Kolkata Court July 1930 Judgments
Pashupati Mukherji Vs. Shitalkumar Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal587
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case a woman of the name of Rajabala Dassee died on 1st June 1928. It is alleged that, on 31st May of the same year, she made a will. By the terms of that document, the present appellant before us, Pashupati Mukherji, was made the executor. He does not appear to be a relation of the deceased. The will itself gives certain pecuniary legacies by Clause 2, and thereafter it says that the executor and one Jeeban would be entitled to the residue of the estate. So that it is a very simple will, neither Pashupati nor Jeeban being a relation of the testatrix. It appears that one Shitalkumar Sarkar, the present respondent before us, is a relation of the woman, namely her brother and that, except for a pecuniary legacy of Rs. 500, he is excluded from participation in the woman's estate if the will is a valid will. On 7th June 1929 Shital applied before the Court at Alipur for letters of administration of the estate and effects of the deceased Rajabala on the footing of int...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Kapali and ors. Vs. Krishna Charan Kapali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal663
Guha, J. 1. This is an appeal by some of the defendants in a suit for mesne profits. The point for determination as mentioned by the Subordinate Judge in the Court of appeal below was whether' the plaintiffs were entitled to get the entire mesne profits claimed by them in, the suit from all the principal defendants. The plaintiffs got a decree for the entire mesne profits as claimed in the suit for three years, 1830, 1331 and 1332, B. S., against defendant 13 alone and he also got a decree for one-third share of the mesne profits claimed by him in the suit, that is, for the year 1330 B. S. only against the principal defendants other than defendants 3, 7 and 10. It would appear from the definite finding of fact arrived at by the Court of first instance in this case that so far as these defendants other than defendants 13 were concerned, they reaped jute and paddy in the year 1330 B. S.. and that so far as the other years in suit 1331 and 1332, B. S. were concerned they did not possess t...
Tag this Judgment!DabiruddIn Vs. Krishto Chandra Mukhopadhaya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Cal139,136Ind.Cas.470
S.K. Ghose, J. 1. The petitioner in this rule is a transferee of an occupancy holding and he moves against the order of the lower Court granting the application of the landlords under Section 26-F, Bengal Tenancy Act. It appears that the landlords who are opposite parties Nos.1 and 2, obtained a rent decree on 18th December 1928 against their tenant, opposite party No. 3, for arrears of rant of the period 1924-27. In execution of that decree the landlords purchased the disputed holding on 18th May 1929. On 14th July 1929 the petitioner purchased the disputed holding along with other lands by a private transfer from the defaulting tenant opposite party No. 3. On 2nd September 1929 opposite party No. 3 along with the petitioner deposited the decretal amount under Section 174, Bengal Tenancy Act. Opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 the decree-holders did not oppose the application for setting aside the sale and they withdrew the amount deposited and the sale was set aside on 18th January 1930. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Bejoy Chand Mahatab Vs. Muhammad YasIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal160
Guha, J.1. The rights of the parties who are interested in the result of the litigation leading up to the present appeal are to be determined principally upon the terms and conditions of a lease granted by Maharaja Mahatab Chand Bahadur of Burdwan to one Panjab Lal Babu, on 23rd Assar 1271 B. S. The kabuliyat executed by the lessee, so far as it is relevant for the purposes of the present case is to the effect following:I have remained in possession by taking lease in the benami of Sreenath Sen and paying Rs. 4-8-0 as the annual rant; now giving increase of 8 annas par year on the said rent, that, is, at the jama of Rs. 5 per year, and in consideration of Rs. 5, and on condition that if the Sarkar requires it, I shall give up the building and trees which I at my own expense may make (or grow), on taking the proper value at the market price at the time ... On the above conditions I applied for a mukarrari lease, and my prayer being granted, I being present, sign the mukarrari seharbund ...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Gafoor Vs. Mt. Hemanta Shashi Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal416
Mallik, J.1. This rule is directed against an order passed by the Small Cause Court Judge of Narayangunj on 6th January 1930 by which he gave a decree to the plaintiff opposite party in a suit brought against the petitioner for recovery of the money on a bond. The rule was issued on ground 1 only and that ground was that the trial Court ought to have held that an agreement to stifle prosecution and to compromise a noncompoundable offence is invalid and not enforceable at law. It appears that before the bond on which the suit was instituted there had been a criminal case brought by the plaintiff's Naib against the defendant under Section 379, I. P.C. and it appears also that after the execution of the bond there was an order recorded by the trying Magistrate to the effect that the accused (the petitioner in the present case) was acquitted under Section 258, Criminal P.C. In support of the rule, the learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the bond on which the plaintiff's clai...
Tag this Judgment!Shailendranath Mitra Vs. Girijabhushan Mukherji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal596
Guha, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of an application under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, made by the appellants in this Court for settlement of fair and equitable rent payable by their lessees, the respondents, in respect of a tenure, claiming additional rent on account of increase of area. On the pleadings of the parties, the questions arising for determination, as indicated by the issues raised in the case were Whether the lessees held any area in excess of what they were paying rent for was the rent of the tenure in question a consolidated one for the lands within specified boundaries and was the rent fixed in perpetuity as alleged by the lessees or was it only the rate of rent that was fixed as asserted by the lessors. The determination of the matters in controversy rests upon the question whether the landlords were entitled to base their claim solely upon a kabuliyat, Ex. 1, dated 20th Ashar 1268 B.S. which supports their case that the tenure in question was held at a rate of ren...
Tag this Judgment!Hafezali Haldar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Cal712,129Ind.Cas.109
Panckridge, J.1. This is an appeal by one Hafezali Haldar who has been convicted by a verdict of a jury of offences punishable under Sections 148 and 326, I.P.C.2. The ground of appeal which has been urged before us is that the recording of the heads of the charge is insufficient and the criticism is based upon the fact that the heads of the charge do not reveal the way in which the learned Sessions Judge explained the sections under which the accused has been charged. Nor the sections concerned with the exercise of the right of private defence on which the accused relied. In the heads of the charge there is a paragraph which runs as follows:Sections 141, 142, 146 to 148, 319 to 322, 326, 201, I.P.C., explained; Sections 96, 97, 99 to 106 I.P.C. explained. Charges explained.3. The learned advocate appearing for the Crown concedes that it is highly desirable that the heads of the charge should indicate far more fully than has been done here what the learned Sessions Judge has said in hi...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Damullya Molla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal261
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case it appears that the accused man committed a violent assault upon his wife. The quarrel seems to have begun in a trivial manner by a dispute why the wife had not served the accused his meal. She appears to have replied rudely to her husband and the accused seems to have then got into an extreme state of rage and began to beat her with a lathi and in spite of the attempt on the part of the daughter and afterwards of other people, he not only struck the woman with a lathi but followed her to a certain place, picked up a badna or water-pot and hit her on the head. There were a good many injuries caused in this way by this savage assault on the woman as many altogether, taking great and small, as 13, but the cause of the woman's death was undoubtedly the blow by the water-pot which made a contused wound on the head 5' x 1' bone deep, and it was discovered that there was a fracture of the left parietal bone caused by the blow by this water-pot. It is quite true th...
Tag this Judgment!The Tea Financing Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Chandra Kamal Bez Barua
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal359
Rankin, C.J.1. This suit was brought so long ago as 1924 by a Company, the Planters Agency Co. Ltd., against the defendant, Bezboruah, the proprietor of a Tea Estate in Assam called the Boloma Tea Estate. Pending suit the plaintiff Company assigned its interest to the Tea Financing Syndicate Ltd. which has been substituted as plaintiff, but this assignment may for the present purpose be ignored.2. The suit is brought upon a dead of hypothecation dated 3rd February 1920. This deed in effect provided that the plaintiffs would make advances or grant other pecuniary accommodation to the defendant to an extent not exceeding Rs. 80,000 to enable him to work and carry on the Boloma Tea Estate; but it was expressly stipulated by the concluding words of the deed that advances would be made for so long and to such extent only as the plaintiffs in their discretion should think fit, and that the plaintiffs might discontinue them as and when' they considered it expedient with one month's notice to ...
Tag this Judgment!Selamatulla Chaudhuri Vs. Aktarernessa
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Cal664
Guha, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit instituted under the provisions contained in Section 77, Registration Act. The document in respect of which the suit was brought, is a deed of sale alleged to have been executed by defendant 1 in the suit as originally instituted in favour of defendant 2. In view of the question arising for consideration in this appeal, the facts, as they appear from the pleadings of the parties, may be briefly stated. The document was not presented for registration by defendant 1, and it was, accordingly, presented for registration by defendant 2, under Section 32, Registration Act. The execution was denied by defendant .1 and registration was refused by the Sub-Registrar. Defendant 2 appealed from the order of the registering officer, refusing registration; the appeal was not however, proceeded with, defendant 2 filing a petition refusing to go on with the appeal preferred by him. The appeal against the order of the Sub-Registrar was according...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »