Kolkata Court February 1929 Judgments
Rajendra Narayn Basu and ors. Vs. Debendra Nath Mukhopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal55
Mitter, J.1. The suit in which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs, now respondents, for recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1328 and 1329 B.S. in respect of a certain putni tenure held by defendants 1 to 4 under them. The case made in the plaint is that Narendra who was a brother of defendant 1, and the father of defendants 2 to 4 was the proprietor of the zemindari under which the putni in question is held; that he sold the zemindari to the plaintiff and took the putni settlement from them in the benami of defendant 6 in 1319 B.S.; that the putni was sold in execution of a money decree against Narendra and it was purchased by defendant 1 to 4 in the name of defendant 5, wife of defendant 1 in the year 1917; that Narendra made a will by which he appointed defendant 1 as executor, that the money execution sale took place after the death of Narendra and the purchase was made by defendant 1 for self and as executor to the estate of Narendra, father of defendants 2 to 4...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: rabenfels (Stoomvart Maatschappij Nedarlands)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal97,121Ind.Cas.312
Page, J.1. On 29th August 1927 at about 12-42 p.m. the S.S. 'Calcutta' collided with the S.S. 'Rabenfels' in the Fulta Bight on the river Hooghly. The 'Calcutta' was proceeding up river a flood tide nearing high water andon running at about four knots an hour, and the Rabenfels was coming down the rivet from Calcutta. Both vessels laden with merchandise were being navigated by pilots, Smythe being the pilot on the Calcutta' and Bacon on the 'Rabenfels.' At the time of the collision the water in the river had risen about 18 feet, the weather was fine, and the visibility good. Owing to the shifting sand the navigation of the narrow reaches of the Hoqghly needs skilled seamanship as the width of the navigable channel constantly changes, the width of the channel in the Fulta Bight between the creek cask buoy and about 1500 below the centre Fulta sand buoy varying from 650 to 900 feet. A further difficulty that pilots have to face is caused by the set of the flood time as it rounds Fulta po...
Tag this Judgment!Ahamadar Rahaman Chaudhuri Vs. Jaminiranjan Barua and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal385
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of a certain quantity of land. There were four defendants in the suit. Defendant 4, in December 1919, had purchased a taluk at a rent sale. Out of the lands of that taluk, 6 kanis were let out by defendant 4, in March 1921, to the plaintiff on receipt of premium of Rs. 300. The plaintiff's case is that, shortly after the execution of the lease, he went to take possession of the property, but defendants 1, 2 and 3 offered resistance to him and the consequence was that he did not get possession. Of these 6 kanis of land, one of the plots, namely, No. 937, was in the possession of defendant 1 and the rest of the land was in the possession of defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff, thereafter, in June 1924, instituted the present suit. As already stated, the suit was primarily lodged with a prayer for recovery of possession on declaration of title. But, in...
Tag this Judgment!Ayenati Shikdar Vs. Mohammad Esmail and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal441,122Ind.Cas.554
Jack, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit seeks to recover from the defendants the amount due on a mortgage bond. In her written statement defendant 1 says that she executed the bond and admitted execution before the Sub-Registrar understanding it to be a power of attorney in the name of the plaintiff to manage her properties. She contends that the bond was not legally attested and executed. Defendant 2 was a benamidar of the plaintiff. Defendant 3 files a written statement supporting that of defendant 1 and adding that he had purchased the properties to the knowledge of the plaintiff. The Court of first instance decreed the suit except for a deduction of a portion of the claim for interest. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal and, allowing the cross appeal on account of interest, decreed the suit in full. In this appeal it is urged that inasmuch as one of the attesting witnesses to the bond when examined, proved hostile, the remaining attesting witness who is alive should have been e...
Tag this Judgment!Nawsher (Ali) Pramanik Vs. Hazratulla Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal508
Suhrawardy, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the District Magistrate of Bogra ordering further enquiry into the complaint preferred by the opposite party before the Sub-Divisional Officer of Bogra. It appears that the Sub-Divisional Officer on receipt of the complaint ordered an enquiry by the Local President. On receipt o the report of the President he examined two witnesses for the prosecution and disbelieving the complainant's story dismissed the case under Section 203, Criminal P.C. The complainant moved the District Magistrate and he passed the following order:I think there should be a further enquiry into the complaint. Further enquiry ordered and the papers sent to Sub-Divisional Officer for favour of dealing with it according to law.2. In support of this rule Mr. Talukdar has raised several grounds. The first is that the accused should have been given notice before further enquiry was ordered against him. This contention he has not been able to support on the law ...
Tag this Judgment!Nawsher Ali Pramanik Vs. Hazratulla Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.376
Zahhadar Rahim Zahid Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the District Magistrate of Bogra ordering further enquiry into the complaint preferred by the opposite party before the Sub-Divisional Officer of Bogra. It appears that the Sub-Divisional Officer on receipt of the complaint ordered an enquiry by the local President. On receipt of the report of the President he examined two witnesses for the prosecution and disbelieving the complainant's story dismissed the case under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complainant moved the District Magistrate and he passed the following order. 'I think there should be a further enquiry into the complaint. Further enquiry ordered and the papers sent to Sub-Divisional Officer for favour of dealing with it according to law.' In support of this Rule Mr. Talukdar has raised several grounds. The first is that the accused should have been given notice before further enquiry was ordered against him. This contention he ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Narayan Basu Sarbadhicary and ors. Vs. Debendra Nath Mukhopad ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.241
Mitter, J.1. The suit in which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs now respondents, for recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1328 and 1329 B.S. in, respect of a certain putni tenure held by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 under them.2. The case made in the plaint is that Narendra who was a brother of defendant No. 1 and the father of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 was the proprietor of the zemindari under which the putni in question is held; that he sold the zemindari to the plaintiffs and took the putni settlement from them in the benami of defendant No. 6 in 1319 B.S. that the putni was sold in execution of a money decree against Narendra and it was purchased by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in the name of defendant No. 5, wife of defendant No. 1 in the year 1917; that Narendra made a Will by which he appointed defendant No. 1 as executor; that the money execution sale took place after the death of Narendra and the purchase was made by defendant No. 1 for self and as executor to the estate...
Tag this Judgment!Akshay Kumar Shaha Vs. Bhajagobinda Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal341
1. This appeal arises out; of a suit, which was instituted by the plaintiff, for a declaration that the defendants had no right to erect a permanent structure on the land in suit, for a mandatory injunction directing the demolition of the structure to the extent that it had been erected and for other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, a temporary injunction was issued against the defendants, restraining them from proceeding with the erection of the structure, but it was eventually withdrawn, it being ordered that the defendants were at liberty to erect the building at their own risk.2. The land in suit is a part of C.S. dag No. 869, which appertains to a four annas hisya of kismat Babnaparha diha. The kismat lies in four touzis, Nos. 11, 5151, 5152 and 5153. The plaintiff has taken a patni of touzi No. 5151, and has thus acquired a four annas share of the four annas hisya of the kismat. His case was that the defendants are in occupation of the said C.S. dag No. 869 as tenants-at...
Tag this Judgment!Basirulla Vs. Asadulla and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal639
Suhrawardy, J.1. In this case the accused were convicted by the trying Magistrate under Sections 426 and 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to pay fines. On appeal the learned District Magistrate held that the mischief was committed with reference to a hut which had not belonged to the complainant but to his father from whom he was living separately. In this view he acquitted the accused. About the end of his judgment the learned District Magistrate commented upon the evidence of two of the witnesses for the prosecution which he thought was not true. He concludes his judgment with these words:As already stated the case fails because the person interested, complainant's father, has taken no interest in the matter. 2. The real ground upon which the learned District Magistrate acquitted the accused was that the complainant was not entitled in law to make the complaint. Against the order of acquittal this rule has been obtained on the ground that the view of law taken by the Magistrate is erroneous...
Tag this Judgment!Mangtulal Bagaria Vs. Upendra Mohan Pal Chaudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal335
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant against the decree of the Subordinate Judge, 24 Parganas, dated 12th May 1928. The facts giving rise to the suit, out of which this appeal arises, may be shortly stated thus : One. Ashokenath Mitra mortgaged certain properties to Mrs. Janaki Agnes Penelope Majumdar by an indenture dated 18th August 1916. The mortgage was in the form of an English mortgage. After that date and before 1919, which date would be relevant with regard to the appellant's title, the mortgagor executed several other mortgages with respect to those very properties which were mortgaged to Mrs. Majumdar. The mortgagor, however, was allowed to remain in possession of the mortgaged properties. On 9th August 1918, the plaintiff obtained an assignment from Mrs. Majumdar of her first mortgage. Subsequent to that date, the plaintiff advanced further sums to the mortgagor and took two other mortgages from him. Nothing, however, depends upon that fact. One Nali...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »