Kolkata Court November 1933 Judgments
Hiralal Ray Choudhury and anr. Vs. Satya Priya Ghosal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal437
Mallik, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the refund of a portion of selami money paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant on account of a lease of some land. The allegations on which the suit was brought were that the defendant advertised for settlement of 74 bighas of asli reformed land alleging that it appertained to his zamindary and belonged to him, that the plaintiff obtained settlement by paying Rs. 1,600' as selami and that when the land was subsequently measured it was found to' be only 47 bighas in area and that out of the 47 bighas of land 2'57 acres only was asli reformed land of the defendant's zamindary and the rest was dearah land of which the defendant had not obtained even any dearah settle-ment. On these allegations the plaintiff asked for a decree for refund of Rs. 1,200 odd out of Rs. 1,600 paid as selami presumably on the ground that except for 257 acres the defendant had no title to land dimissed and had no right to settle the same with the plaintiffs. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Secy. of State Vs. Dhirendra Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal187
Mitter, J.1. The suit out of which these two appeals arise was brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of certain lands described in Schedule Ga to the plaint, as appertaining to five Mauzas of their permanently settled estates Kismatpara, Majpara, Purbapara, Tarat Kandi and Srirampur. The principal defendant to the suit, viz., the Maharaja of Natore, is the proprietor of two Mauzas, Deara Char Tarapur and Deara Char Bhowanipur, situated somewhere to the north of the five Mauzas of the plaintiffs. The predecessors of defendant 1 took settlement of char Tarapur some time in the year 1868 and of Char Bhowanipur some time in the year 1869.2. It appears that after the institution of the suit one of the pro forma defendants was transferred to the category of plaintiffs. He is the Maharaja of Kasim-bazar and it is said that his interest in the five Mauzas is four annas. The defendant did not dispute the title of the plaintiffs to the five Mauzas. The only question in dispute was...
Tag this Judgment!Profulla Nath Tagore Vs. Asia Khatun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal426
Jack, J.1. This Rule, No. 711 of 1933, was issued on the opposite party to show cause why an order of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Backergunj passed in Mortgage Suit No. 163 of 1931 should not be set aside and a similar Rule No. 712 was issued in connexion with Execution Cases Nos 13 and 16 of 1931 pending in the same Court. The salient facts of the cases are as follows: Opposite party 8 sued opposite parties 1 and 7 on a mortgage of 56 items of property and obtained a decree for sale. She subsequently put her decree into execution and at a sale held in execution of that decree purchased the properties on 19th February 1930. In order to have the sale set aside opposite parties 2 to? deposited in Court in March 1930 sums of Rs. 500 and Rs. 11,740 under Order 21,Rule 89, Civil P. C. The sale was set aside on 26th May 1930. On appeal this order was reversed and the sale was confirmed on 14th April 1932, Meantime on 18th March 1930 opposite parties 1 to 5 and 7 had mortgaged the 56 ...
Tag this Judgment!Heastie Vs. Veitch and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1933
Reported in: [1934]2ITR456(Cal)
LORD HANWORTH, M.R. - This seems, to my mind, a very plain case. It is necessary just to state the facts, because the propositions of law are not in dispute. It seems that one of these partners, the senior partner, acquired some premises in March, 1926, for Pounds 10,000, premises which were leasehold, with a ground rent of Pounds 460. On September 19, 1928, a deed of partnership was entered into to regulate the business relations between the partners in respect of a business which had been carried on before but in respect of which there had been no actual partnership deed. Under the terms of the partnership deed, these premises, of which the senior partner was the owner, were to be the place where the partners were to carry on their business, and it was provided by the partnership deed that, entirely at the will and sole discretion of the senior partner and so long as he should deem fit, the partnership should use the premises and pay to the senior partner in respect of the use of the...
Tag this Judgment!Profullanath Tagore Vs. Asiakhatun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1933
Reported in: 151Ind.Cas.317
Jack J.1. This Rule, No. 711 of 1933, was as(sic)ed on the opposite party to show cause why an order of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Backergunj, passed in Mortgage Suit No, 163 of 1931 should not be set aside and a similar Rule No. 712 was issued in connection with Execution Cases Nos. 13 and 16 of 1931 pending in the same Court. The salient facts of the case are as follows: Opposite party 8 sued opposite parties Nos. 1 and 7 on a mortgage of 56 items of property and obtained a decree for sale. She subsequently put her decree into execution and at a sale held in execution of that decree purchased the properties on February 19, 1930. In order to have the sale set aside opposite parties Nos. 2 to 7 deposited in Court in March 1930 sums of Rs. 500 and Rs. 11,740 under Order XXI, Rule 89, Civil Procedure Code. The sale was set aside on May 26, 1930. On appeal this order was reversed and the sale was confirmed on April 14, 1932. Meantime on March 18, 1936, opposite parties Nos. 1 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Sadek Mandal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal173,147Ind.Cas.860
ORDER1. This case is before us on a reference Under Section 374, Criminal P.C., and an appeal by the prisoner Sadek Mondal who has beed sentenced to death on a verdict Under Section 302, I.P.C. The prisoner was charged with an offence Under Section 302. The Sessions Judge in the course of his charge to the jury explained the offences of murder, culpable homicide not amounting to murder and grievous hurt, as he had to do. What transpired when the jury brought in their verdict would appear from the following record made by the learned Judge:The jury retired at 4-50 p.m. The jury returned at 5-15 p.m. To Foreman or the jury;Q. Are you unanimous?A. Yes.Q. What is your verdict?A. We find the accused Sadek Mondal guilty Under Section 304, I.P.C.Q. With what intention was the act committed?A. We have not considered the question of intention.Q. With what knowledge was the act committed?A. We have not considered the question of knowledge.Q. Would you care to be charged again in respect of the l...
Tag this Judgment!Tofail Ahammad Mia Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal490
Nasim Ali, J.1. This Rule is directed against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 282, I. P. C. The ground on which the present Rule was issued is that in view of the fact that there is no evidence to show that the disaster was due to any act, omission and negligence for which the petitioner is responsible but that on the contrary he has been acquitted of the charge under Section 25, Bengal Ferries Act, for breach of the Rules regarding the safety of the vessel and the passengers the Court below ought to have held that the petitioner is nob criminally liable for the acts or omission or negligence of the Majhi.2. There can be no doubt that there had been negligence of the part of the Majhis. The whole question is whether the lessee of the Ferry, that is, the master, is liable for this offence. The learned Magistrate has found that from the circumstances it can be gathered that overloading far from being an exception is a rule and surely the lessee who profits by the earnings ...
Tag this Judgment!Rash Behari Naskar and ors. Vs. Haripada Naskar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal762,152Ind.Cas.561
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for confirmation of possession on declaration of title by plaintiffs who sued on a kabala executed in their favour by Harananda, defendant 4, on 30th October 1929. Plaintiffs allege that defendants 1 to 3 who are the sons of Harananda offered resistance to his taking possession of this land included in the kabala which is their bastu land. The suit was instituted on 14th November 1929. On 22nd November 1929 the defendants filed a petition for time to file objection to a temporary injunction granted at the time of the filing of the suit and they asked for time to file a written statement on 16th December 1929. Defendant 4 Harananda died on 30th December 1929. His heirs were substituted on 2nd January 1930 and a written statement was filed by defendants 2 and 3 on 18th January 1930. The defendants in contesting pleaded that their father was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged kabala, that it was executed under undue influence, and th...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Lal Ahir Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal240
ORDER1. This Rule has been issued to show cause why the proceedings pending against the petitioner should not be quashed or why such other or further order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. The proceedings aforesaid are in connexion with a trial for an offence under Section 161/116, I. P. C, which is now pending in the Court of the Police Magistrate of Alipore and in which a charge in respect of that offence has already been framed. The facts necessary to be stated are the following:2. In consequence of an occurrence which took place on 31st May 1933 two separate Police challans were sent up, by the Assistant Commissioner of Police to the Magistrate; one for an offence under Section 451, I. P. C, and Section 42, Prisons Act, and another under Section 161/511, I. P. C. The facts upon which these challans were sent up, shortly put, were that it was alleged that the accused had trespassed in the Presidency Jail in order to have communication with a prisoner and ...
Tag this Judgment!Abani Bilas Banerjee and anr. Vs. Kanti Chandra Sinha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal178
ORDERNasim Ali, J.1. The facts which have given rise to the present rule are these. The plaintiff's father, the late Nabin Chandra Sinha, obtained a money decree against the father of the defendants on 20th February 1914. The said decree was put into execution but the execution ease was dismissed for non-prosecution on 5th January 1933. Thereafter the decree-holder did not take any further step for the execution of the decree. The judgment-debtors that is the father of the defendants, died on 31st August 1925. Thereafter the eldest son of the judgment, debtor on 27th January 1927 executed a hand-note Ex. 1-A for Rs. 125 with the object of paying off the amount due for the decree mentioned above. The eldest son having died on 24th January 1930 the defendants executed hand-note Ex. (1) for Rs. 120 in full satisfaction of the decretal debt due from their father. The present suit has been brought to recover Rs. 150 on the basis of the hand-note Ex. (1)-Rs. 120 being the principal amount se...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »