Kolkata Court February 1930 Judgments
Gurupada Haldar Vs. Upendra Nath Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal701,129Ind.Cas.365
S.K. Ghose, J.1. These two applications are for review of judgment which wag passed by this Court on 8th August 1929 in appeals from appellate decrees No. 2306 of 1927 and No. 612 of 1928. The judgment of this Court was delivered by my learned brother B.B. Ghose, J., and I was a party to it. It is not necessary to recapitulate the facts. In the application with reference to second appeal No. 2306 of 1927 the Rule was issued on ground 1 of the petition which is to this effect:For that there is an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the learned Judges have omitted to consider the effect of the subsequent litigation between Biswamoyee and Nitambini which clearly showed that 1 Biswamoyee obtained only a Hindu widow's interest and not absolute interest in the six annas share given to her for maintenance.2. The judgment of the Court shows that it was argued that the point on which the decision of the right of the plaintiff must rest was with regard to No. 1 of the effect of ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Paroi Vs. Swarna Bewa
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal14,129Ind.Cas.403
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an interesting point under Section 144, Civil P.C. It appears that the plaintiff before us purchased a certain holding in execution of a rent decree. The rent suit was a suit of 1913. The sale at which the plaintiff purchased was on 23rd April 1915. Now, the tenant defendants whose holding had been sold away immediately brought a title suit in 1915 to set aside the decree and the sale and to. get possession of their land again. The first Court dismissed that suit. The lower appellate Court decreed it not only against the landlords but also against the present plaintiff-- the auction-purchaser in the case--the view taken by the said Court being that the decree had been obtained by fraud. This was in 1917. In 1921, this High Court on second appeal set aside that part of the lower appellate Court's decree which set aside the sale; in other words, this Court was of opinion that the decree may have been obtained by fraud but that the auction-purchaser not being the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Manindra Chandra Nandi Vs. Rahatannessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal555
1. This is an appeal by a decree-holder auction-purchaser, from an order setting aside an auction sale held in execution of a mortgage decree for sale. One of the judgment-debtors applied to set aside the sale under Order 21 Rule 90, Civil P.C., and Section 47, Civil P.C. So far as the application was under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., is concerned it has been held that the complaints of the applicant had no substance. As regards her application under Section 47, Civil P.C., it has been held that the notice under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P.C., had not been served on her, and on that ground the sale has been set aside in its entirety. She is one of the heirs of one of the mortgagors, and it is said that her share in the properties is less than 5 pies and that of her father the mortgagor was 2 annas 9 pies.2. The question which arises is whether the entire sale should be set aside or it should be held that the sale so held was invalid to the extent of applicant's share. This question h...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Bengal Vs. Santiram Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal370
1. This is an appeal by Government against an order of acquittal passed on the unanimous verdict of a jury on charges under Sections 194, 193 and 211, I.P.C.2. To understand the question of law which has been raised, the facts out of which the appeal arises may be stated as follows. On 5th March 1928, a number of men employed in the Railway workshops at Lilooah under Mr. W.C. Mould, Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer E.I. Ry., went on strike. On 8th March the workshops were closed down. On 28th March the Agent E.I. Ry. received a deputation of strikers, but-their demands were refused. In the afternoon a large number of strikers proceeded to Bamangachi, between Howrah and Lilooah, and the result of their attitude was that the police were obliged to disperse them by force. Riflle fire was opened and the result is said to have been that one person was killed, one died in hospital and two others were wounded : more, according to the assertion of the accused. After the dispersal, the District...
Tag this Judgment!Chitpore Golabari Co. Ltd. Vs. Hari Mohan Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal734
Costello, J.1. These appeals (Nos. 1946 to 1949 of 1927) are from a decision of the District Judge of 24 Parganas confirming a decision of the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Alipur. They arise out of one judgment. The plaintiffs in the suits out of which these appeals arise were suing for ejectment of the defendants from four holdings. The plaintiffs' case was that the lands with which the suits are concerned appertained to a putni in Touzi No. 343 of the 24 Parganas Collectorate belonging to Hari Mohan Ghose plaintiff 1 and his brother Harihar Ghose in equal shares. Harihar Ghose executed a trust deed appointing the other plaintiffs as trustees and they were in possession of the half-share which belonged to him. The plaintiffs averred that the lands in question were situated within Mouza Pujali within the plaintiffs' mahal and were held under them as appertaining to tenancies which are ticcagar kayemi and non-transferable, and rents were paid to the plaintiffs by the occupiers of the l...
Tag this Judgment!Rathis Chandra Munshi and anr. Vs. Amulya Charan Ghatak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal36,129Ind.Cas.422
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit relating to a Municipal election at Ranaghat within the district of Nadia. The facts are that at the Municipal election held on 17th December 1927 defendants 1 and 2, who are the appellants before us, were declared elected. 'The plaintiff who was a rival candidate along with another person named Abani Kanto Bose was defeated. Under B. 15 (1) of the rules framed by the Government of Bengal in 1927 in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Sections 15 and 69, Bengal Municipal Act of 1884, every person who is a candidate for election shall send his name to the Chairman in writing not less than 28 days before the date fixed for election. In the present case the date fixed for the election was 17th December 1927. The nomination paper submitted by defendant 1 was at 11 a. m. on 19th November 1927. The plaintiff applied to the District Magistrate under Rule 16 to omit the name of defendant 1 from the list of candidates inasmuch as the nomin...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Lal Bose Vs. Kalim Shaikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal111
Rankin, C.J.1. I think this appeal should be allowed and the case should be sent back to the lower appellate Court to be disposed of in respect of the following three matters.2. First of all, it is alleged by the appellant that there is a slip of some Rs. 200 in drawing up the decree in that the decree has been drawn up so as not to give him Rs. 200 which has really been awarded to him by the judgment. We cannot in this Court tell whether this sum of Rs. 200 has been omitted by design or whether it has been omitted by miscalculation or whether it has been omitted for good reasons. So, this matter must go back to the lower appellate Court to be put right.3. The next thing is that the appellant complains that the lower appellate Court has refused to give him any interest at all on the money rent in spite of the fact that in the kabuliyat there is a rate mentioned which amounts, as I understand, to some 37 1/2 per cent per annum. It appears to me that the defendants have no defence at all...
Tag this Judgment!KafiladdIn and ors. Vs. SamiraddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal67,129Ind.Cas.869
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract entered into with the plaintiff by-defendants 1 to 3 on their own behalf and on behalf of defendants 4 to 7. The appeal is by defendants 8 to 10 who are subsequent purchasers of the property agreed to be conveyed to the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have found that the appellants got the kobala from defendants 1 to 3 with knowledge of the agreement between them and the plaintiff. They have accordingly decreed the plaintiff's suit. But it has been argued before us on behalf of the appellants that defendants 4 to 7 were no parties to the contract and that defendant 7 was a minor; therefore the contract on their behalf could not be legally enforced. It appears that defendants 1 to 3 purported to enter into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale of the property on behalf of themselves and defendants 4 to 7. They subsequently sold the property to the appellants in the same way acting on their own behalf and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sarat Kumar Roy Vs. Official Assignee of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal79,129Ind.Cas.833
C.C. Ghose, J. 1. This is an application on behalf of the petitioner to England -- Kumar Sarat Kumar Roy--for an order for stay of further proceedings in a certain suit being suit No. 278 of 1923 in the Court of the Third Subordinate Judge of Tipperah pending the hearing of an appeal to His Majesty in Council arising out of First Appeal No. 102 of 1927.2. The petitioner obtained certificate for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council some time in December 1929 and his appeal has been finally admitted on 28th January 1930. The facts shortly stated are as follows: It appears that certain persons who are three in number and who may be described as the Roys, executed a mortgage in favour of the appellant to England for Rs. 1,50,000 some time in January 1921. At the time, when the mortgage was executed, the properties mentioned therein were the subject-matter of a suit for partition in which the mortgagors were some of the parties. There was a petition for compromise filed by the parties ...
Tag this Judgment!Pramathanath Sarkar and ors. Vs. Suprakash Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal337
Buckland, J.1. This is a suit for payment of a legacy of Rs. 10,000 to the plaintiffs, as executors of the will of Saratbala Dasi, and for administration of the estate of Lalitmohan Sarkar, deceased.2. Lalitmohan Sarkar died on 17th December 1921, leaving a will dated 21st November 1921, in which ho had named the defendant Suprakash Ghosh as his executor and residuary legatee, Suprakash Ghosh being in fact his nephew. On 19th April 1926 probate was granted to Suprakash Ghosh.3. In his will, the testator said:It is my will and desire and I direct that my wife, the said Saratbala Dasi, will get a legacy of Rs. 10,000 out of my estate if she survives me.4. In point of fact she did survive him. She died on 28th July 1924, leaving a will bearing date 4th July 1924, by which she appointed the present plaintiff's as her executors, to whom probate was granted on 13th December 1924. The terms of her will are of no account.5. This suit is by her executors in respect of Rs. 10,000, the subject-ma...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »