Kolkata Court August 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.
Jnanendra Nath Mukherjee and anr. Vs. Jitendra Nath Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.70
1. One Kailas Chandra Mukherji died in November, 1910, leaving a Will, dated the 28th August, 1908. He left two sons Jnanendra and Debendra by his first wife and four sons Jogendra, Jatindra, Jitendra and Jonendra by his second wife. He also left a daughter Ashalata by his second wife, who was unmarried at the time of his death. Jnanendra, Debendra and Jogendra had attained majority at the date of the Will, and Kailas Chandra Mukherji appointed all the said three sons as executors. Jogendra, however, died during the lifetime of his father and a few months before the death of the latter. No Probate was taken of the Will but on the 17th January, 1921, there was an agreement between the first party consisting of Jnanendra and Debendra and the second party consisting of Jatindra, Jitendra and Jonendra by which the disputes between them were referred to the arbitration of three gentlemen, Babu. Nanda Lal Pal, Babu Hari Charan Chatterji and Babu Kanti Chandra Ghose. The arbitrators made thei...
Asim Krishna Deb Vs. Sailesh Chandra Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal174
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this rule has arisen are these:The opposite party instituted a suit for partition in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipur, sometime in 1921. A preliminary decree was made in August 1921, a commissioner was appointed and a final decree was passed on 20th February 1923. On an application for a review being made this decree was set aside and1 a fresh partition was ordered. The parties then agreed to refer all the disputes in the suit to arbitration. Sir Provash Mitter and his brother Sir Benode undertook this duty. It was agreed that the arbitrators might make separate awards from time to time.2. They made an award regarding the Calcutta properties. The parties as usual in these cases began to file various objections to the arbitrators' award. The arbitrators then refused to have anything more to do with them and the remaining properties which also formed part of the subject of the partition suit have not been dealt with by the arbit...
Surendra Nath Dutta and ors. Vs. Tripura Pada Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal215
Page, J.1. This is an application by the respondents in an appeal that the appeal be dismissed as against them and for incidental relief. The respondents are the auction-purchaser and the decree-holder. The decree was obtained against the person who presented the appeal in the suit. In execution of that decree the property in dispute was sold at an auction sale. After the sale, the judgment-debtor applied to set aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 90. That application was dismissed. Prom that application an appeal was preferred to the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal the judgment-debtor was adjudicated a bankrupt. Thereupon the Official Assignee elected not to proceed with the appeal. Hence the present application. Now, the judgment-debtor having been adjudicated an insolvent pending the appeal ceased to have any interest in the matter, and his assets passed to the Official Assignee. The Official Assignee having elected not to proceed with the appeal the respondents are en...
Tarangini Debi Vs. Raj Krishna Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1927
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.520
George Claus Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the defendant, Tarangini Debi, appeals from a decision in a suit brought by the seven plaintiffs to set aside a decree and a sale held under the decree. The judgment debtor in the suit was one Juraram and the facts which are material for the present purpose are these that a decree was passed on the 13th of August, 1919; that on the 21st of January, 1920, in the lifetime of Juraram a sale proclamation and a notice of attachment were duly served upon the judgment-debtor. On the 2nd of February, 1920, Juraram the judgment-debtor died. The sale was held on the 19th of April, 1920, and the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3, the heirs of Juraram, complain that they were not made parties to the execution proceedings between the death of Juraram and the holding of the sale. On the 22nd of May, 1920, the sale was confirmed. In April, 1921, symbolical delivery was given to the decree-holder. On the 25th of June, 1921, the present appellant purchased the property fro...
Mt. Fuli Bibi and ors. Vs. Khokai Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal537
Page, J.1. On 21st January 1920 the appellants Fuli and Amini, who were minors, executed a kobala by which they transferred to the respondents their shares of a ryoti interest in certain lands that they had inherited. Fuli was born on 21st December 1902 and Amini on 7th March 1905. It was alleged by the respondents that Rs. 950 was paid as consideration for the transfer, and both the lower Courts have held that part, but not the whole, of this sum was received by or on behalf of the appellants.2. On 24th January 1923 the appellants brought the present suit against the respondents claiming a declaration that they were entitled to their respective shares in the property, and joint possession with their cosharers, whom they impleaded as pro forma defendants. They also claimed damages and mesne profits against the respondents. When the suit was filed the appellants' mother, Bhadi, was joined as a co-plaintiff, but subsequently she withdrew her claim. The trial Court dismissed Fuli's claim ...
Bipradas Goswami Vs. Sadhan Chandra Banerji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1929Cal801
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the District Judge of Murshidabad, dated 9th February 1925, which affirmed a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of the same place, dated 13th May 1924.2. The plaintiff, now appellant, brought a suit for the construction of a will of his father, Kunja Behari Goswami, and for a declaration of his title to the immovable properties mentioned in the ka and kha schedules of the plaint and for recovery of possession of property ka with mesne profits and for an injunction restraining the defendant from taking any step for recovery of rent from the plaintiff with respect to properties described in schedule ka.3. The case stated in the plaint is that plaintiff's father died on 13th Falgun 1924, corresponding to 24th February 1886, leaving behind him the plaintiff, his only son, and Nabinkali Debi, his only daughter; that the plaintiff's father executed a will sometime before his death: that probate was taken of the will and t...
Ramanath Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. Jagannath Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal169
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiffs who are the appellants in this Court sought to enhance the rent of some 17 tenants. These persons were holding separate lands separately under the landlords. They sought to enhance the rent first on the ground of rise in the price of the staple food-crops, and secondly, they asked for additional rent for additional area on the ground that the tenants were holding more lands than what had been settled with them. What practically, amounts to 17 suits have been tried together as a single suit. The inconvenience of this procedure is only too obvious and it is quite possible that the plaintiffs have suffer ad from having adopted this procedure. Be that as it may, the law allows this procedure to be adopted, and the plaintiffs having deliberately adopted, this procedure can hardly now complain.2. The Assistant Settlement Officer dismissed the suit op both grounds. He would seem to hold that the jamas were mokarrari o...
Krishnadhan Sardar and ors. Vs. Sital Parui and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1927
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.605
Roy, J.1. A preliminary point has been taken in this second appeal. The lower Appellate Court decreed the plaintiffs suit and directed khas possession to be given to the plaintiffs as against the defendants who were under-tenants on the land. Both the Courts have come to the finding that the defendants are under-tenants on the land. One of the defendants preferred this appeal. He died and his heirs were substituted soon after his death. On behalf of the plaintiffs the contention put forward is that the tenancy being an under raiyati the heirs have not inherited anything against the landlords. The learned Vakil for the appellants contends that they should be allowed to continue the appeal. It is not a question of continuing the appeal but the question is whether they have a right to maintain this appeal not having inherited any right from their father as against the landlord. The substituted appellants have no right to maintain this appeal, and that being so the appeal is dismissed with...
Arunadoya Chakrabarty and ors. Vs. Mahammad Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Cal138
1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiffs to recover khas possession of certain lands on declaration of the plaintiffs' maliki right thereto. The plaintiffs' case was that one Rahamat Sheikh held an ordinary jote, that he abandoned the same and went away from the village without making any arrangements for payments of rent of the jote and that the plaintiffs wanted to take possession of the lands but were resisted by the defendants. Of the defendants against whom the suit was instituted only one, viz. defendant 5, filed a written statement and contested the suit. The substantial defence of defendant 5 was that Sheikh Rahamat's sons sold a portion of the lands to defendant 5 and his brothers (one of whom was defendant 6) in 1316, that since the said sale defendant 5 and his brothers have been in possession of the lands which they had purchased, and the heirs of Sheikh Rahamat were in possession of the remaining lands of the jote. The defence thus put for...
Samsannessa Bibi and anr. Vs. Rahim Pramanik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Cal900
Roy, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are these : There was a tenure standing in the name of Chiniraddin under the Saha Babus. The family acquired the tenure in the lifetime of the father but Chiniraddin was the only recorded tenant in the books of the landlord. After the death of the father, which took place in 1314 B.E., the widow and the four sons succeeded to the tenure and realized rents from the tenants in respect of the separate shares. The landlords sued Chiniraddin for arrears of rent due for the years 1912-15 and, in execution of the decree they obtained, the tenure was purchased by the plaintiffs, who are the two widows of Basiraddin, a brother of Chiniraddin. The widows took delivery at possession through Court in 1917 but obviously all the heirs still remained in possession, for, the settlement operations began in 1918 and in the finally published record-of-rights all the heirs are recorded to be in possession. The Saha Babus brought a damage suit in 1918, and in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »