Kolkata Court December 1932 Judgments
Badal Chandra Sadhukhan Vs. Debendra Nath Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal612,145Ind.Cas.892
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal from a suit which was brought to eject the defendant from a considerable plot of land on which stand their homestead and other structures. The defendant's grandfather took what purports to have been a permanent lease of the land for residential purposes from the then proprietors, the Mridhas, in March 1883. The lease was created by a document, which however was not a registered one. Certain persons, the Mitras, subsequently purchased the interest of the Mridhas and eventually granted a permanent lease of the land to the plaintiff in 1326. In 1927 the plaintiff instituted the present suit alleging that the defendant was a tenant-at-will and purporting to have served on him a notice to quit. The defendant denied the plaintiff's title, asserted his own Mourashi Mokurari right and challenged the service of the notice. The Courts below have been concurrent in plaintiff's favour. The defendant has appealed.2. Much of the arguments advanced on behalf of the app...
Tag this Judgment!Nishikanta Chatterji Vs. Behari Kahar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal532,145Ind.Cas.660
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. This is a Rule obtained by Nishikanta Chatterji, who has been convicted by a Presidency Magistrate under Section 182, I.P.C., and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100. The first point taken is that, upon a police report that the petitioner's case was false, the Magistrate proceeded to try him under Section 182, I.P. C, without giving him an opportunity to substantiate his own case, although he had filed a narazi petition. The facts are these: On 29th April the petitioner Nishikanta Chatterji went to the police station and made a case that, on the previous night, there was a theft from his room at 50, Ramtanu Basu Lane, in respect of a sum of Rs. 480 odd, and that he Suspected his servant Behari Kahar, who had absconded. The police officer questioned Behari Kahar, who stated that the case against him was totally false, that he had been a servant of the petitioner, that he had no wages for five months and when he asked for his wages the petitioner refused to pay him and t...
Tag this Judgment!Kanai Das Mohanta Vs. Narayanganj Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal553,145Ind.Cas.692
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case Kanaidas Mahanta who is a Mahant of Banku Behari Akhra within Narayanganj Municipality was called upon under Section 200, Bengal Municipal Act, to fill up or cleanse an insanitary tank belonging to the Akhra. On receipt of the requisition he filed a representation to the Municipality asking for six months' time to carry out the requisition. Thereupon the present prosecution was instituted. The trial Magistrate sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 100. On appeal the Additional District Magistrate has reduced the fine to Rs. 30 and in addition sentenced him to a daily fine of Rs. 2 until the requisition of the Municipal Chairman is complied with. The Rule was issued on three grounds. The first ground is that in view of the provisions of Section 6, Clause 11, Bengal Municipal Act, which lay down that in the absence of sufficient funds in the hands of the Manager, agent or trustee, as contemplated in the said section, no fine could be imposed upon him for his o...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Chandra Mandal and ors. Vs. Trailakya Mani Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal610
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs who had instituted a suit for recovery of khas possession of certain lands from the defendants. The subject-matter of the suit were certain lands and a hut constituting an under-tenancy which was created by one Brahmamoyi, a Hindu widow, so far back as 1898. The under-tenancy was created by a document which purports to have been a permanent lease granted by the said Brahmamoyi in favour of the defendants. The document is a registered one. By this document she purported to create a permanent under-tenancy in the lands in respect of which she said that she had a Kaymi Mourashi right, In 1915-16 there was a settlement Record of Rights in which the rights of the defendants were recorded as being those of a Korfa tenant with a right of occupancy acquired by custom. Brahmamoyi died some time about the year 1332, Thereafter, the plaintiffs, as reversioners to the estate of Brahmamoyi's husband, had instituted the present suit for eje...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Mohan Ray and ors. Vs. Kali Mohan Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal615
Mukerji, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted by the appellants as plaintiffs for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from constructing a bridge over a watercourse which goes by the name of Haridhoa and for a mandatory injunction ordering the defendants to remove such portions of the bridge as have been already constructed. The appellants have been unsuccessful in both the Courts below. It is not necessary to repeat here the facts of the case which have been set out in detail in the judgments of the Courts below. The plaintiffs' claim is based upon the allegation that the channel in question, or at least the part of it from its mouth on the Meghna river up to the point where the bridge is being constructed, is a public navigable river. The defence case is that the channel is not a river but only a khal which is neither tidal nor navigable all the year round, that for about six months in the year the channel remains fordable and during the remai...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Majid and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal537,145Ind.Cas.656
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case we have first of all, two accused, who appeal from jail and next, two other accused, whose cases have been argued very carefully before us by their learned advocate. These parsons have all been tried under Ordinance 2 of 1932, by a special Magistrate, who has convicted them on the charge of conspiracy to commit dacoity and also on a charge under Section 402, I.P.C.-preparation for committing dacoity-and has given them sentences of three years and five years respectively to run concurrently. The case is one in which the approver was examined after the special Magistrate had commenced the trial. He was tendered a pardon and made a prosecution witness and his story was that the appellants now before us had all taken part with him in a conspiracy to go to a place called Chak near Haripal and carry out a dacoity in the house of a certain barrister. The police had received intimation that a dacoity in this house was contemplated and, on the night of 6th February, ...
Tag this Judgment!Beni Madhab Khettry Vs. Abdul Razak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal673
Buckland, J.1. This is a suit to recover the sum of Rs. 11,019-3-0 from the defendant as money lent and advanced. The plaintiff alleges that on certain days in the months of September and October 1930 he lent Rs. 10,000 in all to the defendants. Defendant 1 did not deny the loan, and his defence to the suit has already been disposed of, and a decree has been made against him in circumstances which I stated at the time. The defendant Abdul Sovan has appeared at the hearing and contested the suit on two grounds: (1) that he was not a party to the loan, which means that he was not in partnership with Abdul Razak, and that the suit is barred by res judicata by virtue of the judgment by Ameer Ali, J., when exercising the Insolvency Jurisdiction of the Court. I will deal with the last point first.2. The matter in which my learned brother delivered his judgment just referred to was an application by six creditors to adjudicate the present defendants as insolvents. My learned brother held that...
Tag this Judgment!Ashutosh Basu Vs. Gouri Sankar Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1934Cal118
ORDERMitter, J.1. This Rule was issued on the opposite parties to show cause why the order of the Munsif of Lalbagh dated 30th April 1932 dismissing the decree holder's application for delivery of possession should not be set aside. It appears that the decree-holder obtained a decree against one Ram Das Saha for a certain sum of money and in execution of this decree be sold certain properties which are claimed by his sons to be their ancestral properties. The parties are governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law and the sons claim that as the debt of the father was not incurred for family purposes the entire joint family property could not be taken in execution. The property which was attached in execution of the decree was joint land or ejmali land and on that there has been constructed a house or a bari. The Munsif gave effect to the objection that the debt not having been incurred for family purpose the property which was the ancestral property could not be taken in execution. ...
Tag this Judgment!Banowari Lal Saha and anr. Vs. Gopal Chandra Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal643
Mukherji, J.1. One Umacharan Rai and one Sobhan Biswas owned a raiyati jama to which the lands of the present suit appertains of which they granted a lease to one Baburam Karal in 1290. Baburam left two sons Judhisthir and Gayanath. The plaintiff purchased the lands by a kobala from Judhisthir in 1326 and from Gayanath's widow in 1333. In 1304 Gayanath had granted a permanent lease in respect of the lands to one Tarachand Dhupi, and some persons, alleging themselves to be the heirs of the said Tarachand Dhupi, granted a permanent lease of the lands to defendants 4 and 9 in 1332. The plaintiff instituted the present suit for recovery of khas possession of the lands on which stands a homestead. The defence taken was that the case was governed by the Transfer of Property Act, that the suit was not maintainable without service of notice, that Tarachand Dhupi had transferable and heritable rights and the defendants' permanent lease from Tarachand's heirs would protect them from eviction.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhindra Kumar Roy and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal354
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the two appellants before us were put on their trial before a Special Magistrate appointed under Ordinance 11 of 1931 on, charges under Section 307,I.P.C, and Clause (e), Section 19, Arms Act. The case against the two accused is this: On 13th October 1930 at a certain ferry ghat in Jamalpur the complainant with another constable saw four men getting into a boat. They went down there and endeavoured to follow them. Thereupon the four men went up. Each of the two accused was among those four and each of them when he got to the top of the ferry ghat and saw that they were being followed by the complainant and his companion fired a revolver-one shot each from the top of the ferry ghat at their pursuers. The other two men ran away and these two men ran off after firing and were followed. They again fired in the course of the chase and the firing is said to have been made by putting their hands behind them-whatever it may mean. It appears also that the complainant...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »