Kolkata Court March 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.
Khetra Mohan Mitra Vs. Sm. Nalini Bala Dassi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal828
Pearson, J.1. The facts out of which tills appeal arises are as follows: the plaintiff is one Khetra Mohan Mitra, the stop brother and reversionary heir of one Jatindra Nath Mitra who died childless in 1900. He left a widow Nalini Bala Dasi who is defendant 1, and his mother Matangini Dasi, who died in 1919. In December 1908, Nalini Bala as widow obtained an order for grant of Letters of Administration to her husband's estate. There was an objection by the reversioner, but the grant was made on her furnishing security for Rs. 1,000 'binding her to maintain those entitled to maintenance from the estate and to keep intact the corpus of the estate.'2. In January 1910, she first applied to the Probate Court for permission to sell the property, but apparently security-had not then been furnished, and the application was not allowed. An order was passed shortly after that all further applications with regard to the estate were to be heard in the presence of the objectors. In 1916 she made a ...
AsanuddIn Mandal Vs. Asmatulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal198
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises in a suit to enforce a mortgage bond which was executed in his favour by the defendant in Ashar 1332 B.S. by which the mortgagor hypothecated certain immovable properties and promised to pay interest at the rate of 30 per cent per annum. The defence of the defendant was that the mortgage had been paid off by the plaintiff agreeing to take Rs. 555 out of the money due under the mortgage and remitting Rs. 111 due on the mortgage on a particular date, and in proof of that fact the defendant produced a receipt purporting to have been given by the plaintiff the material terms of which are as follows:Rupees 666 is due to me upon the mortgage bond of which I have received from you Rs. 555 after remission of the balance. Nothing more remains due upon the bond. I cannot return the bond to you now as it is with my pleader. After getting it back from my pleader I shall enter the endorsement of this payment upon the bond and return it to y...
Nanda Lal Roy and ors. Vs. Pramatha Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal222
Mitter, J.1. Four main questions fall for determination in this appeal by the plaintiffs: (1) whether the plaintiffs have established their title to the fishery known as the Bikrampur Jalkar in the tidal and navigable river Pudma; (2) what is the boundary between their jalkar and the respondents' (defendants 1 to 5) fishery known as the Mukundia Jalkar; (3) whether the plaintiffs have lost their title by adverse possession of the defendants to the portion of the fishery now in dispute and (4) what is the legal effect of the proceedings of 1816, 1843 and of the award of the arbitrator in certain suits instituted in 1909. The principal contestants to the appeal are Raja Janaki Nath Roy, a gentleman possessed of considerable wealth and his nephews.2. In this action plaintiffs claimed a decree for recovery of joint possession with their co-sharers to the extent of their three annas two gandas one kara one kranti one danti shares in that portion of the fishery which is described in Sch. 2 t...
Ali Ahmad Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal545,140Ind.Cas.544
Panckridge, J.1. The appellant has boon found guilty by the unanimous verdict of the jury of an offence punishable under Sections 471/467, I. P. C., and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500 with a further term of six months' rigorous imprisonment in default.2. The appellant is a Mahomedan Marriage Registrar and on 16th April 1928 he filed a rent suit in the Court of the Hatiya Munsif against one Mafijur Rahman. The plaint in the suit was in the hand-wring of Makbul Ahmad, the appellant's karmachari and tadbirkar. On 23rd July 1928 a ferishti, also in the handwriting of Makbul, was filed and with it a document purporting to be signed by Matijur Rahman and to be the kabuliyat upon which the appellant based his claim. On 28th August 1928 Mafijur filed his written statement in which he stated the kabuliyat to be a forgery and asked for its safe custody, and a further application to impound the document was made by him on 20th December...
Raghubir Kahar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal865
Panckridge, J.1. In this ease the learned Additional Presidency Magistrate has convicted the accused of an offence punishable under Section 420/75, I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. A certain defect in the procedure has been pointed out to us. It is that there is no formal charge framed as contemplated by Section 254, Criminal P.C. This was a warrant case and the provisions as to the procedure to be followed in the trial of a warrant case by a Magistrate are laid down in Oh. 21 of the Code. That chapter applies to. a Presidency Magistrate as much as to other Magistrates except where Presidency Magistrates are specifically excluded from its operation. Under Section 254 it is not within the discretion of a Magistrate whether he should frame a charge in writing or not. The section is mandatory and he is prima facie bound to frame a charge. It is obvious that this section is applicable to Presidency Magistrates as well as to other Magistrates. If one...
Manmatha Nath Koer Vs. Mahadeb Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal727,140Ind.Cas.267
Costello, J.1. This matter touches upon a question of some interest and importance to the public in the Rural Districts of Bengal. Under the Bengal Village Self-Government Act of 1919 provision was made for the setting up of judicial bodies, called Union Courts, by the Local Government at places where Union Boards are established. Section 73 of the Act reads as follows:Whenever a Union Board has been established for a union, the Local Government, may, by notification, appoint any two or more of the members of the Board to be a Union Court during their term of office as members of the Board, for the trial, in the whole or any part of the union, of all or any of the classes of civil suits specified in Section 74.2. These are : (a) suits for money due on contracts; (b) suits for the recovery of moveable property or the value of such property and (c) suits for compensation for wrongfully taking or injuring movable property, when the value of the suit does not exceed two hundred rupees. The...
Sm. Mirinalini Dassi Vs. Harihar De (Receiver) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal76
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case it appears that one Sarat Kumar Roy presented his own petition for adjudication in insolvency on 25th September. 1929, and that on that date the usual order was made to admit the petition. On 4th December a certain creditor who appears to have been No. 1 in the list of creditors filed by the debtor asked the Court to appoint an interim receiver. The Court did on that day appoint an interim receiver and notice of the application was given to the debtor. On 3rd January 1930, the same creditor applied to the Court for an order upon the receiver directing him to serve notice on the tenant at Calcutta for paying rent of the house to him' and for certain other matters. It may here be explained that there was a certain house at Chandernagore which the insolvent's wife claimed as her own she having purchased it with her own money. There was also a house in Calcutta which was the occupation of a tenant with reference to which, as I understand there was a claim by the...
J.C. Galstaun Vs. Profulla Kumar De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal634
Guha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal, dated 10th March 1928, apportioning money awarded to two different sets of claimants to the same. Claimant No. 1, Mr. J. C. Galstaun, appellant in this Court, was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, the whole amount of compensation in regard to premises No. 72 Karaya Road, Calcutta, which was acquired compulsorily, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. On a reference made under Sections 18 and 19, Land Acquisition Act, from the award of the Collector, by the respondents in this appeal, who are described in the proceedings before us as ' the claimant No. 2,' the award of the Collector made on 11th May 1927, in favour of claimant No. 1, has been modified, and the compensation money has been apportioned by the tribunal between claimants Nos. 1 and 2, in the proportion of 1 to 3. The appellant before us has sought in this appeal to establish his title to...
Nagendra Kishore Roy Choudhury and ors. Vs. Brojendra Kishore Roy Chou ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal842
Pearson, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit in which the plaintiff sued for declaration of his title and confirmation of his possession of a certain plot of land which is occupied by the Post Office at Netrakona. The plaintiff is the owner of Touzi No. 79 and the defendant is the owner of Touzi No. 78. The plaintiff's case is that the land in question belongs to Touzi No. 79. He says that he has been in possession for a large number of years and that the Post Office is in occupation of the land with permission of his predecessor. It appears further that in the Record of Rights this property has been recorded as belonging to Touzis Nos. 78 and 79, jointly. The Record of Rights was finally published on 9th December 1915, and this suit was filed on 9th December 1927, that is to say, on the last day before the expiry of 12 years. The defence pleaded was that the entry in the Record of Rights was correct, that there was no cause of action, and if there was a cause of action,...
Chunilal Motilal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal868
Costello, J.1. In this case the applicant Chunilall Motilall was fined Rs. 50 by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta under Section 188, I. P. C. It appears that on 11th July 1931 the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate made an order under Section 144, Criminal P. C, directing the present applicant to abstain from constructing or proceeding with the construction of a piece of work described as a masonry ledge on a common passage leading from Raja Naba Kissen Street to premises Nos. 23-1 and 23-2, Raja Naba Kissen Street, and other premises. That order was served upon him on the same day. A date was fixed by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, namely, 27th July 1931, for the hearing of such objections as the present applicant might have to the order which had been made on 11th July 1931. But in the meantime, on 20th July the present proceedings were instituted on the allegation that Chunilall Motilall had continued work on the masonry ledge, after the order ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »