Kolkata Court April 1929 Judgments
Kader Bux Patwari and ors. Vs. SalimuddIn Hazi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal267
Mukerji, J.1. These appeals arise out of a suit for recovery of khas possession of, on declaration of the plaintiffs' title to, two plots of land described in schedule gha of the plaint, and also for mesne profits.2. The plaintiffs case as laid in the plaint was that the disputed land appertains to a kayemi ryoti holding comprising 7 kanis of land, which the plaintiffs formerly held under one Hasanali and now under one Salemuddi Haji and others; that the defendants or some of them dispossessed the plaintiffs from a part of the disputed lands in Jaistha, 1312; that consequently the plaintiffs instituted a suit under Section 9, Specific Belief Act on 18th November 1905, obtained a decree and in execution thereof recovered possession on 20th January 1907; that they then remained in possession till Ashar 1318 when they were again dispossessed by some of the defendants from a portion, for which they instituted a suit in 1914 which they withdrew on 27th January 1916; and that, emboldened by ...
Tag this Judgment!Sonaulla Karikar Vs. Abu Sayad Mahammad Ismail
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal530
Suhrawardy, J.1. The predecessor of defendants 1 to 4 borrowed a sum of Rs. 55 from the plaintiff in January 1915, and executed the mortgage bond in suit. In November 1916 the mortgagors sold the mortgaged property to defendant 5. In December 1916 they sold the same property to the plaintiff mortgagee for Rs. 300, out of which Rs. 123 was paid in cash to the mortgagor and Rs. 177 was credited towards the mortgage of 1915. The mortgagors put the plaintiff in possession of the property. Thereafter, defendant 5 brought a suit in 1923 against the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the property and succeeded in obtaining a decree, in execution of which the plaintiff lost possession of the property. That litigation ended on 27th June 1925, and, on 29th August 1925, the plaintiff instituted the present suit on the bond of January 1915, for recovery of the amount due under it. Defendant 5 entered appearance and contested the suit and the only defence with which we are now concerned is his...
Tag this Judgment!Provas Chandra Sinha Vs. Ashutosh Mukherji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal258,122Ind.Cas.197
Page, J.1. This is an originating summons by the plaintiff, taken out by his mother as next friend, in which the plaintiffclaims to be interested in the relief sought as the sole residuary legateeunder the will and codicils of his grandfather Gopal Chandra Sinha, for the purpose of determining the title to the property moveable and immovable of the testator. The originating summons is in the following form:Let the defendants Ashutosh Mukhorjee, Sadasiva Mitter and Khitindra Kumar Mitter, the executors of the said Gopal Chandra Sinha deceased, all of No. 9, Ghaulpati Lane, and the defendants Sashi Bhusan Sinha of No. 13-A, Teliparha Road, Khitish Chandra Sinha, since adjudged a lunatic, and Purna Chandra Sinha, the three sons of the said deceased, and the defendant Khoka Sinha, a minor grandson by son of the said deceased, and as such claiming or. having an interest in the latter's estate as a residuary legatee under his will and codicils, dated respectively 2nd March 1919, 2nd November...
Tag this Judgment!Kedarnath Bhutra Vs. Johormull Bhutra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal465
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case a decree was made by consent, one of its terms being that each party should pay its own costs to be taxed by the Taxing Officer of this Court if necessary as between attorney and client on scale No. 2, Mr. Gregory argues that the effect of the decree is to supersede all interlocutory orders for costs which have previously been made in the suit. These interlocutory orders include orders which have been made by the Court of appeal. He bases that argument on two decisions of Wilson, J., in 1891 and 1892 and says that the practice of this Court has been in accordance with these decisions. I doubt whether the decisions are sufficient in their terms to support the rule which Mr. Belchambers based upon them in those days, which rule, I am informed, has been followed hitherto in this Court. Such a rule would not be in accordance with English practice on this point and in my opinion the rule as minuted by Mr. Belchambers is not a correct rule or one which should...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Charan De and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal63
Mallik, J.1. The facts which have given rise to the present rule are briefly these: There was a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P.C. between one Mon Mohun Chakravarty and others, first party, and Naba Chandra Chakravarty and others, second party. This proceeding under Section 145; Criminal P.C. was on 16th January 1928, decided in favour of the first party and the first party were declared entitled to maintain possession of the property in dispute and it was also ordered that there must not be any interference with their possession. When the Daroga went to the spot on 1st April 1928, he found the present petitioners in occupation of the property and, when he asked them to vacate it, the petitioners declined to do so. On these facts, the two petitioners were put on their trial under Section 188, I.P.C., and both of them were ultimately convicted and sentenced under that section. Against this order of conviction and sentence, the petitioners went up to the Sessions Judge but witho...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Prosanna Ghose and ors. Vs. Kali Prosanna Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal339
1. The appeal arises out of a suit for assessment of rent and for recovery of rent for three years and in the alternative for recovery of damages for use and occupation.2. The plaintiff's case was as follows: In Touzi No. 5191 in zamindari right there were 3 shares, - 7 annas, 7 annas and 2 annas. One of these two 7 annas was originally held and stood in the name of Ram Raja Das Choudhuri. The plaintiffs purchased 2 annas 2 gandas share out of this 7 annas zamindari right and got their names registered under Act 7 of 1876. Mouzah Chibtabadi falls within this 7 annas zamindari. At present the plaintiffs own the said 2 annas 2 gandas share, and the remaining 4 annas 18 gandas share belongs to the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants. These shares have been separately recorded in two Khewats, Nos. 1 and 2. The owners of the 4 annas 18 gandas share granted a sikmi taluki interest of their share of the lands of mouzah Chittabadi to two persons Ram Gopal Sarkhel and Ram Prasad Naridi Bera...
Tag this Judgment!Radharani Debi Vs. Nibaran Chandra Mukerji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal512,122Ind.Cas.302
1. In this case there is sufficient material on the record to show that the alleged lunatic Nibaran Chandra Mukherji has bean sent to the Ranchi Mental Hospital and is confined there as a criminal lunatic. His wife, the appellant before us applied to the District Judge for appointment as manager of his properties and did not desire to be appointed guardian of his person as the alleged lunatic was confined in the Mental Hospital. In the course of the proceedings before the lower Court a post card said to have been in answer to a letter written by the pleader for the wife to the Superintendent of the Ranchi Mental Hospital was placed before the learned Judge. That post card according to the view of the learned Judge was ambiguous and as he was told that the alleged lunatic was residing at Ranchi beyond the jurisdiction of his Court he held that he could not order an inquisition under Section 62, of the Act and in that view he rejected the application. It is beyond question that the alleg...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotirupa Devi Vs. Satish Kantha Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal561
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Jessore, dated 7th June 1927. The suit was brought for enforcing specific performance of a contract embodied in a Solenama dated 6th May 1920 by which two civil suits namely. Suit No. 295 of 1929 brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant and Money Suit No. 279 of 1919 brought by the defendant against the plaintiffs were compromised. The plaintiffs in the present suit are related to the defendant as brothers of her deceased husband. The defendant's husband was separate from the plaintiffs. He died on 6th May 1927 when defendant was probably a minor or had just attained majority having completed eighteen years of age. On 7th August 1917 she applied for succession certificate for about Rs. 9,000 which, she claimed, was due to her husband from third parties. The plaintiffs put in an objection that she could not have the power of disposal of the money. It appears ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanti Chandra Tarafdar and anr. Vs. Radha Raman Sirkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal815
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, the plaintiff brought a suit for accounts against two defendants as executors of the plaintiff's grandmother. He valued his suit so far as regards the claim for accounts at Rs. 1,000 and this he appears to have done quite reasonably and correctly under Sub-clause (f), Sub-section (4), Section 7, Court-fees Act.2. A preliminary decree for accounts was made against the two defendants and from this they appealed to the High Court paying full court-fee so far as regards the claim for accounts, viz., on Rs. 1,000. They paid apparently a court-fee on Rs. 1,300 altogether. A stay of execution was asked for from this Court but was refused and the suit in the Court below proceeded; after an enquiry and report by a commissioner a final decree was made in the plaintiff's favour for Rs. 6,418 as the amount due from the defendants upon the taking of the accounts. The judgment did not require the plaintiff as a condition precedent to deposit an additional court-fee withi...
Tag this Judgment!Ah Yung and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal369
Mukerji, J.1. Of the several grounds upon which the conviction of the petitioners which is under Section 45, Calcutta Police Act, (4 B.C. of 1866) in this case has been assailed, none is of any substance except one which in my judgment goes to the very root of the matter and is positively fatal.2. The learned Magistrate in dealing with the question which is the primary question in the case, namely, whether the place can be called a 'common gaming house' has observed:Section 47 of the Act lays down that if gaming instruments are found in a house, the presumption is that it is a common gaming house.3. This proposition is entirely correct provide I the finding of the instruments is in conformity with the provisions of Section 46, as Section 47 itself provides for by the use of the words 'under the provisions of the last preceding section.' To go back to Section 46 for a second, the search as a consequence of which the find takes place must be of the place, etc., in respect of which the se...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »