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.
Bhola Nath Majumdar Vs. Nayeb Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal91,114Ind.Cas.154
B.B Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder under somewhat peeuliar circumstances. The decree-holder-brought a suit for ejectment and mesne profits against the judgment-debtors in which suit he got a decree for ejectment and mesne profits in the trial Court. The judgment-debtors appealed against the decree which directed ejectment and they were successful in getting the decree set aside. They did not appeal against the final decree for mesne profits which apparently was passed along with the decree for ejectment by the trial Court. What the Subordinate Judge did in decreeing the appeal preferred by the defendant was that he stated that the decree for mesne profits would stand. The plaintiff in the previous suit now seeks for execution of the decree for mesne profits, although his suit for ejectment was dismissed and he was allowed mesne profits only upon the basis that the defendants were trespassers on his land. The learned Munsif held that the Subordinate Judge had jurisdi...
Mohim Chandra Basak and ors. Vs. Kanailal Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Cal311
1. Two points have been pressed by the appellants in this appeal first that the Courts below have admitted certain documents which are not admissible in evidence in support of the plaintiffs' title and, secondly that the Courts below should have found that the plaintiffs' suit was barred under Article 3, Schedule 3 to the Bengal Tenancy Act. The facts are that the holding in suit belonged to defendants 1 to 4 in their raiyati right. It was mortgaged with the plaintiff in 1910. He brought a suit upon the mortgage and purchased it in execution of the mortgage decree in March 1923. The present suit was filed in September 1923 for possession of a plot of land which according to the plaintiff formed part of the raiyati of defendants 1 to and according to the contesting defendants was within their jote in which they had a fractional maliki right. Both the Courts have decreed the plaintiff's suit and defendants 5 to 8 appeal.2. With regard to the first ground the lower appellate Court has rel...
Emperor Vs. Ahammad (Ahmed) Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal815
1. Under Section 338, Criminal P.C., I transmit the record of the case noted below to be laid before the High Court with the following report:2. On the 5th December 1927 a peon of the civil Court (P.W. 1) went to execute a warrant of attachment of moveable property, Ex. 1, issued by the Munsif, 2nd 'Court, Khulna, against one Ahmed Sheik, judgment-debtor, who intimates his liability to pay the decretal amount. On this the peon attached four bullocks, two carts, a bedstead and a chair on the identification of P.W. 2, gomsata of the decree-holder. The peon and his party then removed the attached property to the river ghat some 7-8 rasis from the house of the judgment-debtor. Then Ahmed Sheik, Adiladdi Sheik, Kushai Sheik, Gani Sheik, the present petitioners, and some other persons came to the Ghat, one of them pushed Nani Gopal, P.W. 2 and they then took away all the property which had been attached. The peon in due course made a complaint to the Munsif, the proceedings were instituted i...
Hafez Uzir Ali Vs. Nasimannessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal865
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder against the order of the Additional District Judge of 24 parganas, affirming an order by the Munsif refusing the application of the decree-holder for setting aside a sale. The short history of the case is that the decree-holder brought a suit against the judgment-debtors in order to establish his niskar right to 7 1/2 bighas of land in which the judgment-debtors were alleged to have a tenancy right. That suit declaring the lakheraj right of the decree-holder was decreed as against the judgment-debtor. A certain sum of money was allowed to the decree-holder for costs. In execution of the decree for costs the decree-holder purported to sell the interest of the judgment-debtors in the property in question, that is to say the tenancy under the decree-holder's lakheraj interest. In the schedule annexed to the execution petition the property was described as the darbust hakuk of the judgment-debtors under the petty niskar No. 488. The l...
Tinkari Mukherjee Vs. Mahima Niranjan Ghakrabarty and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal108,114Ind.Cas.150
1. The only point canvassed in this appeal is whether the appellant (defendant 1) is liable for the amount of rent decreed against him. The suit is for patni rent for the period from Magh kist of 1327 to Baisakh 1330, that is, from January 1921 to April 1923. The appellant's contention is that his liability for rent had ceased from 22nd March 1922 the date on which he made a gift of this patni to his daughter-in-law. The trial Court passed a decree against the appellants up to the Magh Kist of 1329 or 17th February 1923--that being the date when the security money was paid and. the name of the transferee was registered in the zamindar's sherista. The decree was upheld by the District Judge in appeal. It is argued that the patni regulation invests the patnidar with absolute right of transfer and, therefore, as soon as the patnidar assigns his interest to any person his liability for rent ceases on and from that date. It is contended on the other side that the liability of the patnidar u...
Osman Jamal and Sons Ltd. Vs. Gopal Purshottam
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal208,118Ind.Cas.882
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case the plaintiff company is in liquidation and is represented by the Official Liquidator. By a contract made in July 1925 it was agreed inter alia that the plaintiff company should act as commission agents for the defendant firm in the purchase and sale of hessian and gunnies and that the defendant firm would indemnify the plaintiff company against all losses in respect of such transactions. Pursuant thereto, on or about the 2nd December 1925, the plaintiff company purchased certain hessian from one Maliram Ramjidas, which the defendant firm failed to pay for or take delivery of, with the result that the goods were resold by the vendor at less than the contract price and he has claimed the balance from the plaintiff company. Consequently the plaintiffs now seek to recover this sum from the defendants under the aforesaid indemnity, in addition to a further sum for commission which otherwise they would have received. The defendants contend, firstly, that the...
J.C. Galstaun Vs. Sahebzadi Mamoodi Begum
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal216,117Ind.Cas.700
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a reference from the Small Cause Court. The question arises upon a contract for the sale of a certain house in Chowringhee No. 34 Chowringhee Road, which was entered into between Saheb Zadi Mamoodi Begam as vendor on the one part and John Caropiat Galstaun as purchaser on the other part on 9th September 1919. It appears that the premises in question were subject to a certain wakf and they were also subject to a renewal clause in a certain indenture of lease. No period for completion was fixed by the contract and it was a term of the contract that the vendor should use due diligence to apply to the proper Court in the matter of the waif for an order for sale thereof and that she should take advice of counsel with a view to nullify, if possible, the clause in the lease to which I have referred. The contract provided that within one week from the date on which the purchaser should be satisfied in respect of the above two clauses being fully complied with by the vend...
Ahmed Sheikh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.572
1. We have caused enquiries to be made and it appears that Rule 93 on page 31 Chap. I of the High Court's General Rules and Circular Orders (Civil) as now amended, was made by the High Court and sanctioned by the Government of India under Section 107 of the Government of India Act. It would, therefore, follow that this rule has now the force of law. In that view of the matter we think that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge of Khulna in his letter of reference are sound and we, therefore, accept the reference and set aside the convictions and the sentences referred to therein and direct that the fines if paid be refunded....
Soudamini Dassya Choudhurani Vs. Sheikh Basir Mamud and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal841,115Ind.Cas.586
1. There is no substance in Section A. Nos. 968, 970, 979 and 980 of 1926 and they must be dismissed with costs.2. As regards the other appeals, it is argued on behalf of the appellant that the procedure adopted by the lower appellate Court is not in conformity with the direction given in Sections 30 and 32 Ben. Ten, Act. The suits are for enhancement of rent on the ground of additional area under Section 52 and of rise in the price of food-crops under Section 30(b), Ben. Ten. Act. In 1916 after the publication of the record-of-rights applications were made by the plaintiff under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, for enhancement of rent under Section 52 and also under Section 30(b). Those applications were withdrawn so that on the authority of the Full Bench decision, Puma Chandra v. Narendra Nath : AIR1925Cal845 , the same matter cannot form the subject of subsequent suite. The trial Court in view of the Pall Bench decision held that the plaintiff's claim for enhancement under Section 52 mu...
Atarmoni Dasi Vs. BepIn Behari Dhur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.83
Costello, J.1. This is an application made by Kali Charan Dhur, one of the defendants in this administration suit The decree directed the plaintiffs and the defendants Nobin Chandra Dhur and Susila Sundari Dasi to pay to the applicant Rs. 2,590-0-3 With interest thereon from he date of the decree until realisation. The application is for the execution of that decree under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and is in the tabular form required by that rule. In column 10 the applicant states:I, the applicant pray that the said sum of Rs. 2,590-5-3 with interest thereon at 6 per cent. per annum from the date of the decree till realisation and the costs of taking out this execution be realised by attachment and sale of the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtors to and in the immoveable properties specified at the date of the application and paid to him.2. The tabular statement was duly filed before the Master under Ch. VI, Rule 12 of the Rules of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »