Kolkata Court March 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.
Barada Kanta Roy Vs. Jatindra Nath Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.626
George Claus Rankin, C.J.1. This is a mortgage suit and the suit was decreed in the first Court but dismissed in the second Court. The original mortgagor was one Enajuddi, He died and the present suit was brought against his two widows and also against certain purchasers-defendants Nos. 5 and 6. The question was whether the suit was in time and that depended upon whether or not the Court, found that in 1319 there had been a payment made on the part of the widows. There was a further question, namely, whether that payment stopped the Statute of Limitation from running as against even the minor sons. The learned Subordinate Judge came first of alia to the conclusion that it was not possible for him to say affirmatively that the payment of Rs. 180 was made in full satisfaction. That is the first thing. There is great deal of evidence which might point that way. He said, for instance, that the plaintiff's suit was an afterthought and was not bona fide, but he did say that it was impossible...
J.C. Galstaun Vs. Kumar Pramathanath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1929
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.525
George Clause Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the appellant, J.C. Galstaun, was defendant in Title Suit No. 3 of 1918 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore. The case had reference to certain land situate to the south of premises belonging to the appellant and was settled in terms of a petition of compromise filed on the 28th November, 1918.2. Reading the petition of compromise as it now stands, and as it stood on the date of the decree, the first word pf the third line on the third page is the word 'whole' and the effect of the petition so read has been held to be that while the respondents were to give certain land to the appellant, the appellant was to give in exchange an equal quantity of land form the land abutting certain roads, but if this land of the appellant was not sufficient to equalize in area the land which the appellant was to receive then the appellant would pay for the whole of the land which he was to receive at a certain price, The respondents contention is tha...
Eradat Sarkar Vs. Abu Ahamed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.645
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of defendant No. 1 which arises out of a suit brought by a large number of plaintiffs for setting aside a revenue sale of Towzi No. 1080 of the Birbhum Collectorate. This estate belonged to a large number of co sharers including several defendants in this case. It is not necessary to give the shares of the parties. The important fact is that defendant No. 3 had a small share as proprietor and another share as purchaser of an interest which consisted of a mokarari mourashi lease in favour of defendants Nos. 20 to 26 There was a small arrear for the share of some of the plaintiffs. There was no separate account, but by an arrangement among the several co-sharers of the property, they used to pay revenue according to their shares in the Collectorate. The revenue of the March Kist of 1922 being in arrears, the whole estate was advertised for sale. Defendant No. 20 applied for payment of the arrears to the Collectorate and the Collector granted-p...
Makhan Lal Paul Vs. Rup Chand Maji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal164
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued for the recovery of some 4 bighas odd of land. His case was that the land in suit formed part of the mal land of th& zamindar of the village. The plaintiff took a lease from the patnidar, defendant 1 being, he alleged then, the patnidar's gomashta and having granted the lease, plaintiff has been dispossessed by defendant 1 and hence this suit.2. The defence was that the lands in. suit did not fork part of the zemindar's mal land in village Kharagore but that it was lakheraj lands of which they; had taken settlement from the shebait.3. The trial Court found the plaintiff had not made out any title and dismissed the suit.4. On appeal to the District Court the appeal was dismissed. In dealing with the appeal the learned Judge found that it had not been proved that the land in suit was the mal land of the zamindar. The view that he took was that it was not sufficient to shew that the land was within the ambit o...
Janakinath Singha Ray Vs. Nirodbaran Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal422
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the order of the Subordinate Judge, dated 11th November 1927, refusing to act aside an abatement of the suit with regard to the ascertainment of mesne profits, as directed by the Court under Order 20, Rule 12, Civil P.C. The first contention on behalf of the appellant is that the procedure which governs this case should be according to the rules laid down in the repealed Code of Civil Procedure of 1882 and not by the Code of 1908 and the reason given in support of this contention is that the suit for possession and for mesne profits was brought on 7th April 1908, when the present Code had not come into operation. The suit was decreed in the trial Court on 29th June 1909, and dismissed on appeal by the defendant. That decree was set aside by the High Court on 11th March 1916, winch reraandel the case for fresh trial to the first Court and, on such retrial, the suit was finally decreed on 14th September 1918. In the decree, it was directed th...
Sailendra Nath Bose and ors. Vs. Charu Chandra Bannerji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal422,118Ind.Cas.341
1. The suit out of which-this appeal has arisen has been decreed by both the Courts below.2. The plaintiff's case was as follows : - There is a gariti jama comprised of about 900 bighas of land of which the holders were defendants 1 to 23, 24 to 29 and one Kedar Ghosh, and No. 30, owning respectively 5/6th, 1/12th and1 1/12th shares therein. Defendant 31 for himself aid also on behalf of his brother defendant 32 obtained a maurashii rnokarari lease of a 5/6fch share of the said jama from defendants 1 to 23 in 1308 B.S. at a rental of Rs. 303 and odd. Subsequently defendant 31 obtained settlements of a 1/12th share from defendants 24 to 29 and the said Kedar Ghosh at a rental of Rs. 30 and odd, and also a settlement of the remaining 1/12th share from defendant 30 at the same rental. Thereafter the interest of Kedar Ghosh passed to defendants 19 to 23 and defendant 32 sold his interest to defendant 31.Thus there were three separate jamas held by defendant 31 under three sets of landlords...
Akkas Mia and ors. Vs. Abdul Aziz Bepari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal532a,121Ind.Cas.564
1. This is an appeal by the heirs of the appellant in the Court of appeal below against the order passed by that Court under Order 22, Rule 9, Civil P.C., refusing to set aside the abatement of the appeal pending in that Court. The original suit was for some money valued at less than 500 and the decree was passed against the appellant in the trial Court. Against that decree there was an appeal to the lower appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal the original appellant died and the appeal abated under the provisions of Order 22, Rule 11, Civil P.C. which provides that Rule 4 of that order should apply in the case of an appeal. A preliminary objection has been taken as to the maintainability of the appeal on behalf of the respondents on two grounds. It is first urged that there would have been no appeal against the final decree made by the lower appellate Court, if the appeal itself had been heard, under Section 102, Civil P.C. There should therefore be no appeal against an or...
Haran Chandra Chakravarti Vs. Joychand and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal524
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by a creditor who is described as creditor No. 4 against the order of the District Judge of Rajshahi dated 20th September 1927, made in an insolvency proceeding. The appellant had obtained a decree for over Rs. 5,000 on 16th July 1914. In 1915 he attached a house as belonging to his judgment-debtor, since adjudicated insolvent. Pour claim cases were started by the sons of the judgment-debtor who alleged that the property attached did not belong to the judgment-debtor but to themselves. Those claims were allowed on 23rd August 1915 and the property released from attachment.2. On 18th May 1916 the appellant brought a suit as provided under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C. for a declaration that the property belonged to his judgment-debtor and not to the claimants. In this suit the claimants and the judgment-debtor were made defendants. The suit was decreed in the trial Court on 30th September 1921. The claimants appealed against that decree to this Court a...
Abhoya Charan Sen and ors. Vs. Hem Chandra Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal568
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decision of the second Additional District Judge of Dacca dated 4th October 1926 reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, of the same place dated 11th December 1924.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought for recovery of rent with cesses and damages after apportionment in respect of a shikmi taluk more fully described hereafter. The rent sued for was for the years 1323 to 1326 B. S. The plaintiff's case, as stated in the plaint, is this. The previous proprietors of touzi, No. 315 of the Dacca Collectorate, having defaulted in the payment of the Government revenue, the mehal was sold and purchased by one Prosonna Coomar Sea in the year 1287 B.S. Prosonna Coomar took possession of the property in due course and thereafter created two tenures by registered pattas one in favour of Nand Coomar Dutt on 21st Baisakh 1289 B.S. and the other in favour of Srish Chandra Das in the year 1290 B.S. Within this...
Barkat Ali Haji and ors. Vs. Prasanna Kumar Talukdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal819
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for rent. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The defendants then preferred an appeal during the pendency of which one of the plaintiffs respondents named Raja Mia died. The death of this person took place admittedly some time in the year 1925. The fact of his death, however was not brought to the notice of the lower appellate Court by any of the parties. On 8th March 1926, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversing the decree of the trial Court dismissed the suit. The remaining plaintiffs then preferred this present appeal.2. The contention that is sought to be urged on behalf of the said 'appellants is that the decree of the lower appellate Court in so far as it was a decree passed in an appeal which was not properly constituted, the suit out of which the said appeal has arisen being one for rent and the decree from which that appeal was taken being a joint decree for rent in favour of all the plaintiffs, was a nullity inas...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›