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.
Gobardhan Behari Bose and anr. Vs. Sarat Chandra Bhattacharjee and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal486
Guha, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of an application made by the judgment-debtors under O.21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., for setting aside a sale held in execution of a decree, passed in Title Suit No. 60 of 1930, by the Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Hooghly. The sale in execution of the decree was held on 18th November 1930. The application out of which this appeal has arisen, by the judgment-debtors for having the sale set aside, was filed on 15th December 1930. It appears that on 17th December 1930, the receiver who was in possession of the properties sold in execution of the decree applied to have the sale set aside under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code. This application by the receiver for setting aside the sale was dismissed, on 7th February 1931. Thereafter the only proceeding before the Court in the matter of setting aside the sale was the one arising on the application of the judgment-debtors filed in Court on 15th December 1930. The learned Subordinate Judge has ...
Brajendra Kishore Roy and ors. Vs. Iswar Kaibarta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal539
1. Plaintiffs 1 to 25 are proprietors of a beel of which they have in 1324 granted settlement to plaintiff 26 for catching fish near the banks by setting up dalkatas or kheos (twigs and branches of trees put up as a contrivance for intercepting the fish). They instituted this suit in 1919 for restraining the defendants from catching fish in the said beel on certain declarations, the object of which was to negative a right of fishing which the defendants set up, and they also claimed damages from the defendants for having caught fish from the beel under colour of such a right. The Subordinate Judge having dismissed the suit, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. The right which the defendants claimed is described in the written statement of the answering defendants in these words:Para. 16.-The answering defendants are dealers in fish and fishing is their only means of livelihood. Thinking that it would be convenient to earn their livelihood by fishing, the predecessors of the answe...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Ajit Munshi and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal750a,140Ind.Cas.18
Rankin, C.J. 1. This is an application brought by the Government to have a certain case which is being heard before the Additional Sessions Judge of Mymen-singh transferred to another Court or why an order should not be made that the jury should be discharged. It appears that the trial of the case began on 22nd April and that on or about the 3rd May an adjournment was given in order that this Court might be moved. The complaint was that the learned Judge having summoned 18 persons, and only some six effective persons having attended made up the necessary number of seven though he could have made it nine if he did not insist upon making his selection from (among persons in Court whose names were on the list of special jurors. Whether it was a valid objection or not it was an objection which should have been taken at the time: but it cannot be taken towards the end of the trial, specially When the accused are not complaining of the trial before seven jurors.2. The only other matter is th...
In Re: Lakhansawra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal815,139Ind.Cas.81
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case four persons were tried before the learned Sessions Judge of the Assam Valley District on a charge that on 17th December 1931, at about 10 o'clock at night they participated in the murder of one Jampara. The people implicated in this case are all coolies in an Assam tea garden--persona of very primitive belief and of very rudimentary intelligence. The evidence of conduct has to be judged with a reasonable appreciation of their position and habits in life; and it is clear enough from the statement consistently adhered to by the accused men that in the courtyard of one of these coolie huts there was a fire and that Jampara the deceased man on the night in question was sitting by this fire. One of the rooms of this hut was occupied by a nephew of the deceased named Suno and the other room by Garo one of the accused persons. The deceased had a coat on his person at the time. It turns out that in the pocket of the coat there was a, knife--not that there is the sm...
Aghore Chandra Jalui Vs. Rajnandini Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal283
Guha, J.1. The Rules issued by this Court in the cases before us, were directed against an order of the Munsif, First Court, Howrah, passed in Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 117 and 131 of 1931, granting relief to the opposite party, on applications made by them, purporting to be under Section 26-J, Ben. Ten. Act, for realization of landlord's fee and compensation, as mentioned in that section. The applications were made on the footing that the petitioners in this Court were the purchasers of portions of occupancy holdings of which the opposite party were the landlords. The applications so made were resisted by the tenants, petitioners before us. The decision of the Munsif went against them, and this Court was moved to set aside the order of the Court below. The question argued before us on behalf of the petitioners was that the Court below acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction in going into complicated questions of title and status of the tenant otherwise than in a suit proper...
Nrishinha Charan Nandi Chaudhuri Vs. Nagendra Bala Debee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal522
Mukerji, J.1. These four appeals have arisen out of four apportionment cases dealt with by the Land Acquisition Judge of 24-Parganas under Section 30, Land Acquisition Act. The claim of the appellant for being awarded the compensation in respect of a ganti interest has been disallowed and hence these appeals. There are cross-objections in connexion with three of these appeals, the same being directed against the compensation, which has been awarded to the appellant on account of his proprietary interest in the touzi. The facts are quite simple. The ganti consists of the lands of a certain village named Rahara, which appertains to seven amalgamated touzis, of which touzi No. 188 is one. The respondents were the owners of the said touzi and were also gantidars in the lands of the said village, having a three annas gantidari interest under their touzi No. 188. For arrears of revenue defaulted on 28th March 1925, the touzi was sold on 18th September 1925. In pursuance of a declaration, dat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›