Kolkata Court February 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.
M. Mujibar Rahaman Vs. Isub Surati
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal546
B.B. Ghosh, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge of Hooghly at Howrah. The facts are these : It has been found that the plaintiff let out the premises in suit to the defendant at a certain rate of rent. He afterwards served a notice terminating the tenancy and then sued to recover possession of the property in question and also rent for the period the defendant was in possession as tenant. The plea of the defendant shortly stated was denial of the plaintiff's right to the entire share of the property. He stated that a certain share belonged to the sisters of the plaintiff and the letting out of the property was not by the plaintiff alone. He denied service of notice and he also alleged that the plaintiff was not entitled to any rent as the defendant had spent a large sum of money for repairing the promises on the basis of a contract by which the owners had agreed that no rent should be demanded until the house was thor...
Krishna Lal Sadhu and anr. Vs. Mt. Promila Bala Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal518
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case the main contention that has been urged on behalf of the two defendants who are appellants before us is that the money payable under a policy of insurance, being policy No. 4667, issued by the Hindusthan Co operative Insurance Society Limited, did form part of the assets of the estate of one Behary Lal Sircar deceased and that his widow Pramila Bala Dassi had no rights therein. In order to understand the precise significance of this contention it is necessary to set out the facts giving rise to the litigation out of which the present appeal has arisen. It appears that one Behari Lal Sircar insured his life on 29th March 1910 for a sum of Rs. 500. The material words of the policy, with which we are concerned are as follows:The Society hereby guarantees to insure that if the insured pays to the society at their office in Calcutta on the 5th day of March 1910 each succeeding year up to and including the year of his death the sum of Rs. 21 and 11 annas only or...
K. S. Bonnerjee, Official Receiver Vs. Kamdar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.848
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge of Tipperah reversing those of the Subordinate Judge of that place. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for recovery of khas possession of certain lands on the allegation that they were chakran lands in the possession of defendant No. 1 and the other defendants who were in possession under the defendant No. 1 deriving title from him. It was alleged that the defendant No. 1 held the lands on service tenure, and that the service was that he was to take the officers and malguzars of the plaintiff's estate across a ferry in the river Gumti near Chandpur to their Jaffarganj Cachery. The learned Judge on appeal has dismissed the suit on certain grounds.2. It appears to us that the real question for decision in this case was missed by the Courts below. The allegation of the plaintiff was that the lands were held by the defendant No. 1 in lieu of wages. The District Boa...
Krishna Lal Sadhu and anr. Vs. Pramila Bala Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.658
Charu Chunder Ghose, J.1. In this case the main contention that has been urged on behalf of the two defendants, who are appellants before us, is that the monies payable under a Policy of Insurance, being Policy No. 4667, issued by the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society, Limited, did not form part of the assets of the estate of one Behari Lal Sircar deceased and that his widow, Pramila Bala Dassi, had no rights therein. In order to understand the precise significance of this contention, it is necessary to set out the facts giving rise to the litigation out of which the present appeal has arisen. It appears that one Behari Lal Sircar insured his life on the 29th March, 1910, for a sum of Rs. 500. The material words of the Policy with which we are concerned are as follows: 'The Society hereby guarantees to insure that if the insured pays to the Society at their office in Calcutta on the fifth day of March, nineteen hundred and ten and each succeeding year up to and including the ye...
Dwijapada Haldar and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal401
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the two accused persons were put on their trial on a charge of having raped a girl called Tustumoni on 28th May last in the afternoon. The girl appeared to be of the age of 16 or 17. It is said that neither her father-in-law nor her mother-in-law was in the house.2. The defence was that the girl was the kept woman of one of the witnesses, Hari Narayan and that the whole story was false, and it was alleged that it arose out of enmity with Hari Narayan.3. There were many questions of fact for the jury upon which, it seems to me, that the jury might have come to conclusions one way or the other and would have had some reason in either case. We are now concerned with the question whether the case was put properly to the jury and it is of no avail at this stage for us to consider the questions of fact about which there was evidence both ways.4. We have been taken through the charge of the learned Judge and I must say that it seems to me an admirable charge. It de...
Keramat Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal862,113Ind.Cas.842
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made under Section 476, Criminal P.C., directing a complain to be made. The complaint is for an offence under Section 193, I.P.C., i.e., complaint for giving false evidence. It appears that the appellant was the first witness for prosecution in a case in which 14 persons were charged with rioting and arson in connexion with soma char lands and it would seem that in the course of his deposition he made contradictory statements and that upon that basis the order complained of has been made. The formal complaint sets out different passages and leaves the matter there with a request to take necessary steps. When we look at the order-sheet of the learned Sessions Judge we find that this order was made on the application of the Public Prosecutor. It seems to have been a fact that the present appellant did his best to say by way of explanation that he was tired and confused and that he did not contradict himself out of malice or wilfully. It does...
Payari Mohan Mahajan and ors. Vs. Siddique Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal531a,117Ind.Cas.675
Mitter, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal against the decision of the District Judge of Chittagong dated 14th August 1925 which affirmed a decision of the Munsif of Fatickchari dated 27th August 1924.2. Plaintiff brought the suit in which this appeal arises to recover possession of the disputed land from the defendants on the ground that he is a raiyat and that the predecessor of the defendants Rahamat Ali had dar-raiyati right under him and that Rahamat Ali having died the defendants have acquired no right to the dar-raiyati as the said interest is not heritable.2. The defence of the defendants was that the plaintiff was a raiyat at fixed rate in respect of the land in suit. He granted a permanent and heritable jotedari right to the defendants' predecessor Rahamat Ali by a patta executed in the year 1258 M.E. 1896 and the plaintiff was estopped from denying defendants' title to the land and from claiming khas possession. The Munsif held that the plaintiff was a raiyati at fixed rent and...
Muktaram Rakhit and ors. Vs. Gomasta Mahato and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal654
1. This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why the decree of this Court made by Mr. Justice Newbould and myself on 6th July 1925 should not be vacated or such other order made as might be deemed fit and proper. The rule came before my learned brothers Cuming and Mukerji, JJ., who in their order dated 17th February last expressed their opinion that it was not open to them to vacate the decree, and that the proper procedure to follow in the circumstances was the procedure described by Mr. Justice Asutosh Mookerjee in the case of Abdul Aziz v. Lakhmi Chandra Mazumdar A.I.R. 1923 Cal. 676, namely that the case should be placed before me for orders.2. At the outset of the argument before me Mr. Chakravarti, on behalf of the opposite parties raised the question whether I had jurisdiction to hear the Rule without an order from the Chief Justice, and suggested that the formal orders of the Chief Justice should be obtained. The matter was accordingly referred to the...
Rameswar Prosad Kessur Prosad Vs. Ramapada Ghose and Sons
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal63
Costello, J.1. This is an application to set aside an ex-parte decree made by me on 28th November 1927 on the ground that such decree was obtained improperly and to some texent fraudulently by the plaintiffs in the suit so far as the latter allegation is concerned, it was not seriously or at any rate very strenuously pressed by Mr. Ghosh on behalf of the defendants, who are the applicants in this matter. The only allegation with regard to that seems to have been that in the course of a somewhat provocative correspondence between the attorneys to the parties, the attorney for the plaintiff concealed the fact that he was intending to apply for the decree in question. The main ground upon which the application is founded is that no notice was given under Rule 30, Chap. 10 of the Rules of this Court. That rule provides that certain suits and matters should be placed in the special peremptory lists for the Courts to which they are assigned, and amongst such suits and matters are those defin...
Rameswar Prosad Kessur Prosad Vs. Bamapada Ghose and Sons
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.85
Costello, J.1. This is an application to set aside an ex parte decree made by me on the 28th of November, 1927, on the ground that such decree was obtained improperly, and to some extent fraudulently by the plaintiffs in the suit. So far as the latter allegation is concerned, it was not seriously or at any rate very strenuously pressed by Mr. Ghosh on behalf of the defendants, who are the applicants in this matter. The only allegation with regard to that seems to have been that in the course of a somewhat provocative correspondence between the attorneys to the parties the attorney for the plaintiff concealed the fact that he was intending to apply for the decree in question. The main ground upon which the application is founded is that no notice was given under Rule 30, Chap. X of the Rules of this Court, That rule provides that certain suits and matters should be placed in the Special Peremptory Lists for the Courts to which they are assigned, (and amongst such suits and matters are t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »