Kolkata Court November 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.
Aswini Kumar Chakravarty and anr. Vs. Sukhaharan Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal717
Mukerji, J. 1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the District Judge of Dacca refusing to revoke a probate.2. The will is dated 1895. The testator died in 1907. His widow applied for and obtained probate of the will in 1907. She was the sole executrix named in the will and was also the sole legates under it. In connexion with the application for probate only general citations wore issued. She did not disclose in her application the fact that the testator had left amongst others a stepsister Manikarnika and her two sons Aswini and Gokul. These two persons applied on 14th September 1928 for revocation of the probate alleging that no citations had been issued on Manikarnika, that they were both minors at the time, that no guardian had been appointed in respect of them, and that no citations had been issued on certain other persons who in case of intestacy would have been heirs of the testator. They alleged that the will was not duly executed, and that the testator had no free will ...
Abinash Chandra Bose Vs. Nagendra Nath Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal480
1. This appeal must be dismissed. It arises out of a suit for recovery of a certain sum of money. How the money became payable to the plaintiff is set out in great detail in the plaint itself and specially in para. 5 thereof. The defendant in his written statement admitted the transaction whereon the plaintiff became his creditor for the sum mentioned in the plaint. The defendant however said that there was nothing due and owing by him because there had been payment to the plaintiff; in other words, the defence amounted to a simple plea of payment. The matter went to trial. It appears that the plaintiff produced a promissory note which showed that the sum of money referred to in para. 5 of the plaint was due to him. This promissory note was stamped with a one-anna stamp, but it should have bean stamped with a two-anna stamp. No objection was raised by the defendant to the reception in evidence of this promissory note. There was a decree. But it appears that the attention of his legal a...
Raja Bhupendra NaraIn Sinha Bahadur Vs. Rajeswar Prosad Bhakat and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal802
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings for ascertainment of mesna profits. The facts are that the lands in suit were chakran lands which were transferred by the Government to the zamindar the appellant in 1898. The respondents who had dharpatni right in these lands before they were transferred to the zamindar, were, according to their case, dispossessed from these lands by she zamindar taking possession of them and settling them with other persons. The darpatnidars who are two sets of plaintiffs, the Bhakats and Banerjee brought a suit in 1910 for recovery of possession of the lands against the zamindar. The suit was decreed on 20th December 1919, and possession was taken by the plaintiffs in January 1920. A month before the decree that is, on 19th November 1919, the Banerji, plaintiff transferred his interest to his grand-son Amulya Ratan; but the transferee was not substituted in the suit. On 22nd December 1923 Arnulya Ratan was substituted in these proceedings. Subse...
Debendranath Mandal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal286
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case, which have given rise to this rule, are briefly as follows: On 30th August 1929, the Superintendent of Police of Hooghly, with the approval of the District Magistrate, promulgated a notice requiring any person taking out a procession which might pass by the imambari or any mosque apply to him for a license. The Superintendent of Police purported, if I understand rightly, to issue the notice under-S. 30, Police Act (5 of 1861). The order-was to remain in force for two months. On 15th September of the same year, the petitioners disobeyed the order and took out a procession which passed a mosque without asking the Superintendent of Police for a license. They were convicted under Section 32 of the same Act and sentenced each to pay a fine of Rs. 25. They have now moved this Court in revision.2. Mr. Basu who appears for the petitioners contends that the order of the Superintendent of Police is ultra vires and illegal. He contends that Section 30 does not ...
Sarat Chandra Ghatak and anr. Vs. Joy Sankar Roy Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal546
1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, third Court, Mymensingh, refusing to set aside an execution sale, The appeal has been preferred by two of the judgment-debtors, namely, judgment-debtors 3 and 4. For a proper appreciation of the contentions that have been urged in connexion with this appeal, it is necessary to follow the facts a little closely. The decree-holder's opposite parties instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 27,000 add on account of a mortgage bond dated 11323. They impleaded in the suit twenty persons as defendants of whom the first five were the original mortgagors and the rest ware persons who had acquired interest in the equity of redemption. When the suit was pending in the trial Court a compromise was entered into between the plaintiffs on the one hand and defendants 1 to 5 on the other.2. The other defendants in the suit were not parties to this compromise. The terms of this compromise that are relevant at the present stage were that t...
Bishnupur Municipality Vs. Sarat Chandra Chaudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal804
Mallik, J.1. This rule is directed against an order passed by the learned Small Cause Court Judge of Bishnupur by which he dismissed 'the petitioner's suit for recovery of arrears of municipal tax. The ground on which the learned Judge dismissed the petitioner's suit was that the suit had not been properly framed inasmuch as the suit had been framed in contravention of the provisions of Section 29, Bengal Municipal Act, and there-had been an amalgamation of two holdings in respect of which the arrears had been claimed in the suit.2. On behalf of the petitioner it was first of all contended that if there had been any violation of the provisions of Section 29, Bengal Municipal Act it was only a clerical mistake and the suit ought not to have been dismissed on that ground. It appears that the suit was instituted in the name of the Bishnupur Municipality and not in the name of the Chairman on behalf of that Municipality as enjoined by Section 29. It appears also that the plaint was signed ...
Gayeshali Sarkar Vs. Chintaharan Chanda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal110
1. Mr. Basu, who has argued this appeal with great care and fullness, has presented this question for solution, namely, whether the registration of a document presented by a representative of an executant, who is dead at the time of the presentation of the document, is good registration within the meaning of the relevant sections in the Registration Act. So far as the facts are concerned, they lie in a narrow compass. It appears that the mortgagor was one Baramuddin Sarkar. He executed a mortgage in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiffs-respondents. After execution and before the presentation of the document for registration, he died, leaving as his heirs two sons, his widow and a daughter. It is unnecessary to add that; Baramuddin Sarkar was a Mahomedan and therefore under the Mahomedan law, the daughter would be entitled to a. share, as also the widow in addition to the sons. It appears that the two sons, after the death of their father, presented the document for registration ...
Sm. Soudamini Das Vs. Nabalak Mia Bhuiya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal578
Suhrawardy, J.1. In this appeal the question is as to whether the lower appellate Court should have heard the appellant's appeal on the merits. The suit was brought by the appellant upon a mortgage bond. It was decreed by the learned Munsif on 22nd June 1927 with the reservation that defendants 2, 3, and 6 would be allowed to redeem their share by paying Rs. 265-4-0 to the mortgagee. Ten months after, an application was made by the defendants questioning the amount which they were ordered to pay for redemption and on this application the amount was reduced to Rs. 77-6-0 on 30th April 1928. The plaintiff-appellant before us preferred an appeal to the lower appellate Court within thirty days from 30th April 1928 questioning the decree so far as it allowed the defendants to redeem but she did not appeal against the decree of the learned Munsif dated 22nd June, 1927. The learned District Judge has held that the appeal was out of time as the plaintiff should have appealed from the original ...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Harakali Biswas a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal435
1. This is an appeal by the Local Government against an order of acquittal made by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate of 24 Parganas. Four accused were charged under Section 76-B, Bengal Embankment Act 2 of 1882, the evidence being that they had erected, or added to an existing embankment, in an area covered by a notification under Section 6 of the Act. The learned Magistrate did not decide whether the accused had in last so erected or added to such an embankment, because he came to the conclusion that the accused could not be convicted under the section because the notification which under Section 6 has to be made in the Calcutta Gazette had not been published in the mode prescribed by the latter part of that section and S. 80 of the Act. Specific notice had, in fact, been served upon the accused as appears in Ex. 2 and they had been told to remove the embankment. Further, it appears that this was not the first time that they had built the embankment nor the first time that it had ...
Sachindra Chandra Vs. Hem Chandra Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal573
Mitter, J.1. In this appeal by defendant 1 two points have been taken by Mr. Chakravarti who appears on his behalf. It is argued in the first place that the Courts below should have directed in the preliminary decree for partition against which the present appeal has been preferred that the Thakur Dalan should be divided in spite of directing that the same be kept ejmali. The second point taken is that the order directing his client to pay the costs of the partition subject to certain reservation is not justified and is opposed to the usual rule for costs in partition suits, namely, that the parties should bear their own costs of suit up to and including the preliminary decree.2. With regard to the first point taken it seems that the argument of the learned advocate for the appellant must prevail. The argument on this point was put in this way. There is no evidence of dedication of this puja or thakur dalan by the original owner. All that has been found by both the Courts is that the d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »