Kolkata Court June 1931 Judgments
Krishna Chandra Roy Vs. Surendra Nath Bandopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal385,137Ind.Cas.696
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff landlord arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and cesses after settlement of rent. The defence was that the defendants having been dispossessed 1 by the plaintiff from a great portion of the Sikmi taluk in suit, rent should be suspended and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief asked for in the suit. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit. The facts found are that the Sikmi taluk held by the defendants comprises three mauzas, Nan-nar, Gaoail and Kaliara or Kulla. The plaintiffs long time ago dispossessed the defendants from the two mauzas Nannar and Gaoail and also from a part of Kulla. On this finding the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that they are entitled to recover neither rent nor cesses from the defendants and that therefore their suit for assessment of rent must fail.2. The plaintiff's have appealed and it is argued on their behalf that the view taken by the Courts below o...
Tag this Judgment!Sultan Miya Vs. Ajibakhatoon Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal497
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This appeal must be dismissed and for the following reasons:The appeal arises out of a suit for partition, wherein a preliminary decree was made by the Court below on 23rd January 1928. The facts shortly stated are as follows: One Wajuddin Bepari died, leaving him surviving his mother, who is defendant 2 in this suit, and two widows (plaintiffs 1 and 2). He left five sons and they are plaintiffs 3, 4, 5 and 6 and defendant 1. He also left three daughters, namely, defendant 3 and 4 and plaintiff 7. 'Wajuddin Bepari was possessed of considerable moveable and immovable properties. There in no dispute about the shares of the parties. But the plaintiffs challenged a deed of gift set up by defendant 1, and indeed defendant 1 was the only person who contested the suit. Defendant 1 set up what is stated to be a deed of gift and ho alleged that' it had been executed by his father on the 14th Baisakh 1323 B. S., and that it related to one drone of the properties set out in Sched...
Tag this Judgment!Prayag Shaha Saheb Ram Vs. Dwijapada Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal623
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, the insolvent presented his own petition on 28th April 1927. It appears that he had a grain business in Calcutta and that owing to loss he had closed it, there being some Rs. 4,600 due by him to various creditors of the business. He had a long list of people who were indebted to him amounting to some Rs. 2,592, but in his Insolvency it does not appear that the receiver has been able to collect all this money. We are told that it may be that he has been able to collect something like Rs. 300 or it may be even less. The result is that when the insolvent applied for his discharge the learned Judge found that the receiver had no complaint against his conduct in connexion with the insolvency. The receiver took the view that the insolvent had done his duty and tried to assist the receiver as much as he could and the learned Judge in spite of the opposition of the present appellant said that:the creditor has not financed the receiver in order to recover the insolv...
Tag this Judgment!SeamuddIn Molla and ors. Vs. Mohadeb Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Cal264
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is an appeal by the landlords and arises out of a suit for rent based upon a kabuliyat. It appears that the defendants held a jama of 12 bighas bearing a rental of Rs. 15. They let out this jama to the plaintiff at a rental of Rs. 15-4-0 and then took a sub-lease, agreeing to deliver 13 aria of paddy annually as rent, and in the alternative to pay Rs. 400 as the price thereof. The main contention of the defendants in the suit was that the plaintiffs could not recover rent higher than what they were entitled to under Section 48, Ben. Ten. Act, before its amendment in 1928. The section says:The landlord of an under-raiyat holding at a money rent shall not be entitled to recover rent exceeding the rent which he himself pays by more than 50 per cent when the rent payable by the under-raiyat is payable under a registered lease.2. Here the lease is registered and if the section applies the plaintiffs will be entitled to get annually Rs. 15-4-0 and 50 per cent of it, tha...
Tag this Judgment!Khowaz Ali Vs. Sayed Mia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Cal284
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This appeal relates to a suit for recovery of khas possession of lands on declaration of plaintiff's title thereto. The plaintiff and the defendants are all residents of the village Balibari. The plaintiff's case is that the lands in Sch. 1 formed a public Gopat lying to the south and west of his tank adjoining his homestead. At the request of the villagers the plaintiff re-excavated the tank and there was art agreement between the plaintiff on one side and certain persons representing the villagers on the other by which the villagers gave up the right to the aforesaid Gopat and in exchange the plaintiff agreed to make a new path on the land of his tenancy lying on the other two sides of the tank. This land is described in Sch. 2. This arrangement was approved by the Union Board at a meeting and the plaintiff took settlement of the land in Sch. 1 from the landlords. His possession however over the land of Sch. 1 was resisted by the defendants who instituted a case unde...
Tag this Judgment!Khosal Chandra Das Vs. Upendra Nath Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal220,136Ind.Cas.544
Jack, J.1. This Rule has been issued on the opposite party to show cause why the orders made by the Munsif of the First Court of Barisal, dated 9th December 1930 and 20th December 1930, should not be set aside. The orders in question are that the applicant is to be allowed to join in the cosharer landlord's application for preemption of the transferred holding to the extent of 16 gandas only. The petitioner claims that he ought to have been allowed to purchase 8 annas share of the holding or at least his share in proportion to the share in the superior right, which he has purchased, as compared with the share in the superior right held by the opposite party.2. It is contended on behalf of the opposite party, that the petitioner should not have been allowed at all to purchase inasmuch as he was not a cosharer landlord [at the time when the original application [for preemption was made. But I think that, under the terms of Section 26-F. Clause 4 (a) Ben. Ten. Act, he is entitled to make ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Chandra Banerjee Vs. Kailash Chandra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal226,136Ind.Cas.900
Jack, J.1. This rule has been issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause why an order of the Munsif, Second Court at Khulna, under Sections 26-J and 26-F should not be set aside on the ground that an application under Section 26-F must follow an application under Section 26-J and that the application under Section 26-F cannot be made until after the balance of the landlord's fees and compensation have been paid into Court as provided by Section 26-C read with Section 26-J.2. The contention of the petitioner depends upon the interpretation of Section 26-J, Clause (3). That clause states:The provisions of Section 26-F shall apply to the case of a transfer referred to in Sub-section (1) and the immediate landlord shall be competent to exercise his rights of purchase under that section within two months of the date of payment into Court of the balance of the landlord's transfer fee and the compensation allowed.3. The petitioner is right in holding that the application under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Chandra Banerji Vs. Annapurna Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal423
1. The decree which forms the subject of this execution case was passed on a compromise amongst the parties to a suit for partition. The particular terms of the decree with which we are concerned runs thus:It is ordered and decreed . . . the said Annapurna Devi, defendant 1, having demanded cash consideration for a moiety of the l/4th share agreed to be allotted to her and valued at Rs. 33,000 it has been agreed that she shall get Rs. 30,000 in cash and the property No. 2 in the share of Amiyanath Banerjee (defendant 2) . . . valued at Rs. 3000 . . . and the said sum of Rs. 30,000 shall be paid out of the properties allotted to Amiyanath Banerjee to the said Annapurna Devi in the following instalments, Etc.2. It should be stated here that the properties allotted to Amiyanath Banerjee in the said l/4th share were: (1) A business with stock in trade, fixtures and outstanding book-debts etc., together with the building appertaining thereto valued at Rs. 55,000; (2) Aghore Babu's house val...
Tag this Judgment!J.C. Galstaun Vs. Prudential Assurance Co. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal366
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, an application was taken out by the receivers appointed by the Court under a preliminary mortgage decree dated 18th December 1928 for a direction as to whether the receivers were bound to insure the mortgaged . premises with the plaintiff company, that is the Prudential Assurance Company as provided by Clause 3 of the mortgage-deed. The application asked the question in an alternative form which concluded with the words or with the nominee of the said defendant John Carapiet Galstaun'. The order which the learned Judge has made is that the receiversbe at liberty to insure the properties with the plaintiff company instead of insuring the same with any company chosen by the defendant John Carapeit Galstaun.2. It appears that by the terms of the mortgage-deed which is dated 3rd April 1925, it was provided that the mortgagor would keep the properties:insured with the mortgagee and in the name of the mortgagee against loss or damage by fire and earthquake for su...
Tag this Judgment!Tinkarhi Dasee Vs. Narendranath Mukherji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal512
Buckland, J.1. This is a suit to enforce a mortgage, dated 25th September 1912, executed by the defendants Narendranath Mukherji and Manindranath Mukherji and the deceased son of Surabala Debi, in favour of the predecessors of the plaintiff, of their undivided l/3rd share in the property mortgaged. The property consists of No. 10, Chandramohan Sur's Lane and 4-1, Iswar Mill's Lane, now known as 4/1-A and 4/1-B.2. As regards the defendants Radhagobinda Goswami, Mohangobinda Goswami and Suddheswar Bhattacharya, the case has been already disposed of and the terms of the decree to be made so far as regards these parties have been consented to and recorded. The defendants Ashalata Basu and Haridas Mukherji claim, it appears a title to the second property mentioned, paramount to the mortgagor. and a position arises therefrom which is not free from difficulty. In her plaint the plaintiff states quite briefly in para. 13, that the defendant Ashalata Basu claims to be the owner of premises 4/1-...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »