Kolkata Court May 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.
In Re: Ram Dayal De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal1
Mitter, J.1. In this appeal Mr. Ram Dayal De, advocate applies to plead for the plaintiffs respondents without putting in a Vakalatnama for his appearance. He wants only to plead on behalf of the plaintiffs and he contends that under Act 22 of 19 26 by which the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 have been amended he is entitled to plead provided he puts in a memorandum of appearance in the form provided for by Order 3, Rule 4, Civil P.C. He has put in such a memorandum without any Court-fees on it. Since the amendment of the Code in 1926, that this is the first application of this kind will appear from the report of the office which we called for and as it raises a very important question of procedure, we have heard not only Mr. Ram Dayal De but also the Bar Association of the High Court which has been represented before us by Mr. Atul Chandra Gupta. The Bar Association support Mr. Ram Dayal De and contend that under the amended provisions of the Civil Procedure Coda, an advo...
Secy. of State Vs. Dhokalmal Mahadeb Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal734a
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council and arises out of an action which was brought by the respondent firm as owner of the goods consigned for compensation against the East Indian Railway Company to whom the goods wore delivered for carriage from Burdwan to Barakar Station of the said railway. It appears that 21 casks of mustard oil were despatched from Burdwan on 27th December 1921 for delivery to the plaintiffs at Barakur. The goods were despatched on a reduced freight and a risk-note in form B was executed. Plaintiffs' case is that the railway company did not deliver six out of 21 casks of oil consigned to thorn and these casks could not be delivered owing to the misconduct of the railway administration or their servants. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 1,206 as compensation for the loss they sustained.2. The Secretary of State was made de-fondant 2 to the action as the railway administration of the East Indian Railway Company was taken over by the...
Ganga Charan Dhar Vs. Satkari Lal Dey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal113
Guha, J. 1. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, prayed for a declaration of his right of easement in regard to light and air. The house in respect of which easement was claimed was purchased from the father of the defendant in the year 1912 by a kabala in which there was no special mention of any right by way of easement, as there was complete unity of title so far as the plaintiff's property in suit and the contiguous property of the defendant were concerned. The kabala purported to transfer the title of the father of the defendant to the house. It was stated by the plaintiff in his plaint that there were two windows on the southern wall of the southern room of the house which could be opened and closed, that these windows let in light and air into the room aforesaid. The plaintiff claimed right of easement by prescription; he also asserted that there was an acquisition of the right by implied grant.2. The cause of action as stated by the plaintiff was that ...
Sashadhar Acharjya Vs. Sir Charles Tegart
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal229
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an application to this Court by two persons against certain named opposite parties with an indication that other unnamed opposite parties whose names the petitioners have not yet discovered are to be included. The petitioners complain against certain officers of the Calcutta police in respect of certain acts done by them at Chandanagore in the territory of France where to put the matter shortly, a raid was conducted upon a house of which the first petitioner and the second petitioner appear to be tenants or sub-tenants.2. The prayers in the petition are numerous; but the first matter is this, it is alleged that the first opposite party Sir Charles Tegart, the Commissioner of Police, who had been unsuccessfully prosecuted by the petitioners before the Chief Presidency Magistrate gave an undertaking to this High Court when dealing with an application in revision which undertaking he has broken and thereby made himself amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court in c...
Hara Kishore Vs. Iswar Chandra De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal339
Guha, J.1. Appeal No. 378 of 1929 with cross-objections.-- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Cachar, modifying those of the Munsif of Hailakandi, passed in a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant in this Court, for enhancement of rent and for recovery of rent at the enhanced rate. The plaintiff claimed enhancement at the rate of Rs. 15 per paikast kiar, and the claim so made was on the basis of a kabuliyat, executed on 29th May 1896, containing a stipulation to the effect following:If the Government revenue due on the land is enhanced after the period of the lease, rent can be enhanced after taking into consideration the rate of rent for similar lands with similar rights in the neighbourhood.2. The plaintiff's case was that there was enhancement of the Government revenue in the last survey, and that the prevailing rate of rent of land of similar class was higher than the rate paid by the defendant, and that in view of the great demand f...
Tamluk Trading and Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Vs. Nabadwipchandra Nandi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal542
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant and arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiffs for establishment of their natural right to lateral support in respect of three plots which are described as cadastral survey plots Nos. 39, 40 and 41 from defendant's dag No. 19, which is adjacent to the said plots. The case of the plaintiffs is that the cadastral survey dag No. 19 was jal land before, and the defendant by excavating a tank in it has caused the lateral support of the plaintiffs' contiguous plots to give way and there is a danger of subsidence of those plots in the tank of the defendant as excavated. The defendant's substantial defence is that the plaintiffs have got no right to the lateral support and the defendant which is the Tamluk Trading Co., further contends that there is no danger of any subsidence and consequently the suit for injunction must fail. It is not necessary to state the earlier history of this litigation, which commenced on 29th March 1924. It is suf...
Padampat Singhanya and ors. Vs. Narayandas Jhunjhunwalla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal444,137Ind.Cas.808
Buckland, J.1. This is a suit instituted by five plaintiffs, as trustees under a deed of trust, executed on 7th August, 1928 by Gourishankar Bagdi, against two of their co-trustees and a firm of the name of Bansilal Aberchand Rai Bahadur, for accounts of the trust, for the defendant firm to be directed to pay the amount held in deposit, for the settlement of a scheme, and for such orders and directions as may be necessary and proper.2. The facts necessary to be stated are not many, for the only defence preferred by learned Counsel at the hearing on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 is that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and all other defences have been abandoned. Since the suit was instituted, the firm of Bansilal Aberchand Rai Bahadur has paid the money into Court and been dismissed from the suit.3. A copy of the deed of trust is annexed to the plaint and is admitted. After certain recitals the document recites that Gourishankar Bagdi had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,10,0...
Rajatullya Paikar and ors. Vs. Khuda Karigar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal709
1. Two cross cases (viz., Emperor v. Khudia Karigar and Ors. and Nafar Mandal v. Rajatulla Paikar and Ors.) had been committed to the Court of Session, one set up by the police and the other started on the complaint of Nafar Mandal and others who are the persons accused in the police case. The police case was committed first; but it was decided to try the later case first and objection was raised by both parties in the two cases. The learned Sessions Judge has now ordered that the police case shall be tried first and, if possible, that both cases shall be tried by the same Judge. In our opinion, this is a proper order. But we would add that the latter case ought to be tried immediately after the termination of the police case, and if there is no objection to the jury by either of the parties, the second case may be tried by the same jurors who try the police case. There is no legal bar to this procedure, because Section 272, Criminal P.C., makes it clear that the same jury may try any ...
Krishna Nandi Vs. Lokenath Mookerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal300
Mitter, J.1. These are two appeals and arise out of the same suit which was commenced by the plaintiff who is appellant in Appeal No. 1841 of 1929 for declaration of his title to a portion of the river known as Kana Nadi. The plaintiff's case is that the river formed part, of a village which he claims both in patni and darpatni right. In para. 3 of the plaint it is stated that the river was being possessed from time immemorial as jalkar, and the plaintiff alleges that these lands form part of the mauza called Naya Chak and that he was in possession of the same through his tenant who is a pro forma defendant in the suit. The plaintiff further alleges that defendant 1 has with the object of creating evidence of title created several collusive documents in concert with other defendants to the suit. A proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P. C, was started between the parties, and the proceeding related both to the river bed and the watery portion of the river. In that proceeding possessi...
Saraj Bhusan Ghosh and ors. Vs. Debendra Nath Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal308,137Ind.Cas.302
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, there was a suit for redemption and the suit was in July 1922 decreed and an order made for redemption and restoration of possession. Possession was delivered through Court to the plaintiffs; but, on an appeal being brought, the decree was set aside on 9th July 1924. An appeal was brought to the High Court which was dismissed and a further appeal was brought under the Letters Patent which was also dismissed on 7th February 1928. On 27th June 1929, the present appellants made an application for restitution under Section 144, Civil P.C. The first Court gave effect to the claim and ordered restitution. The second Court has dismissed their application as being time barred under Article 181 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908.2. Mr. Roy Choudhuri who appears for the appellants in this case has given us a most careful and interesting argument and ho asks us, in effect, to deal with two points. First of all, he asks us to say that an application under Sect...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »