Kolkata Court February 1929 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.
Jogendra Kishore Roy Vs. Salamat Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal92
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for foreclosure. It appears that the principal defendant mortgaged the property now in suit by way of conditional sale to the pro forma defendant on 4th Jaista 1325 B.S. The mortgagee, that is, the pro forma defendant Nabi Bux sold or assigned over the mortgage bond to the plaintiff on 1st January 1924. The present suit to enforce the mortgage by way of conditional sale by foreclosure was instituted on 28th August 1924. The principal defendant mainly contended that the mortgage bond itself and the sale thereof in favour of the plaintiff were both void for want of consideration. The defence further was that the plaintiff was not a bona fide purchaser for value. The Court of first instance held that the mortgage bond was for consideration and that the plaintiff was also a bona fide purchaser for value. It accordingly decreed the plaintiff's suit and passed the usual preliminary decree for foreclosure. Against thi...
BadaraddIn Mandal Vs. Nazir HossaIn Joaddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal163,121Ind.Cas.744
1. In this case an under-raiyat applied to make a deposit under Section 170, Clause (3), Ben. Ten. Act, when the landlord decree-holder sought to put up to sale the holding of the occupancy raiyat under whom he held. The Munsif held that the under-raiyat had no locus standi to make the deposit, as his under-tenancy was not created by a registered instrument or with the consent of the landlord. The under-raiyat has then obtained this rule.2. The learned Munsif has referred to and proceeded upon the authority of the case of Bhuban Mohan Guha v. Sheikh Badan [1919] 46 Cal. 766. That was a case where the landlord, who had purchased an occupancy holding at a rent sale, proceeded to sue the under-raiyat for khas possession without annulling the under-tenancy under Section 167 or serving notice under Section 49, Ban. Ten. Act. It was held that as the under-raiyati holding was not created by a registered lease or with the landlord's consent, there was no subsisting subtenancy which stood good ...
Brojo Mohan Pal Vs. Darsan Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal308
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession on declaration of title. The plaintiff's case was that he purchased the lands in suit from defendant 3 in August 1906, that in the kobala under which he purchased there was no mention of there having been any tenants on the land, that in the Settlement Record of the Khas Mehal finally published in 1910 the plaintiff was recorded as occupancy ryot in respect of the land, that subsequently in the Record-of-Rights finally published in 1918, the lands were recorded in the names of defendants 1 and 2 under defendant 3. The plaintiff alleged that he had instituted a suit under Section 106, Ben. Ten. Act, for correction of the entry in the Record-of-Rights but withdrew from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. He averred that he was dispossessed by the defendants in July 1922. The prayer for declaration of title was based on the purchase as also on adverse possession for the statutory period. There was a prayer for recover...
Radha Ballab Das Vs. Krishna Priyashi Dasya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal423
1. These three appeals arise out of three execution petitions made of a decree passed by this Court in Appeal from original decree No. 374 of 1908 dated 5th July 1910. The question in controversy depends upon the true interpretation of the decree. Although the learned Subordinate Judge has stated many things in his judgment disallowing the claim of the decree-holder, it is not necessary to go into all these matters. The real question is whether the decree-holder who was the plaintiff in the suit is entitled to execute the decree against the property in the hands of the' respondents in these appeals. The plaintiff lived in the family of Radhika Mohan Das, the original owner of the property, as a domesticated son-in-law. After the death of his father-in-law he had disputes with his mother-in-law and it seems that he was obliged to leave the house of his deceased father-in-law. Thereupon, he brought a suit for maintenance against his mother-in-law which was decreed by this Court The relev...
Moolji Sikka and Co., Vs. B.N. Ry. Co. Ltd.,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal482,121Ind.Cas.319
1. A wagan-load of biris weighing 353 bags and 4 baskets was booked by the petitioners from Gondia to Shalimar on the B.N. By and delivery was taken. 16 bags and 2 baskets were found damaged by water. The claim in the suit to which this rule relates was for recovery of compensation for the damage aforesaid. The trial Judge dismissed the suit holding that as the consignment was covered by Risk Notes A and B the Ry. Co. were protected from liability. The petitioners have then obtained this rule.2. In support of the rule several grounds have been urged. In the first place it has been contended that as the petitioners took delivery after the damages had been assessed and a certificate of such assessments showing the amount of it as Rs. 334-8-0 had been given to the petitioners and after the Chief Station Master at Shalimar had promised to make good the amount the railway Co. are under a disability to plead the Risk Notes. In answer to this contention it is enough to say that nothing has be...
Ambar Ali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal539
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the four accused were put upon their trial in connexion with a charge of forgery. The instrument charged as forged is a kabuliat (Ex. 1) dated 21st September 1921, which purports to have been executed by Md. Sabdar the complainant and his brother Md. Malik recently deceased and to be a conveyance of one Malaem of five annas share of land near Malaem's house.2. The first accused Ambar Ali was charged with forgery of the document, he being the scribe of the document. The other three accused Bidyananda Das, Har Mohan Das and Abdul Hakim were committed by the Magistrate on a charge of forgery but were charged before the Sessions Court with abetment of forgery under Section 467/109, I.P.C. These three accused purport to have been witnesses to the document.3. The signature of Sabdar on the document purports to have been put by accused I as scribe. The signature 'Md. Malik' in the document purports to have been written by Md. Malik himself.4. The complainant's case...
Ali Akabbar Vs. Kasem Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal785a,121Ind.Cas.305
Mukerji, J.1. This rule has been issued at the instance of the complainant in a case in which the accused has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Backergunj under Sections 304(ii), 326 and 148, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 304(ii), I.P.C. and for six months under Section 148, I.P.C. the sentences to run concurrently, no separate sentence under Section 326, I.P.C., being considered necessary by the learned Judge. The accused had pleaded guilty to the charges and prayed for mercy. The learned Judge in passing the sentence has observed that he had considered the circumstances under which the offences had been committed and also taken into consideration the age of the accused.2. The Crown has not moved in this matter nor has the Crown appeared to back up the application for enhancement though the rule was issued upon the District Magistrate.3. Apart from the reasons which I have set out in full in my judgment in Superintend...
Brojo Mohun Pal Vs. Darsan Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1929
Reported in: 120Ind.Cas.155
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession on declaration of title. The plaintiff's case was that he purchased the lands in suit from the defendant No. 3 in August. 1906, that in the kabala under which he purchased there was no mention of there having been any tenarits on the land, that in the Settlement Record of the khas mehal finally published in 1910 the plaintiff was recorded as occupancy raiyat in respect of the land, that subsequently in the Record of Rights finally published in 1918, the lands were recorded in the names of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 under the defendant No. 3. The plaintiff alleged that he had instituted a suit under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for correction of the entry in the Record of Rights but withdrew from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. He averred that he was dispossessed by the defendants in July, 1922. The prayer for declaration of title was based on the purchase as also on adverse possession for the statutor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›