Kolkata Court June 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.
PulIn Behary Saha Vs. Mathura Natha Saha Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal863,110Ind.Cas.817
Mallik, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of prices of some articles alleged to have been supplied by the plaintiffs to defendants 1 and 2 on the allegation that defendant 2 who had taken the goods from the shop of the plaintiffs had acted as an agent of defendant 1. The Court of first instance gave a decree against defendant 2 alone holding that defendant 2 had not acted as an agent of defendant 1. On appeal by the plaintiffs the lower appellate Court found that defendant 2 by whom the goods had been taken from the plaintiffs shop was a servant of defendant' 1 and in a way it found also that the goods which had been taken From the shop of the plaintiffs had been received by defendant 1 and had been dealt with by him and on these facts the lower appellate Court gave a decree against defendant 1 alone on the ground that defendant 2 had acted as an agent of defendant 1. Defendant 1 hag appealel to this Court.2. There were two points urged before us on behalf of the appel...
Secretary of State Vs. Kali Brahma Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal571,114Ind.Cas.662
Mitter, J.1. The question raised by this rule is one of considerable importance. This rule was obtained on behalf of the Secretary of State for India, who is the defendant in the action, and was issued on the plaintiff opposite party to show cause why the decree of the Small Cause Court Judge of Jangipur in his favour should not be set aside. The rule relates to an action commenced by the plaintiff opposite party for recovery of a certain sum as damages on the allegation that on the 18th February 1927 his house and of her properties were destroyed by fire caused by sparks coming out of the engine attached to Sahebgunge Howrah passenger train (Down train No. 56) and that the said damage was caused by the neglect of the E.I. Ry. Co. and its agents or servants for which the defendant Company is liable. To this action the Agent of the E.I. Ry. and the Secretary of State for India in Council were made parties. The Agent's., defence was that as the administration of the E.I. Ry. had been tak...
Sudhir Chandra Das Vs. Raseswari Chaudhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal117
Remfry, J.1. In this matter the defendant Cassowary Ohaudhurani has filed exceptions to the report made by the Official Referee of this Court in pursuance of an order made on 6th May 1913. The report was made on 8th December 1916. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the plaintiff on the ground that as the defendant was in contempt she was not entitled to file exceptions to the report. It appears that the defendant is an executrix under the will of her late husband and that there was another executor since deceased. This suit was filed on 27th April 1912 on behalf of the adopted son of the defendant against her and her co-executor for, inter alia, on account of the dealings of the defendant and her co-executor with the estate. To put the matter shortly, accounts were ordered and the defendant as one of the accounting parties was ordered to file her acconnts. A preliminary decree was passed on 6th May 1913. An order was made on 6th May 1916, by Greaves, J., directing the defen...
Asutosh Bhuiyan and ors. Vs. Radhika Lal Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal481
Suhrawardy, J.1. The appellants brought a suit for declaration of their nishkar right to the lands in suit on a declaration that the entry in the Record-of-Rights to the contrary was wrong. Both the Courts below have held that the suit was barred under Article 120, Lim. Act. The Record-of-Rights was finally published on 31st January 1918, and the certificate was signed on 6th June 1918. The present suit was brought on 8th May 1924. It is not disputed that the present suit is one contemplated by Section 111-B, Ben. Ten. Act. The Courts below have held that the cause of action arose on 1st February 1918, and even making allowance for three months as provided in Section 111-B, the suit is barred under Article 120, Lim. Act. The appellants contend that the date of the signing of the certificate should be reckoned as the date on which their right to sue accrued and, therefore, their suit is within time. The various sections bearing on this point are not happily worded so as to put the matte...
Sm. Tilottama Dasi Vs. Madhu Sudan Giri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal713a,117Ind.Cas.703
Mukherji, J.1. The plaintiff instituted this suit to establish his title to certain properties and to recover possession of some of them and to have his possession confirmed in respect of the rest. The. plaintiff's case was that he is the reversioner to one Kamal Giri, who died leaving a widow named Gayamani, and that the latter having died he has become entitled to the properties as such reversioner. His case further was that the defendant Tilottama Dasi who is really an illegitimate daughter of Gayamani had got certain erroneous entries made during the settlement operations1 in respect of the properties and had dispossessed him from some of the properties and was disturbing his possession in the others. The defence, on the merits, was that the defendant is the legitimate daughter of Kamal Giri and as such is entitled to and is in lawful possession of the lands in suit. As regards a part of the lands, namely a plot of two kattas of land, the plaintiff's title was admitted, it being sa...
Rasik Chandra Chakravarti Vs. Jagabandhu Chakravarti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal392,113Ind.Cas.904
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to enforce a simple mortgage-bond executed by defendant 1 in favour of plaintiff's father since deceased for a sum of Rs. 100 on the 25th Kartic 1385 B. S. To understand the case properly as also the arguments that were advanced before us it would be necessary to state the facts of the case in some detail. Defendant 1 the mortgagor, executed a first mortgage in favour of defendant 3's father in July 1909. On 11th November 1911 he executed in favour of the plaintiff's father a second mortgage, the suit for enforcement of which has given rise to the present appeal. On 7th August 1915, the property was sold in execution of a rent-decree and purchased by defendant 2. In 1917 the plaintiff brought a suit to have this rent sale set aside on the ground of fraud as also on the allegation that defendant 2 was a benamidar for defendant 1 2. This suit, however, was dismissed on 3rd September 1919. Thereafter on 7th July 1920 defendant 1...
Mohan Sardar and ors. Vs. Hem Chandra Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal648
C.C. Ghose, J.1. The facts involved in this appeal, shortly stated are as follows:2. One Kushai Sardar for himself and as guardian of his nephew who was then a minor, being defendant 2 and one Amrita Sardarni, as mother and guardian of a minor son, being defendant 3, executed a mortgage in favour of one Nafar Chandra Mandal on 17th Ashar 1310, for a sum of Rs. 525. Kushai had a brother named Kunai, who is dead, and and defendant 2 is the son of Kunai. Defendant 3 is the son of one Gadai who was another son of Kunai. The original mortgagee died sometime ago leaving him surviving his three sons being plaintiffs 1,2 and 3. The plaintiffs including one Poran plaintiff 4 brought a suit on the mortgage on or about 20th February 1918, the total claim being laid at Rs. 997. Defendant 4, Nitai Mandal, was added as a party defendant as the subsequent purchaser of an 8 anna share in the mortgaged premises from defendants 2 and3.3. The suit came on for hearing before the Munsif at Khatra and by hi...
Gopal Chandra Goldar and anr. Vs. Shashi Bhusan Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal852
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of khas possession of some lands -on a declaration of the plaintiffs' title thereto. It appears that the lands in dispute in the present case are included within a bigger area which formed the subject-matter of a previous litigation in the year 1889. The suit between the parties in the year 1889' was compromised and a decree was made therein in accordance with the petition of compromise that was filed. By that decree of compromise it was decreed that the lands consisting of plots Ka, Kha, Ga, Gha and Una lying just on the west of plot No. 1 as shown in Gangesh Babu, the Commissioner's map that was prepared in the case and which was found to belong to one Rajamuddi Sheikh were to be divided in the proportion of 11 and 8 and the 11/19ths share lying on the east was to go to the plaintiffs and the remaining 8/19ths share to go to the defendants. In the year 1902 there was another litigation between the parties relating to a small plot of la...
Dwarkanath Mandal and anr. Vs. Srigobinda Choudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal130
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants ''which arises out of a suit for rent which was dismissed by the Munsif, but an appeal by the plaintiff was decreed by the Subordinate Judge. The points which are urged on behalf of the appellants are three in number. The suit was for rent for the years 1326 to 1330. With regard to the rent of 1326 no decree has been made in favour of the plaintiff, as it was barred by limitation. The facts which gave rise to the question in controversy are these:The estate of the plaintiff was under the management of the Court of Wards. 'The Manager of the Court of Wards applied for a certificate to be filed to the Certificate Officer for rent alleged to be due on account of this tenure from the year 1326 to the year 1329 B.S. The certificate was filed. On the objection of the defendants made under Section 9, Public Demands Recovery Act 3 of 1919 (B.C.), the Certificate Officer cancelled the certificate. The objection was that the rent was to be sus...
Chiranjib Sen Vs. Mohendra Nath Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal90
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for assessment and recovery of rent. It appears that the mahal belongs to the plaintiff and many other cosharers one of whom is the Raja of Dighapatia. In 1884 the plaintiff's father brought a suit in respect of his share in this mahal from which he was dispossessed by the Raja and obtained a decree. Since then, the finding is, the plaintiff has never realized any rent in respect of his share in the mahal which was found to be annas five three eighth pies. In the Record-of-Rights the plaintiff was recorded as a cosharer with the remark that there was no realization of rent in respect of his share. This suit the plaintiff has now brought for ascertainment of the rent, the defendants are liable to pay to him. The defence is that the plaintiff has no right in the mahal, that the defendants were in adverse possession of the plaintiff's share in the mahal, if he had any, that the lands which are char lands did not originally form part of the mahal but wer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »