Kolkata Court May 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.
Gopal Jana and ors. Vs. Broja Mohan Swami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal105
Mitter, J.1. After hearing Mr. Jogesh Chandra Roy, the learned advocate for the appellants, we did not think it necessary to call upon the respondents for a reply, for we think that the findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below are sufficient to conclude this second appeal. The plaintiffs now respondents brought a suit out of which this appeal arises as reversionary heirs of one Hati Jana. They were admittedly sister's sons of Hati Jana. Their case is that the disputed land was sold without legal necessity by the widow of Hati Jana who died sometime in the year 1330 B. S. The defendants now appellants resisted the claim on several grounds. They say, that in view of the relationship of parties which is shown in the genealogical table printed at p. 9 of the paper-book, the plaintiffs are not the reversioners of Hati Jana after the death of his widow. This contention has been negatived by both the Courts below. In order to consider the soundness or otherwise of the conclusion arrive...
Preotama Devi Vs. Chandra Kumar Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal594
Panckridge, J.1. This is a rule issued by my learned brother S.K. Ghose, J., calling on the opposite party to show cause why the order passed by the learned District Judge of Dacca on 31st July 1929 rejecting the petitioner's application for the assignment of a bond under Section 35, Guardians and Wards Act 1890 should not be set aside. It seems that one Rajani Kanta Ghose was in 1898 appointed guardian of the parsons and properties of two minors and on his appointment one Chandra Kumar Ghose executed a bond to the extent of Rs. 1,000 for the due performance of the guardian's duty to account for the property of the wards. One ward died while still a minor. The other attained majority in 1915, and thereafter assigned all his property including his right to recover any claim he might have against the guardian to the petitioner and one Hemlata Devi who subsequently transferred her interest under the aforesaid assignment to her co-assignee. The petitioner thereafter instituted an account s...
Preotama Devi Vs. Nistarini Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1930
Reported in: 128Ind.Cas.805
Panckridge, J.1. This is a Rule issued by my learned brother Mr. Justice S.K. Ghose calling on the opposite party to show cause why the order passed by the learned District Judge of Dacca, on 31st July 1929, rejecting the petitioner's application for the assignment of a bond under Section 35 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, should not be set aside.2. It seems that one Rajani Kanto Ghose was in 1898 appointed guardian of the persons and properties of two minors and on his appointment one Chandra Kumar Ghose executed a bond to the extent of Rs. l,000 for the one performance of the guardian's duty to account for the property of the wards. One ward died while still a minor. The other attained majority in 1915, and thereafter assigned all his property including his right to recover any claim he might have against the guardian to the petitioner and to one Hemlata Devi who subsequently transferred her interest under the aforesaid assignment to her co-assignee. The petitioner, thereafter,...
Anadi Lal Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Sukh Chand Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal715,129Ind.Cas.610
Costello, J.1. This is an application under Section 439, Criminal P.C., in respect of an order made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate1 of Satkhira on 22nd December 1928 under the provisions of Section 145, Criminal P.C. The proceedings which eventually resulted in making that order were protracted to a most remarkable extent. For it appears that the proceedings out of which the order finally emerged, began by a report made by the police to the Magistrate in question on 18th January of the year 1926 when he reported that there was a likelihood of trouble between the contending parties who were disputing possession to a certain plot of land. Actually before that date some of the parties had been brought before a Court for the purpose of being bound over under the terms of Section 107, Criminal P.C. These proceedings ultimately terminated. But apparently nothing more was done in respect of the proceedings under Section 145 until 9th June 1926 when they were dropped and fresh proceedings wi...
Purna Chandra Dutta and ors. Vs. Sheikh Dhalu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal721a,129Ind.Cas.561
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is an application in revision by six persons against an appellate order of the District Judge of Dacca affirming an order of the Munsif of that place passed under Section 476, Criminal P.C., lodging a complaint against the petitioners under Sections 209 and 120-B, I.P.C., and Sections 210 and 511 and 120-B, I.P.C. Before proceeding to deal with the merits of the case I should like to make one observation; with regard to the scope of the rule issued by this Court. This application in revision does not lie under Section 439, Criminal P.C., inasmuch as it is not a matter connected with any proceedings before any inferior criminal Court within the meaning of Section 435, Criminal P.C. By an order made by the Chief Justice the Bench taking, criminal matters is authorized to receive and hear appeals and revision applications against orders passed under Sections 476, 476-A and 476-B, Criminal P.C., by civil Courts. If the revision application is not entertainable under S...
Akbar Ali Vs. Mt. Adar Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal155
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by one of the defendants Sheikh Akbar Ali from a preliminary decree for partition passed by the Second Additional District Judge of Hooghly reversing a decision of the Subordinate Judge of that district by which the plaintiffs' suit was wholly dismissed. The properties which are the subject matters of partition are contained in two schedules to the plaint, namely schedule Ka and Schedule Kha. They belonged to one Amir who is the brother of Jamir. It has been now found by both the Courts below that Jamir was the consanguine brother of Amir and the plaintiffs to the litigation are the daughters of Jamir, and some of the defendants to the suit amongst whom the appellant is one are the children of Ashiran Bibi, full sister of Amir. Several defences were taken in the suit some of which it is necessary to mention, having regard to the points raised in this second appeal. The first defence taken was that with regard to the Kha schedule properties Amir conveyed d...
Niharbala Debi Vs. Shashadhar Ray Chaudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal485
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of an order passed by the District Judge of Burdwan, affirming, on appeal, an order made by the Munsif, First Court, by which the objection of the respondent to the execution of a decree for rent by sale of the defaulting tenure was upheld. The decree-holder has preferred this appeal.2. The appellant is a cosharer landlord. In 1920 one of the cosharers of the appellant instituted a suit for rent on a plaint framed in accordance with the provisions of Section 148-A, Ben. Ten. Act. The appellant was made a party to that suit. The rent claimed was for a period ending with the year 1326 B. S. The appellant did not appear in the suit and the cosharer, who had instituted it, obtained a decree for his share of the rent, in accordance with the provisions of the said section; in execution of the decree that was obtained, the appellant's cosharer put up the tenure to sale and it was purchased by the respondent. The respondent thereafter made an applicatio...
Sashi Kumar Bhowmik and anr. Vs. Kamini Kumar Bhowmik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal576
Mitter, J.1. The question of law raised by this appeal is whether the purchaser of a portion of a nontransferable occupancy holding can successfully resist the suit for eviction brought by a cosharer landlord to whom the portion purchased has been allotted exclusively by a partition by the Collector under the Estates Partition Act 5 of 1897 (B. C ) made subsequent to the date of the purchase. Both] the Courts below have answered this question in the negative. The question in this appeal is whether those decisions are right.2. The relevant facts necessary for the determination of this question are few and may be briefly stated thus: The plaintiff, now respondent, was the owner of an 8 annas 5 gandas share in a revenue paying estate bearing Touzi No. 420 in the Tipperah Collectorate records; under the 16 annas proprietor of this estate there was a nontransferable occupancy holding standing in the name of one Brojobasini Bhowmik; this holding consisted of lands which are in dispute in the...
Girish Chandra Singha and anr. Vs. Mohammad Rausan Mian and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1933Cal66
Graham, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decision of the District Judge of Birbhum modifying a decision of the Munsif, Second Court, of Rampurhat and arises out of a suit for rent for the period 1327-1330 B.S. in respect of ten different holdings described in the schedule to the plaint. The defence set up in regard to four of these jamas described as chha, ja, jha and ena was that there was no relation of landlord and tenant, while as regards the remaining six jamas the plea was taken that the rate of rent had been illegally enhanced in contravention of the provisions of Section 29, Ben. Ten. Act, and that the plaintiff's could only recover rent in respect of them at the admitted rates. The trial Court found that the four jamas were included in the plaintiff's estate and that the relation of landlord and tenant existed. As regards the remaining six jamas it found that, with the exception of two, viz, ka and uma, they did not contravene Section 29, Ben. Ten. Act. As to ka...
Nagendra Nath Chakravarty and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal578
1. This Rule was issued under Section 115, Civil P.C., against an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Hooghly under Section 476-B, Criminal P.C., on appeal from an order under Section 476 by the Munsif of Amta. The petitioners are two in number, Nagendra Nath Chakraverty and Giribala Devi. Petitioner 2 brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Amta and in support of her claim got a document produced through petitioner 1 which was found by the Munsif to be a forged one. Ha accordingly made a complaint under Section 476 against the plaintiff Giribala Devi as well as against her witness Nagendra Nath Ohakraverty who is the son of Giribala. The learned Judge on appeal has upheld the order of the Munsif. As regards Giribala Devi, in our judgment, no case has been made out for our interference with the order of the Courts below, she was the plaintiff in the suit, the document was produced on her behalf and she may be presumed to know the nature of the document. Any point that may be urg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »