Kolkata Court May 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.
Gour Mohan Sarkar and anr. Vs. Hari Mohan Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Cal161
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit in ejectment.2. Plaintiff's case is that he had a raiyati right over 88 bighas odd land bearing a rent of Rs. 83-5-7 1/2 pies per year and that the defendant is an under-raiyat under him, that the plaintiff served a notice under Section 49, Ben. Ten. Act, on the defendant for vacating the land at the end of Chaitra, 1329 B.S. and that the defendant did not give up possession and hence the suit was instituted. The defence of the defendant is that he is an occupancy raiyat and that no notice was served on him.3. The Court of first instance found that the status of the plaintiff was that of a raiyat and that consequently the defendant was an under-raiyat, that notice under Section 49, Ben. Ten. Act, was served on the defendant and that the plaintiff was entitled to get khas possession of the suit lands by ejecting the defendants therefrom. A decree for mesne profiits was also given.4. Against this decision of the Mun...
Monmotho Nath and ors. Vs. BepIn Behary and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal582
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of some land on a declaration of the plaintiff's title thereto. The allegations on which the plaintiff brought the suit were briefly these: The land belonged to one Preonath Lahiri, the father of defendants 1 to 3 and defendants 17 and 18. In the year 1300 B.S. Preonath sold the land to one Promothonath Ghose. Promotho possessed the land for a short period after which he sold the same to the plaintiff, in the year 1302 B.S. After the purchase the land was for some time under the direct management of the plaintiff but as the plaintiff was an inhabitant of Calcutta it was not very convenient for him to look after the property and so he entrusted the management of the property to Preonath who was no other than his sister's husband. After Preonath's death his sons were placed in charge of the property and they continued managing the property for a pretty long term of years. Preonath's sons subsequently colluded with the landlor...
E.S. Olpadvolla Vs. James Wright
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal873,117Ind.Cas.691
1. In this case the petitioner who is the proprietor of the well-known firm of Soda-water manufacturers called Byron & Co. has been convicted under Sections 483 and 486, I.P.C., and 6 and 7, Merchandise Marks Act. The short facts involved in this case are as follows : It appears that the complainant James Wright who is connected with a firm called Rose and Thistle has introduced into the market soda-water supplied in bottles with a 'frosted appearance bearing the letters 'R and T Ltd.' at the bottom of the bottles. These bottles have a special paper label bearing the words 'Rose and Thistle Ltd. Frosted Soda.' These bottles have a capsule called crown cork. It appears that in Calcutta there is a common practice for various kinds of bottles to be used by different mineral water manufacturing firms indiscriminately, that is to say, customers send in indiscriminately, Byron's bottles to Rose and Thistle in 'order that the bottles may be filled with soda-water or other waters and Rose and ...
intaz Mandal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal92
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case the appeal was admitted on the ground of sentence. The appellant has urged that if the facts set out in para. 7 of his petition affirmed with an affidavit bearing date 27th April 1928, had been brought to the notice of the jury the jury might have taken a different view and that bearing that in mind the sentence ought to be reduced. The facts set out in para. 7 of the petition referred to above happened after the verdict of the jury had been given, and it is inconceivable to us how those facts could be utilized for the purpose of inducing this Court to alter or reduce the sentence passed on the appellant in any manner whatsoever. Those facts are not facts to be found on the Sessions record. Therefore, if the matter stood alone the question of sentence would have to be considered from the point of view indicated above and the result would be that this Court would find itself unable to interfere with the sentence imposed in this case. But in this appeal our ...
Monmotho Nath Alias Moni Mohan Lahiri and ors. Vs. BepIn Behary Munshi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.532
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of some land on a declaration of the plaintiff's title thereto. The allegations on which the plaintiff brought the suit were briefly these. The land belongs to one Preonath Lahiri the father of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and defendants Nos. 17 and 18. In the year 1300 B.S. Preonath sold the land to one Proraotho Nath Ghese. Promotho possessed the land for a short period after which he sold the same to the plaintiff in the year 1302 B.S. After the purchase the land was for some time under the direct management of the plaintiff but as the plaintiff was an inhabitant of Calcutta it was not very convenient for him to look after the property and so he entrusted the management of the property to Preonath who was no other than his sister's husband. After Preonath's death his sons were placed in charge of the property and they continued managing the property for a pretty long term of years. Preonath's sons subsequently colluded with th...
Kandarpa NaraIn Mazumdar and anr. Vs. Bindu Bashini Dasi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal730,114Ind.Cas.657
Mukherji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for recovery of khas possession of certain lands from the defendants on the allegation that the tenant thereof had abandoned the tenancy and made a transfer of the same in favour of the defendants. It was alleged that the tenancy in suit was a non-transferable occupancy holding. The suit was resisted on the ground that the tenancy in question was a mokurari one and further that, when in execution of a decree for rent which had previously been obtained by the plaintiffs as against the then tenant the holding was put up to sale, the defendants made a deposit under the provisions of Section 170, Clause (3), Ben. Ten. Act and the landlords, that is to say, the plaintiffs, withdrew the same. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but, on an appeal being preferred by the defendants, the learned District Judge has dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs have thereupon preferred this second appeal.2. Now, the facts upon w...
J.C. Galstaun Vs. Diana Sarkies and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal227
Lort-Williams, J.1. This case started as an originating summons which was originally heard by my learned brother Costello, J., who made an order on 6th July transferring it to the list of suits for hearing, and giving certain orders, with regard to discovery and evidence, and reserving the question of jurisdiction.2. The direction asked for under Rule 1, Ch. 13, Rules of the High Court, comes under Sub-section (e) of that rule or alternatively under (b), the one directing executors, administrators, etc., to do or abstain from doing a particular act and the other concerning the ascertainment of any class of creditor and the principal direction asked for by the plaintiff in this case is a direction to the defendants the executrix and executor to admit him the plaintiff as a secured creditor of the estate of C.M. Sarkies deceased.3. I am of opinion that this procedure if allowed would simply amount to a way of avoiding the limitations imposed by the Letters Patent for the High Court of Ca...
Galstaun Vs. Diana Sarkies
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.854
Williams, J.1. This case started as an Originating Summons which was originally heard by my learned brother Mr. Justice Costello, who made an order on the 6th of July, transferring it to the list of suits for hearing, and giving certain orders with regard to discovery, and evidence, and reserving the question of jurisdiction.2. The direction asked for under Rule 1, Chap. XIII of the Rules of the High Court comes under Sub section (e) of that rule or alternatively under (b), the one directing executors, administrators, etc., to do or abstain from doing a particular act and the other concerning the ascertainment of any class of creditor, and the principal direction asked for by the plaintiff in this case is a direction to the defendants the executrix and executor to admit him the plaintiff as a secured creditor of the estate of C.M. Sarkies deceased.3. I am of opinion that this procedure if allowed would simply amount to a way of avoiding the limitations imposed by the Letters Patent for...
Aswani Kumar Dhupi and anr. Vs. Har Kumar Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal891,114Ind.Cas.482
1. This is an appeal by defendants 2 and 4 against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bakarganj, affirming the decision of the Munsiff. Tbe suit out of which this appeal arises was for ejectment of the heirs of a deceased tenant and their transferees on the allegation that the tenancy was a non-transferable occupancy holding and with regard to another piece of land it was an under-raiyati which the heirs of the original tenant Dwarka have abandoned. The heirs are Rabi and Kanai of whom Rabi alone has been made a party to this suit Evidently Kanai's interest will not be affected in any way and persons setting up the title of Kanai cannot be affected by any decree in this suit.2. It is, however, necessary to examine the decision of tbe Suboi dinate Judge. Dwarka died in Kartik 1350. It is said that the sons of Dwarka left the village in Falgun 1324. The plaintiff took settlement from the landlord in Baisak 1325 and is alleged to have taken possession. He next alleged tha...
Sheikh Sona Mia Vs. Sheikh Ajor Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.416
George Claus Rankin, C.J.1. This is a simple case. It appears from the findings of fact of the lower Appellate Court that, some five years before the suit, the plaintiff sold certain land to the defendant No. 1. He got the purchase-money and he put the defendant No. 1 in possession of the land. He also executed a document of transfer but represented to the defendant No. 1 that it was not necessary to have it registered and the document was not registered. He brings this suit to eject the defendants. The lower Appellate Court has proceeded on this principle: that the 1st defendant's right to bring a suit for specific performance of that contract is now barred by lapse of time; and the Court has accordingly decreed the plaintiff's suit without putting him on any terms whatsoever either as to the refund of the purchase-money or otherwise. The question is whether that is sound law. In my opinion, it is not. Whether or not the decision in the case of Mahomed Musa v. Aghore Kumar Ganguli 28 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »