Kolkata Court August 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.
Sailaja Sundari Rai Vs. Surja Kanta Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal133,117Ind.Cas.697
Mitter, J.1. This rule was obtained by the petitioner who happens to be a mortgagee of a non-transferable occupancy holding for the revision of an order by which the Munsiff declined to allow her to make a deposit of the decretal amount under Section 52, Act 8 of 1869 which prevails in the district from which this case comes. It appears that the opposite party 4 held a mourashi occupancy holding under the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 for a considerable length of time, that on 7th December 1915 opposite party 4 mortgaged a portion of the holding to the petitioner on executing a mortgage bond and taking a loan of a certain sum which afterwards swelled into Rs. 329. Opposite party ,4 not having paid the money he borrowed, the petitioner instituted a suit on 6th December 1926 in the Court of the Munsiff at Habiganj for enforcing the dues under the mortgage and for realizing the sum of Rs. 329. After the institution of the mortgage suit opposite parties 1 to 3 brought a rent suit against opp...
Ram Chandra Kapali and ors. Vs. Saday Chandra Raha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal190
Page, J.1. The decision of this appeal involves the construction of Sections 63 and 64, Bengal Village Self-Government Act (Act 5 of 1919) which are in the following terms:Section 63. No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against a Union Board, or any member or officer thereof acting under the direction of such board, in respect of anything done lawfully and in good faith and with due care and attention under this Act or any rule made hereunder.Section 64(1). No suit or other legal proceeding shall be brought against any Union Board or any of its members or officers, or any parson acting under its direction, for anything done under this Act, until the expiration of one month next after notice in writing has been delivered or left at the office of such Board, and also if the suit is intended to be brought against any member or officer of the said Board, or any parson acting under its direction) at the place of abode of the person against whom such suit is intended to be brought, s...
Banshidhar Durga Das Dutta Vs. Ishan Chandra Chatterji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal407
Mallik, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment on the ground of expiration of the term of a written lease. The plaintiff's claim was resisted on the allegation that in the lease under which the defendant held the land, there was a covenant for renewal on the old terms. This defence found favour with the Courts below and the Courts below dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court.2. The passage in the lease on the strength of which the defendant wanted to resist the plaintiff's claim runs thus:On the expiration of the term written in this patta you will take a new settlement , but if for any reason a new settlement be not possible, you shall at your own expense remove the rooms etc. etc.3. This clause in the document may show that if the defendant had any right to take a new settlement of the land he Was to take a new settlement on the expiration of the term written in the patta which term expired on 16th January 1922, The defendant, however, d...
Rahimbux Ashan Karim Vs. Central Bank of India, Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal497
Lort-Williams, J.1. Substantially the facts in this case are undisputed. The plaintiffs are a mercantile firm dealing in cutlery and other goods. The firm of Kerr Tarruck & Co. were an importing firm and for a long time prior to 1927 had been used to import such goods in accordance with orders given by the plaintiffs and sell to them under various agreements. It was not part of the business of Kerr Tarruck & Co. to act as warehousemen, nor did they hold themselves out as such. On 15th January 1927 the plaintiffs and Kerr Tarruck & Co. made a typewritten agreement in the nature of giving plaintiffs a monopoly in Calcutta for one year. This agreement needed the assent of the exporters in Germany, and pending the arrival of that, on 16th February the plaintiffs accepted drafts for goods covered by the agreement of 15th January and a verbal agreement was made in case the exporters' oonsent was withheld, by which the plaintiffs agreed to take the goods already imported and to be imported un...
HasaruddIn Mohommad Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal775
C.C. Ghose, J.1. The accused in this case was committed to take his trial in the Sessions Court under two charges, one under Section 302, I.P.C., for having committed murder by causing the death of his wife, Ohati Bibi, and secondly, for having attempted to commit suicide by cutting his throat and thereby commiting an offence under Section 309, I.P.C. In. the committing Magistrate's Court there were no less than ten witnesses for the prosecution. It appears that when the charges were read and explained to the accused he pleaded guilty in the committing Magistrate's Court. The occurrence in question took place on 6th September 1927; the commitment was made on 2nd April 1928 and the trial in the Sessions Court took place on 18th June 1928. It appears that in the Sessions Court the charge under Section 309, I.P.C., was not pressed, but on the charge under Section 302, I.P.C., being read and explained to the accused, the latter pleaded guilty. The accused was thereupon convicted under Sect...
Golbar Bibi and ors. Vs. Aswini Kumar Sinha Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal253,117Ind.Cas.536
Suhrawardy, J.1. These are appeals by defendants 4 to 7 against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tippera dated 11th May 1926. Defendants 1 to 3 had a jote under a sikmi taluk in which the respondents, the appellants and some others are jointly interested. In execution of a money decree the plaintiffs purchased the holding in 1912. But it appears that they did not get possession of the same. In 1914 the appellants obtained a money-decree against the same tenants and sold the holding and obtained possession thereof. Thereupon the plaintiffs brought these two suits for recovery of possession of the lands included in the holding from the defendants. The defence was that the plaintiffs had no right in the sikmi and that the plaintiffs being part-owners of the sikmi were not legally entitled to evict the defendants who were also proprietors of the same taluk and were in possession by virtue of their auction-purchase. It was also pleaded that the tenancy being nontransferable the plaint...
indu Bhusan Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Moazam Ali Biswas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal272,117Ind.Cas.838
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, the plaintiffs appeal from a decree of the learned District Judge of Faridpur modifying the decision of the Subordinate Judge in a suit for rent under a kabuliat dated 9th Aswin 1322 B.S. It appears that the tenant under this kabuliat was really a cosharer in certain lands with the plaintiffs and that the lands having been diluviated and having thereafter reformed the defendant entered into possession in the exercise of his joint title. Thereafter a certain dispute arose between the parties and it was finally accommodated by the kabuliat which is now in suit-a kabuliat whereby the plaintiffs gave a lease of certain lands which were described therein so far as their eight annas share was concerned to the defendant. It will be observed that at the time this kabuliat was entered into, the defendant was a person who had been on the land and was in possession and was in a very good position to know exactly what lands he was in possession of.2. The questions whic...
Jitendra Nath Roy Vs. Rai Charan Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal514
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit which is for recovery of possession from the defendant after notice of annulment under Section 167, Ban. Ten. Act. The tenancy in question exceeds 100 bighas in area and it was recorded in the Record-of-Rights as a tenure but the first Court found on a reading of the kabuliat, in which the terms on which the lands were held are recorded that the tenancy that was brought to sale was a rayati tenancy. The learned Additional District Judge reversed this finding relying on the Record-of-Rights and on the presumption under Section 5, Ban Ten. Act that tenancies exceeding 100 bighas in area are tenures. The learned Additional District Judge was in error in refusing to treat the kabuliat as conclusive of the nature of the tenancy. He says that the lease is a confirmatory one. This is perfectly immaterial. Even if it is a confirmatory lease, that fact would not assist the respondent because the tenancy referred to in the k...
MomIn Talukdar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal771,117Ind.Cas.601
1. In this case the facts involved shortly stated are as follows : On the night of 20th September last there was some altercation between the deceased Anu and the accused Momin over the latter beating the deceased's brother Hamid in the course of the day. On the following morning when Anu was near his cowshed the altercation was renewed and it was alleged that Momin stabbed Anu on the side with a knife. People gathered at the scene of occurrence and Anu's brother Mayur hastened for the dafadar of the village. The dafadar took him to the Assistant Sub-Inspector Prufulla Mohan who was in the neighbourhood of Bashdi Bazar investigating into another case. Mayur, it is said, made a statement to Prafulla which Prafulla recorded. The Assistant Sub-Inspector came to the place with Mayur but found that Anu was already dead. It appears that before the Assistant Sub-Inspector arrived at the scene of occurrence another brother of the deceased had started for the thana to lodge a formal complaint o...
Radha Charan Rai Chaudhury and anr. Vs. Kailash Chandra Pramanik and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal776
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, it appears that a certain sum of money was due tinder a mortgage decree for sale. The final decree had been passed and that decree, it now appears contrary to what the trial Court thought, did provide in the usual way for subsequent interest. Now, the sale was going to be held in February. In the previous December, it appears that the mortgagor went to his creditor and asked what amount was due. He was given a certain sum as due and he paid that sum. He then went some days afterwards to a pleader and asked the pleader to find out what exactly was due and he came to the conclusion that he had overpaid by a sum of Rs. 195 or thereabout. The calculation made by the pleader seems not to have allowed any subsequent interest. It was probably based upon the amount stated in the sale proclamation. However that may be, the mortgagor brings his suit before the Munsif; that is, in another Court than the Court in whish the mortgage suit was being tried. He alleges amon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »