Kolkata Court March 1933 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.
The Assam Bengal Railway Company, Limited Vs. Hari Mohan Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1933
Reported in: 146Ind.Cas.884
Rankin, C.J.1. Dinanath father of the defendants held the land in suit on what I will assume to be a lease. He held it under an instrument dated September 11, 1919, which was not registered though it purported to be for a period of ten years (subject to three months notice on either side) from July 14, 1917. Dinanath died in November 1918 and the defendants as his heirs continued his possession On December 7, 1926, the defendants applied for a temporary lease and offered to pay in advance the annual rent to be fixed by the agent. They deposited Rs. 25 as advance rent with their proposal form as well as Rs. 10 for stamps for their new agreement. Their proposal form made no reference to the lease of Dinanath. On April 1, 1927, that is before the original term of Dinanath had expired they received from the plaintiffs a letter saying.The lease granted to your father Dinanath Pal which was subsequently cancelled has again been given to you at an annual rent of Rs. 25 for ten years2. It may ...
Sm. Sarada Sundari Vs. Rajani Kanta Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal682
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff's predecessors granted a potta to the defendants in 1316. Before we consider what that potta says we have first of all to consider what was the status of these lessors. They were recorded in the Record of Rights as ordinary occupancy raiyats. There is nothing to suggest that they were raiyats at fixed rate or that they were tenure-holders. The Munsif found that they were ordinary occupancy raiyats and the learned Subordinate Judge did not in terms purport to interfere with that finding and indeed he could not have done so without purporting to find on evidence that the Record of Rights had been rebutted. So it must be taken that the learned Subordinate Judge had to deal with this case upon the footing that the lessors were occupancy raiyats.2. We now come to the effect and the meaning of the potta. The document so far as it purports to describe the interest of the lessors calls it a kaemi jote,' that is to say, a holding with the quality of per...
Dwipendra Nath Chattopadhaya Vs. Mahendra Nath Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal789
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for correction of a certain entry in the Record of Rights and also for enhancement of rent and for additional rent under Section 30 and Section 52, Ben. Ten. Act. The suit was dismissed in the Court of first instance on the ground that the plaintiff was a cosharer landlord and his cosharers were not joined either as plaintiffs or defendants in the suit under Section 188, Ben. Ten. Act, and the prayer for the amendment of the plaint making his cosharers party defendants was also rejected. The lower appellate Court held that the amendment of the plaint should have been allowed so as to enable the plaintiff to join the cosharer landlords as defendants and therefore remanded the suit for trial on the merits. In this appeal it is contended on behalf of the defendant appellant that, in any case, having been brought before the amendment of Section 188 of the Act which was brought into force in February 1929, the suit by a cosharer landlord for e...
Nagarmull Chaudhuri Vs. Jhabarmull Sureka
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal909
Ameer Ali, J.1. In this case there must be a decree for the plaintiff, and I assess the damages at Rs. 3,000. Para, (1) of the plaint reads as follows:The defendant, on 3rd January 1930, maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause, preferred a charge of perjury against the plaintiff before this Honourable Court and made the application-copy whereof is filed herewith and obtained a Rule, copy whereof is filed herewith, and, on 18th March 1930, obtained the order, copy of which is filed herewith, and caused the plaintiff to be sent for trial on the charge referred to in the said order of 18th March 1930, above-mentioned, in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, and to be arrested and imprisoned, and caused wide publicity to be given to the same in order to cause loss and damage to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was kept in custody until the plaintiff was released on bail and furnishing security to the extent of Rs. 500 on 7th April 1930.2. Paragraph (2) refers to...
In Re: Maurice Saleh Manasseh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal924,147Ind.Cas.489
ORDERLort-Wllliams, J.1. This is a petition by Collector of Stamp Revenue of Calcutta, asking that an enquiry be held into the true value of the property of Maurice Saleh Manasseh, deceased. By an indenture made in 1869, the premises No. 55, Free School Street, were conveyed upon trust, inter alia, for Esther Saleh Manasseh for life, and, thereafter, for such of her children as she should appoint. In 1896 she executed a deed appointing the income thereof to her son Maurice for life, and thereafter for such persons as he should appoint. By her will, made in 1909, she demised premises No. 7/1, Marquis Street upon trust for Maurice for life, and thereafter for such persons as he should appoint, By a deed, made in 1917, premises No. 2/1, Russel Street, were conveyed upon trust, inter alia, for Esther for life, and after the expiration of five years from her death, as to one-sixth for Maurice for life, and thereafter for such persons as he should appoint. Esther died in 1924. By his will, m...
Bankim Chandra Dutta and ors. Vs. Khagendra Nath Ganguli and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal443
Mallik, J.1. This appeal arises out of a certain proceeding of the Municipality of Howrah, held on 18th April 1932. One Mr. B.P. Pain who was the Chairman of the Municipality, resigned on 4th March 1932. His resignation was accepted by the Local Government on the 24th of that month. Thereafter, on 18th April 1932, there was a general meeting of all the commissioners for the purpose of electing a new Chairman in the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr. Pain. At that meeting three commissioners were proposed and seconded. They were Mr. B.C. Dutt, Mr. B.P. Pain and S.N. Kar. Mr. 8. N. Kar withdrew. A question was raised by one of the commissioners that Mr. Pain having resigned, was no longer eligible for being re-elected in view of the provisions of Section 27, Bengal Municipal Act 1884. After some discussions the meeting was adjourned to 18th May 1932. Before the adjourned meeting could be held the plaintiffs who are eight of the commissioners, instituted a suit on 16th May 1932 agai...
Uma Kanta Chatterjee Vs. Kalipada Chowdhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal790
Patterson, J.1. The subject-matter of the case to which this reference relates is a strip of land which has been described in the proceedings drawn up under Section 133, Criminal P.C., asthe northern flank of the road in plot No, 1811 used by the public as a right of way at Dakshineswar.2. The alleged obstruction consists of certain huts which have been erected on the said land by opposite party 2 as a lessee under opposite party 1 who is the Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the Dakshineswar Debuttar Estate. The first party is the owner of a plot of land situated immediately to the north of plot No. 1811, and his main grievance as set forth in his petition is that the erection of the huts in question has obstructed his road frontage. In the police report on the petition of the first party it is further stated that the public visiting the Dakshineswar temple are in the habit of using the road in plot No. 1811, and that the erection of huts by opposite party 2 on the flank of the ro...
Hira Lal Saha Vs. Akshoy Kumar Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal815
Mitter, J.1. The facts which have given rise to the present Rule are briefly these: There was an auction sale held in execution of a decree obtained by the petitioner and the property put up to sale was purchased by one Ashoy Kumar Saha, the opposi'te party before us, for Rs. 3,005. The earnest money was deposited by Akshoy Kumar, but Akshoy failed to pay the balance with the result that the property was resold and purchased by the petitioner, the decree-holder, for Rs. 1,510, and Akshoy was directed to put in the deficiency, viz. Rs. 1,495. Thereupon Akshoy filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., for setting aside the sale at which the decree holder had purchased the property for Rs. 1,510. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the application on the preliminary ground that Akshoy had no locus standi to file the application. This order was reversed by the learned District Judge and the learned District Judge directed the first Court to decide the case on its merits,...
Mandakinee Debee Vs. Basantakumaree Dabee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal884,147Ind.Cas.811
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for the removal of an alleged encroachment made by defendant 1 and defendant 2 on a passage leading_to the plaintiff's_house. The suit was decreed by the Munsif against defendant 1 and dismissed against defendant 2. The Court of appeal below dismissed the suit. The learned District Judge found, first, that defendant 1 had reduced the passage in question by encroachment from 3 feet 6 inches to 2 feet 8 inches in width by the erection of a wall and privy; second, that the passage is a public way which had vested in the Howrah Municipality; third, that the encroachment of 10 inches does not interfere with the plaintiff's right of way.2. On the facts, as he has found them, the learned Judge states that the suit must fail as the Municipality has not complained and no right of the plaintiff has been violated, inasmuch as sufficient roadway, i.e., 2 feet 8 inches has been left to pass to and from her house, and this is the only right she had ove...
Sashi Bhusab Maity Vs. Fani Bhusan Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal27
Mitter, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of the District Judge of Midnapore, dated 22nd April 1931, refusing the application of one Sashi Bhusab Maity, now appellant before us, whereby he sought to be adjudicated an insolvent. The petition for insolvency was filed on 21st November 1930, and in the said petition it was stated that the debts of the petitioner were in excess of Rs. 500 and that the petitioner was unable to pay his debts. The applicant for insolvency gave his evidence in the case and he stated in Court that properties would be worth about Rs. 8,000 although in his petition he stated that he had assets to the extent of Rs. 4,608-8-0. The learned District Judge has noticed the circumstance, but he has really based his decision on the two transactions which he considers are merely colourable transactions and must be taken into account for the purpose of considering as to whether the assets of the petitioner are in excess of the amount of his debt. The first trans...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »