Kolkata Court June 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.
Abdul Hamid Sardar Vs. Bijoy Chand Mahatap and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal108,136Ind.Cas.472
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, the plaintiff-appellant was the auction-purchaser of a patni sold under Regulation 8 of 1819 on 15th May 1922. Very soon afterwards, on 3rd June 1922, the patnidar sued to set aside the sale under Section 14 of the Regulation. The plaintiff obtained symbolical possession as it is called on or about 9th June 1922. In December 1922 and in April and May 1923, he paid certain sums of rent to the zamindar. In the end the suit of the patnidar succeeded and the sale was set aside by the first Court. At the time the first Court set aside the sale, it provided that the patnidar should recover possession and it directed the zamindar to pay the plaintiff's costs and also to refund to the present appellant the purchase money with certain interest, to return him certain security and to bear his costs in the suit.2. It is natural enough that in the written statement of that suit no mention should have been made by the present appellant, the auction-purchaser, of the sums...
Heramba Chandra Maitra Vs. Jyotish Chandra Sinha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal579
Rankin, C.J.1. The property in question in this suit was originally owned by one Bolai Chand Sinha who had two sons Sarat and Purna. The plaintiffs in this suit are in effect the Brahmo Somaj Education Society, a Society incorporated under Act 21 of 1860. The defendants are the sons and administrators of the estate of Sarat and certain mortgagees from them. By a deed dated 27th May 1914 the representatives of the estate of Sarat leased to certain persons on behalf of the City College institution, a society registered under Act 21 of 1860, a certain portion of property which belonged to Bolai. It appears that the two branches of Bolai's family had come to a partition and that the portion of the property now in question which belongs to Sarat's branch is the southern portion of which the present description is 102/2 Amherst Street,2. The deed by its operative portion granted a perpetual lease at a certain monthly rent of the property belonging to Sarat's branch. There was a covenant that...
Nagenbala Dasee Vs. Sridam Mahato and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Cal69
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This litigation has come to this Court under the following circumstances. There is a tenure held by certain Kalamuris, who gave an ijara to one Surabala and subsequently to the plaintiff. Under this tenure, there is an under-tenure held by the Mahato defendants. The suit lands are in mouza Barasole, which is included within the under-tenure. In 1907 the Record of Rights was finally published and therein the defendants were recorded as under-tenure holders in respect of the lands of mouza Barasole, at a rental of Rupees 118-14-0. As Surabala, the then ijaradar, brought a rent suit in 1909 and obtained decree at the rate of Rs. 118-14-0. In 1910, the present defendants brought title suit-T.S. No. 200 of 1910-in order to have the rent decree set aside. In that suit, there was a compromise by which the parties agreed that the rent for the under-tenure would be Rupees 118-14-0., and that, on account of the jungle land, the defendants would supply 15 cart loads of sal and ot...
Sukh Chand Haldar and ors. Vs. Jajneswar Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal135
Jack, J.1. This rule has been issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why the decision of the Small Cause Court Judge dismissing the suit brought by the petitioners in the Small Cause Court for recovery of Rs. 120 as unpaid landlord's fee under Section 48-H, Ban. Ten. Act, should not he set aside. It appears that defendant 5 had granted an under-raiyati lease for a period exceeding 12 years to defendants 1 to 4 and had the lease registered on the statement that his status was that of a raiyat at a fixed rate of rant. The lease was therefore apparently registered under Section 12, Ban. Ton. Act. The petitioners claim that in fact the defendants' status was that of under-raiyats and therefore registration under Section 48 (H), Ben. Ten. Act, was necessary and that they are entitled to a decree for Rs. 120 claimed as landlords' fees. The learned Subordinate Judge states that the facts of the case are not in dispute, that the plaintiffs are under-raiyats with a right of occu...
Neamat Sha Vs. Hanuman Buksha Agarwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Cal626
Lort-Williams, J.1. The petitioner, with two other accused persons, was tried by the Sub-Deputy Magistrate at Noagaon for offences under Section 147 and 323, I. P.C., and convicted.2. On 24th October 1930, the case for the defence was closed and the Magistrate adjourned the trial to 27th November for argument and judgment only.3. On that day an order transferring the Magistrate was communicated to him in Court. On hearing this, the defence pleader retired immediately from Court. Later he returned and filed a petition for adjournment under Section 526. The two other accused dissociated themselves from this petition. No reasons were given, and it was obvious to the Magistrates that the sole object of the petitioner was to render the trial abortive. He rejected the petition on the ground that the trial was finished, the arguments and judgment forming no part of it. For this proposition he relied upon the decision in Public Prosecutor of Madras v. Chockalinga Ambalam A. I.R. l929 Mad. 210....
Raja Reshee Case Law Vs. Jarilal Mahapatra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Cal293
Jack, J.1. This rule has been issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause why an order allowing an application under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P.C., should not be set aside. This rule was issued on the ground that in a matter arising out of an application under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act, the Court below had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim under Rule 21, Rule 100, Civil P.C. This rule runs as follows:Where any person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property or where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession.2. It is urged that the dispossession under Order 21, Rule 100, must be by the purchaser of the property sold in execution of a decree. In this case the dispossession was by the landlord who was put into possession under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act. Under Clause 6, Secti...
Debendra Nath Dhang and ors. Vs. Pashupati Nath Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal198,136Ind.Cas.889
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Cuming, J., sitting in second appeal, the learned Judge having granted leave to appeal under Section 15, Letters Patent.2. The suit has reference to a plot of land in Howrah lying between Howrah Road and the river. The size of the plot is 8 cottas. The Munsif inspected it on 7th April 1926. He found an old boundary-wall on the north side of it, a pucca privy and a square pucca garh some 11 1/2 feet long, 10 feet broad with a 3 feet wide verandah; height about 8 feet 10 inches above the plinth. There were certain tile-roofed huts some of which had brick walls. The plaintiff has a mukarrari right under the zamindar and ho contends that the tenancy is a monthly tenancy which he has determined by service of notice to quit. The contention of the defendants is that the tenancy is an old one, in origin anterior to the Transfer of Property Act of 1882, that it was given for residential purposes and is a permanent tenancy.3. It...
Nurjahan Khatun and ors. Vs. Asia Khatun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal216,136Ind.Cas.478
Pearson, J.1. The question for determination in this appeal is whether in the circumstances a deposit in Court by a judgment-debtor, made under protest, would entitle him to have a sale in execution set aside under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C.2. The sale was held on 19th February 1930 and the matter was directed to come up for confirmation on 24th March. Meantime on 19th March two orders were passed, viz.:(1) Judgment-debtors are permitted to deposit the decretal money with compensation as prayed for; and (2) judgment-debtors by a petition state that they have deposited the decretal amount with interest on protest on the ground stated therein. The decretal money will remain in Court until further orders.3. On 24th March notice was directed to issue on the decree-holders to show cause why the sale should not be set aside. The matter came on for hearing on 26th May 1930 when the learned Judge directed the sale to be set aside and the execution case dismissed on full satisfaction. The gr...
River Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Jamunadas Ram Kumar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal344
Mitter, J.1. A very strenuous argument has been put forward in this Rule by Mr. Dhirendra Lal Khastagir who has appeared for the petitioners. He has said all that could be said in this case for the petitioners, but notwithstanding this I am of opinion that this Rule should be discharged.2. The facts lie within a short compass.. It appears that Shama Nand Tamsuk Bail delivered six boxes described as containing stationery to the River Steam Navition Co. Ltd.--the India General Navigation Ry. Co. Ltd.--who are the petitioners before me for carriage of those goods from A.S. Ghat station via Chandpur to Tinsukia, a station on the Assam Bengal Railway for delivery to Messrs. Jamuna. Das Earn Kumar. The consignor described the goods as stationery in the forwarding note and signed a declaration; agreeing to abide by the conditions mentioned in the forwarding note. The consignment contained other goods besides stationery and included silk handkerchiefs of the value in excess of Rs. 100 and othe...
Mahendra Nath Bagchi Vs. Tarak Chandra Sinha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal504
Suhrawardy, J.1. These two appeals are by defendant 1 arising out of two suits for recovery of possession of some lands brought by the plaintiffs under the following circumstances. According to the plaintiffs the lands in suits belonged to the debutter estate of one Ishan Chandra Bagchi of whom the plaintiffs claimed to be the reversionary heirs and that after the death of Ishan Chandra Bagchi the properties were in possession of his daughter Hara Sundari after whose death they vested in the plaintiffs as the sole reversionary heirs of Ishan Chandra Bagchi. Defendant 1, the appellant, alone contested the suit and claimed the property as belonging to his and defendant 2's debutter, and he further claimed that they wore the reversionary heirs of Ishan Chandra Bagchi. The other defendants who are tenants and the pro forma defendants in one of the suits did not appear in the suits or in the appeals.2. The main defence on which the appellant relies is limitation. In order to understand the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »