Kolkata Court April 1928 Judgments
Abdul Munser Munshi and ors. Vs. Yakub Talukdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal703a,117Ind.Cas.599
Mitter, J.1. This is plaintiffs landlords appeal and arises out of a suit for rent. Plaintiffs claimed rent at the rata of Rs. 24-2-0. The defence of the defendant was that the rent was payable at the rate of Rs. 18 per annum. Plaintiffs purchased the superior interest in the year 1914. In the year 1899 the defendant mortgaged the rent land to the plaintiff and borrowed a certain sum of money. In that mortgage-deed it was stated by the defendant that the rent in respect of this holding payable to the superior landlord was Rs. 18. In 1904 the mortgage debt was paid off and as I have already stated ten years after, in 1914, plaintiff purchased the superior interest. The court of first instance held that the collection papers on which the plaintiffs relied were not genuine and should not be relied on, and that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that Rs. 24-20 was the rental payable in respect of the holding. The Court, of first instance further relied on the mortgage bond and held tha...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Mani Dasi and ors. Vs. Upendra Nandan Das Mahapatra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal706,118Ind.Cas.338
Cuming, J.1. These are a number of appeals which arise out of a number of rent suits which were tried together. The main contention of the defendants with which we are now concerned is that there is a custom of suspension of rent when the crops have been destroyed by flood or drought. The trial Court gave effect to the contention and dealt with the cases on this footing dismissing the claim for rents for the year 1329 Amli. The landlord appealed. The lower appellate Court found with regard to the holdings within the touji No. 274 that the defendants had failed to prove the existence of any such custom. This disposed of appeals Nos. 173, 174,178, 182, 187, 188, 190,191, 194,195 and 197 of the lower appellate Court. With regard to the appeals with regard to tenancies within touji No. 275 he held that the question was res judicata because in certain proceedings under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, it had been held that no such custom existed. He therefore decided these appeals in favour of t...
Tag this Judgment!Manmotha Kumar Bose Vs. Abu Jafer Mahomed HashIn Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal560
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This appeal relates to a question of costs. It is settled law that the Court of Appeal will never interfere with the order of the Judge in the trial Court as to costs, unless the order offends against some well recognized principle or unless the Court of Appeal feels that it would be unjust to the party against whom it is made if the order be allowed to stand.2. In this case, the plaintiff's suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 705 and it was instituted under Order 37, Civil P.C. The claim arose on a promissory note executed by the defendant on 23rd December 1926, for Rs. 600 with interest thereon at 24 per cent per annum. Pearson, J., made a decree on 9th January 1928, for the amount claimed, but he did not allow any costs to the plaintiff.3. On appeal it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that, having regard eo the words used in Order 37, Rule 2, Sub-clause (2), Civil P.C., the plaintiff was entitled, as a matter of right, to a decree for costs on the prescribe...
Tag this Judgment!Manmotha Kinkur Bose Vs. Abu Japer Mahomed HashIn Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1928
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.736
George Claus Rankin, C.J.1. This appeal relates to a question of costs. It is settled law that the Court of Appeal will never interfere with the order of the Judge in the trial Court as to costs unless the order offends against some well recognised principle or unless the Court of Appeal feels that it would be unjust to the party against whom it is made if the order be allowed to stand.2. In this case the plaintiff's suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 705 and it was instituted under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The claim arose on a promissory note executed by the defendant on the 23rd December, 1926, for Rs. 600 with interest thereon at 24 per cent. per annum. Mr. Justice Pearson made a decree on the 9th January, 1928, for the amount claimed but he did not allow any costs to the plaintiff.3. On appeal it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that having regard to the words used in Order XXXVII, Rule 2, Sub-clause (2), Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff was entitle...
Tag this Judgment!Panchanan Mukherjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal257
Suhrawardy, J.1. This rule was obtained on the ground that a certain statement made by the prosecution to the Sub-Inspector of Police at the Park Street Police Station was not allowed to be proved by the defence. It appears that the girl was found in the house of the accused at Utterpara and brought down to the Calcutta Police Station at Park Street where she made a statement to Mrs. Mac Gilchrist who had brought the girl up from her childhood and after having a talk with her made a statement to the Police Sub-Inspector. Thereafter the accused was charged under Section 376, with rape on the girl and under Section 354 for outraging her modesty. The trial Court in its judgment says that the statement was not proved because it was entered in a confidential diary of the Police Sub-Inspector. The Crown has not appeared in this case and I have, therefore, to decide the question raised on the law and facts placed before me by the learned Counsel for the accused. He has referred to Section 78-...
Tag this Judgment!Umedmull Mangalchand Vs. Mani Ram Agarwalla and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal399
Pearson, J.1. The only question is that of limitation. The suit is on an adjustment of accounts on a commission agency Which took place on 15th April 1921 The effect of the adjustment was that Rs. 4,000 Was found due by the defendant firm to the plaintiff firm. The document signed by the defendant firm embodied an undertaking to pay the amount by instalments of Rs. 500 and Rs. 200 alternatively, eleven in all, running from 13th Aswin Sudhi 1978 until 13th Aswin Sudhi 1983. The first named date corresponds with 14th October 1921. There was also a provision in the document which, as translated, is as follows:If we fail to pay the instalments we shall pay interest on all the instalments at 12 annas (twelve annas) percent per month. If we fail to pay one instalment you will be competent to realize all the instalments in a lump sum by filing a suit.2. In these circumstances it is argued on behalf of the first defendant that the suit is barred by limitation on the ground that the very first ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Charan Goldar and ors. Vs. Hamid Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal575,117Ind.Cas.595
ORDERRankin, c.J.1. In this case two learned Judges differed in the decision of a second appeal and in the end Cuming, J., under the amended letters prevailed and the appeal was dismissed Thereupon an application was made to Patent for a certificate that the case was a fit one to be taken on further appeal. That application was made subsequently to the learned Judge upon a separate petition. It was rejected and the rejection was recorded in the order sheet ;Bead an application filed on 23rd February 1928, and moved to-day. It is rejected. 2. The order is dated 24th February 1928. 3. From that an appeal has been brought and the memorandum of appeal when lodged was excepted to by the stamp reporter on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped. It does not appear to have been sufficiently stamped, but the question of the correct Court-fee has been referred to me by the Taxing Officer under Section 5, Court-fees Act.4. It is contended for the appellant that this case is governed by Art...
Tag this Judgment!Sourendra Nath Mitra Vs. Jatindra Nath Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal17
1. This rule is directed against an order passed by Mr. B.K. Pal, Subordinate Judge of Backergunge, on 22nd September 1927. The facts which led up to the passing of the said order, shortly stated, are these : The petitioner in this rule was the defendant in a suit which had been instituted by the opposite party in forma pauperis some time ago. That suit was dismissed for default on 19th May 1926 as neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant appeared. On the same day, an application was made by the plaintiff, the opposite party in this rule under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil P.C. On 14th August 1926 when this application was taken up for hearing, neither the plaintiffs nor their pleader happened to be present in Court and it was dismissed for default at about 12-35 p. m. On the same day, the plaintiffs opposite party filed another application for the restoration of the application under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil P.C, that had been dismissed for default as aforesaid and it is this last-mentioned ap...
Tag this Judgment!BepIn Behary Ghatak and anr. Vs. Ramnath Ghatak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal286,110Ind.Cas.422
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case the main contention that has been advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants is that the defendants have acquired no right of easement by the temporary user of water flowing through an artificial channel and in support of this contention reliance was placed on the case of Arkwright v. Gell [1839] 5 M. & W. 203 and the case of Kena Mahomed v. Bohatoo Sircar [1863] Marshall's Rep. 506.2. Now, the facts involved in this appeal are briefly these : The plaintiffs alleged that there was a dahar (low sunken pathway) contiguous on the east of their Dags Nos. 3032 and 3033 and that during the rainy season there is an overflow of the water of this dahar over Dags 3032 and 3033 towards the west, that in 1328 the defendants out the northern ail of Dag 3033 and thereby forced the overflow water to their lands on the north. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had no right to take the water in this manner to their lands.3. The defendants' case was that, durin...
Tag this Judgment!Rebati Mohan Chakrabarti and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal57
Cuming, J.1. This is an appeal by two persons Rebati Mohan Chakravarti alias Eebati Thakur and Jabbar Sheik alias Abdul Jabbar. These two persons were tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Mymensingh sitting with a jury on a charge of daeoity under Section 395, I.P.C, and also under Section 397. The jury unanimously found the two appellants not guilty under Section 397 and they uunanimously found both the appellants guilty under Section 395. The learned Sessions Judge agreeing with this verdict has sentenced them both to four years' rigorous imprisonment and further to a fine of Rs. 50 each in default to suffer further imprisonment for six months.2.The dacoity in question took place in the house of one Mathur Modak on the night of 10th December 1926. The dacoits used guns and some three persons were wounded in the course of the daeoity and cash and ornments were looted.3. The two appellants both pleaded not guilty. The first point raised by the appellants relates to the constitution o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »