Kolkata Court April 1931 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.
Madan Mohan Dhur Vs. Netai Gour Jew and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1934Cal30,147Ind.Cas.1247
Rankin, C.J.1. The following genealogical tree shows the relationship of the parties in this case:LUKHYNARAIN DHUR-KODAMONI(died 26th March 1927)||------------------|-----------------|Kartick Gonesh (deft.7) Ram Chunder(died 24-5-27) | (died 17-10-28)| Madan (plaintiff |Netai Chand |(infant deft. 5) ||--------------|------------|------------|Lal Be- Bon Behari Rash Behari BankuHari,deft. 2 (infant (infant Beharideft. 3). Deft. 4). (infantdeft. 5)2. Lukhynarain Dhur, the testator, died on 26th March 1927, leaving three sons of whom the eldest, Kartick, survived him only by a few months, dying on 24th May 1927, leaving Netai Chand, an infant, as his heir. The plaintiff Madan Mohan Dhur, is the son of the testator's second son, Gonesh (defendant 7). The testator's third son, Ram Chunder, died in October 1928 after the institution of the present suit on 21st August 1928. Ram Chunder left four sons of whom the eldest, Lal Behari, is a major, the other three being minors.3. The testator's wi...
Radha Gobinda Deb and anr. Vs. Girija Prasanna Mookherjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal153,136Ind.Cas.129
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decree dismissing their suit.2. The plaintiffs are two brothers who, as well as their uncle defendant 2 are shebaits of their family idol Sree Radha Govinda Deb Thakur. One of the debutter properties of the idol is a 14 annas 2 gandas 2 karas share of an entire estate, No. 1246 of the Birbhum Collectorate, which goes by the name of Lot Kutubpur and includes thanadari lands. This share constitutes a separate account property being revenue-paying estate No. 1246/1. It was sold at a revenue sale held by the Collector of Birbhum on 28th March 1924 and purchased thereat by defendant 1. The shebaiti right of the two plaintiffs extends to a half of the said share and that of defendant 2 to the other half.3. On 8th July 1925 the plaintiffs commenced this action on a plaint in which it was averred that there was bitter enmity and long-standing litigation between them and defendant 2; that estate No. 1246/1 having fallen into arrears for nonpayment o...
Akshaykumar Nath Talukdar Vs. Ahmad Ali Howladar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal434,137Ind.Cas.875
Rankin, C.J.1. This case is somewhat unusual and just a little difficult. It seems that there was a revenue-paying estate, Taluk Kamalakanta Chakrabarti, divided into two separate accounts. One was estate No. 1536. That belonged to defendant 1 and also to the father of defendants 5 to 12. The other account was No. 1536/2 and that was a separate hissa, 1 anna 12 gandas 2 karhas of the same taluk and belonged to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' estate, by reason of some chicanery on the part of the predecessor of defendants 5 to 12 was sold for arrears of revenue in 1921, and was purchased by him. The plaintiffs brought a suit to have it declared that the sale was bad and, before they got a decree, in September 1928, the march kist for 1923 fell due. Estate No. 1536/2 was again sold for default of revenue and it was purchased by defendant 4, who was not a cosharer in either of the two accounts. He sold it to defendant 3, who sold it to defendant 1, in the berami name of defendant 2. There...
Satyendra Nath Rai Chaudhury Vs. Fulsom Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal625,139Ind.Cas.403
Mitter, J.1. This rule was obtained at the instance of the landlord and arises out of an application made by him claiming to exercise the right of preemption under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act. It appears that one Fulsom Bewa who was the holder of an occupancy holding transferred the same by a deed which is described as a Hebabilewaz to Nazam Mallik who is one of the opposite parties in the present application. The deed of gift or the Hebabilewaz was executed by Fulsom in consideration of Nazam executing in her favour another deed by which Nazam agreed to pay Rs. 5 (rupees five) per month for Pulaom's maintenance. This deed was also executed and registered on the same day on which the Hebabilewaz; was executed. A notice was issued on the landlord under Section 26 (c), Ben. Ten. Act, and he has applied within one month of the date of the notice for claiming to exercise the right of pre-emption, The Munsif is of opinion that in ordinary circumstances the execution and registration of the ...
Kumar Arun Chandra Singha Vs. Bhagaban Chandra Roy Choudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal536
Rankin, C.J.1. Two second appeals have been referred to this Full Bench. Each arises out of a suit for recovery of rent and cess in respect of a tenure and the questions of law which have been framed by the Division Bench for our consideration arise in both appeals. These questions are:(1) Whether the case of Kristo Das Law v. Abdul Karim A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 220, was rightly decided,(2) Whether in a suit for rent, when the tenant pleads he is not liable to pay the full agreed rent on account of diluvion, and where there is an admission by the plaintiff or it is proved that some diluvion has taken place, the onus is upon the plaintiff to prove what proportion of the rent he is entitled to, or upon the defendant to prove the extent of the diluvion, and the corresponding abatement of rent which ha may claim.2. In neither case is the question governed by any express stipulation, the rights of the parties being governed entirely by the general law.3. In Second Appeal No. 2879 of 1929, the defe...
Ahammad Mohammad Paruk Vs. Rahimannessa Khatun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal262,137Ind.Cas.441
Suhrawardy, J.1. These appeals are on behalf of defendant 2 and arise out of two rent suits. One Golam Ali Choudhury died in 1888 leaving three widows of whom respondent in Appeal No. 1717, Jamidannessa is one, three sons and six daughters of whom respondent in Appeal No. 1716 Rahimannessa is one. Jamidannessa inherited 13 gandas and odd share in Golam Ali Choudhury's estate and Rahimannessa 17 gandas and odd share. In 1891 these two ladies by different registered leases let out their respective shares in the 397 items of property left by Golam Ali Choudhuri to his two sons Tozammal Ali alias Kuti Mia and Ali Ahammad, reserving an yearly rent of Rs, 1,200-8-0 in favour of each of the lessors. The present suits are brought by the plaintiffs, the lessors, for rent against the heirs and assignees of Tozammal Ali and Ali Ahammad for the years 1327 and 1328 on the basis of the registered leases. It appears that in 1329 there was a partition by the civil Court among the heirs of Golam Ali Ch...
Secy. of State Vs. Golabrai Paliram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal146
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, the plaintiffs sued the Secretary of State for India in Council in respect of two consignments of jute which they delivered to the railway at Poradah station for carriage to Cossipore Road station, both these stations being outside the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court. It was found, according to the plaint, that the jute had been damaged by fire on 21st March 1927 and the plaintiffs sued for a sum of Rs. 11,000 putting their case as of damages, first of all, for the railway's failure to deliver the jute and, secondly, for the misconduct of the railway in not taking reasonable care of it. The defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, having been served with the writ of summons took out a summons dated 9th April 1930 requiring the plaintiffs to attend before the Judge for an order that the ' leave granted under Clause 12, Letters Patent, to file the plaint in the above suit in this Hon'ble Court be revoked and that the plaint b...
Behari Majhi Vs. Hari Majhi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal61,136Ind.Cas.475
Mallik, J.1. This rule was obtained by the complainant in a private prosecution under 8s. 427 and 352,I. P.C. The Magistrate who tried the case convicted the accused under these two sections and sentenced him to four months' rigorous imprisonment, and to a fine of Rs. 50. Against this order of the trying Magistrate there was an appeal preferred to the District Magistrate and the learned District Magistrate after hearing the appellants' pleader but without hearing the pleader who appeared for the private prosecutor allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused.2. The only ground upon which the rule was issued and the only point that was urged on behalf of the petitioner before us was that the learned District Magistrate committed an error of law when ha disposed of the appeal without hearing complainant's pleader. If the complainant's pleader had a right to be heard and the District Magistrate disposed of the appeal without hearing him, the order passed by him could not but be held to be...
Ajodhya Nath Kundu Vs. Kshitish Chandra Kundu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal291,137Ind.Cas.161
Williams, J.1. In this case a Rule was issued to show cause why the order of the trial Magistrate issuing a summons on a charge under Section 379, I. P. C, against the petitioner, should not be set aside on the ground that it was illegal. The simplest way to set out the issue that arises upon this Rule is to state the facts chronologically. The accused petitioner was charged originally by the complainant's brother with various offences particularly under Sections 453 and 379, I. P.C. His story was that the accused petitioner had trespassed upon his land and in his house and had stolen articles belonging to him which were in the house. The Magistrate who heard the complaint framed a charge under Section 453 only. Presumably he came to the conclusion after hearing evidence that the complainant had not proved any case under Section 379. The accused petitioner was acquitted of the charge under Section 453, the facts being that he had obtained a decree for khas possession of both the land a...
Akhoy Kumar Ghose Vs. Indira Rani Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal499
1. Romanath Ghose who was a Hindu inhabitant of Calcutta died on 26th July 1904 leaving him surviving his widow Sreemuty Soudaminey Dassea and two sons named Sidheswar and Akhoy. He left a will executed by him on 30th October 1903 by which after giving certain pecuniary legacies and annuities, he devised and bequeathed the whole of his estate to his sons who were then infants. Probate of the will was taken out on 17th August 1904. The elder son Sidheswar after attaining majority applied for and obtained letters of administration de-bonis-non.2. Sidheswar died on 13th February 1930 leaving him surviving his widow the plaintiff Sreemuty Indira Kanee and a daughter. Thereafter the younger son Akhoy, who had meanwhile attained majority obtained on 30th May 1930 representation to the estate of the said Romanath Ghose. On 3rd July 1930, the present action was started by the plaintiff Sreemuty Indira Rani in which she contended that in the events that have happened and on a true construction ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »