is made absolute, the conviction and sentence of the petitioners are set aside and the fines, if paid, be refunded....
Hatimullah and ors. Vs. Mahamad Abju Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal312
1. These six appeals are by the defendants in suits for ejectment. It is not necessary to deal with the various points involved in the suits as the only question that has been raised and discussed before us is whether in the circumstances of these cases there was a forfeiture of the tenancies by disclaimer by the defendants. It appears that there was a separate Hisya No. 14 of Taluk No. 27 under Cheak No. 5 of the Thak Map. It stood in the name of one Amirunnessa and was subsequently sold for arrears of revenue and purchased by the present plaintiff. He previously brought suits for rent against these defendants but they having denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and themselves he had to withdraw the suits. He then brought the present suits for recovery of khas possession on the ground that the repudiation by the defendants of the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and them operated as a forfeiture of the tenancies, if they had any. The main defence o...
Srimati Dintarini Devi and ors. Vs. Ambica Prosad Sanyal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.841
1. A preliminary objection has been taken that the original appellant being dead, the persons who have been substituted in the place of the deceased appellant have no right to carry on the appeal as her heirs. The plaintiff-appellant was a lady named Dintarini Debi. She died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court on the 11th February, 1926. The persons who got themselves substituted in her place are related to her as her husband's paternal uncle's daughter's daughter's sons. The objection taken on behalf of the respondents is that these persons cannot be the reversionary heirs, under the Hindu Law, of the husband of the original appellant and so have no right to carry on the appeal. This matter has been long settled that a daughter's daughter's son cannot be an heir under the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. If these substituted persons could not be the heirs of their mother's mother's father, surely they cannot be the reversionary heirs of an agnatic relation of their mother's ...
Hatimullah and ors. Vs. Mahamad Arju Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1927
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.13
1. These six appeals are by the defendants in suits for ejectment. It is not necessary to deal with the various points involved in the suits as the only question that has been raised and discussed before us is whether in the circumstances of these cases there was a forfeiture of the tenancies by disclaimer by the defendants. It appears that there was a separate Hisya No. 14 of Taluk No. 27 under Chak No. 5 of the thak map. It stood in the name of one Amirunnessa and was subsequently sold for arrears of revenue and purchased by the present plaintiff. He previously brought suits for rent against these defendants but, they having denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and themselves, he had to withdraw the suits. He then brought the present suits for recovery of khas possession on the ground that the repudiation by the defendants of the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and them operated as a forfeiture of the tenancies, if they had any. The main defence ...
Mt. Matangini Ghose and ors. Vs. Mt. Monmohini Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal41
Page, J.1. This appeal depends upon the true construction of Section 149, Estates Partition Act (8 of 1876), now Section 119 of Act Section 1897. Section 149 runs as follows:No order of a revenue officer...(d) made under Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, (except as provided in the next succeeding section) or Part IX..shall be liable to be contested or set aside by a suit in any Court, or in any manner other than as is expressly provided in the Act.2. The material facts for the purposes of this appeal are few and simple. An application for partition of a parent estate No. 397 in the Dacca Collectorate was preferred under the Act of 1876 by the registered proprietors The partition was duly effected on 25th August 1912, and the appellants as recorded proprietors were put into possession of Sahams No. 15356 and No. 15340 which had been carved out of the parent estate, and had been allotted to them respectively. Many years after the partition proceedings had been completed the ...
Rohinikumar Pal Vs. Kusum Kamini Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal196
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal is by defendant 1 against a portion of the decree of the Subordinate Judge and arises out of a suit for maintenance brought by the plaintiff, a Hindu widow, out of the estate left by her deceased husband. Defendant 1 was the son of her husband by another wife. There were-other defendants in the suit who were joint in mess with her husband, but they have no concern with this appeal as the suit was dismissed against them. The plaintiff sued as a pauper and her claim was for future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 30 per month for herself and at the rate of Rs. 15 per month for the minor daughter she had by her husband. There was also a claim for arrears of maintenance for six years and three months which was valued at Rs. 4,444 odd. The future maintenance was valued at Rs. 5,400. All the defendants contested the suit. The plaintiff brought another suit for some ornaments alleged to have been kept with the defendants. We are not concerned with that suit in the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »