Kolkata Court July 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.
Pareshram Vs. Official Assignee of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal387
Rankin, C.J.1. We will make an order that the Official Assignee be at liberty to pay to the appellant who was debtor in the insolvency, the unclaimed balance of Rs 2,256 2-10, which is in the hands of the Official Assignee, not as Official Assignee in the insolvency, but as a trustee of the fund put up in connexion with the composition arrangement made with the sanction of the Court. In my judgment, we have power to do this and the order should be made.C.C. Ghose, J.2. I agree....
Maiyarjan Bibi and anr. Vs. Abdul Shek
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal498,145Ind.Cas.170
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a suit which they had instituted for recovery of khas possession or in the alternative recovery of possession jointly with defendant 1. There was originally a prayer for Wasilat but the same was withdrawn with liberty to institute a fresh suit for the purpose. The suit was originally instituted by one Kedari Mondal. He died during the pendency of the suit and upon that his widow and his daughter applied to be substituted in his place. An order was made for such substitution and the suit proceeded with these two persons as the plaintiffs. Afterwards as appears from the judgment of the learned Munsif, the defendant preferred an objection on the ground that Kedari had left two other heirs, one of the name of Samir and the other of the name of Felu, they being cousins of Kedari and were residuaries under the Mahomedan law. The Munsif dealt with this objection in these words:Admittedly Kedari left no son. Then according, to Mahomedan la...
Jogendranath Das Vs. Damodardas Khanna
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal373
Rankin, C.J.1. The defendant appeals from the decree made in a suit brought for purpose of setting aside the sale of a holding in Panchannagram. The sale was held on 21st December 1926, for the default of payment of revenue or rent, which accrued due on 28th March 1926 and for which the latest date for payment, under the orders of the Board of Revenue was 28th July 1926. This is described as the rent or revenue for the Bengali year 1332, which corresponds to the period 14th April 1925 to 13th April 1926. Apart from a subsidiary question, which has reference to certain buildings on the land, the only question upon this appeal is the question whether there was any arrear of revenue for 1332 to justify the revenue sale.2. The terms of the tenancy are to be collected from the kabuliyat executed by the plaintiff's predecessors-in-title and dated 19th April 1876, a few days after the beginning of the Bengali year 1283. The kabuliyat states that the rent is to be at the rate of Rs. 6-6-6 per ...
PulIn Chandra Sen Vs. AmIn Miah Muzaffar Ahmad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal508
Guha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Additional District Judge of Noakhali, affirming an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Noakhali, passed on 17th March 1930, in Suit No. 104 of 1917, dismissing an application made by the appellant in this Court, for the passing of a final decree in the said suit for enforcement of a mortgage. The appellant was a minor at the time when the suit was instituted and was represented in the suit by his father as his next friend for the purpose of the suit. The preliminary decree in the suit was passed on 1st December 1917; and the period of grace expired on 1st June 1918. It appears that the father representing the plaintiff in the suit, the appellant before us, died and no step was taken to get a next friend appointed. The appellant, within three years from the date of his attaining majority, filed his application to the Court, on 30th November 1928,1929? for a final decree in the suit. The primary Court, as mention...
Sm. Shib Kumari Dassi Vs. Sm. Subudhi Tatwani and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal829,140Ind.Cas.678
Costello, J.1. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff Subudhi Tatwani against Gajaraj Hajem and Shib Kumari Dassi. The plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif at Serampur in the year 1923 against Gujraj Hajam and in that suit she obtained a decree and in execution of that decree she attached certain property which is now the subject-matter of the present suit. After the attachment had been made Shib Kumari Dassi defendant 2 in the present suit filed an application under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C., claiming the property as hers. That application was allowed and the property was released from attachment. Thereupon Subudhi Tatwani instituted the present suit on 24th March 1927 claiming a declaration that the property in question which consisted of a plot of land and huts standing upon it belonged to defendant 1 Gajaraj Hajam and not to defendant 2 Shib Kumari Dassi and therefore was liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree obtained in the ...
Bhola Nath Sirkar Vs. Hara Duari Agarwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal233
ORDER1. In course of execution proceedings, the present applicant brought a Claim Case No. 31 of 1930, under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C. That case was dismissed for default on 13th December 1930: vide Order No. 10 of the Order-sheet. Thereafter the attached property was sold in auction purchased by the decree-holder on 19th February 1931. The sale was confirmed on 6th October 1931. Then on 17th November 1931 on decree-holder's prayer process for delivery of possession was issued and possession was duly delivered. Thereupon the present applicant who was the claimant in the Claim Case No. 31 of 1930 has presented an application under Order 21, Rule 100 complaining about dispossession regarding his eight annas share in the disputed land. The opposite party decree-holder has resisted this application on a preliminary point, viz., the Claim Case of the applicant having been dismissed for default, he is precluded from raising any objection under Order 21, Rule 100 on the principles of res ...
Nalini Kanta Roy Vs. Kamaraddi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal239
Jack, J.1. This Rule No. 424 has been issued upon the opposite party to show cause why an order dismissing an application for execution as barred by limitation should not be set aside on the ground that the petitioner having been misled by mistake of the Court the application for execution is not barred by limitation.2. It appears that a decree was by mistake dated 16th February 1929, whereas the date of the decision was actually 11th February 1929. The decree-holder took certified copy of that portion of the summons book which contains the formal decree and was therefore led to believe that the suit was decreed on 16th February 1929. His application for execution was filed on 15th February 1932, and was therefore within time if the decree was passed on 16th February 1929, but out of time from the date of actual decision 11th February 1929. It is true that the Court has no power to extend the time of limitation. But in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice, I think, ...
Bejoy Kumar Addy Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal322
Guha, J.1. The plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen prayed for a declaration that the Corporation of Calcutta had illegally declared premises No. 56, Chetla Road, a bazar, and for a further declaration that the action of the Corporation in extending the limits of the bazar to premises Nos. 56-1, 5C-2, 56-3 and 58, Chetla Road, was ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The plaintiff's also prayed for permanent injunction in the matter of the prosecution of the plaintiffs before the Municipal Magistrate on failure to comply with the Corporation's requisition to make improvement of the area comprised in the premises mentioned above. The plaintiffs' claim in the suit was resisted by the Corporation of Calcutta, who claimed that the action of the Corporation to which reference had been made in the plaint was legal and intra vires, and that the premises mentioned above in regard to which the plaintiffs were served with requisition for making improvement constituted a ba...
Hanif and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal786,140Ind.Cas.723
Mallik, J.1. These two appeals were heard together. In Appeal No. 873 the appellants are three in number, namely, Hanif, Khatir and Fazulla. In Appeal No. 854 there are five appellants, namely, Jafiruddin, Azimuddin, Asimuddin, Hoehen and Refaz. The eight appellants in these two appeals with another man Him Pramanik were put on their trial on charges under Sections 419/120-B and 467/120-B, I. P. C. The trial was held with the help of a jury and the unanimous verdict of the jury was that Him was not guilty of any of the charges. Hanif, Khatir and Fazulla were found not guilty of the charge under Section 419/120-B but guilty under Section 467/120-B while the remaining five accused persons were found guilty under both of the sections. The case for the prosecution briefly was that the accused persons with some others were parties to a criminal conspiracy for cheating the Panchbibi Industrial Bank in the District of Bogra by making false applications for loans executing forged bonds in favo...
Radhakanta Pal Vs. Manomohinee Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal397
Rankin, C.J.1. In my opinion, this appeal must be allowed. I am somewhat sorry for the plaintiff; she does not appear to have been treated very well; but it is necessary that the elementary law with reference to the rights of joint tenants under Hindu law should be kept clear and properly applied.2. The position shortly is this: The plaintiff is the widow of one son. The defendants are her late husband's brothers. The plaintiff's name is Manomohinee and her husband's name is Kalikanta. Kalikanta died in 1330, and as often happens, his widow left her husband's joint family house soon after his death, namely, in 1331, and went to live in her father's place. She brought the suit on 11th May 1927, and the case she made by her plaint was that her husband had a certain share in the family lands, that she was his sole heir and that the principal defendants, finding the plaintiff a helpless Woman, continued to treat her badly and so the plaintiff came to the house of her father in 1331 and had...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »