Kolkata Court May 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.
Sudhangshu Sekhar Dey Vs. Haricharan Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal847
Panckridge, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff Sudhangshu Sekhar Dey seeks to recover damages from the defendant Haricharan Ghose for his arrest on civil process on 27th July 1929 at 6 Lyon's Range in the office of the Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd., where the plaintiff has for some years been employed as a clerk. A large part of the case is not disputed. In 1925 the plaintiff and his brother-in-law became tenants of a portion of premises No. 7 Jugipara by-lane in the suburbs of Calcutta of which the defendant is the owner. These tenants remained in that portion of the premises until January or February 1927 at a rent of Rs. 50 a month. It is admitted by the leading counsel for the plaintiff that he proved an extremely unsatisfactory, not to say dishonest, tenant, and never attempted to pay an anna on account of his rent unless compelled to do so by legal process. Indeed in January 1927 there were no less than three rent suits pending in the Court of Small Caus...
Kshetra Mohan Pal Choudhury Vs. Tufani Talukdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal474
Guha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Dacca, dated 8th June 1928, holding that the plaintiff-appellant in this Court could not maintain a suit for enforcement of a mortgage. The mortgage bond on which the plaintiff's claim in suit was based, was executed by defendant 2 and his father in favour of defendant 6. The plaintiff's case was that the loan was advanced out of joint family funds of the plaintiff and his brothers, defendants 6 and 7; that the bond was allotted to the share of the plaintiff by virtue of an award made by an arbitrator. The document conferring a title to the plaintiff to recover the mortgage money, was dated the 4th Falgoon 1332, B.S. by which a list of bonds which were allotted to the share of the plaintiff and which the plaintiff received from the arbitrator was prepared. The plaintiff's claim in suit, specially his title to recover the mortgage money, was denied by defendant 6, and it was this defendant wh...
Kanai Lal Misra Vs. Ram Nibash Bajaj and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal314
Rankin, C.J.1. In my judgment this appeal succeeds. The plaintiff brought his suit asking for relief in the alternative: first of all, for declaration of title and possession of 200 bighas of land in Mauza Jaba in the Asansol District and alternatively, for judgment for Rs. 7,400 or, in default compensation. His case was that Rani. Shyama Sundari Debi had given him a lease for 999 years of this property in Mauza Jaba and had received from him selami of Rs. 6,000 and nazar of Rs. 1,000 on or about 29th July 1920, that he was resisted by certain persons, defendants 2 and 3 in the suit, and had not obtained possession of the land demised and that he was entitled to a decree either for possession or else for recovery from the lady or her estate the sum of Rs. 7,400 which he had paid on that account. The suit itself was brought on 12th July 1922 and the lessor, Rani Shyama Sundari Debi, died on 18th February 1927 pending the suit. Now, the heir of the lady's stridhan and also the person who...
Jahurdan Garib Khan and ors. Vs. Sakina Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1934Cal210
1. This is an appeal from a preliminary decree in a suit for partition and for accounts. The defendants are the appellants. One Garib Khan had two wives. The elder wife Alihan Bibi, who died before her husband, was the mother of the two plaintiffs. The younger wife Jahurdan Bibi survived her husband and is defendant 1 and her daughter is defendant 2. Jahurdan Bibi, after the death of her husband, which took place in November 1921, has married one Sheikh Ali Mohamed in Nika form. The plaintiffs' ease was that the property mentioned in Schedule Ka to the plaint belonged to Garib Khan and therefore they as his two daughters, are entitled each to a 4 as. 8 gds. thereof and that the properties described in Schedule Ka formerly belonged to her mother Alihan Bibi, some under a Hebanama which Garib Khan had executed in her favour, and since she predeceased him, he, on her death, obtained a share therein, and he having died, they are each entitled to a 7as. 2 gds. share in them. Schedule Ka was...
Ali HussaIn and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal308
Mallik, J.1. Of the two appellants Ali Hussain, appellant 1, has been convicted under Section 420, I.P. C, and sentenced to detention till the rising of the Court and to a fine of Rs. 250. Appellant 2 Saiyed Din has been convicted under Sections 420 and 114, I.P.C., and sentenced to detention till the rising of the Court and to a fine of Rs. 60. The allegations on which the two appellants were charged were briefly these: The complainant Amarendra Nath Dhar is a clerk in the service of a firm styled as D.L. Mitter and Company. He is a respectable young man fond of betting at the races and takes the risk of betting outside the rings with the possible consequence of being charged with gambling. On one Saturday about the middle of August last he attended the races and did some betting outside the enclosure with unlicensed bookmakers. He lost some money and was coming home, and when he was near the Plassey Gate on the Maidan, the accused Ali Hussain met him and saying that he had seen him b...
Kailash Chandra Das and anr. Vs. Sm. Kanchani Dassya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1934Cal136
Guha, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Munsif, Second Court, Dacca, dated 10th February 1932, disallowing the objections raised by the petitioners before this Court, in regard to an order for substitution of parties and for transference of defendants in a suit to the category of plaintiffs. The facts of the case giving rise to the application on which this Rule was issued, are set out in the order recorded by the Court below. Defendants 5 and 6 in the suit, who were substituted as plaintiffs on the death of the original plaintiff, Kamini Sundari Dasya one of the widows of Ishan Chandra Das, after the passing of a preliminary decree for dissolution of joint family business, and for accounts, against defendants 1 to 3 in the suit, were the ultimate reversioners after the death of defendant 3, Kanchani Dassya, the co-widow of the original plaintiff in the suit. By the order of the Court below, all these three persons, defendants 5 and 6 and defendant 3, have been made co...
Khurshid Chik Vs. Raniganj Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal833
Jack, J.1. This Rule has been issued upon the District Magistrate of Burdwan and on the complainant opposite party to show cause why the order Of conviction under Section 273 (2), Bengal Municipal Act, and of fine of Rs. 30 imposed, on the petitioner should not be set aside on the ground that the Court below erred in law in presuming that the provisions of Sections 220 to 222 of the Act were complied with in the absence of any proof to that effect. The prosecution was on a charge that the petitioner used his house within the Raniganj Municipality as a place for sale of meat without License, Part 6, Municipal Act, having been extended to the Municipality. For the petitioner it is urged that in as much as it is not proved that the order applying Part-6 of the Act to the Municipality was promulgated under the provisions of Section 222 of the Act, the conviction is bad and should be set aside. Both the Courts have relied upon the resumption under Section 114 (e), Evidence Act, that officia...
Barendra Krishna Das Adhikari Vs. Dwijendra Krishna Das Adhikari and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal61
1. This is an appeal from a decree based upon an award of certain arbitrators which was accepted by the Court with a slight modification. As alternative to the appeal there is an application in revision. The suit in which the said award was made was instituted by Dwijendra and Robindra, the two younger sons of one Rai Radhashyam Das Adhikari Bahadur deceased, in their personal right and also as shebaits of a certain deity, against their eldest brother Barendra who was sued both in his personal right and as the other shebait of the said deity. The sons of the said plaintiff were subsequently added as co-plaintiffs. The plaintiffs asked for declaration of title and confirmation of possession in a two-thirds share in certain properties by right of survivorship. They prayed that if it be found that the properties were subject to a charge for debsheba the said charge might be declared. In the alternative, they prayed that if the properties be found to be debutter, their rights as shebaits b...
Haridas Sadhu Khan Vs. Iswar Ratneswar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal94
Guha, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of an application under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P.C., made by the plaintiff in a suit for recording a compromise. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Howrah, for a declaration that the properties mentioned in the plaint were debuttar properties of the idols Sri Sri Iswar Ratneswar Kedar Nath Shiva and Sri Sri Iswar Sridhar Jiu, and for a further declaration that the plaintiff was a shebait of the idols. In view of the allegations made in the plaint that the defendants, three in number, had acted in contravention of the terms of the shebaitnama, dated 20th June 1874, the plaintiff prayed that the defendants might be declared unfit to continue as shebaits. A permanent injunction was prayed for preventing the defendants from offering any resistance in case the plaintiff acted as a shebait of the said idols, and made repairs to the temples belonging to the idols. A prayer was made by the plaintiff ...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Probhat Chandra Barua
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal128
Guha, J.1. The respondent in this appeal, Raja Probhat Chandra Barua as owner of the amalgamated premises No. 12, Mullen Street, Calcutta, appealed under Section 141, Calcutta Municipal Act, to the Court of Small Causes at Sealdah, on being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Deputy Executive Officer of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, in respect of the valuation made by that officer of the amalgamated premises. The premises formerly bearing Nos. 12,12-1 12-2 and 13 had, on the application of the respondent, been amalgamated into one, No. 12, Mullen Street; Nos. 12, 12-1 and 12-2 being vacant land, were according to the assessment that was in force at the time of the amalgamation in the year 1930, assessed on rental basis; No. 13 was however assessed on residential basis, i.e., on value of land plus cost of construction of the structures standing on the same. On amalgamation, a new assessment was made on residential basis in respect of the whole of the amalgamated premises, an...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »