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.
Sadar Ali and ors. Vs. DoliluddIn Ostagar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal640
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a rule calling upon the respondents to show cause why a certain memorandum of appeal presented to this Court on 30th April 1928 should not be accepted and registered. The question raised is whether or not the applicants have a right of appeal from the decision of a single Judge sitting in second appeal in the absence of a certificate from him that the case is a fit one for appeal. This question arises upon the new Letters Patent which came into effect on 14th January 1928.2. The facts are that the suit was instituted on 7th October 1920 and that after an appeal to the District Court asecond appeal was filed in this High Court by the present applicants on 4th October 1926. Under certain rules of this Court it was laid before Mallik, J. for disposal on or about 4th April 1928, and on that date the appeal was dismissed the learned Judge refusing to declare that the case was a fit one for a further appeal.3. In these circumstances it is plain enough that the applican...
Jahir Mandal Vs. Rani Radha Rangini Devi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal859
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This rule was obtained by the judgment-debtor in a decree for rent which was obtained by the opposite party for les3 than Rs. 50. The holding of the petitioner was sold for Rs. 34 and it was purchased by the decree-holder. The sale took place in the year 1916. The application for setting aside the sale was made in the year 1926. It was alleged that the petitioner was kept from the knowledge of his right to make the application for setting aside the sale by the fraud of the opposite party and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to extension of time for making the application under Section 18, Lim. Act. It was alleged that the sale was vitiated on the ground of non-service of process and fraud and inadequacy of price. It was opposed by some only of the opposite parties. The points argued before the Munsiff were (1) whether the application was barred by limitation, (2) whether the sale was liable to be set aside on account of supression of process of attachment and sa...
Satya Ranjan Roy and anr. Vs. Annapurna Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal145,114Ind.Cas.666
1. Kali Kishore Roy, Mathur Chandra Roy and Mukunda Chandra Eoy were three brothers, each of them having a 1/3rd share in their joint family properties. Kali Kishore died leaving five sons, namely the defennants 1 to 4 and one Rama Kanta Roy now deceased. Mathur Chandra then died leaving a son the defendant 5. Mukunda thereafter died leaving a widow, the plaintiff Annapurna and a female child then in arms.2. Mukunda left a will. The preamble to the will recited that Kali Kishore in his lifetime had given permission to him to adopt as his son Kali Kishore's son Rama Kanta and he gave permission to his wife Annapurna to adopt after his death the said Eama Kanta as his son. The will then provided:Both of them (meaning Annapurna and Rama Kanta), do enjoy as my heirs and successors according to the terms and conditions of the achalpatra (meaning the will) as executed by me and as laid down in the paragraphs-following, none of them shall be entitled to violate the same.3. In para. 1 of the w...
Sarat Lakshi Dassya Vs. Narendra Singha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal292,121Ind.Cas.565
Bose, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Mymensingh, affirming the judgment and decree of the Munsif, 3rd Court, Mymensingh,. in a suit brought by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,442-8-0 alleged to be due on a simple instalment bond executed by defendant 1 in her favour on. 27th Pous 1324 B.S, for a consideration of Rs. 950. The plaintiff alleged receipt of Rs. 82 on different dates on account of interest, the last payment having been made on 9th Kartik 1328 B.S., and her case in the plaint was that these payments saved limitation.2. Defence was that the suit was barred by limitation. The defendants did not. admit the payments as alleged by the plaintiff on the dates specified but he said that he had paid Rs. 110 in all, the last payment having been made in Bhadra of 1326 B.S.3. Both the lower Courts found as a fact that no payment was made by the defendant after Bhadra 1326 and so they dismissed the suit as barr...
J. Ezekeil Vs. British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal260,117Ind.Cas.851
1. The plaintiff is the owner of a business in miscellaneous stores in Akyab. In August 1921 he sent a wire to Messrs. Lipton Limited in Calcutta for despatching to his Akyab firm 25 cases of Lipton's white label tea. Messrs. Lipton Limited received the order on 23rd and on the next day i.e., the 24th, they booked at the office of the Rivers Steam Navigation Go. Ltd. at Jagannathghat a consignment of 25 cases, each case containing 64 one pound tins, of tea. The total weight of the consignment as entered in the forwarding note was 34 mds. 311/2 seers, and the value was declared to be Es. 1,850 and it was entered therein that the consignment was to be carried to Akyab via Chittagong. The cases were carried on a ship belonging to the Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. up to Chittagong, where they were transhipped to a ship belonging to the British India Navigation Co. Ltd. which carried them to Akyab on 14th September 1921. The plaintiff's agent at Akyab was informed by the coolies who carr...
Sheikh Sardar Ali and ors. Vs. Sheikh DolliluddIn Ostagar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.49
George Claus Rankin, C.J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause why a certain memorandum of appeal presented to this Court on the 30th April, 1928, should not be accepted and registered. The question raised is whether or not the applicants have a right of appeal from the decision of a single Judge sitting in second appeal in the absence of a certificate from him that the case is a fit one for appeal. This question arises upon the new Letters Patent which came into effect on the 14th January, 1928.2. The facts are that the suit was instituted on 7th October, 1920, and that after an appeal to the District Court a second appeal was filed in the High Court by the present applicants on 4th October, 1926. Under certain ruled of this Court it was laid before Mr. Justice Mallik for disposal on or about the 4th April, 1928, and on that date the appeal was dismissed, the learned Judge refusing to declare that the case was a fit one for a further appeal.3. In these circumsta...
Benode Behari Mandal Vs. Jitendra Prosad Chatterji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal748a,117Ind.Cas.847
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of certain lands on declaration of his title. The lands in suit formed parts of two different occupancy holdings, one bearing a rental of Rs. 37-80 and the other bearing a rental of Rs. 9-4-0 Those two tenancies were brought to sale in execution of a money decree and they were purchased by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff took delivery of possession on 12th December 1921. He was subsequently dispossessed of some of the lands by defendant 1 in collusion with other defendants, including the landlords; and the plaintiff brought the suit in order to recover possession of the lands of which he had been dispossessed. The first Court decreed the suit so far it related to lands of the tenancy of Rs. 9-4-0 and dismissed it in respect of the lands of the other tenancy. Both parties appealed and the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit entirely. As will appear from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, the...
Murari Mohan Khomari Vs. Khirode Nath Jana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal479,118Ind.Cas.887
1. This appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit on a mortgage. The mortgagor had sold the mortgaged property to defendant 2, who contested the suit. His defence was that the mortgage had been satisfied. The mortgage bond was produced in Court by the plaintiff and it contains no endorsement of satisfaction. Defendant 2 stated to the Court that the bond had been shown to him by his vendor, that is to say, the mortgagor, defendant 1, at the time of the sale to him, and that at that time that bond contained an endorsement of satisfaction. Both the Courts below dismissed the suit, holding on certain oral evidence that the bond had been satisfied and the mortgage redeemed, The learned Munsif found that he had to explain away the fact that the mortgage bond produced in Court, the genuineness of which was not disputed, bore no endorsement of satisfaction. He, therefore, resorted to the thoroughly improper proceeding of having something done by a pleader, in the way of proof, to his private satisf...
Jnanada Prosad Mukherji Vs. G.M. Falkner
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Cal426
1. This Rule is directed against an order of the District Judge of Burdwan dated 17th March 1928. The petitioner who is a pleader at Burdwan brought a suit against the opposite party for recovery of his professional dues. During the progress of the suit he made an application, under Order 11 for discovery of certain documents and order was passed by the Subordinate Judge before whom the case was pending for the production of some of those documents in Court. After a great deal of fight over this matter on both sides the documents were not produced and the petitioner applied under Order 11, Rule 21, to have the defendant's defence struck out for not complying with the order of the Court. The learned Subordinate Judge who had passed the order for the production of the documents refused to strike out the defence on the ground that the documents were not very material and that they could be proved otherwise. From that order an application in revision was filed in this Court under Section 1...
Jitendra Mohan Dutt Vs. Abdul Ojha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1928
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.358
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for rent for five years and a half. The controversy is whether a portion of the claim is barred by the special rule of limitation provided by Article 2 of the Third Schedule to the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The plaintiff's case was that the land in respect of which rent was claimed was a homestead land which was taken from him by the defendants' predecessors by executing a registered kabuliyat and that the incidents of the tenancy were governed by the Transfer of Property Act. The defendants case was that the tenancy was governed by the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act and that, therefore, the portion of the claim exceeding the rent for four years was barred by limitation.3. The trial Court held that the land in question was not taken for agricultural or horticultural purposes. It was held that the defendants were not raiyats so as to bring into operation the provisions of Section 182 of the Bengal Tenancy ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »