Kolkata Court June 1930 Judgments
John Boisogomoff Vs. Manmatha Nath Mullick and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal76,129Ind.Cas.860
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case it appears to me that the suit has been somewhat mishandled and that the proper order is that the suit be dismissed with costs leaving Srimutty Provabati Debi to bring a suit of her own upon proper materials properly pleaded if she is advised to do so. The suit began in 1926 as a suit by a Mr. Mullick. The property in question is a house property in Kyd Street which belonged to one Ram Gopal Banerji and after his death, belonged for the estate of a Hindu widow to Joykali--his widow. Joykali died on 11th February 1920 having in the meantime assigned this property to a lady called Annapurna, who in 1926 gave a 40 years' lease thereof to the defendant. Mr. Mullick brought a claim the foundation of which was carefully concealed in the plaint but which was this: he had taken title under certain mortgages made by Nani Mohan Banerji in the lifetime of Joykali. The suit therefore was a suit by a person who had prima facie no title whatever. He had purported to deriv...
Tag this Judgment!Samaresh Chakravarti and anr. Vs. Jalpaiguri Banking and Trading Corpo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal168
Rankin, C.J.1. In my opinion, this appeal fails and must be dismissed.2. It appears that a suit was brought against Mr. Chakrabutty upon the terms of a guarantee given by him and it further appears that, on 3rd December 1928 when the case was called on, there was no appearance for this defendant and an ex parte decree was passed. On 10th December, his solicitors wrote to the plaintiff's solicitor to say that the defendant was of unsound mind on the date of the decree and that, as there had been no guardian ad litem, the decree had been a nullity. On 22nd January 1929, an enquiry in lunacy was commenced and, on 8th April of that year, the defendant was declared a lunatic and to have been a lunatic since 10th September 1928. Then this defendant died in June 1929 and the plaintiffs proceeded to levy execution against his sons as being his legal representatives. These sons set up a case by an affidavit of 8th August that the plaintiffs knew that their father was of unsound mind and that th...
Tag this Judgment!Sydney Hugh Mcsweeney Vs. Margaret Arbuthnot
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal563
1. These two appeals have arisen out of an order which was passed upon two applications, one made by the appellant, Sydney Hugh McSweeney and the other by Miss Arbuthnot, Secretary to the Society for the protection of children in India. The former application was numbered as Case No. 144 and the latter as Case No. 118 under Act 8 of 1890. Appeal No. 83 has arisen out of the order in so far as it related to Case No. 118, and Appeal No. 84 has arisen out of the order as relating to Case No. 144. The application by Miss Arbuthnot was for being appointed guardian of the persons of three minor girls, Audrey, Beronice otherwise called Bella and Inez McSweeney. The application of the appellant purported to be one made under Section 25 of the Act, for an order on the authorities of the Loretto Convent where the girls were at the time, directing them to make over the girls to the appellant's custody. The learned Judge refused the application of the appellant and made an order in favour of Miss ...
Tag this Judgment!Karali Charon Sarma Vs. Apurba Krishna Bajpayi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal298
Graham, J.1. In this case the rule was issued to show cause why the time for presenting an appeal should not be extended, and why the appeal should not be registered though filed out of time.2. There is no dispute as to the facts:The plaintiffs, opposite parties brought a suit for recovery of arrears of rent alleged to be due from the present petitioner (defendant l) and several other persons. That suit was decreed on 17th July 1927, and an appeal by defendant 1 was dismissed by the District Judge on 26th September 1929. The petitioner thereafter applied, on 23rd December 1929, for certified copies of the judgment and decree of the District Judge. The copies were ready on the evening of 4tb January 1930 and were taken by a clere of the petitioner's pleader on 6th January. The petitioner received them or? 8th January and sent them through an agent to Calcutta with instructions to make them over to the petitioner's advocate, Mr. Bejoy Kumar Bhattacharjya. The agent reached Calcutta on th...
Tag this Judgment!Haimabati Mitra Vs. Kunja Mohan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal713
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Additional District Judge of Sylhet refusing to revoke the grant of probate of the will of Ramlochan Das, father of the appellant. Probate was granted so far back as the year 1895. The grant is attacked on two grounds principally, namely : (1) no citation was issued upon the appellant or upon her mother who was described as her guardian ad litem in the probate proceedings, (2) that the will was a forged will. The learned District Judge while holding thatthere really there was no service of the citations in fact upon an interested person refused to revoke the grant of probate on the ground of the long delay in applying for revocation.2. The circumstances which have led to the application for revocation are these : In 1895 Krishna Prosad Das, an uncle of Ramlochan, applied for the probata of an alleged will of the latter stating that he had executed the will on 23rd January 1895, a short time before his death which took place in June ...
Tag this Judgment!Panchanan Sarkar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal666,129Ind.Cas.182
Graham, J.1. In this case a rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Burdwan to show cause why an order of the Magistrate of Asansol dated 14th. April 1930 refusing the petitioner's request for a de novo trial should not be set aside, or why such other or further order should not be made as might appear fit and proper to this Court. An application for revision of the order in question was made to the District Magistrate of Burdwan and was rejected by him on 26th April. It appears that the petitioner, who was a Tahsildar at Asansol under the Maharaja of Cossimbazar, was sent up for trial on a charge of criminal breach of trust under Section 408, I.P.C. The case was at first in the file of S.K. Guha and in its early stages was apparently proceeded with on the footing that it was a trial. No less than 67 witnesses were examined for the prosecution. Thereafter, it appears that the trying Magistrate left the district and was succeeded by another Magistrate Rai Sahib Hiralal Roy. As a c...
Tag this Judgment!Engineering Supplies Ltd. Vs. Dhandhania and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal659
Rankin, C.J. 1. In my opinion, this appeal should be dismissed. Mr. Page for the appellant has given a very careful and reasonable argument, but the question is what we think of the merits of the application which has been made by his client that the leave granted to the plaintiff under Clause 12 of the Charter should be revoked and the plaint should be taken off the file and returned to the plaintiff. The plaint, as I have already observed in another appeal (Appeal from Original Order No. 29 of 1930), is open to the criticism in respect that its opening paragraphs are apparently intended to foreshadow a case for damages for misrepresentation of facts inducing the plaintiff company to enter into a contract for the purchase of goods. But, for the present purpose, I shall deal only with the rest which is the main portion of the plaint; and, there again, when I come to the prayers at the end of the plaint, I find that the matter is in no way made clear. It is intended to be an action for ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Sau Vs. Kailashchandra Patra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal667
Guha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a decision and decree passed by the learned District Judge of Midnapur, affirming the decision and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court of that district, in a suit for enforcement of a mortgage security. The plaintiff's case may be shortly stated: defendants 1 and 2 and the father of defendant 3 had borrowed eight hundred maunds of paddy on the security of properties mentioned in the plaint, that they had agreed to pay sixteen hundred maunds of paddy in 14 instalments, in 14 years from the year 1322 to 1336 B. S., that, in default of payment of four successive instalments, plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of sixteen hundred maunds of paddy. The defendants in that suit, as instituted by the plaintiff previously, contested the suit, and the suit was decreed for Rs. 1,150 as price of paddy for four instalments. In that suit, claim for ten instalments was found to be premature; that for nonpayment of the amount decreed in that...
Tag this Judgment!Gireeshchandra Bhattacharjya Vs. Rabeendranath Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1935Cal17
Costello, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the third Additional Subordinate Judge, Sylhet, reversing a decision of the Munsif, First Court, Habiganj. The suit was one for pre-emption and for certain other reliefs. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the necessary formalities had not been complied with and that there had been delay on the part of the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that all the necessary formalities had been complied with and there had been no unreasonable delay and he agreed with the finding of the learned Munsif that there is a custom of pre-emption among the Hindus in the District of Sylhet. The only point seriously argued before us was upon the question whether or not the lower appellate Court was right in holding that such a custom does exist among the Hindus in that district. The other questions raised are all questions of fact and are concluded by the findings of the lower appellate Court. It was argued be...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar and ors. Vs. Rajendra Nath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal313,137Ind.Cas.294
1. This appeal has been preferred by certain decree-holders from an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Khulna on 6th March 1929 ordering refund to the respondents of a sum of Rs. 1,200. The order came to be passed under the following circumstances: The appellants before us were the plaintiffs in, a suit which they had instituted against a very large number of persons, about 516 in all, as defendants for recovery of khas possession of certain lands. The trial. Court decreed the suit with costs against all the defendants. Out of these defendants 12 persons then preferred an appeal to this Court. Of them one subsequently withdrew from the appeal with the result that he was put into the category of respondents in that appeal. The other 11 respondents were defendants 18, 57, 93, 97, 98, 171, 208, 225, 34, 112 and 117. The respondent in the appeal before us was defendant 57 in the suit and one of the appellants in the aforesaid appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, these appellant...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »