Kolkata Court November 1932 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.
Basanta Kumar Sarkar and anr. Vs. Panch Cowri Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal459,150Ind.Cas.244
Mukerji, J.1. These three appeals have arisen out of as many suits as were instituted by the plaintiffs for ejectment of the defendants after service of notice to quit under Section 49, Ben. Ten. Act, on the footing that the defendants were under-raiyats. The trial Court dismissed the suit in so far as it related to khas possession. The plaintiffs thereupon preferred appeals which were heard by the Additional District Judge who dismissed the said appeals and affirmed the decisions of the trial Court.2. The plaintiffs have then preferred these second appeals. The relevant finding of the trial Court on the question of khas possession was that the defendants have raiyati right to the lands of the respective holdings and that therefore they could not be treated as under-raiyats and proceeded against in ejectment after service of notice under Section 49, Ben. Ten. Act. The Additional District Judge has recorded a finding in his judgment which goes to indicate that he was inclined to take th...
Rajeswar Saha and ors. Vs. Sheik Yadali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal461,145Ind.Cas.123
Mukerji, J.1. The Courts below have dismissed the suit which the plaintiff instituted for what has been considered by them as a suit for accounts. The main ground of their decision is that the plaintiff's right is based upon an assignment which he obtained from the proforma defendants of what has been held to be a bare right to sue within the meaning of Section 6(e), T.P. Act. The plaintiff purchased from the pro forma defendants certain immovable properties together with certain rights which were described in these words:Sheikh Deanat Hossein of Lakshmipur and Sheikh Yadali of Nayadanga have both been working under us as Tahsildars in respect of the properties described in Sch. 1-10; you will take from them to your satisfaction, either amicably or by suit, all papers relating to the collection of the properties sold, and the accounts for the period of their service, and the moneys that may be found due from them on the basis thereof.2. The question which arises for consideration which...
Amulyacharan Mitra Vs. Prakashchandra Mitra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal502,145Ind.Cas.313
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case there was a preliminary decree for partition made on 29th July 1921, in which the shares of the parties were declared in certain premises No. 18, Shampukur Street, Calcutta, and it was ordered that a partition be made of the said premises into eight equal parts or shares, and the commissioners was ordered, if he found that the premises could be conveniently and reasonably partitioned by metes and bounds, to make such division, with power to him to award compensation in money by way of equalizing the partition. It was further ordered that, in the event of the commissioner finding that the premises could not be conveniently and reasonably partitioned by metes and bounds, he was to report to the Court. It was further ordered that the expenses of the commission of partition were to be borne by the parties in proportion to the value of their respective shares. In the plaint, it was alleged that the plaintiff had made certain improvements and additions to the...
Mohanta Bhagawan Das Vs. Bhupendranarayan Singha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal527
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant in a suit, which was instituted by the plaintiff-Raja Bhupendranarayan Singha Bahadur-for recovery of excess cess in respect of a certain patni mehal for four years together with damages, on the basis of certain terms in a kabuliyat, under which the defendant holds the same. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below. A preliminary objection was taken as regards the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was a suit for recovery of money and that therefore no second appeal lay. This preliminary objection, if it succeeds, would land the respondent at once into two difficulties, of which one is a question of defect of parties and the other is the question of limitation so far as one year's cesses are concerned. It may be stated here that the respondent's position in the Courts below was that what was claimed was not money but rent and in that way he was able to wa...
Rabindra Nath Dhar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal332
Mitter, J.1. This rule was issued on the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the conviction of and the sentence passed on the petitioner Rabindra Nath Dhar under Section 294-A, I.P.C., should not be set aside. The first ground on which this Rule is supported is that the sanction of the Local Government was not obtained as it was necessary to have been obtained under Section 196, Criminal P.C., before cognizance could be taken of an offence under Section 294-A, I.P.C. The point which is made by Mr. Fazlul Huq who appears for the petitioner is that this sanction was not exhibited in Court till 10th June 1932, whereas the cognizance was taken of the case on the complaint of the Police Inspector on 26th May 1932. If he had been able to substantiate this point the Rule would have been made absolute. Unfortunately for his client it appears that this sanction of the Local Government which was signed by Mr. Reid, Officiating Chief Secretary to the Government of Bengal, is dated 18th ...
Khajeh Habibullah and ors. Vs. Abdul Karim Abu Ahmed Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal462,145Ind.Cas.116
1. This is a rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the time for filing the appeal in this case should not be extended and the appeal registered though filed out of time and why such other and further order should not be made as to this Court may appear fit and proper. The present applicants filed an appeal in this Court against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh, First Court, on 30th January 1931. The memorandum of appeal was not accepted in the office because the appeal had been filed out of time by two days. The explanation given is as follows: It is said that about the end of November 1930 in accordance with a long-standing practice in the office of the Government Pleaders in this Court the clerk of the said office inquired from somebody in the office of the stamp reporter about the last day for filing the said appeal. It is further said that one Hari Sadhan De, an assistant in the office of the stamp reporter, made certain calculations o...
Ban Behari Chatterji and ors. Vs. Bhukhan Lal Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal511
1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C. We are asked to revise an order of the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Parganas, passed on 5th September 1932, whereby in a matter under Order 21, Rule 66, Civil P.C., he directed that the sale proclamation should show the value put upon the property to be sold as given by the decree-holder, as also that given by the judgment-debtor. In this case the discrepancy between the two values, though not so large as in some of the decided cases, is yet considerable, viz., Rs. 40,000 as against Rs. 1,00,000. The application for revision and for stay of sale has, as usual, been made at the last minute. There is a conflict of evidence as to what took place before the learned Subordinate Judge. It is possible that at that stage the judgment-debtor did not press the point argued before us. We do not however, propose to discuss the merits or bona fides of the application since we think it desirable to give a decision on the point of principle invol...
Emperor Vs. Sarafat HossaIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal791
1. This matter has been referred to us under Section 438, Criminal P.C., by the District Magistrate of Howrah. It appears that the opposite parties were convicted under Section 9, Opium Act of 1878, of being in illegal possession of a large quantity of opium. The Magistrate has convicted them and sentenced them each to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment. The opposite parties appealed against their conviction and sentence to the Sessions Judge of Howrah who dismissed the appeal. The District Magistrate, for the reasons which he gives in his letter of reference, considers the sentence inadequate and he recommends its enhancement. The learned advocate who appears for the opposite parties has submitted that inasmuch as the District Magistrate is inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of Section 435, Criminal P.C., we cannot or at any rate should not interfere. He has cited various authorities to us which lay down limitations en the po...
Benodini Chaudhurani Vs. Jagabandhu Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal796
1. In this case according to one view the memorandum of appeal was presented nine days out of time. But according to the view presented on behalf of the respondent, the memorandum of appeal was presented 21 days out of time. It appears that the appeal is directed against a preliminary decree in a mortgage suit. The date of the preliminary decree is the 2nd March 1932. The final decree was passed on 19th March 1932. It is said on behalf of the appellant that the pleader in the Court below advised the appellant that there would be appeal only against both the final decree and the preliminary decree and that therefore time for filing the appeal would run from the date of the final decree. The advice was of course incorrect and when the papers reached the learned advocate in this Court, Mr. Joy Gopal Ghose, it was discovered that the time for preferring the appeal against the preliminary decree had already expired.2. The present appeal was presented on the l to June. The memorandum of appe...
Emperor Vs. Sarafat HussaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1932
Reported in: 146Ind.Cas.354
1. This matter has been referred to us under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, by the District Magistrate of Howrah. It appears that the opposite parties were convicted under Section 9, Opium Act of 1878, of being in illegal possession of a large quantity of opium. The Magistrate has convicted them and sentenced them each to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment. The opposite parties appealed against their conviction and sentence to the Sessions Judge of Howrah who dismissed the appeal. The District Magistrate, for the reasons which he gives in his letter of reference, considers the sentence inadequate and he recommends its enhancement. The learned Advocate who appears for the opposite parties has submitted that inasmuch as the District Magistrate is inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of Section 435, Criminal Procedure Code, we cannot or at any rate should not interfere. He has cited various authorities to us which lay down l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »