Kolkata Court July 1928 Judgments
Surendra Chandra Ray Choudhuri Vs. Kedareswar Choudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal156
Suhrawardy, J.1. These five appeals arise out of suits for recovery of rent. They have been decreed by the lower appellate Court at the admitted rate. The plaintiff claims that he is entitled to enhanced rent as fixed by the Settlement Officer under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act. It appears that the plaintiff had several co-sharers in the mehal. There were batwara proceedings and certain lands were allotted to the plaintiff in his Saham. After the publication of the Record-of-Rights he applied for settlement of fair and equitable rent under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act on the grounds which are covered by Section 30, Ben. Ten Act. These applications were fought by the defendants and partially allowed. The plaintiff in these suits now claims rent as fixed by ihe Settlement Officer. The defence with which we are now concerned is that the Settlement Officer had no jurisdiction to try the matter under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act and, therefore, his decree is a nullity and cannot have legal effect...
Tag this Judgment!Linton Vs. Guderian
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal599
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, we have to deal with a husband's petition for divorce filed in this Court under the Indian Divorce Act, on 20th January 1928. The petitioner was apparently born in a part of Poland, which has been referred to as being at that time German Poland. It appears that when he was very young, only 2 or 3 years old, his family removed to Berlin and when the petitioner was about 27, namely, in 1912, he went to London. In 1914, he was married in London to the respondent. It appears that for a time he went to New York, and afterwards to Honolulu. In 1916, he went to New Zealand, where, apparently, his wife's people had some property or connexions. His evidence is that he had been endeavoring to do business in New Zealand in connexion with exportation of goods from Germany. But, as the political condition after the war was not favourable for that kind of business, he, in 1923, abandoned all hopes of continuing that business in New Zealand and accordingly he removed with...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Bari Dewan and ors. Vs. Hrishikesh Mittra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal459,122Ind.Cas.552
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly at Howrah by which he decreed 'the plaintiff's suit with regard to a plot of land situated within the putni mehal named Pir Seranga. The plaintiff's case shortly stated is that the land appertains to the tenancy of one Moti Lal Ghose who was the Naib of the previous putnidar of lot Seranga, and after his death a confirmatory lease was taken in favour of his daughter's sons during their minority by their father. These daughter's sons were expectant reversioners of Moti Lal's estate after the death of his widow. The daughter's sons Moti Lal, who may be described as the Sircars, were in possession of the land in question from whom the present plaintiff purchased the property by a deed dated 14th February 1920. When the plaintiff wanted to take possession of this property there was a dispute raised by the defendants who claimed to be in possession of the property. That d...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Niamat Vs. Shaikh Jalil
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal715,117Ind.Cas.833
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtor No. 2. The matter in controversy in this appeal arises in this way : There was a decree for partition in which the plaintiff was allotted certain lands and the defendant got certain lands. When the commissioner went to the locality for delivery of possession of the allotments made defendant 2 said that there had been an adjustment of the decree between himself and the plaintiff by which the plaintiff gave up his claim to have possession of certain plots of land in lieu of other plots and as a consideration for this concession on the part of the plaintiff he had been paid defendant 2 a sum of Rs. 85. The result of this agreement, if given effect to would be that the plaintiff would get 2.82 acres of land instead of 4-36 acres of land to which he was entitled under the decree. The plaintiff denied this adjustment. The Munsif believed the story of defendant 2 and made an order purporting to have been made under Section 47...
Tag this Judgment!Purna Chandra Khan and anr. Vs. Nalini Kanta Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal741
1. The two persons who are now the respondents before us brought a suit for recovery of rent from the defendants in respect of some lands which they hold and which belong to a village deity called Shib Thakur. The two original plaintiffs claimed to be collecting shebaits of the Thakur and said that they were chosen as the persons who were entitled in the name of the village community to realize the rent payable to the Thakurs. The entire village community was the shebait of the Thakur and they had appointed these two plaintiffs for collecting rent due to the Thakur. The community included the present defendants also. The rent was claimed from the defendants at Rs. 25-8-0 a year. The defendants admitted it to be Rs. 14-4-0 a year. Both the Courts below have believed the plaintiffs' evidence and given a decree against the defendants. Some time after the institution of the suit 18 villagers applied to be added as plaintiffs, and they were so added. These added plaintiffs did not take any ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Nath Das Vs. AlauddIn Mistry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal828
Mitter, J.1. The rule arises out of an application made by the auction purchaser who is the opposite party to the rule under Order 21, Rule 91, Civil P.C., to set aside a sale on the ground that the judgment debtor had no saleable interest in the property sold. The case made by the opposite party is that the property purchased by him was wrongly described in the sale proclamation. The wrong description is said to have consisted in (1) overstatement of the area: (ii) mention of the existence of a pucca privy on the land which really does not exist. It is said that if the auction-purchaser had not been misled in these two particulars he would not have purchased the property in question.2. The Munsiff dismissed the application being of opinion that Order 21, Rule 91 of the Code has no application to the present case and that the remedy of the purchaser was by a suit.3. An appeal was taken against this order to the District Judge of 21 Pargannas.4. The learned District Judge held that Orde...
Tag this Judgment!Khantamoyee Debi and ors. Vs. Hridayananda Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal149,118Ind.Cas.566
1. The following genealogy will serve to explain the relationship amongst the parties to this litigation: Ramananda | __________________________________________________ | | | | | | Parmananda * * * * | alias Mrittunjoy | | | Kalikananda | | | _____________________________ | | | | W.1 W. 2 Rajmoni D. 1267=1860 | | | |Krishnananda D. 1250=1842 | | __________________________ | | | | Umasundari D. 1276=1869 Bamasundari D. 1322 | | =29th Feb. 1916 | | | | Ananda Mohan D.1312=1905 Bhuban Mohini-Defdt.5 | | | | | Dwijendra K. Roy-Defdt. 6 | __________________________________________ | | | | | | W. 1 W. 2 W. 3 W. 4 |Suratarangini, Khadyatamayi, Kusum Kumari, Kshirode Basini, | Defendant 4 defendant 1 defendant 2 defendant 3 | Husband- |Jnanendra M. Sinha, |Defendant 7 | ___________________________________| | Brahmananda alias Rajnarain | Harananda | _________________ | | Biswananda Budhananda | _________________________________________ | | | | Hridayananda, Umeshananda, Saradananda, Bichitrana...
Tag this Judgment!Sashi Dulal Pyne and ors. Vs. Nanda Lal Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal162
Mitter, J.1. This rule must be made absolute. It appears that the opposite party preferred a claim under the provisions of Order 38, Civil P.C., to an attachment of the disputed properties before judgment. On 14th March 1928 that claim was rejected by the Munsif as untimely and on the further ground that the decree-holder's attachment preceded the auction-sale of the opposite party. On 20th March 1928 an application was made by the opposite party before the Munsif under Section 151, Civil P.C., and that application was allowed by the Munsif on the ground that he had rejected the application summarily on 14th March 1928, not taking into consideration the provisions of Order 38, Rule 10, Civil P.C. The Munsif really set aside the previous order on the ground that he had passed the previous order on a misconception of the law. That certainly was not a ground which justified him in setting aside the order purported to have been made by way of review under Section 151 of the Code. His order...
Tag this Judgment!Neckbar Vs. Prakash Nag Choudhari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Cal86
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against the order of the Subordinate Judge affirming that of the Munsiff by which he rejected the objection of the judgment-debtor that the application made by the decree-holder for delivery of possession under Order 21, Rule 95 of a certain property which was in the occupancy of the judgment-debtor and which the decree-holder had purchased in execution of his decree was barred by limitation. The sale was held on 19th May 1922. It was confirmed on 23rd June 1922. On 18th June 1925 an application was made by the judgment-debtor to set aside the sale. That application was dismissed on 29th April 1926 by the trial Court. The judgment-debtor appealed against that decision and that appeal was also dismissed on 15th September 1926. The decree-holder made the application for delivery of possession on 28th February 1927. The objection of the judgment-debtor is that this application is barred by limitation. Both Courts have answered the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bisweswar Das Mondal Vs. Guru Charan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal727
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, the plaintiff one Bisweswar brings his suit for the enforcement of a simple mortgage bond for a sum of Rs. 500 with interest. The defendant is one Guru Charan who is the nephew of one Bam Durlav, the plaintiff's father. The facts found by the learned District Judge are, in substance, these : Guru Charan bought certain land and, as regards that land, Bam Durlav was his bargadar. This land appears to have been let out to tenants and the management of the land and the receipt of the part of the produce which belonged to Guru Charan were committed to Ram Durlav who was his uncle. In these circumstances Guru Charan, at the time of the mortgage in question having got into litigation, had been in need to raise a loan and commissioned Rim Durlav to arrange a loan for him. Rim Darlav represented that ha hid arranged the loan from one Satish Kabiraj; but in truth and fast, the money that WM being lent was being lent not by Satish Kabiraj at all but by Rim Darlav hims...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »