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.
Sailabala Dassi Vs. Kalipada Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal733,140Ind.Cas.446
Mallik, J.1. This is an application against an order passed by the Additional District Judge of the 24-Parganas whereby he held, reversing the decision of the first Court, that an application for setting aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C., was within time. What happened in the case was this: One Kanti Chandra Chowdhury after obtaining a decree for arrears of rent put up the holding to sale. The holding was sold on 14th March 1928 and the sale was confirmed on 26th May of the same year. Kanti in due course applied for withdrawal of the sale proceeds. But before his application for withdrawal was disposed of, he died on 3rd September 1928, leaving his widow Saila Bala Dassi as his representative. Sailabala got herself substituted in the application for withdrawal on 1st December 1928, and on 18th January 1928 she withdrew the money. On 3rd September 1929 a person who was a mortgagee from the tenant put in an application for setting aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 90, a...
Haridasi Debi and ors. Vs. Sajani Mohan Batabyal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal770
1. This Rule has been issued, to show cause why an appeal which was dismissed for default of payment of the initial deposit should not be restored, the said dismissal being set aside. Illness and poverty have been pleaded as grounds for the default.2. The application on which the Rule has been issued was made on a court-fee of Rs. 2. A question therefore arose as to whether such an application is competent, or whether in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Fatimanneesa v. Deoki Pershad [1897] 24 Cal.350 the application should not be one for review. In many cases till recently the rule laid down by the aforesaid Pull Bench decision was held to apply. But in some cases, of late applications like the present one have been entertained. And on a reference made by the taxing officer under Section 5, Court-fees Act, C.C. Ghose, Ag. C.J., held that it is sufficient if the application is stamped with a court-fee of Rs. 2 only.3. We have heard the learned advocates for t...
Sikharja Nath Roy Choudhury and anr. Vs. Janaki Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal790,140Ind.Cas.457
Rankin, C.J. 1. In my opinion, this appeal must be allowed. We have to deal with a mortgage suit which was brought in 1923 and was decreed in 1928. The amount of mortgage debt appears to have been large and appears to have doubled itself by this time. It further appears that the mortgagees have been endeavouring as best as they can to get a sale under their mortgage decree and that the mortgagors according to the evidence of the mortgagees have obstructing them with all sorts of objections in execution. Accordingly in July 1931 somebody advised the mortgagees to apply for attachment before judgment but the mortgagees at the time they did so apply had clearly no proper notion of what it was necessary to allege and prove in order to be entitled to take action under Order 38. Their complaint was really this that as regards the mortgaged properties not only were the mortgagors obstructing the mortgage sale but that in the meantime properties subject to the mortgage were being allowed to ge...
Fala Krista Pal and ors. Vs. Jagannath Marwari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal775,140Ind.Cas.788
1. These two appeals have arisen out of a decree which purports to have been made under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C. The suit was commenced by the plaintiff on 8th November 1924 against four sets of defendants namely, defendant 1 Ghose, defendant 2 Paul, defendants 3 to 5 the Bagris and defendant 6, the Bengal National Bank Ltd. The bank having subsequently gone into liquidation, the liquidators were brought in as defendant 6. On 24th February 1925 a firm carrying on business under the name and style of Khangarji Amrita Lal & Co. were added as defendant 7.2. On 6th March 1919 defendant 1 had obtained a coal mining settlement in respect of coal lying under 366 bighas of land in mauzha Banbahal from the plaintiff and executed in his favour a kabuliyat stipulating to pay royalty at certain rates for the different kinds of coal to be taken and a minimum annual royalty of Rs. 5,000 that is to say at the rate of Rs. 400 a month from January to November and Rs. 600 in December and undertaking...
NabIn Chandra Guha Vs. Nibaran Chandra Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal734,140Ind.Cas.54
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Backer-gunge by which he has granted Letters of Administration with a copy of the will annexed of one Madhab Chandra Mistry to the respondent Nibaran Chandra Biswas. The will is alleged to have been executed by the testator Madhab Chandra Mistry on 9th December 1898 and appears to have been registered on his own admission as to execution on the 14th of that month. The testator is said to have died in Magh 1305 B. S., that is to say about two months after the will, and to have left three daughters. On 9th July 1929 the respondent, Nibaran Chandra Biswas, the only son of one of those daughters, who is dead, applied for Letters of Administration with a copy of the said will. The appellant Nabin Chandra Guha who was named as a defendant in the said petition filed an objection but the District Judge held that he had no locus standi to oppose the grant. Immediately thereafter he examined the applicant and made an order ex parte fo...
Bhabataran Pahari and anr. Vs. Traliakya Nath Bag and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal764,140Ind.Cas.743
C.C. Ghose, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is what is the true meaning of a certain kabuliyat which is in evidence in this case and which is marked Ex. 1. The matter arises in this way. One Akshoy Jana, the grandfather of defendant 2 executed a kabuliyab some time in 1877 in favour of his landlord, plaintiff 1's father, in respect of the lands in suit. From the kabuliyat itself, it is apparent that the lands in question had been held by Akshoy Jana as tenant under plaintiff l's father for some considerable time prior to 1877. The terms of the tenancy were in 1877 reduced into writing and the kabuliyat was in fact not the origin of the tenancy but a confirmatory document. It appears that defendant 2 was in 1327 B. S. in possession of the said lands. By a kabala executed sometime in that year, he conveyed the lands to defendant 1 and gave up possession. It is said that he removed his house and went to live elsewhere. The plaintiffs' contention in this suit is that; inasmuch as...
Secy. of State Vs. Srigobinda Chaudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal834,140Ind.Cas.856
Rankin, C.J.1. This suit was brought on 14th August 1926. The plaint is exceedingly badly drawn and contains a good deal of extremely inartificial matter its chief character being a lack of reasonable particulars on all essential points; but an examination of the plaint and of a certain other document--a petition which the Court was asked to regard as containing further particulars of the claim reveals the following as the alleged cause of action: It appears that the plaintiff at all material times was the owner of a revenue paying estate and that some time in 1919 his estate became involved in debt; whereupon he applied to the Court of Wards to declare him to be a 'disqualified proprietor,' (that is to say, proprietor disqualified to manage his own property) and to take over the management of his estate with a view to extricating it from its financial difficulties. The Court made the order on 7th June 1919. It proceeded to appoint a Manager of the estate and in that way the estate cam...
Jagadish NaraIn Tewary Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal36,140Ind.Cas.550
Costello, J.1. In this case Jagadish Narain Tewary was convicted by one of the Honorary, Presidency Magistrates, Calcutta, on 2nd December 1931, under Section 109, I.P. C, read.with Section 62-A, Sub-section (1), Clause (e), Calcutta Police Act, 1866, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75 or in default, to undergo seven days' simple imprisonment. Section 109, I.P.C, provides for punishment of abetment where an offence is committed in consequence of the act of abetment and no express provision is made by the Code for the punishment of such abetment. Section 62-A (1), Calcutta Police Act, 1866, reads as follows:The Commissioner of Police and, subject to the orders o the Commissioner of Police, every police officer of a rank not inferior to that of Sub-Inspector, may, with a view to securing the public safety or convenience, but not so as to contravene any rule made under the last foregoing section, or the provisions of any license granted under any such rule, give all such directions, ei...
Gahur Ali Karikar and ors. Vs. Sm. Asia Khatun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal96
Costello, J.1. These two Rules are the outcome and it is to be hoped to be the last stage in a protracted litigation between a man Gahur Ali Karikar on one side and his wife Asia Khatun, her mother Kokanu Bibi and her stepfather Misir Ali Karikar on the other. In the year 1927 Gahur Ali instituted a suit against his wife Asia Khatun, her mother Kokanu Bibi and her stepfather Misir Ali in which he claimed as against his wife restitution of conjugal rights and as against the other two defendants an injunction restraining them from obstructing the return of his wife to him. On 14th July 1927, a decree was made in that suit whereby it was ordered that Asia 'Khatun should return and render conjugal rights to her husband, the, plaintiff, and as regards the other two defendants that they be restrained from obstructing the return of the wife to the husband. Apparently that decree was not complied with by any of the defendants and accordingly the plaintiff made an application under Order 21, Ru...
Sm. Swarnamoyee Dasi Vs. Probodh Chandra Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal253
1. In this suit the, plaintiff Probodh Chandra Sircar, asked for a declaration of title to and recovery of possession of an 8-annas share of certain Government promissory notes of the face value of Rs. 100,100, or in the alternative for the value thereof, together with interest thereon, and for other consequential reliefs. The Subordinate Judge having decreed the suit the defendant Swarnamoyi Dasi has preferred this appeal.2. The parties are related thus:Brother Radha Mohun.... Ram Kamal Mondal... Brother Radharaman|died 21st April 1868 __________________________| |=W. Bhagabati Dasi died Iswar Chandra AnotherDebrani, died 3rd August 1892|_____________________________________________________| |Brojendra K. Sirear Jadunaty Sirear,Died 1894-85 Died Ist February 1915| =W. Swarnmoyee Dasi, defendantProbodh, plaintiff(Born in 1881, attainedMajority in 1899).3. On 11th April 1868 Ram Kamal Mondal executed a will (Ex. l) under which he left an 8-annas share of his paternal properties to his b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »