Kolkata Court July 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.
Abinash Chandra Bidyanidhi Bhattacharjee Vs. Dasarath Malo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal123,114Ind.Cas.84
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, the plaintiff brought his suit upon a mortgage bond. The Munsif decreed the suit for the full amount holding that the execution of the bond had been proved and holding also as regards defendant 2 (who was interested because subsequently to the mortgage bond he had purchased a tin hut which was part of the mortgaged subjects) that the plaintiff's claim prevailed against the claim of the defendant 2. Defendant 2's case was that he had purchased the tin hut not from the mortgagor but from another. However, the Munsif decreed the suit both as regards the tin hut and the land. So far as defendant 1 is concerned, he did not appear at the trial to contest the suit. The contest was between the plaintiff and defendant 2 throughout. Defendant 2 appealed to the lower appellate Court and the first ground he took was that this mortgage was invalid because it had not been properly attested as required by law. On that issue, the learned Subordinate Judge of Dacca found fo...
Bejoy Kumar Sen and anr. Vs. Kusum Kumari Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal315
Suhrawardy, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a contribution suit. Jagabandhu the predecessor of the plaintiff, Mathura Nath the predecessor of defendants 1-3, Umesh Chandra the predecessor of defendants 5 and 6 and defendant 4 held a Nim Osat Taluk. The landlord in execution of a decree for arrears of rent in respect of it brought the taluk to sale when one Somoraddi who had a subordinate interest in it deposited the decretal amount under Section 171, Ben. Ten. Act. Subsequently he brought a suit against the Nim Osat Talukdars to recover the amount he had paid on their behalf to satisfy the landlord's decree. He obtained a decree and in execution of it some property belonging exclusively to the plaintiff was sold for Rs. 1,033. The plaintiff, therefore, sued defendants 1-3, defendants 5-6 and defendant 4 to recover from each set of defendants 1/4th share of the sum of Rs. 1,033 with interest thereon. It appears that the decree-holder Somoraddi's debts were not fully satisfied by the...
Moolji Sicca and Co. Vs. Ramjan Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Cal678,129Ind.Cas.612
Page, J.1. This is a passing off action. The trial ran its tedious course for many days but in my opinion it is a very plain case. The suit relates to labels attached to packets or bundles of biris. A biri is an inferior substitute for a cigarette and is composed of rolled tendoo leaves with a little tobacco inside. Many decisions were canvassed before me at the trial but the law applicable to the circumstances of this case is clear and simple and the decision will be seen to turn upon the issue whether the plaintiffs' or the defendant's labels were the first to be put on the market.2. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendant's labels (Exs. 10 and 4) are colourable imitations of the plaintiffs' label, Ex. T. They claim that the word 'Mohini,' the registered number '247' and the figure of a woman upon Ex. T are distinctive marks of the plaintiffs' goods and together make up Ex. T which is a device distinctive of the biris sold by them. The defendant admits that the registered number 2...
Hemangini Dassi Vs. Asutosh Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal330,113Ind.Cas.568
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 25 as damages for certain trees that has been cut from a plot of land which defendant 1 held under under the plaintiff as tenant and also for an injunction restraining the said defendant from cutting the trees standing on the land, in future. The suit has been dismissed by both the lower Courts and the plaintiff has thereupon preferred this second appeal.2. The plaintiff's case was that defendant 1 had been holding the land under a kabuliyat dated 1309 B.S. and that, in contravention of the terms of the said kabuliyat, the said defendant in collusion with other persons had cut down and removed five trees standing thereon. The defence of defendant 1 was that the tenancy was not created by the kabuliyat of 1309 B.S. but that it had been in existence for over 80 years and from the time of the father of the said defendant, that the tenancy-consisted of an area of 2 bigh...
Dhirendra Nath Roy and ors. Vs. Bhabatarini Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal395
Page, J.1. The two suits out of which these two appeals arise were brought by the plaintiffs who are now appellants to recover rent for the years 1319-1322, 1322-1325 in respect of land let out by them to the defendants under a kabuliyat of 22nd Magh, 1278. There had been a previous suit between the parties to recover arrears of rent for the years 1309-1312, and in that suit an issue was raised and decided whether the rent was not wholly suspended by reason of the landlords having deliberately evicted the tenants from three plots which were parcels of the land demised. In that suit it was determined that by reason of the deliberate interference by the landlords with the tenant's enjoyment of the demised premises the tenants were entitled to a total suspension of the rent until the landlords restored them to possession of the plots from which they had been evicted. In the present suits the proceedings eventually came before the High Court, and the question which the High Court had to de...
