Kolkata Court February 1933 Judgments
Graham Vs. Henry Gidney
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal708
Ameer Ali, J.1. On 18th May 1931 the plaintiff was arrested at Lalbazar, was taken under police escort--to the Park Street thana and there detained in the lock-up for about two hours. For this trespass to his. person he seeks damages from the defendant. The cause of action disclosed in the plaint is 'false imprisonment.' The plaint includes an allegation that the defendant 'maliciously caused the arrest upon a false charge.' It would be possible, I think, on this pleading to found a case of 'malicious arrest.' In point of fact, no issue of 'malice' was raised and the case proceeded as one for 'false imprisonment.' The issues raised by Mr. Clough were as follows: 1. Did the defendant arrest the plaintiff or cause his arrest? 2. If so, was the arrest justifiable? 3. Damages. In my view, the vital questions involved in this suit are as follows: 1. Was the arrest of the plaintiff the act of the defendant or the act of the police? 2. If the latter, is the plaintiff entitled to recover on th...
Tag this Judgment!Niharmala Debee Vs. Sarojebandhu Bhattacharjya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal728
Mallik, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title to some lands and for recovery of possession of the same The property originally belonged to one Kamaladdi Mandal and his brothers. About 1888 one of the brothers and the heirs of the other brothers mortgaged the property to one Surjyakanta Bhattacharjya, the maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs. Surjyakanta, in October 1888, executed a will, by which he devised his properties to his daughter Gopendrabala Debee and died. Gopendrabala, in 1889, took probate of the will. In June 1891 the mortgagors executed an instalment mortgage bond in favour of Gopendrabala. In the year 1895 a rent suit was brought against the mortgagors for the rent of the lands, a decree was obtained and, when the property was put up to sale in execution of the decree, one Ahmaddi purchased one-half share of the holding, thereby acquiring the right, title, and interest of the mortgagors of the property and becoming the holder of the equity of r...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Mohan Roy and ors. Vs. Sarat Chandra Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal855
Mitter, J.1. The question raised by this appeal relates to the finality or otherwise of certain objections made in the course of execution. It is necessary to state the facts of the case in order to appreciate the contention raised by the appellants. It appears that a suit for dissolution of partnership was pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge (Second Court) of Mymensingh and a receiver was appointed in that suit. The receiver obtained a decree against the present appellants judgment-debtors in January 1921, for debts due to the firm in respect of which the dissolution proceedings have been started. The receiver made several attempts to have the decree satisfied by execution. His last application for execution was filed on 7th July 1926 and was dismissed on 3rd September the same year. On 2nd April 1929 this decree which is sought to be executed was allotted to the present respondent. The respondent filed an application for execution on 21st May 1930 alleging payment of certai...
Tag this Judgment!Ajad Bakt Mandal Vs. Rebati Mohan Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal13,147Ind.Cas.1061
Jack, J.1. These three appeals have arisen out of three analogous rent suits. Rent is claimed for the years 1331-1334 B.S., at the rate of: Rs. a. p. 29-11-9 4-12-3 respectively in Suit Nos. 2048, 2-13-0 1075 and 1125.The defendants maintain that the rent is: Rs. a. p. 23-3-3 2048 2-10-11 1/4 in Suits Nos. 1075 respectively 2-3-0 11252. The suits were decreed at the rates claimed, by both the Courts, the appellate Court merely repeating in an abbreviated form the judgment of the first Court. The learned Munsif refers to the fact that the plaintiff does not claim rents at enhanced rates on the ground of increase in area of the lands in suit, he claims rents on the basis of a fresh assessment. which was accepted by the tenant who paid enhanced rents amicably for three years according to the new assessment. He adds that evidence is wanting for the establishment of a case Under Section 52, Ben. Ten Act, and in this he is correct for there is no satisfactory evidence as to the area for whic...
Tag this Judgment!Mehr Ali Mia and ors. Vs. Bidyut Baran Mukherjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal424
Patterson, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order by a Deputy Magistrate of Alipore under Section 145, Criminal P.C., declaring the opposite party to be in possession of certain immovable property and forbidding all disturbance of such possession. The Rule has already been discharged by us, and it only remains to indicate our reasons for discharging it. The property which forms the subject-matter of the proceedings out of which the Rule arises is known as the Tushkhali Abad and consists of a large block of land situated in the Sunderbans and measuring about 5,000 bighas in area. The petitioners are the successors-in-interest of the original lessees of this plot of land and the opposite parties are the auction purchasers at a recent revenue sale. The sale was held under the provisions of Section 6, Act of 1859 and took place on 8th January 1932. After an unsuccessful appeal to the Commissioner on 16th May 1932 the petitioners filed a civil suit with the object of having the sale se...
Tag this Judgment!Elokeshee Dasee Vs. Kunjabihari Basak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal696,147Ind.Cas.779
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a somewhat curious case and raises debatable points of law. It appears that the present appellant was the plaintiff in a suit No. 199 of 1878. That was a partition suit and it had reference to six items of property mentioned in the decree, which was passed therein. The decree was dated 2nd July 1879 and was an ordinary decree for partition. The effect of it was to declare that the plaintiff was entitled to one-fourth interest in all the properties and that two other persons, now dead, were entitled to six-sixteenths each. It seems that, after that decree was passed, no further steps were taken beyond the appointment of a commissioner, who died in or about 1896, having done nothing towards the execution of the commission. In July 1932, that is some 53 years after the preliminary decree, the plaintiff applied to the learned Judge on the original side, by notice of motion, asking, among other things, that certain names of parties defendants to the suit, now dead, be...
Tag this Judgment!Shadanchandra Bhandari Vs. Shewnarayan Golabrai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal699,147Ind.Cas.191
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, we have before us Appeal No. 79, which is an appeal from an order of 20th July 1932, whereby the learned Judge, exercising jurisdiction under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, made an order for the examination of the appellant as a witness under 8. 36 of the Act. The other appeal (No. 92) is from an order made by the learned Judge on 2nd August 1932, whereby one of the insolvents was directed to be examined under Section 36. The question, which arises in the present case, is the question whether the learned Judge had jurisdiction to make that order, having regard to the fact that the insolvent obtained an order for discharge on 29th March 1931. By that order, his discharge was suspended for six months, but the order of discharge was drawn up and completed in January 1932. The question is whether, after discharge has taken effect, it is within the power of the Court, under Section 36, to direct either that a witness be examined or that the insolvent himse...
Tag this Judgment!Tarakeswar Ray and ors. Vs. Sreejukta Saraju Bala Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal5
Mallik, J.1. All these appeals were, with the consent of the parties, heard together, the points that were involved being common to all of them, They arose out of suits brought by a number of tenants of the Bhowal Raj for a declaration that certain certificates issued against them were without jurisdiction and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from taking any steps in execution of those certificates. What happened in the cases was this: The Court of Wards was in possession of the entire sixteen annas of this estate till 15th August 1919 when the four annas share of one of the owners defendant 4 Srimati Ananda Kumari Devi, was released with the result that the Court of Wards remained in possession of the twelve annas share only while the four annas share of defendant 4 came into her possession.2. In 1920 Ananda Kumari filed an application Under Section 158-A, Ben Ten. Act, to realize her share of the rent by certificate procedure and this application was granted on certain co...
Tag this Judgment!Abdus Sattar Vs. Mohini Mohan Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal684
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor and arises out of an application made in the course of the execution of a mortgage decree. It appears that on 19th June 1908 appellant's father one Mohammad Abru borrowed a sum of Rs. 200 by executing a mortgage bond, from the respondents' father Madon Mohan Das. On 21st November 1914 a decree was passed for a sum of Rs. 1,083-9-3 and on 5th June 1917 the mortgaged properties were directed to be sold. An application was made for a personal decree under the provisions Order 34, Rule 5, Civil P. C, and on 29th November 1919 a personal decree for a sum of Rs. 997-11-4 was passed by a Munsif who it is found had no jurisdiction to pass such decree. On 21st November 1922 an execution case was started by the decree-holder but it was ultimately dismissed. A further application for execution was made on 19th November 1925 before the second Munsif's Court at Sylhet, the said Munsif's Court being at this time presided over by a Munsif who had ...
Tag this Judgment!Pramatha Bhusan Roy and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal402
Panckridge, J.1. This is a reference made to us by the learned Sessions Judge of Khulna under Section 438, Criminal P.C. A person named Nani Gopal Roy was convicted on 26th January 1932, by a First Class Magistrate of an offence punishable under Section 117, I.P.C. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500. On 17th February 1932, a warrant was issued under Section 386(1)(a) Criminal P.C., authorising the officer in charge of a certain police station, to attach any moveable property belonging to the convicted person and to sell such property to satisfy the fine, if the fine was not paid within 15 days after attachment was effected. The police officer proceeded to attach and seize certain moveable properties, and the letter of reference states that he also sold certain of the articles seized before the expiration of the period specified in the warrant. This fact however is not of importance for the purposes of the reference. Subsequently to the sale, th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »