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.
Provabati Debya and ors. Vs. Sarojini Devi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal72
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for possession on establishment of title to the properties mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiffs' claim based on their right of inheritance as the agnates and reversionary heirs of one Krishna Sundar Adhikary, was resisted by the contesting defendants in the suit. According to the defendants, Krishna Sundar died leaving a will, under which his daughter Kumudini got an absolute estate in the properties in suit, and the plaintiffs could not have any title to the same. It may be mentioned that the first three defendants are the daughters of Kumudini, while defendant 4 is the husband of defendant 1. The clause in the will of Krishna Sundar, most material for the purpose of the decision of this case is the sixth, and it runs as follows:If you do not exercise the right to adopt given, both of you shall enjoy my properties, and on your death, all the properties shall vest in my two daughters. The said two daughters shall live in my homestead ...
(Moulvi) Wazed Ali Khan Panee and anr. Vs. Brojendra Kumar Bandopadhay ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal90
Rankin, C.J.1. In this suit which was brought on 22nd June 1928, the plaintiffs sued for the rent of a putni which under a deed dated 20th March 1876 was payable in six instalments every year and amounted to Rs. 4,920-14-0 per annum. There was a stipulation that in default of due payment of any kist for money outstanding should carry interest at 12 per cent per annum. There is no longer any dispute about the sums of money which the putnidars have paid. The plaintiffs brought the suit for rent for the period from Jyoisto 1327 to Jyoisto 1335 B.S., that is to say, from some time in 1920 to some time in 1928. It may here be noticed that the suit was not brought in 1928 until the month of June. Accordingly, in the ordinary way, under the Bengal Tenancy Act, Sch. 3, the plaintiffs would only be entitled to recover rent for a period of three years. It seems that, under the terms of the putni lease, the putnidars had, first of all, to pay the revenue that was due in respect of the property an...
Abdul Latiff Vs. Gopeswar Chattoraj
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal204
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decree dismissing his suit for accounts and for damages. Shortly put the plaintiff's case was as follows: The plaintiff had worked as a contractor for loading and unloading wagons for the Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., at Santa for a long time. As he had various other businesses to attend to, it was inconvenient for him to look after the said contract work personally, and so he made up his mind to appoint somebody to whom he might entrust the same. The defendant, who is a pleader, on coming to know of his intention, approached him to be so appointed. Upon that it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant would carry on and look after the business, by bestowing personal labour, and would receive advances from the company and make advances from his own pocket whenever necessary, would keep proper accounts of all income and expenditure and explain the same to the plaintiff, and would be liable to make good to the plai...
Swarnamoyee Debya Vs. Aferaddi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal787
Guha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Backerganj, on 10th March 1930, reversing those of the Munsif, Sixth Court, Barisal. The plaintiff-appellant Instituted a suit for ejectment of the de-fondants-respondents in this appeal, on the ground that the defendants had, by unauthorized transfers by way of mortgages, simple and usufructuary, broken sin express condition in the kabuliyat creating the tenancy and on such breach, they were under the terms of the contract liable to ejectment. The plaintiff treated the defendants as trespassers for the reason that they had incurred forfeiture, and could not as such be treated as tenants. No notice was served on the tenants before the institution of the suit for ejectment, out of which this appeal has arisen. The trial Court passed a decree for khas possession in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal by the defendants, the decree of the trial Court was reversed, and th...
Sheikh Hari Vs. Sm. Diljan Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal20,140Ind.Cas.373
Guha, J.1. The facts of the case giving rise to the application on which this Rule was granted may be briefly mentioned: The opposite party were the plaintiffs in a suit for partition and accounts, Suit No. 18 of 1928, brought in the first Court of the Subordinate Judge, Howrah, against the petitioner as defendant. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 5th August 1930, on the ground that the plaintiffs were out of possession, and the suit as laid was not maintainable. On appeal by the plaintiffs Mr. R.R. Mukherjee, Additional District Judge, Howrah, allowed the plaint in the plaintiffs' suit to be amended, and directed payment of ad valorem court-fees on the amended plaint, within a period of time fixed by the learned Judge. The decree bearing date 28th August 1931, that was prepared and which was signed on 23rd September 1931, was in the following terms:It is ordered that the amendment be allowed as per order of judgment, on condition of paying the necessary court-fee, and on p...
Mahendra Lal Bose Vs. Gopal Chandra Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal144a
1. In this case the charge against the accused is that he has committed an offence punishable under Section 498, I.P.C., i.e. of having enticed away a married girl. The husband is not the complainant. It is said that at the time when the complaint was lodged, the husband was ill and that the girl's father, in whose house the girl had been residing, had therefore to be the complainant. The record does not bear any trace, whatsoever that at the time when the complaint was lodged the husband was really ill and therefore unable to lodge the complaint himself, or that there were any circumstances which would have justified the father of the girl in lodging the complaint instead of the husband. That being so, we are constrained to hold that the first point taken by Mr. Basu in support of this Rule must prevail, viz., that the complaint having been one which is in contravention of the terms of Section 199, Criminal P.C., the proceedings were without jurisdiction. The result, therefore is that...
Kabedali Mandal Vs. Dasura Mura and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal116
Jack, J.1. This rule has been issued on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Munsif, Second Court of Bogra, dismissing the plaintiff's suit on a money bond should not be set aside and a re-trial ordered on the ground that the procedure adopted by the Munsif was very irregular inasmuch as he asked the parties to swear touching books which he represented to them to be sacred books and allowed his decision to be influenced by the refusal of the plaintiff to swear touching those books. The opposite party had put in an affidavit in which they state that this took place not after the evidence was recorded as stated by the petitioner. It was after the Court had asked the parties if they wished to take special oath and neither party took any oath, but both parties agreed to take special oath, that the Court proceeded to record evidence and decided the case on its merits. Taking for granted that the procedure adopted by the Munsif was as represented in the affidavit of the oppo...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Raisallee and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal145
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the Local Government against an order made by the Third Presidency Magistrate Mr. Wajed All acquitting the accused Samiulla and five others in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them on the high seas before the steamship in which they were employed as members of the crew had arrived in Calcutta. The steamship 'City of Herford' arrived in Calcutta on 14th September 1929 and the accused were then on Board. On 17th September the commander laid a complaint before the Chief Presidency Magistrate against the accused charging them with having been guilty of rioting and causing grievous hurt to two engineer officers. Processes were issued and warrants ordered to be served. The warrants were not executed as the accused, it is said, were not to be found at the Kidderpore address which they had themselves supplied to the shipping office. Thereafter proclamations were issued against the accused. But the S.S. City of Herford left port towar...
Ramani Mohan De Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal146
1. In this case the accused who is said to be a boy aged 13 years has been found guilty under Section 376, I.P.C., and has been ordered to be detained in a reformatory school for a period of six years in lieu of imprisonment. There was a charge under Section 304, I.P.C. But the jury acquitted the prisoner under that charge. The facts, shortly stated, are as follows: It is alleged that the accused Beni took a child named Hasi away on the afternoon of 18th April 1931, had sexual intercourse with her and afterwards removed the girl to his own house with the help of his mother, kept her there for the night and the next day also. The child, Hasi, was aged about six years. Some time in the afternoon or thereabouts on the last mentioned day, the girl died and the suggestion is that somebody belonging to Beni's house must have thrown away the dead body of the child into a pit in which it was found on the next day at about 10 or 11 a.m. Thereafter the matter was reported to the child's father a...
Bishnu Charan Pal Vs. Jogendra Kumar Bhowmik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal285
Jack, J.1. These Rules have been issued upon the opposite parties to show cause why an order refusing to set aside two sales in execution of two decrees for arrears of rent should not be reversed. The petitioner is the purchaser at a mortgage execution sale of the two transferable permanent tenures in question. The landlords subsequently purchased these tenures in execution of decrees for arrears of rent and it is admitted that a portion of the arrears claimed in the rent suit fell due after the petitioner purchased the tenures in the mortgage sale. The landlords ignored the petitioner and sued the recorded tenants for the entire rent, and the question is whether the decrees in rent suits were rent decrees or money decrees. This case came up to this Court on a previous occasion and it was referred back for determination whether the decrees were rent or money decrees. The trial Court found that they were rent decrees, inasmuch as the Court found the landlord's fee had not been paid unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›