Kolkata Court January 1928 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.
Rama Nath Parui Vs. Harish Chandra Biswas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal347,108Ind.Cas.41
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued for a declaration of his title and confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the land in suit.2. His case briefly was that the disputed lands were held by one Hem Chandra Paehal, defendant 2, as a nontransferable occupancy holding at an annual rental of Rs. 147 odd under the pro forma defendants 5 to 10, that in execution of a decree for rent obtained by defendant 5 under Section 148-A, Ben. Ten Act, against defendant 2 the said holding was put up to sale and was purchased by plaintiff 1 for Rs. 80 on 22nd November 1920. That he obtained posseson through Court and let out a portion of the land to plaintiff 2. An objection was filed by defendant 1, under Rule 100, Order 21, Civil P.C., and the objection was allowed. Hence this suit. The case for defendant I, who alone contested the suit, was that he had purchased the holding from defendant 2 on 22nd June 1913 His case was...
Ram Saran Mandal and ors. Vs. Radha Raman Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal88,113Ind.Cas.847
Page, J.1. This rule was issued under Section 115, Civil P.C., on an application to set aside an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan allowing the plaintiff to withdraw a suit. The suit was brought by the plaintiff who is one of sixteen shebaits of the deity Damodar Jiu, for possession of certain immovable property to which he claimed to be entitled, and of which he alleged that the other shebaits in collusion with a tenant of the land had dispossessed him. The land in suit had been purchased by the grandfather of the plaintiff in the name of the deity, but the plaintiff alleged that the land was secular and not debatter property the title to which had passed to him in his personal right. The suit was tried and determined on the merits, and in the event was dismissed upon the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title or that the property was secular property. The learned trial Judge further held that inasmuch as one of the shebaits had not been impleaded and ...
Gaizaddy and ors. Vs. Soroj Kumar Acherjee Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.849
Zahhadur Rahim Zahid Suhrawardy, J.1. This in an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Faridpur, dated the 26th June, 1925, passed on review setting aside the previous judgment passed by the learned Judge on the 18th April, 1925, and the decree following it and directing the memorandum of appeal to be returned for presentation in proper Court. The facts are that the plaintiffs-respondents instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge for recovery of possession of immoveable property and for mesne profits accrued before the institution of the suit and for those for the period between the institution of the suit and the delivery of possession of the properties. The value of the lands in suit was put at Rs. 1,600 and the value of the mesne profits claimed was put tentatively at Rs. 500 the total value of the suit being Rs. 2,100. The suit was decreed on compromise on the 9th July, 1915. The plaintiff took out execution of the decree and in Execution Case No. 137 of 19...
Lila Singh Vs. Chandra Badan Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal343,108Ind.Cas.43
Duval, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was originally brought to recover possession of 12 cottahs and 2 chittaks of land on the allegation that it was part of a dag No. 115 of Resettlement patta No. 5. The plaintiff's case was that he was in possession of this land all along, but in April 1919 the defendants dispossessed him. The defence was that this land appertained to a neighbouring dag No. 94 of patta No. 11 of a khasra settlement, and had been purchased as far back as 1897, but during the last re-settlement operation-the plaintiff wrongly got it included within his patta. The defendants also alleged that in 1919 the plaintiff dispossessed them and there was a criminal case which was referred to a panchayat for enquiry and they got the land back. The first Court decreed the suit, but in appeal it was pointed out that the local inspection by the amin was unsatisfactory and so the case was sent back for further hearing after a fresh enquiry by a qualified commissioner. Th...
Siti Fakir Vs. Chand Bewa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal389,108Ind.Cas.46
Mukerji, J.1. This rule is directed against the decree of the Munsif, First Court, Bogra, by which the learned Munsif, acting as a Judge of a Court of Small Causes has dismissed the petitioner's suit. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 133 odd from the defendants upon certain allegations, which as far as can be made out from the arguments, are not at present disputed. The facts, shortly stated, are these.2. One Samat sold seven wans of land to one Khoshi Bibi in 1315. In 325 Koshi Bibi gave in unsfructuary mortgage three-and-half wans out of the said seven wans of land to one Jamatulla and others Among these three-and-half wans of land was a plot, which, according to the petitioner, had been purchased by him in the year 1322 from one Chand Bibi. The petitioner's case was that Samat bad made an oral gift of 16 wans of land to Chand Bibi and three others and that, after the death of Samat which took place in 1318 B.S., there was a partition of the said 16 wans of land amongst the ...
In Re: Commercial Properties Ltd. Vs.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal456,113Ind.Cas.848
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a case stated by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal, and the question for decision is whether or not the assessees are liable to income-tax under Section 9, Income-tax Act, 1922 or only under Section 10 of that Act.2. It is the function of the Commissioner to find the facts and it is for this Court to accept his findings on all matters of mere fact.3. The facts stated are that the assessee, The Commercial Properties, Limited, is a registered company of which the sole object is to acquire land, build houses and let premises to tenants in Calcutta or elsewhere in India. The sole assets of the assessees consist of three properties and the sole business of the assessees is the management, and collection of rents from the said properties.4. The opinion of the Commissioner of income-tax is thateven if the assessees are held to be a business, they must be assessed in respect of the property owned by them according to the special provisions relating to property.5. It...
In Re: a Vakil
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal817,114Ind.Cas.490,114Ind.Cas.137
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case a complaint was made to the Court informally by a letter dated 25th August 1927, from a lady who was appellant in a certain first appeal. It appears that the first appeal was ultimately dismissed because there Was a sum of Rs. 200 for paper book costs in connexion, more particularly, with the list which had not been paid after time had been given upon various occasions. A very substantial amount of over Rs. 1,200 was paid into Court, but owing to the failure after many opportunities to pay in a further sum of about Rs. 200 the appeal was ultimately dismissed for default by a Division Bench. That having taken place, the complaint to which I have referred was addressed to this Court on 25th August 1927, and the main purposes of the complaint were two. One was to say that the appeal had been dismissed1 without any notice to or demand from the appellant and although sufficient funds were placed with the vakil to meet his fees and other incidental expenses. It ma...
Kali Kumar Gangopadhya Vs. Ananda Chandra Gangopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1928
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.589
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff's sought to remove, defendant No. 1 from the office of shebait of the family deity Ananta Deb Thakur on the ground, first of all, that he had in a previous suit contended that the trust deed was not a valid document and the property was not debutter and further that he was unfit to be a shebait as he ate forbidden food and committed nuisance in the temple.2. The first Court found that the denial by defendant No. 1 of the debutter nature of the property and the validity of the deed Of dedication in the former suit did not of itself form a ground for removing defendant No. 1 from the office of shebait. The first Court further held that it had not been established that defendant No. 1 had been guilty of misconduct by reason of his having eaten forbidden food or committing nuisance in the temple. On these findings the first Court dismissed the suit.3. On appeal by the plaintiffs the second Court upheld the finding o...
Luxmi Industrial Bank Ltd. Vs. Dinesh Chandra Roy Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal609
Graham, J.1. This appeal is against an order of the District Judge, 21 Parganas and arises out of insolvency proceedings. The facts shortly stated are that on 27th January 1926, one Jewraj Khariwalla. midean application before the District. Judge to be declared an insolvent and a Receiver was appointed. Subsequently an order of adjudication was recorded on 3rd May 1926. One of the creditors of the insolvent, the Laxmi Industrial Bank (creditor No. 4) is the present appellant before us. It appears that this bank had advance, or at all events, claim to have advanced various sums of money to the insolvent upon the security of certain ornaments which were deposited with the bank. The Receiver wanted inspection of these articles and of the bank's accounts. The bank objected to produce them on the ground that it was a secured creditor. The learned Judge, however, considered that it was desirable that the articles should be inspected by the Receiver and he accordingly recorded an order direct...
KalimaddIn Vs. Hara Sundari Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1928
Reported in: 109Ind.Cas.243
1. This is an appeal by the petitioner for the revocation of the grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed of one Ram Narayan Sen, which was made in favour of his widow on the 6th of August, 1923. The fact should be stated in some detail in order to understand the position of the parties. Ram Narayan had two sons. In the year 1913, he and one of his sons, Aswini, executed two simple bonds in favour of the appellant. In January, 1915, Ram Narayan died leaving his widow and the two sons him surviving. On the 24th of November, 1916, the two sons of Ram Narayan executed a bond in renewal of the two bonds executed by Ram Narayan and Aswini in favour of the appellant in 1913. In September, 1920, the appellant brought a suit against the two sons of Ram Narayan. A decree was made by consent in favour of the appellant against the two sons of Ram Narayan on the 17th of January, 1921. In February, 1923, some properties which had originally belonged to Ram Narayan were sold in execu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »