Kolkata Court March 1930 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.
Kalipada Das Karmarkar Vs. Sashi Bhusan Majhi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal636
Cuming, J.1. In the case out of which this Rule has arisen the petitioner has been convicted of theft and also of being a member of an unlawful assembly. The case for the prosecution was that the complainant was in possession of a certain piece of land and that the present petitioner with a large number of persons trespassed upon the complainant's land and dug up potatoes which he had grown on the land. The defence was that it was the petitioner who owned the land and who had grown the potatoes and removed them. Both Courts below have found that it was the complainant who was in possession and had grown the potatoes and hence the petitioner was convicted and fined.2. The first ground on which the Rule has been granted is that the judgment of the Court of appeal below does not indicate the defence evidence in the case and contains no independent discussion of the same. It is perfectly clear from a perusal of the judgment what the defence evidence was, namely the testimony of certain per...
Kaliprasanna Sinha and ors. Vs. Haripada Ghosh Hajra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal69,129Ind.Cas.871
Costello, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Murshidabad reversing a decision of the Subordinate Judge of that district. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiffs were claiming a declaration of their title to a certain lakheraj property and also to some jote lands as described in the schedule to the plaint. They also claimed recovery of possession of both the lakheraj property and the jote land. The facts on which the claim is based are shortly these : There was a lady named Sukhada Sundari Dasi who executed a will on 20th June 1904 whereby she dedicated all her property to the family idol of her husband and appointed him (that is to say her husband) as she-bait of. the debuttar property so created. The husband however predeceased the lady. She herself died in April 1916. After the death of the husband the lady left her husband's home at Panchthupi and lived with her brother, Raghuram Singh, father of defendant 1. Raghuram used to manage Su...
Tarakeswar Pal Choudhury Vs. Satish Kanta Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal411
C.C. Ghose, J.1. Defendant 2 is the appellant before us and the appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs (who are descendants of the Raja of Chanchra in the District of Jessore) as shebaits to Sree Sree Shyam Roy Thakur for a declaration of their lakheraj debuttar title to and in certain lands in Pargana Emadpur situate in the District of Khulna but included in touzi 1 of the Nadia Collectorate, for recovery of khas possession of the same and for mesne profits. The lands in question are stated to be in mouza Dearah by the side of the river Kabatakshi. It is said that the lands in question have been possessed by the family of the plaintiffs for generations as shebaits, the original grant having been made by Raja Pratapaditya, an account of whom is to be found in Westland's Jessore. 2nd Edn., p. 23 and in O'Malley's Gazetteer of Jessore, p. 25. The plaintiffs state that at the time of the Decennial Settlement of 1790, the debutter character of the lands in question was re...
Sarat Kumar Roy Vs. Haripado Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal112
1. These four appeals have arisen out of two orders passed in two execution cases by the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan and affirmed on appeal by the Judge of that District.2. There were two decrees for rent of certain lands obtained by the landlord decree-holder. The decrees were sought to be executed in 1919 when the judgment-debtor objected that he was not liable to pay the entire amounts of the decrees as some rival landlord had in the meantime established his title to a portion of the lands. These objections were given effect to by the executing Court which ordered that the decrees could be executed for only small portions of the amounts thereof. The decree-holder then preferred two appeals to this Court. After the appeals were preferred, the execution proceedings in both the cases were on 15th June 1922 dismissed for default as the decree-holder though asked to take steps to go on, failed to do so. The appeals ended on 11th June 1926 in favour of the decree-holder it being held tha...
Ananta Lal Sarkhel Vs. Soudamini Guha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal621,129Ind.Cas.401
Costello, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by a lady named Soudamini Guha and her sons to set aside the sale of a certain property which had taken place under the provisions of the Revenue Sale Law (Act 11, 1859). The plaintiffs claimed a decree for setting aside the revenue sale and in the alternative for a declaration that the plaintiffs' right with regard to the land in question had not been affected by the sale. The defendants were four in number and defendant 4 was plaintiff's stepmother in that she was one of the wives of the plaintiff's father. The allegation made on behalf of the plaintiffs was that this defendant who possessed the property in question as a widow of the plaintiff's father and therefore had a life interest in it, in order to defeat the future right of plaintiff and her family to succeed to that property had fraudulently conspired with the other defendants to bring about the sale of the land by making default in the payment of the revenue...
Cook and Co. Vs. C.L. Phillips and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal133
Rankin, C.J.1. The insolvent, Charles Spooner Hart, was adjudicated in the Court of the District Judge, 24 Parganas, on 21st January 1929. By an indenture dated 23rd February 1925 the respondent in this appeal, C. L. Phillips, leased to the insolvent certain land in Dover Lane Ballygunge, in the suburbs of Calcutta, for a term of 30 years, at a progressive monthly rent ranging from Its. 3,000 to Rs. 3,700. The insolvent carried on business as a horse dealer and veterinary surgeon and occupied the demised premises for the purposes of that business. The lease provided that all buildings or structures which should be erected by the lessee should at the expiration or determination of the tenancy, become the property of the lessor. It further provided by a separate clause as follows:(b) And that all buildings and erections hereafter erected or put up by the lessee on the said demised premises and all fixtures and partitions thereon shall belong to the lessor at the expiration or sooner dete...
Man Mohan Das Vs. Shib Chandra Saha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal353
Graham, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant Man Mohan Das from a decision of the District Judge of Tipperah confirming a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Tipperah and arises out of two cross suits between the appellant and one Shib Chandra Saha and others relating to certain transactions in jute. The defendant-appellant is a bepari or trader, and the plaintiffs. now respondents, are jute brokers. In his suit (No. 2 of 1925) the appellant claimed that there was a balance of Rs. 3,139-4-0' due to him for jute supplied, whereas the Sahas alleged that Man Mohan had taken money from them in excess of jute supplied and claimed Rs. 1,638 from him.2. The suits were consolidated and tried together, only one set of issues being framed.3. The trial Court dismissed Man Mohan's suit and partially decreed the Sahas' suit for Rs. 1,492-7 O. Man Mohan thereupon appealed to the District Judge not against the decrees in both suits, but only against the decree in Suit No. 68. When the appeal was ...
Mano Mohan Das Vs. Firm Known as Shib Chandra Saha and Madhab Chandra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.562
Graham, J.1. Tnis ia aa appeal by the defendant Monomohan Das from a decision of the District Judge of Tipperak confirming a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Tippera and arises out of two cross suits between the appellant and one Shib Chandra Sana and others relating to certain transactions in jute. The defendant-appellant is a Bepari or trader, and the plaintiffs, now respondent?, are jute brokers. In his Suit (No. 2 of 1925) the appellant claimed that there was a balance of Rs. 3,139 4-0 due to him for jute supplied, whereas the Sahas alleged that, Monomohan had taken money from them in excess of jute supplied and claimed Rs. 1,638 from him.2. The suits were consolidated and tried together, only one set of issues baing framed.3. The trial Court dismissed Monomohan's suit and partially decreed the Sahas' suit for Ra. 1,492 7-0. Monomohan thereupon appealed to the District Judge not against the decrees in both suits, but only against the decree in Suit No. 68. When the appeal was f...
Asikannessa Bibi and ors. Vs. Dwijendra Krishna Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal92a,129Ind.Cas.878
Mallik, J.1. The facts which have given rise to the present rule were briefly these: On 22nd August 1927 there was an application made by the petitioners for setting aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. This application was dismissed on 22nd June 1929. Against the order of dismissal the petitioners wanted to file an appeal before the District Judge, but the learned District Judge refused to admit the appeal on the ground that the petitioners had not deposited the decretal money. It was against this order of the learned District Judge that the petitioners obtained the present rule.2. If the proviso under Section 174(5), Ben. Ten. Act, was applicable to the present case there can be no doubt that the learned District Judge was perfectly correct in refusing to admit the appeal, the petitioners not having deposited the decretal money. But the question is whether the proviso under the subsection can be said to apply to the present case. The new amendment of Section 174 relating ...
Roy Kiran Chandra Roy and anr. Vs. Rama Nath Dutta Chowdhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal104
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, the plaintiff is a tenure-holder under a revenue paying estate bearing No. 3841. He is not a tenure-holder of the whole of the land of the estate but he is a tenure-holder of an eight annas interest in a certain mouza which is owned jointly between estate No. 3841 and estate No. 3845 the land of this mouza being ijmali between the two estates and each of these estates having an interest of eight annas. The position, which the plaintiffs is in, according to the argument of Mr. Nasim Ali is that, if he wants partition, he is bound to go for it to the civil Court because he cannot ask for the partition of estate No. 3841 and he cannot possibly go under the Estates Partition Act before the Collector, he being only a tenure-holder. It is contended on the other hand, by Mr. Sen for defendants 1 and 2 who are the purchasers at a revenue sale of 1906 of estate No. 3845 and have thus become proprietors of eight annas interest in this mouza, that it is not competent ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »