Kolkata Court June 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.
Alabaksh Bhuyan and ors. Vs. Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.129
Mitter, J.1. These are three appeals by the defendant and arise out of three suits commenced by the Maharaja of Tripura for recovery of khas possession of lands mentioned in the respective schedules to the plaint in the three suits on declaration of his title by auction-purchase, The case stated in the plaint in each of these suits is that the disputed lands in these suits appertained to taluk Uddhab Ram Deb which is admittedly held under the zemindari of the plaintiff-respondent, that so far back as the year 1877 the Maharaja became the owner of this taluk by purchasing the same in execution of a decree for rent against the holder of the taluk, that in the year 1880 in execution of that decree for rent the Maharaja obtained delivery of possession. The plaintiff states that the defendant has been in actual possession of the disputed lands without obtaining any settlement from the plaintiff or without payment of rent and that they are trespassers and as such they are liable to be evicte...
Khyarennessa Choudhurani and anr. Vs. Satya Bhanu Ghosal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal599
Mitter, J.1. In this case the appellants who were the plaintiffs below challenge the validity of the sale of a patni taluq held under Section 14, Reg. 8 of 1819. The sale took place on 19th November 1923 for the arrears due for the first six months of the year 1330 B.S. and the patni taluq was purchased by Kalachand Roy, 2nd party defendant, now respondent. The patni which is held under the Zemindari of Kumar Satya Bhusan Ghosal and others who are the first party defendants belong to plaintiffs and pro forma defendants 11 to 21. Plaintiffs' share in the patni is seven annas and that of the pro forma defendants nine annas. The nine annas share holders have not joined with the plaintiffs in the suit to set aside the sale.2. The Subordinate Judge of Tipperah who tried the Suit has refused to set aside the sale and has dismissed plaintiffs' suit. On appeal to the learned Additional District Judge of Tipperah this decision has been affirmed. The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.3. The...
Khiro Mondal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal726
Cuming, J.1. This is an appeal by one Khiro against the order of the learned District Judge of Rajshahi convicting the appellant under Section 395, I.P.C., and sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellant was tried jointly with another man Sabur Sheikh. Sabur Sheikh was acquitted. The dacoity with which we are concerned took place in the house of one Prosanna Chandra Mandal on 27th July 1927. The usual investigation followed but no clue was obtained.2. Then later in connexion with the investigation of another dacoity the present accused Khiro made some statements to the police as the result of which he was taken before a Deputy Magistrate where he made a statement which forms the basis of the present case. Khiro and Sabur were committed to the Sessions with the result already noted. It will be seen and it is admitted that the only evidence against the present appellant is his own confession which was subsequently retracted.3.The appellant has contended that for c...
Kalipada Roy and anr. Vs. Mukunda Lal Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal679
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was for recovery of possession of the plaintiff's moiety share of touzi No. 12713 of the Dacca Collectorate and also for mesne profits. The plaintiffs are the minor sons of one Sudhanya Chandra Roy deceased. It appears from examination of the papers of the Collectorate produced in this case that the touzi originally belonged to two brothers Arun Chandra Roy and Sudhanya Chandra Roy who owned eight annas share each. This was the state of things in 1919. In 1920 Sudhanya was recorded as the sole proprietor. Certificate was issued by the Certificate Officer on 16th September 1919 under the Public Demands Recovery Act in respect of cesses due from the estate. In the certificate the certificate debtor's name was mentioned as Joylakshmi Debya manager on behalf of (ka) Arun Chandra Roy and (kha) Sudhanya Chandra Roy. This certificate was duly filed and the property was ordered to be sold. In 1920 it was brought to the notice of the Certificate O...
Srimati Khyarennessa Choudhurani and anr. Vs. Kumar Satya Bhanu Ghosal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1929
Reported in: 128Ind.Cas.188
Mitter, J.1. In this case the appellants who were the plaintiffs below challenge the validity of the sale of a putni taluk held under Section 14 of the Regulation VIII of 1819. The sale took place on the 19th November, 1923, for the arrears due for the first six months of the year 1339 B. 8. and the putni taluk was purchased by Kalachand Roy, the second party defendant, now respondent. The putni which is held under the zemindari of Kumar Satya Bhusan Ghosal and others who are the first party defendants belongs to plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants Nos. 11 to 21. Plaintiff's share in the putni is 7 annas and that of the pro forma defendants 9 annas. The 9 annas share-holders have not joined with the plaintiffs in the suit to set aside the sale.2. The Subordinate Judge of Tipperah who tried the suit has refused to set aside the sale and has dismissed plaintiff's suit. On appeal to the learned Additional District Judge of Tipperah this decision has been affirmed. The plaintiffs have ...
Promotha Nath Mozumdar Vs. Nagendra Nath Mozumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal235
Rankin, C.J.1. In my opinion, this appeal must fail. There are three points that are taken in this appeal. The defendant-appellant is a purchaser of the land in suit in the year 1912 at an auction sale held in pursuance of a money decree. The plaintiff is a person whose mother got a decree in 1912 upon a mortgage of 1909 and in 1914 bought the said land at an auction sale under the mortgage decree. The mortgage bond comprised several items of property. It was executed by one Ambica Kanta Mazumdar for Rs. 500 and it comprised three lots of property specified in different schedules. The plaintiff when he brought his suit claimed certain land describing it in a particular way and there can be no doubt, if one looks simply to the description in the plaint, that the defendant is in possession of the land which the plaintiff is claiming.2. The first question which we have to consider is whether it is properly shown by the plaintiff's title deed that the land which he has become entitled to i...
B.N. Ry. Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanjishah Pestonji and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal298
ORDERMukerji, J.1. This rule is directed against a decree made by the Small Cause Courts Judge of Sealdah f or Rs. 671 as compensation and Rs. 123 as proportionate costs in favour of the plaintiff and as against the petitioners, the B.N. Ry. Co. Ltd., who were defendant 2 in the suit.2. The plaintiff's claim related to a consignment of 65 bales of cotton piece goods despatched from Nagpur to Sealdah, 15 of which were damaged by wet in transit.3. There were two rival theories before the Court. The plaintiff's case was that the roof of the wagon in which the consignment was carried was leaky and the damage was caused by rain water entering through the leaks. The defence was that the damage was due to rain water entering through the crevices of the flap door. The Judge has accepted the plaintiff's version and the reasons given therefor are quite sound.4. Having done so the Judge proceeded to resort to the following process of reasoning:A considerable amount of rain water found its way int...
Ahasanulla Vs. Nejabatali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal682
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for establishment of title to and recovery of possession of certain properties and also for accounts. The plaintiff being unsuccessful in both the Courts below have preferred this second appeal.2. Abdul Azim and Abdul Gani were two brothers. Abdul Gani died in 1318 B.S. leaving two sons, Makram Ali and Nizamat Ali, the latter having been defendant 1 in the suit and he having died his heirs were substituted in his place. Abdul Azim had two daughters whose names were Kali Bibi and Choto Bibi. The plaintiff claims that he and the pro forma defendant Lal Bibi were the son and the daughter of Abdul Azim by his second wife Najibannessa. Abdul Azim died in 1328 B. S.3. In 1295 Abdul Gani and his wife and Abdul Azim made a wakf in respect of their properties, providing that the sons of Abdul Gani and their heirs were to be mutwallis. On the death of Abdul Gani in 1318, Makram Ali instituted a suit in 1914 for a declaration that the wakfnama was invalid and f...
Sachidananda and ors. Vs. Jyoti Prosad Singh Deo Bahadur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal791
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a judgment and decree of the Officiating Additional Subordinate Judge of Assansol partially decreeing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff has preferred a cross-objection against that part of the decree by which the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed a portion of his claim. The suit refers to a mouza called Itapara and the plaintiff claims that the property is situated within the ambit of this zamindari. An ancestor of his made a grant of the lands within the mouza to an ancestor of the defendants for performing the sheba of an idol named Sri Sri Gopi Nath Jue without payment of any rent. Recently, at the instance of the defendants the revenue authorities recorded the mouza in the Register under the Bengal Land Registration Act (Act 7 of 1876) as a revenue-free estate. Coal has recently been discovered underneath the mouza and the defendants have set up their right to the underground minerals. The plaintiff, therefore, brough...
The Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanjishah Pestonji and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1929
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.332
Mukerji, J.1. This Rule is directed against a decree made by the Small Cause Court Judge of Sealdah for Rs. 671 as compensation and Rs. 123 as proportionate costs in favour of the plaintiff and as against the petitioners, the Bengal Nagpur Railway Company, Limited who were the defendant No. 2 in the suit.2. The plaintiff's claim related to a consignment of 65 bales of cotton piece-goods despatched from Nagpur to Sealdah, 15 of which were damaged by wet in transit.3. There were two rival theories before the Court. The plaintiff's case was that the roof of the wagon in which the consignment was carried was leaky and the damage was caused by rain water entering through the leaks. The defence was that the damage was due to rain water entering through the crevices of the flapdoor. The Judge has accepted the plaintiff's version and the reasons given therefor are quite sound.4. Having done so, the Judge proceeded to resort to the following process of reasoning: 'A considerable amount of rain ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »