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.
Agni Kumar Das Vs. MantazaddIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal610,113Ind.Cas.181
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case an application in revision under Section 439, Criminal P.C., has been made to the Court against an order of 13th August 1927, made by the Deputy Magistrate of Comilla under Section 145 of that Code in proceedings instituted on 9th May 1927. A rule having issued and cause being shown before the Division Bench, a reference has been made to this Full Beach. Three points are formulated in the order of reference, viz.-(1) Do the words 'actual possession' in Sub-section (1), Section 145, Civil P.C., mean actual personal physical possession even though wrongful, e.g., that of a recent trespasser in actual physical possession at the time of the proceedings under Section 145.(2) Does the word 'dispute' in the same subsection mean actual disagreement existing between the parties at the time of the proceedings under Section 145 even though the question as to the right to possession has already been decided by a civil Court.(3) Has the law been correctly laid down in th...
Raman Chandra Das Dalal Vs. Bhola Nath Hati and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal350
1. The plaintiffs and the detendant are neighbours. Their houses are contiguous with a small lane dividing the two premises in the town of Bolepur. In the lane there is a drain 1' 2' wide at the head. The plaintiffs' case is that the land over which this drain runs belongs to them and that they left it for their own convenience between their and the defendant's houses. This was about 30 years ago. The defendant has now wrongfully obstructed it by building a wall over a portion of it lengthwise thereby obstructing the flow of water and the passage of sweepers. The defendant's case is that the drain was made by mutual consent of parties over their joint land in order to carry rain-water and the washings of the houses. In 1329 the plaintiffs erected a privy on the first floor the foul water of which is now flowing into the drain. The defendant, therefore, has walled up his portion of the drain which he says he is entitled to do. The trial Court held that the land on which this drain exist...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nissim Abraham Gubbay and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal477
Rankin. C.J.1. This is an application made by the present appellant before the learned Judge on the original side in the course of an administration suit to administer the estate of one Abraham Ezekiel Gubbay, who died in November 1906, the suit being brought in 1917. It appears that, with the exception of a certain wine business, the testator left all the properties to his executor upon a trust for conversion and for distribution, in the following shares : 7/16th to Ezekiel Abraham Gubbay, who was the executor; 4/16th to Nissim, who, in the administration suit, was the plaintiff; 3/16th to Elias; 1/16th to Seemah and 1/16th to Joseph In the end, by various assignments, Ezekiel became entitled, in his own right, to 11/16th share absolutely of the fund and, by various transactions made between him and the appellants--the National Insurance Co., Ltd.--the present position is this : The appellants are in the position of mortgagees as regards 11/16th share, where the equity of redemption i...
Sm. Manikya Bewa Vs. Pushpa Charan Majhi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal850
Mitter, J.1. This rule was issued on the opposite party who are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit to show cause why the judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court at Dacca dismissing the suit of the plaintiff who is the petitioner before me should not be set aside. It appears that plaintiff deposited the sum of Rs. 500 with her relations who are defendant 1 and the father of defendant 2. The defendants refused to return this money and this has given rise to the cause of action for the suit. The Small Cause Court Judge found on the evidence that plaintiff had deposited the money in question with defendant 1 and the father of defendant 2 but dismissed plaintiff's suit on the ground of limitation. It appears that in a suit for partition which was instituted by the mother of defendant 2 as his next friend a written statement was put in by defendant 1 in which he admitted this deposit by the plaintiff. In the partition suit, the matter was referred to arbitration and an award was made on 10t...
Srimati Manikya Bewa Vs. Pushpa Charan Majhi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.262
Mitter, J.1. This Rule was issued on the opposite party who are defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit to show cause why the judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court at Dacca dismissing the suit of the plaintiff who is the petitioner before me should not be set aside. It appears that plaintiff deposited the sum of Rs. 500 with her relations who are defendant No. 1 and the father of defendant No. 2. The defendants refused to return this money and this has given rise to the cause of action for the suit. The Small Cause Court Judge found on the evidence that plaintiff had deposited the money in question with defendant No. 1 and the father of defendant No. 2 but dismissed plaintiff's suit on the ground of limitation. It appears that in a suit for partition which was instituted by the mother of defendant No. 2 as his next friend a written statement was put in by defendant No. 1 in which he admitted this deposit by the plaintiff. In the partition suit the matter was referred to arbitration ...
Rabindra Nath Das Vs. Jogendra Chandra Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal691,114Ind.Cas.796
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution upon the following facts. In a previous suit in which one Bola Nath was defendant the plaintiff who is a pleader practising in Habigunj in the district of Sylhet filed a written statement accompanied by a vakalatnama on 16th February 1923 purported to have been signed by Bhola Nath and some other defendants. The vakalatnama showed that it was accepted by the plaintiff' on the 7th February 1923 which was the date of the vakalatnama. On 28th February 1923 the plaintiff reported to the Court that his client Bhola Nath had died. In May 1923 the defendant applied to the Munsif for sanction under Section 195, Criminal P.C., to prosecute the plaintiff, his clerk and defendants 30 and 33 on the allegation that the signatures of Bhola Nath on the wrtiten statement and the vakalatnama were forgeries since he had died on 3rd February 1923. The application was registered as a miscellaneous case and the plaintif...
Chairman of Municipal Commissioners Vs. Assam Bengal Ry. Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal736
1. This suit was brought in order to enforce the plaintiff's right to be on the register of voters for the election of Commissioners of Chittagong to be held in March 1925. All these proceedings have become merely academic in the events that have happened, because there was a fresh election for the Commissioners of Chittagong in 1928, and for the purposes of and prior to that election the plaintiff's name was inserted in the register of voters. The learned Additional District Judge, from whose decree the present appeal is brought, found as a fact that the plaintiff-respondent had not complied with the rules which would entitle his name, if otherwise qualified, to be inserted in the register of voters lb is conceded by the respondent that that is a finding of fact which, in second appeal, we are not at liberty to reconsider. The learned Additional District Judge, having arrived at the finding of fact that the plaintiff had failed to fulfil the conditions precedent to having his name reg...
Hardut Ray Chamaria and Co. and ors. Vs. Ujir Shaikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal765,117Ind.Cas.606
Mukherji, J.1. These tour appeals arise out of as many suits that were instituted by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and recovery of possession after demolition of certain huts which stand on the land. The Courts below have found is favour of the plaintiffs on the question of title but being of opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to have their possession within 12 years before suit have dismissed the said suits.2. The arguments that have been advanced before us on behalf of the plaintiffs who are the appellants in these appeals are directed against the finding of the Subordinate Judge to the effect that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession within 12 years and against the reasoning upon which that finding is based. Beading the judgment of the Subordinate Judge it would appear that he, after discussion of a very large number of decisions upon Article 142 and Article 144, Lim. Act, came to the conclusion that in the present suits it was Article 142, that was ap...
Fajar Banoo and ors. Vs. Rahim Bux and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal26
1. This was a suit brought to recover possession of curtain property by one Abdul Majid. During the pendency of the suit Abdul Majid died and an application for substitution under Order 22, Rule 3, Civil P.C. was made by two of his sons. At or before the hearing the defendant pointed out that Abdul Majid died leaving him surviving a third son Ahamadulla. Notwithstanding this warning the other two sons did not apply to have Ahamadulla substituted as one of the heirs of Abdul Majid, nor did Ahamadulla apply to be made a party to the suit. At the trial an issue was raised as to whether Ahamadulla was one of the legal representatives of Abdul Majid, and the trial Court held that he was not, and, proceeding to hear the suit on the merits, decided the case in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed, and it appears that at the hearing of the appeal an application was made by the appellant to adduce further evidence in support of his contention that Ahamadulla was the son of Abdul Maj...
Fajar Banoo and ors. Vs. Rahim Bax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.184
1. This was a suit brought to recover possession of certain property by one Abdul Majid. During the pendency of the suit Abdul Majid died and an application for substitution under Order XXII, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, was made by two of his sons. At or before the hearing the defendant pointed out that Abdul Majid died leaving him surviving a third son Ahamadulla. Notwithstanding this warning the other two sons did not apply to have Ahamadulla substituted as one of the heirs of Abdul Majid, nor did Ahamadulla apply to be made a party to the suit. At the trial an issue was raised as to whether Ahamadulla was one of the legal representative of Abdul Majid, and the trial Court held that ha was not, and, proceeding to hear the suit on the merits, decided the case in favour of the plaintiffs, The defendant appealed, and it appears that at the hearing of the appeal an application was made by the appellant to adduce further evidence in support of his contention that Ahamadulla was the son ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »