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.
Radhu Roy and ors. Vs. Raja Jyoti Prasad Singh Deo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1932
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.385
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal brought by certain persons who claim a permanent interest under the name of jagirdars under the respondent Raja Jyoti Prosad Singh Deo--the zamindar in respect of certain land which has been compulsorily acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The purpose of the acquisition was for providing land for the offices of the Engineering and Telephone Staff of the East India Railway at Asansol and the date of the declaration is 4th August, 1925. The amount of land that has been acquired appears to be 1.861 acres. The land under acquisition has been divided into some eleven plots and in addition to the zamindar there are a number of persons claiming to be intermediate tenure-holders of jagirdars as well as a number of persons who are tenants in occupation of the land. The present appeal is brought by some of these intermediate tenure-holders. They originally asked for a reference both against the amount of the Collector's valuation of the land as well as again...
Tarunanganath Banerji Vs. Premnarayanlal Raizada
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal274
Roy, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sues for a declaration that the ex parte decree, dated the 21st day of June 1927, and made in Suit No. 2748 of 1926, of the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur, is inoperative and not binding on him, and for an order that the said decree should be set aside. He further claims a sum of Rs. 5,000 as damages suffered by him by reason of his arrest in execution of that decree. The plaintiff is a pleader of the District Court of Alipore and; ordinarily resides at No. 107/1, Mechuabazar Street. From 1st February 1926, to 18th June 1926 the plaintiff was employed as a manager of the International Commercial Co., Ltd., which had its office at No. 84-A, Clive Street, in Calcutta. On 7th May 1926 the plaintiff, as manager of the company, had, by a letter addressed to the defendant, appointed him the agent of the company at Nagpur, on a monthly remuneration of Rs. 50 from 10th May 1926.2. On 21st March 1928 the plaintiff was arrested in Calcutta, by a bailiff of the...
Sham Lal Khettry Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal655
Panckridge, J.1. Rule 74 has been obtained by the petitioner who has been convicted by the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, under Section 54-A, Calcutta Police Act and sentenced to a term of rigorous imprisonment for two months. The ground on which the Rule was issued is that the learned Magistrate has not given any reason for the conviction of the accused. Mr. Khundkar who appears to show cause, admits that the procedure to be followed by the learned Presidency Magistrate is that laid down in Section 370, Criminal P. C. The relevant part of the section having regard to the language of the ground on which the Rule was issued is Sub-section (i), which is as follows:In all cases in which the Magistrate inflicts imprisonment, or fine exceeding two hundred rupees, or both, his judgment shall contain a brief statement of the reasons for the conviction.2. In this case the learned Presidency Magistrate has recorded the evidence adduced before him at some length and ha...
Bhabatarini Debi Vs. Profulla Kumar Mukerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal17,140Ind.Cas.376
1. This Rule is directed against an order passed by the learned District Judge of Birbhum, on an application made by the petitioner Bhabatarini Debi under Section 192, Succession Act, 1925, in regard to certain moveable properties left by her mother Kiran Sasi Debi and claiming a right by succession to the same, as the heir. The petitioner's case was that she was the only heir of her mother and as such, was entitled to the possession of the properties left by her. The application under Section 192 was opposed by opposite party Profulla Kumar Mukerjee, who claimed the properties as belonging to his two deceased wives, the sisters of the petitioner, who had predeceased their mother Kiran Sasi Debi, as also to his children by the two wives. The facts of the case giving rise to the application to this Court on which this rule was issued, have been set out in very great detail in the elaborate judgment recorded by the learned District Judge, and have been placed before us with great lucidit...
Sm. Nirmalanalini Devi Vs. Sm. Kamalabala Dassi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal51
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for enforcement of a mortgage said to have been executed by defendant 1's husband, one Dharma Das Datta, now dead, in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant 2 who is the brother of Dharma Das has been made a party to the suit, for the mortgage is said to have been executed for the necessities of the joint family which consisted of Dharma Das and his brother. The claim is laid at Rupees 1,339-13-0. Amongst several defences to the suit, the main defence is that the mortgagor Dharma Das was a minor at the time of execution of the mortgage bond and that therefore the mortgage is void as a minor is incompetent to contract. Both the Courts below have given effect to this defence and have agreed in dismissing the suit. The question in this appeal is whether these decisions are right. It has been contended that in arriving at the conclusion that the mortgagor was a minor the Courts below have relied on a horoscope which is not admissib...
Umesh Chandra Mondal Vs. Hemanga Chandra Maity
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal325
1. The plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen prayed for a decree for sale of properties mortgaged by defendant 1 in the suit. The mortgage was executed in favour of Srinath Maity on 14th Chaitra 1314 A.S. and all the plaintiffs are interested in the same as members of a Hindu joint family. The properties mortgaged consisted of several plots of land, and we are only concerned with plots 6, 7 and 8 mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiffs' claim in suit was resisted by the defendants. The mortgagor, defendant 1, raised all possible defences available to him, including the satisfaction of the mortgage debt. It may be mentioned that all the pleas raised by defendant 1 have been overruled by the Courts below, and the appeal before us does not relate to the case sought to be made out by defendant 1. Defendants 4 to 9, 11 and 12, appellants in this Court, contested the suit as persons claiming through one Baidyanath Mondal, the purchaser of plots 6, 7 and 8 from defendant ...
Surendrakrishna Roy Vs. Shree Shree Ishwar Bhubaneshwari Thakurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal295
Rankin, C.J.1. We have before us three appeals Nos. 23, 24 and 25 of 1931, by different parties-defendant in a suit brought by a Hindu deity on 22nd January 1929, for the purpose of establishing title and obtaining possession of, (a) four properties alleged to have been dedicated to the deity on 5th May 1888, and (b) certain mofussil properties alleged to have been purchased on behalf of the plaintiff deity by a conveyance, dated 5th April 1896. The plaintiff's claim in respect of one of the four properties comprised in the deed of 1888, namely, the property known as 45, Elliot Road was withdrawn at the trial and need not further concern us. The learned Judge, by his decree, dated 19th December 1930, has declared that the plaintiff is absolutely entitled to the other properties comprised in these two deeds free from all encumbrances. He has directed such of the defendants, as have been found by him to be in possession, to deliver up possession to the plaintiff and has given other forms...
Kashem Ali and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal6,140Ind.Cas.379
Mallik, J.1. The two appellants Kashemali and Maidan Parmanik with seven other men were put on their trial on a charge of dacoity under Section 395 and also under Section 412, I.P.C. The trial was held with the aid of a jury. The jury found two of the accused men not guilty and the remaining seven persons were found by them to be guilty. Kashemali and Maidan the two appellants before us were among those seven. As regards Maidan the verdict of the jury was unanimous. As regards Kashemali however it was divided-three jurors being of opinion that the man was guilty while the remaining two being of opinion that he was not guilty. The learned Judge accepted this verdict of the jury and sentenced Kashemali under Sections 395 and 412, I.P.C., to five years' rigorous imprisonment and he sentenced the other appellant Maidan also to five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 395, I.P.C.2. On the night of 15th January 1931 there was a dacoity in the house of one Tusuf, doctor. A pretty large...
Emperor Vs. Nashai Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal656
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is a reference under Section 307, Criminal P. C., in a case which was tried before the learned Sessions Judge of Faridpur and a jury under Sections 302 and 460, I. P. C. The accused were four in number and ' their names are as follows: Nashai Sardar, Shaharbanu, Sukur Bepari and Yusuf Dhali. The jury by a majority of 6 to 3 found Nashai Sardar not guilty, and as regards the other three accused the jury by a majority of 5 to 4 found them not guilty. The learned Judge was not able to agree with the verdict of the majority of the jury and has, therefore referred the case to this Court for final orders.2. The case for the prosecution, shortly stated was as follows: The deceased was one Nazir Bepari. He had married one Momina, the daughter of the accused Shaharbanu. That was some 4 or 5 years ago, but the married life of Nazir and Momina was not happy; there were constant quarrels. Apparently shortly before the date of occurrence it had been suggested to Nazir that he ...
Srinath Bose Vs. Debendra Nath Barari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal24
Jack, J.1. This Rule has been issued upon the opposite party to show cause why the decision of the District Judge of Faridpur, dismissing an appeal against the decision of an application under Section 26J of the amended Bengal Tenancy Act directing payment of a certain amount under Clause (2) of that section as the balance of landlord's transfer-fee, should not be set aside on the ground that Section 26J of the Act having not contemplated any application, the order of the learned Munsif was without jurisdiction and as such illegal. The learned advocate for the petitioner explains that this means that before coming under Section 26J of the Act, the applicant must first of all establish by a regular suit the fact that his holding is an occupancy holding. The result of the adoption of this view would be that wherever a tenant wrongly describes his holding as a permanent tenure or a rent-free tenure in a deed of transfer, the landlord is forced to bring a suit in order to recover the trans...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »