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.
Kalamjan Bibi and ors. Vs. Sahajana Bibi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal77
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge of Tipperah reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge in a suit for partition. The plaintiffs claim as heirs of one Hossanaddin. He left four daughters, two of whom are plaintiffs and two are defendants. Hossanaddin is said to have-executed a registered kabala in favour of of his wife of all the lands in dispute. That document was marked Ex. A. After the death of Hossanaddin his widow executed a document Ex. B dated the 29th Assin 1316, by which she transferred all the lands she received from her husband under the document Ex. A in favour of one of her daughters defendant 1. Defendant 1 resided with her husband with Amina Bibi, the widow of Hossanaddin. After the death of Amina Bibi the plaintiffs have brought this suit for partition on the allegation that they are in-possession of some of the properties left by their father. They disputed the document Ex- A also....
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Murray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal557,117Ind.Cas.673
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Local Government against an order of the Deputy Magistrate of Howrah dated 28th October 1927, by which he acquitted the accused under Section 245, Criminal P.C., of the offences alleged to have been committed by him under Section 41(a) read with Section 26 and Section 41(h) read with Section 35, Factories Act (Act 12 of 1911, as amended-by Act 5 of 1923).2. What happened in this case was as follows : On 28th June 1927, the Inspector of Factories, Bengal, inspected the Howrah Jute Mills of which the accused Murray was the Manager and found three persons, named, Jokadia, Varalee and Sukfaria, employed and working in the Drawing Department without having any specified hours fixed for their employment in contravention of Section 26, Factories Act, and further found that though the said three persons had commenced to work at 9-30 a.m. their names had not been entered in the prescribed register at 10-20 in contravention of Section 35 of the Act and Rule ...
Kinu Sundari Devi Vs. Narendra Nath Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal27
1. In this case the appellant was directed to produce a minor in Court. The minor was according to the Judge's judgment a young woman of 20 years of age. Apparently she wanted only a few months to attain her majority. Under such circumstances it seems rather difficult to ask an old lady like the appellant to produce that young woman in Court. It is also doubtful whether the Judge had power to make an order under Section 45(1), Guardians and Wards Act to .direct this third person to produce the minor in Court. No direction was made under Section 12(1) of the Act, and apparently as a guardian for the person of the minor was appointed no such order was competent. The learned Judge of course, could direct the grand-mother to compel the minor to return to the custody of her guardian in obedience to an order Section 25(1) of the Act, but the learned Judge refused to make an order under Section 25(1).2. Under these circumstances the order (imposing a fine on the maternal grandmother does not ...
Daliluddi Vs. Bakshi Bepari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal140
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is a case arising out of an order passed by the Munsif under Section 66(3), Ben Ten Act A decree was made in a suit brought by the respondents for rent and ejectment of an under-raiyat Under Sub-section (2), Section 66 of the Act a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs specifying the amount of the decree and the interest due Under the second part of that Sub-section it seems to me that it is not necessary to specify anything with reference to the execution of the decree, because the law provides that the decree should not be executed if the amount of the decree and the costs of the suit are pard into Court within 15 days or on the re-opening day, if the Court is closed on the fifteenth day Under Sub-section (3) the Court may for special leasons extend the penod of 15 days The Munsif extended the time On appeal to the Subordinate Judge he held that the time was wrongly extended and he set aside the order of the lower Court extending the time From that order...
Upendra Nath Ghose and ors. Vs. Baikuntha Nath Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal237
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiffs for certain reliefs which are of a somewhat unusual character. The-plaintiffs' case shortly stated was that their grandfather, Raj Krishna Ghose and Sri Ballav Ghose, the grand father of the defendants 1 to 8 and Kali Charan Ghose who was ths great-grandfather of defendant 10 and grandfather of the husband of defendant 9 were three brothers whose ancestor had installed a deity in their ancestral dwelling house, and the deity according to the plaintiffs went by the 'name of ' Dayal ' and according to the defendants ' Sridhar, ' that the deity is a Saligram Bigraha and there is daily worship of the deity at, the place where it was installed and that the said three brothers used to worship the deity every day as well as on special occasions, according to their shares which were equal. The plaintiffs alleged that in consequence of certain events that took place it is they and the principal defendants and ...
Ramgopal Sanyal and anr. Vs. Narendra Nath Ghatak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal226
1. This revision petition is directed against an order of the District Judge of Rajshahi dated 30th January 1928, dismissing the petitioners' appeal on the ground that no appeal lay from the order of the trial Court to him. The plaintiff-petitioners brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Rajshahi for a declaration that the sale held in execution of a decree obtained by the opposite party was null and void. The Subordinate Judge ordered the petitioners to put in Court-fees sufficient to cover the value of the claim. The petitioners instead of doing that applied for amendment of the plaint. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the petition for amendment and thereafter rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil P.C. That order is according to the definition of 'decree' as given in Section 2, Civil P.C., a decree and was open to appeal. The petitioners appealed to the District Judge who dismissed the appeal on the ground that no appeal lay to him.2. This Rule has ...
Hriday Nath Roy Vs. Akhil Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal445
Suhrawardy, J.1. In this case the respondent is the Secretary of a religious association called the Amraguri Navavidhan Brahma Samaj. Some years ago he brought a suit against the defendants as Secretary of the Association for recovery of possession of the land in suit on the allegation that it was owned by the Brahma Samaj. That suit was decreed on 26th November 1909. The defendants appealed; but before the appeal was finally heard the plaintiff took possession through Court on 12th September 1910. He was subsequently dispossessed by the defendants in November 1910 which dispossession gave rise to the present suit. The appeal in the previous case was finally decided by the lower appellate Court on :25th July 1911 and dismissed, the decree in favour of the plaintiff having been maintained. The present suit was instituted on December 1920. Both the Courts below have given a partial decree to the plaintiff.2. The only point that has been argued before us is that the suit in its present fo...
Srijukta Sarajubala Devi and ors. Vs. Sreemati Jyotirmoyee Debi and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.113
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Fifth Court, Dacca, dated the 7th of June, 1926, dismissing their suit. The suit was for recovery of possession of a taluk on the allegation that the plaintiffs were the heirs under the Hindu Law of Raja Kali Narayan Roy who was the original owner of the property. The allegations of the plaintiffs were that the Raja granted a sub-lease of the taluk to his daughter Kripamoyee Devi on cerlain conditions. The Raja died in 1878, Kripamoyee died on the 27th of April, 1920, without leaving any issue. Under the terms of the lease Kripamoyee got only a life-interest and on her death without issue the lease-hold interest lapsed and the property has reverted to the estate of Kali Narayau and the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of it as his heirs. The defendants claim the property under a Will said to have been executed by Kripamoyee and they allege that Kripamoyee had an a...
Hriday Nath Roy Vs. Akhil Chandra Roy as Secretary to the Amaragori Na ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1928
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.299
Zahhadur Rahim Zahid Suhrawardy, J.1. In this case the respondent is the Secretary of a religious association called the Amraguri Navavidhan Brahma Samaj. Some years ago he brought a suit against the defendants as Secretary of the Association for recovery of possession of the land in suit on the allegation that it was owned by the Brahma Samaj. That suit was decreed on the 26th November, 1909. The defendants appealed but before the appeal was finally heard the plaintiff took possession through Court on the 12th September, 1910. He was subsequently dispossessed by the defendants in November, 1910, which dispossession gave rise to the present suit. The appeal in the previous case was finally decided by the lower Appellate Court on the 25th July, 1911, and dismissed, the decree in favour of the plaintiff having been maintained. The present suit was instituted on December, 1920. Both the Courts below have given a partial decree to the plaintiff.2. The only point that has been argued before...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›