Jadabendra Nandan Das Mahapatra and ors. Vs. Behari Mula and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal464,118Ind.Cas.888
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit relating to fishery rights in a portion of a khal. The plaintiffs claim to have fishing rights over a certain area, which has been recorded in the Record-of-Rights of the year 1898 as being in the khas possession of the defendant, who are the landlords. The khal lies within the khas mehal, of which the defendants are temporary settlement-holders under Government. The plaintiffs alleged that they had been dispossessed in 1923 by certain persons set up by the defendants to fish in the khal. The first Court held that the plaintiffs had tenant-right in the fishery on a portion of the khal claimed by them. The second Court has declared the right of the plaintiffs to fish in the whole of that part of the khal, and it also declared that their rights are permanent.2. An objection is taken in appeal to the declaration that the plaintiff's right is permanent. The learned Judge has given no satisfactory reason for coming to the finding that the ten...
Bharateswari Das Vs. Bhagaban Chandra Chakraburty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal759
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder against an order of the Subordinate Judge modifying the order of the Munsiff by which he directed that the decree-holder could only proceed to execute the decree for only one-half of the decretal amount.2. The dispute between the parties arose in this way. There were two sisters Bharateswari and Jagneswari, of whom Bharateswari is now surviving and she is the appellant before us. It appears that they were dispossessed of a certain property and those two sisters obtained a decree for recovery of possession and mesne profits against the judgment-debtors on 23rd September 1916. On 19th October 1916 the land for which the decree for possession and mesne profits was obtained was sold to one Purna Chandra Das by the two sisters. The final decree ascertaining the mesne profits was made by the Court on 15th September 1919 Against that decree there was an appeal and a second appeal, both of which were dismissed. During the pendency of the ...
Badal Chandra Prohel Vs. Srikrishna Dey Nag
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal354
1. The question involved in this appeal relates to the true meaning of Clause (4), Section 24, Civil P.C. (Act 5 of 1908.)2. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 870 on account of price of milk alleged to have been supplied to the defendants It was instituted in the Court of Small Causes at Sealdah which has pecuniary jurisdiction up to the limit of Rs. 1000. A suit for rent between the parties being pending at the time in the Third Court of the Munsiff at Alipur, the District Judge of 24 Parganas, at the instance of the defendant and on the consent of the plaintiff, transferred the suit to the Court of the Munsiff to be tried along with the said rent suit. The Munsiff was invested with Small Cause Court powers up to Rs. 250. He registered the suit as an ordinary money suit and tried it as such and decreed it for Rs. 432 with interest and proportionate costs. The defendant appealed from the decision and obtained a modification of the decree which had been passed by the trial Court, the amo...
Faridpur Loan Office, Ltd. Vs. Nirode Krishna Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal452a,118Ind.Cas.864
Page, J.1. The plaintiff purchased the interest of one of several co-tenants of a transferable tenure. The purchase was made in June 1912. In October 1912, there was an entry made in the Record-of-Rights, recording his vendor as one of the co-tenants. In December 1912, proceedings were taken by the landlord under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, for enhancement of rent, and to those proceedings the original tenants, including the vendor of the plaintiff, were made parties. Enhancement was granted, and, in 1917, a suit was brought by the landlord against the original co-tenants for arrears of rent from 1913 to 1916. He obtained an ex parte decree on 8th December 1917, and the decree-holder himself purchased the tenure at the auction-sale pursuant to the decree on 20th December 1918. On 19th June 1924, the plaintiff brought the present suit to establish his title to the share of the co-tenant from whom he purchased. The question which falls for determination is whether, in the circumstances o...
Kailash Chandra Rishi and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.73
1. The prosecution case is that the two appellants Kailash and Saman with three others seized and carried off Modhu Sudhan Rishi in a boat on the 2nd of November last at about 8 30 p. m. at Brahmanbaria and thereafter robbed and murdered him. The appellants have been convicted under Section 396, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death and also under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code and under Section 364, Indian Penal Code. The learned Counsel for the Grown admits that in two respects this trial has been defective. In the first place evidence of bad character and of previous convictions has been admitted contrary to Section 54 of the Evidence Act, and secondly, the examination of the accused under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code goes beyond the scope of that section being in the nature of a cross-examination.2. On the first of these grounds this case would in any case have to go back for re-trial inasmuch as the learned Judge failed to warn the Jurors that they should exclude this...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »