Kolkata Court January 1931 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.
Bengal Coal Company Ltd. Vs. Prosanna Kumar Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal39
Suhrawardy, J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiffs apparently under Section 19, Specific Belief Act, for specific performance of a contract and in the alternative for recovery of the earnest money paid to the defendants out of the price fixed for some land. Both the Courts below have held that there was no contract as pleaded by the plaintiffs and they dismissed the claim for specific performance.2. The only question which is now argued before us, is whether the plaintiffs are entitled in the circumstances of this case to have a refund of the money paid to the defendants, as they say by way of earnest money. It is stated that the defendants contracted to sell to the plaintiff company the underground rights in 9 bighas and 17 cottas of land at Rs. 150 per bigha and received Rs. 800 as earnest. The trial Court found that there was no good and reliable evidence about the payment of Rs. 800 as part of the price settled for the disputed land. The learned District Judge on appeal says:...
Sasi Bushan Das Vs. Ram Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal136
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage bond. The defence that has been accepted in the Courts below, was that subsequent to the mortgage bond there was an arrangement as to the mode of payment of the amount, in writing between the parties and the plaintiff executed a kistbundi receipt. According to that kistbundi the defendants were to pay the amount then found due in twelve instalments spreading over Seven years. It has been found by the Courts below that the defendants paid all the instalments mentioned therein except a sum of Rs. 185 which the plaintiff before the institution of the suit re-fused to accept and he has brought this suit, ignoring the kistbundi, upon the mortgage bond,2. Dr. Mukherji on behalf of the appellant argues that the kistbundi was inadmissible in evidence under Section 92, Evidence Act, and under Sections 17 and 49, Registration Act, for want of registration. The learned Subordinate Judge in the lower appellate Court has fully dealt) with the matter...
Mt. Badarannessa Choudhurani Vs. Sm. Nazimerunnessa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal22
Suhrawardy, J.1. Appeal No. 702 is by the plaintiff arising out of a suit for declaration of her zamindari right in the disputed land and for khas possession of the same with mesne profits or in the alternative for ascertainment of fair and equitable rent. The plaintiff's case is that one Mon Gazi held an entire ijara under her which expired in 1318 B. S,, but he and his descendants were wrongfully holding the land in suit. They fraudulently got their right entered in the Record of Rights as raiyati right with the remark that:the raiyati was fit for assessment but there had been no payment of rent in respect thereof.2. It appears that the plaintiff made an application under Section 105, Ban. Ten. Act, for assessment of fair and equitable rant. That application, the plaintiff did not prosecute and it was ultimately dismissed. In this suit the principal defence of the defendants is that it is barred by the provisions of Section 109, Ban. Tea. Act. The trial Court held that it was not so ...
Amode Ali Sikdar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal757
Rankin, C.J. 1. In this case the accused, Amode Ali Sikdar, was put upon his trial before the learned Sessions Judge of Bakarganj and was charged with an offence under Section 302 read with Section 109, I. P.C. The case against the accused was shorty this : In a village called Sankarpasha some four miles south of Pirojpur Police Station, there lived the family of one Hujjatali. With Hujja-tali lived, first of all, his son Sona Ali and his son's wife Sahera Khatun, also another son Tojambarali aged about 18, and his wife Fatema, and also Hujjatali's third wife Saju Bibi and a small girl of some three years of age named Samserannessa.2. It seems that about half a mile from Hujjatali's house there was the house of Fatema's father and that Fatema had an elder sister called Meherannessa who had originally been married to one Kasemali, but had been divorced from him and had subsequently married the accused Amode Ali Sikdar. There is evidence that the marriage of Meherannessa to the accused b...
Sm. Sonahannessa and ors. Vs. Abdul Hamid and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal12
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs who have obtained a partial decree in a suit for possession. The fact according to the findings of. the Courts below, is that one Amiruddin left three sons Amiruddin, Rahimuddin and Jamiruddin, a widow Anna Bibi, defendant 7 and five daughters. The plaintiffs' case is that Azimuddin had only-two sons Amiruddin and Rahimuddin who were owners of the properties which were mortgaged in 1304 B.S. to Sahabaddin whose heirs the plaintiffs are. Defendants 1 to 3 are sons of Amiruddin; defendant 6 is the son of Rahimuddin and defendant 7, the mother of Amiruddin and Rahimuddin, was made a party to the suit as an heir of the mortgagors as found by the Court of appeal below.2. It appears that before the mortgage in 1304 B.S. to Sahabuddin, Amiruddin and Rahimuddin had mortgaged the property in suit in 1302 B.S. to one Earn Kumar. Ram Kumar brought a suit against the mortgagors only upon his mortgage after the mortgage to Sahabuddin, obtained a dec...
Hari Pada Roy Choudhury Vs. the Chairman of the Municipal Commissioner ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal481
Mukerji, J.1. These two appeals have arisen out of two suits which the respondent, the Chairman of the Municipal Commissioners of Howrah, instituted against the appellant and others as defendants for realization of arrears of Municipal taxes due on a holding situated within the limits of the Howrah Municipality by a declaration that the said arrears form a charge on the holding and by enforcement of the said charge. The suits were decreed by the Munsif and appeals from that decision preferred by the present appellant have been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge. From the last-mentioned decrees defendant 1 in these suits has preferred the appeals.2. The decrees of the Munsif which have been affirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge run in these words:The suit be decreed...The defendants shall pay the decretal amount within thirty days; in default the same shall be realized by sale of the land and buildings in the holding in suit, and all moveable, found therein and belonging to the as...
Bhabananda Banerjee and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Cal747
Rankin, C.J.1. The appellants are two First Bhabananda Banerjee whose home is in Kali Banerjee's Lane, Howrah, whose age is 24 years and who is employed as a typist in a mercantile firm. Secondly Monmohon Adhicary known as Naba who lives in the same lane, is aged about 20 years and has had no occupation since leaving school. They are charged in respect of an occurrence which took place at Sibpur at about 345 in the early morning of Friday, 16th May last, when a bomb was thrown at a first floor window of the house 51, Baje Sibpur Road, occupied by the Sub-Inspector of Sibpur Police Station, Fanindra Mohan Das Gupta. Naba has been found guilty of throwing the bomb and convicted upon charges laid under Sections 3 and 4(b), Explosive Substances Act (6 of 1908). Bhabananda has been found guilty of supplying arsenic and certain shots as materials for the making of a bomb and has been convicted under Section 6 of the same Act. Both have been convicted of conspiracy to commit an offence under ...
Ambica Charan Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal344
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case a rule was issued to show cause why a certain complaint should not be with. drawn and the proceedings quashed.2. The facts were that an application for the transfer of a certain criminal case had been made to the Additional District Magistrate at Barisal. The complainant put in an affidavit stating that the accused person had been seen coming away from the compound of the Magistrate to whom the case had been sent for disposal. A counter affidavit was put in sworn by the accused person denying this statement in toto. The learned Additional District Magistrate called for an explanation from the Magistrate to whom the case was sent for disposal. The learned Magistrate made a statement to the effect that there was not a word of truth in the statement made in the affidavit. Upon that the learned Additional District Magistrate on 25th June 1930, made an order stating that the complainant had filed such an affidavit and that the explanation of the trying Magis...
Umar Ali and anr. Vs. Asmat Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal251
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, one Abdul Rahaman granted a mortgage of three plots of land to one Golam All in 1903. Defendants 2 to 7 in the present suit together with one Abdul Hashim, predecessor-in-interest of defendants 8 to 10, are the heirs of Abdul Rahaman. The plaintiff is a person who in 1918 purchased the shares of defendants 2 to 5 and of Abdul Hasim in one of the three plots of land comprised in the mortgage the other two plots having been sold by Abdul Rahaman to defendant 1 in 1906. Defendant 11 is an assignee of Golam Ali's mortgage who in 1921 brought a suit upon the mortgage against the plaintiff and the present defendants 2 to 7. Under the compromise decree which was made in that suit on 14th November 1922 the plaintiff paid off the mortgage debt by payment of a sum of Rs. 225 on 13th March 1923. Accordingly, on 9th May 1926, the plaintiff brought the present suit for contribution from the different defendants in proportion to their shares. The plaintiff claimed that a...
Abdul Aziz Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal557,137Ind.Cas.317
Rankin, C.J 1. In this case, the two grounds upon which the rule was issued have reference to the admissibility of a certain postcard which was sent by Abdul Latif--one of the accused to a woman of the name of Kamala. The question whether this evidence is admissible so far as regards Abdul Aziz, the petitioner before us, depends upon whether) or not the provisions of Section 10, Evidences Act, have been complied with; in other words, whether there is reasonable ground to believe that Abdul Latif and this petitioner conspired together to commit an offence. If there is reasonable ground to believe it, then that lets in the postcard and whether, in the end, the finding of the Court is to be that there was a conspiracy is a question which is to be determined after considering the postcard. I would point out that it will not do to say that because certain accused have since been acquitted, that is to say, since it has been held that there was not enough evidence to convict them of conspirac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »