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.
Nagoremull Modi Vs. Lachmi NaraIn Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal144,113Ind.Cas.854
1. There was a decree in December 1923 against one Lakshmi Narain and an order for arrest was passed in September 1925. He was adjudicated in-solvent on a creditor's petition in January 1926. In March 1926 he was brought under arrest under the order made in September 1925 and on that occasion it was ordered that he should be released on furnishing security for his appearance. In June following he filed his schedule but he was unsuccessful after that in getting protection order. Another application on behalf of the decree-holder was made for the committal of Lakshmi Narain to prison. The allegation was that he had not produced his books in the insolvency proceedings. It was ordered that in these circumstances no further steps in execution in the way asked could be taken and against this order, the decree-holder appealed.Rankin, C.J.2. In my opinion there is no sufficient reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Judge. I would point out that in the circumstances s...
Ram Charan Goldar and ors. Vs. Hamid Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal819,114Ind.Cas.493
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, the plaintiffs who are the applicants before us brought their suit on 25th November 1919. A second appeal was preferred to this Court in 1922 and, by the decree in that appeal, the case was remanded to the lower appellate Court which came to its decision on 3rd December 1924 From that decision, a second appeal was filed again to this Court on 6th March 1925. This was heard on 9th February 1928 by my learned brethren Cuming and Mukerji, J., who differed in opinion. Cuming, J., took the view that the appeal should be dismissed; Mukerji, J., took the view that the appeal should be allowed. Very unfortunately, instead of acting under the proviso to Section 98, Civil P.C., whereby the matter on which they differed could have been referred to one or more Judges of the Court, the procedure followed by that Bench was that the decree of the lower Court was declared to be confirmed under the opening words of Sub-section (2), Section 98.2. After the second appeal had ...
Hamitulla Vs. Karim Bux and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal136,114Ind.Cas.155
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit to enforce the right of preemption. Defendant 1 who is the brother of the plaintiff was the vendor and the other defendants, namely, defendants 2 to 5 the vendees. The Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that the second demand, namely, the Talabi-i-ishhad has not been satisfactorily proved. So far as this finding is concerned it is a finding of fact. But then it has been argued on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that inasmuch as the Talab-i-mowasibat was duly proved and it was accompanied by the requisite formalities and was made in the presence of witnesses, the necessity for a second demand of Talabi-i-ishhad has been dispensed with. Now the precise question as to the circumstances under which the first demand would be sufficient has been considered in a very recent case of this Court namely to which decision one of us was a party and which is about to be reported. It has been held in that case on a consideration of the authori...
Hemeswar Barua Vs. Poal Chandra Bora and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal754
Garlick, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant bought the suit land by two separate kobalas from Mt. Abari Defalani, defendant 2, of Suit No. 739, and from Taran Dafla defendant 2, of Suit No. 752 in April 1923. But defendant 1 prevented him from taking possession of the land saying that he had bought it from the Daflas some years earlier. So the plaintiff filed two suits for declaration of title and delivery of possession. His kobalas are registered kobalas although they did not require registration, the consideration being Rs. 80 in the one and Rs. 20 in the other.2. Defendant 1 says that he bought the suit land in April 1918 from two vendors of the plaintiff and a third Dafla named Hari for Rs. 180. But the sale-deed is unregistered. He has, however, possessed the land and paid Government revenue for it ever since his purchase.3. The Daflas left the village, at about the time of the sale to defendant 1. The Court of first instance found that defendant 1 was in possession by virtue of his pur...
Kanti Chandra Ghose and ors. Vs. Brojendra Mohan Goswami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal186
Garlick, J.1. Plaintiffs-appellants agreed to let a piece of garden land to defendant 1 (respondent) for a period of nine years for the making of bricks. A written agreement was executed but not registered. Defendant 1 entered on the land, cleared the jungle and began making bricks. After he had used the land for 15 months, the superior landlord of his lessors sued for a permanent injunction to prevent the use of the land as a brickfield. He obtained a temporary injunction and it was in force for some 15 months and then the zemindar came to terms with the lessors, and recognized their right to use the land as they liked, and the temporary injunction was withdrawn. The plaintiffs in the meantime had filed this suit against defendant 1 for rent of the land and for selami. They claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 20 a bigha and selami at Rs. 100 a bigha for 8 bighas 18 cottas of land. The defence was that by the terms of the written agreement the rent was only Rs. 15 a bigha and the area only...
Kala Chand Mukherjee and anr. Vs. Jatindra Mohan Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal263,117Ind.Cas.855
1. These appeals have arisen out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff to enforce a right of pre-emption. The plaintiff and defendant 2 were cosharers in respect of a homestead, the plaintiff having a 12 annas share and defendant 2 the remaining 4 annas share. Then there was an agreement between the parties, the relevant terms whereof are set out below, and the substance thereof was that neither party would be competent to sell his share in the homestead but to the other. Thereafter defendant 2 mortgaged his 4 annas share in the homestead to the plaintiff and afterwards sold it to defendant 1. The plaintiff then instituted this suit for a declaration that the sale held as aforesaid in contravention of the agreement was ineffectual as against him, and for a sale-deed being executed in his favour on receipt of the value of the share minus the money due on the mortgage, and for other reliefs. The main defence of the defendants was that the agreement was void as being due to undue influenc...
Rahimannessa Bibi Vs. Sk. Halim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal814,114Ind.Cas.95
1. This Rule was obtained against the opposite party to show cause why the order of the District Judge of 24 Pargannas refusing to allow the petitioner who is a a pardanashin lady to be examined on commission should not be set aside. Section 132, Civil P.C., recognizes the right of ladies who are behind parda according to the custom of the country to require that their evidence, if necessary, should be taken on commission. This is a right which the Court has no power to deny.2. The order of the learned District Judge is set aside and it is ordered that evidence of the petitioner be taken on commission. The Rule is made absolute and the petitioner will have her costs in this Rule, the hearing-fee in this Rule being assessed at one gold mohur....
Nawab of Murshidabad Vs. Bilas Roy Choudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal433,118Ind.Cas.561
Page, J.1. This case involves the construction of the Murshidabad Act (15 of 1891). On 25th July 1920, the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad and his eldest son, defendant 3, executed an indenture, whereby the Nawab let to defendants 1 and 2 certain lands and premises to which the Murshidabad Act applied for a term of 21 years in consideration of:the sum of rupees five laces as advance of the total rent payable for and during the said term of 21 years, the annual rent being one equal 21 part of the said total rent, and the said lessees do hereby covenant with the said lesser in manner following (that is to say) that the said lessees shall pay to the said lesser at or immediately before the execution of those presents the said sum of rupees finales as advance of the total rent payable during the said term of 21 years.2. In the same indenture defendant 3 covenanted with the lessees that in the event of his succeeding to the estate within the period of the term he would allow the lessees to con...
Sarajubala Debi and ors. Vs. Jyotirmoyee Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal166
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Fifth Court, Decca, dated 7th June 1926 dismissing their suit. The suit was for recovery of possession of a taluk on the allegation that the plaintiffs were the heirs under the Hindu Law of Raja Kali Narayan Roy who was the original owner of the property. The allegations of the plaintiffs were that the Raja granted a sub-lease of the taluk to his daughter Kripamoyee Devi on certain conditions. The Raja died in 1878, Kripamoyee died on 27th April 1920, without leaving any issue. Under the terms of the lease, Kripamoyee got only a life-interest and on her death without issue, the leasehold interest lapsed and the property has reverted to the estate of Kali Narayan and the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of it as his heirs. The defendants claim the property under a will said to have been executed by Kripamoyee and they allege that Kripamoyee had an absolute interest...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›