Kolkata Court May 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.
Baldeo Das Bajoria and ors. Vs. Sorojini Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal697
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 4 and 5 which arises out of a suit for partition. A preliminary decree has been made by the learned Subordinate Judge and the appeal is directed against that preliminary decree. The property which is the subject-matter of this appeal originally belonged to two brothers, Hari Narain and Hari Bansha. Hari Bansha died in the year 1900 leaving him surviving his widow and three sons. Hari Narain got his share partitioned in the year 1905. The three sons of Hari Bansha purchased the share of Hari Narain, which had been partitioned previously by a conveyance dated 31st May 1922. On that very day the three brothers mortgaged the entire interest in the house to a third person, with which we are not concerned in this litigation. On 12th October 1923 these three brothers again mortgaged the property to defendant 5. On 1st September 1924 these three brothers again executed a second mortgage of this very property in favour of their mother. Defendant ...
Baldeodas Bajoria and ors. Vs. Sarojini Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.408
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 4 and 5, which arises out of a suit for partition. A preliminary decree has been made by the learned Subordinate Judge and the appeal is directed against that preliminary decree. The property, which is the subject-matter of this appeal, originally belonged to two brothers; Harinarayan and Haribangsha. Haribangsha died in the year 1900, leaving him surviving his widow and three sons. Harinarayan got his share partitioned in the year 1905. The three sons of Haribangsha purchased the share of Harinarayan, which had been partitioned previously, by a conveyance dated the 31st of May, 1922. On that very day, the three brothers mortgaged the entire interest in the house to a third person, with which we are not concerned in this litigation. On the 12th of October, 1923, these three brothers again mortgaged the property to defendant No. 5. On the 1st of September, 1924, these three brothers again executed a mortgage of this very property in ...
Jira Bewa and ors. Vs. Uma Charan Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1931Cal501
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sue for khas possession of Survey Plot No. 201 of Mouza Tarak Baria on declaration of title. The plaintiffs claim the land as owners of Touzi No. 247. The defence is that the defendants hold the land as tenants under the owners of Touzi No. 1068 in the same mouza. There was a rehearing of the suit on remand and the Courts below have now found that the plaintiffs have title to the land in suit and further that they wore in possession within twelve years of the suit. They have expressly found that the land was first cultivated by the defendants in 1320 and that the adverse possession of the defendants did not begin before that date. In the result the Courts below have found that the plaintiffs' suit is not barred by limitation. In the present appeal by the defendants the only point that is urged is the point of limitation. It is contended that the learned Court of appeal below has decided this question from a wrong...
Gulmatinnessa Chowdhurani Vs. Jago Pali and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal658
Mitter, J.1. In these two appeals by the plaintiff the facts are not in dispute The suits in which these two appeals arise were for arrears of rent. The plaintiff alleged that the original rental in one case was Rs. 22-9-0 and that the tenant subsequently agreed to an enhanced rental of Rs. 25-6-5 gds. The holding in question is the holding of an occupancy raiyat at a money rent and the enhancement exceeded very slightly the enhancement allowed under the law. Section 29, Ben. Ten. Act, prohibits an enhancement by contract of more than two annas in the rupee. So in this case the legal enhancement would have been Rs. 25-6-2 1/2gds. Instead of that it is said that enhancement was agreed to Rs. 25-6-5gds. in other words there is an enhancement of more than 2 1/2gds.2. Both the Courts below have granted the plaintiff a decree in this suit at the rate of Rs. 22-9-0 which was the admitted rental. It was argued before them and that argument has been repeated before me that there has not really...
Amanat Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal724,122Ind.Cas.627
ORDER1. The facts which have given rise to the present rule were these. The petitioner Amanat Ali preferred a complaint under Section 406, I.P.C. before Mr. K.L. Banerji, a Magistrate, 1st Class, Noakhali, charging Moulvi Azizar Rahaman, Sub-Deputy Collector of San-dip, with having misappropriated a sum of Rs. 400 paid to him by the petitioner as selami for certain khas mahal lands. Mr. Banerji examined Amanat Ali and sent the matter to one Mr. Ahmed Ali for an enquiry and report. On the next day the District Magistrate withdrew the complaint to his own file and directed Mr. Khan, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, to enquire into the complaint and report. Mr. Khan held an enquiry and submitted a report to the District Magistrate declaring the complaint of Amanat Ali to be maliciously false. Thereupon the District Magistrate on a consideration of that report dismissed the complaint under Section 203, Criminal P.C., and under the provisions of Section 476 of the the Code made a complaint...
KalimuddIn Shaik and ors. Vs. Baidyanath Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal572
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,153-12-0 alleged to be due on a mortgage bond. The appellants are purchasers of the mortgaged property by the kabala Ex. B. The appellants claim that the property was mortgaged to them for Es.390 on 3rd Baisakh 1329. Two days later they purchased the property for Rs. 800 and out of the consideration of the two transactions Rs. 7.00 was paid in satisfaction of a prior mortgage of Samiruddin and the property was sold to them free of encumbrances, the existence of the plaintiff's mortgage being concealed from them.2. It is urged on their behalf that the plaintiffs are not entitled to enforce their mortgage -without refunding Rs. 700 paid by the appellants to redeem the prior mortgage. The Court of first instance has found that Samiruddin's mortgage was paid off by the mortgagors previously. The lower appellate Court finds that inasmuch as the amount of the prior mortgage was admittedly actually paid by the mortgagors, t...
Samru and ors. Vs. Bansari Burmani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal532
1. This Rule is directed against an order of the District Magistrate of Dinajpur whereby the conviction of the petitioners was maintained. The petitioners were charged under Sections 456, 352, 354 and 447, I.P.C. The complaint in the case was made on 5th September 1928 alleging that accused 1 Samru entered into a neighbour's house and attempted to outrage the modesty of the complainant. She cried out and various people came to the scene and the other accused participated in rescuing the first accused from the hands of the people who had already seized him. The learned Magistrate on appeal has dealt with the case in a manner which is all right so far as it goes. But it is said that he has not dealt with the case of the defence and it is quite true to say that reading the judgment of the lower appellate Court we do not gather either what the defence was or that it was supported by any witnesses. In fact, however, it appears that the defence case was that on 3rd September that is two days...
Rangini Sundari Dasya Vs. Hiralal Biswas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal249
B.B. Ghose, J.1. In my judgment, there is no second appeal in this case.2. The appeal arises out of an application made by the judgment-debtor under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C., for making a deposit of the amount necessary for setting aside the sale. She made a deposit of a certain sum of money which fell short by a few rupees of the requisite amount. It appears that the judgment-debtor's agent, the judgment-debtor being a pardanashin lady, asked the execution clerk, who as a matter of practice in the lower Courts, makes calculations in these matters, as to what sum she should deposit in order to have the sale set aside under that rule. The clerk gives evidence that under the directions' of the sheristadar or the chief ministerial officer he made a calculation on the back of the execution petition filed by the decree-holder as to the amount requisite for making the deposit for setting aside the sale. The judgment-debtor's agent then by a challan made the deposit. Under Rule 20, Chap....
Sm. Rani Basanta Kumari Dasi and ors. Vs. Tulsi Charan Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal353
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder against an order of the learned Additional District Judge of Howrah reversing an order of the Subordinate Judge rejecting an objection of the judgment-debtors to the execution of a decree by sale of certain properties, ordered by the Subordinate Judge,2. The facts have been clearly stated by the learned Additional District Judge, in his judgment. A decree was passed on, 29th June 1911. An application for execution was filed on 31st July 1922 and some properties were attached. Some items of the properties attached were sold on 17th March 1927 and only Rs. 100 out of the decretal amount of over Rs. 4,000 was realized. On 22nd April 1927 the decree-holder applied for an amendment of his application for execution by putting in a large number of properties against which he intended to proceed in execution. This application, was allowed ex parte. It does not appear whether notice of this application was at all served upon the judgment-d...
Bhabani Charan Banikya Vs. Suchitra Baisnabi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal270
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Khas possession of a tank on establishment of the plaintiff's title thereto. The plaintiff's case is that the tank is the debutter property of an idol. Hare Krishna, the last shebait, being unable to perform his duties, the plaintiff was appointed shebait in 1325 B.S. and since then he had been in possession of the tank, but he was dispossessed by the defendant in 1331, B.S. Hence the suit. The defence of defendant 1 was that the tank was the personal property of Sital Bairagi a previous shebait, that Hare Krishna let out the tank to defendant 1 the raiyati right on 29th Bhadra 1326 B.C., and that since then he had been in possession. The learned Munsiff who tried the suit found that Hare Krishna executed a lease of the tank in suit in favour of the defendant on 29th Bhadra 1326 B.S. vide Ex. A. He thought that probably the tank was the personal property of Sital Bairagi; but he considered that even if it were debutter p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »