Kolkata Court April 1933 Judgments
Jatendrakumar Das Vs. Mahendrachandra Banikya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal906
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder from the order of the District Judge of Mymensingh, dated 22nd February 1932, reversing the order of the Munsif of Tangail, dated 2nd October 1931. The question of law which falls for determination in this appeal is whether the application of the decree-holder, now appellant, is barred by the statute of limitation. The learned District Judge has answered the question in the affirmative. The Munsif has taken the contrary view. The question in this appeal is which view is right. The relevant facts are not in dispute and may be briefly stated. It appears that the appellant obtained a decree against the respondent in the Munsif's Court at Dacca on 2nd August 1926. That decree was transferred to the Munsif's Court at Tangail for execution. Execution proceedings were started and, on 29th August 1927, they were eventually dismissed by the Tangail Court. On 25th January 1929, the appellant filed another application for execution in the Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopendraprasad Shukul and ors. Vs. Ramkishore Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal919
Mitter, J.1. These three appeals arise from orders made in the course of execution of three decrees for rent. The judgment-debtors, who have been unsuccessful in the Courts below, are the appellants in each of three appeals, and their objections depend on similar state of facts. It appears that Shree Shree Ramchandra Deb Thakur, represented by the shebait Raja Bhupendranarayan Singha Bahadur, obtained three decrees for rent in respect of a patni tenure, standing in the name of Nidhanchand Ray, for three different periods respectively. The decrees were assigned over to the respondent Ramkishore Shaha, for consideration, by three different deeds of sale respectively. The main objection taken by the judgment-debtors in all three cases, is that Section 148(o), Ben. Ten. Act is a, bar to the execution of the decrees. The objection has been overruled by both the Courts below. Hence the present appeals. There were minor objections to the execution, which will be noticed later.2. The contentio...
Tag this Judgment!Hridayanath Ray Vs. Prabodhchandra Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal923,147Ind.Cas.747
Jack, J.1. In this suit, the plaintiff wants a declaration of his title to and recovery of possession of land, which he claims to hold under defendants 3 and others. He had a lease from them, of which the time expired in 1322, after which he claims to have held over until he was dispossessed by the defendants on 22nd Chaitra 1328. The defence is that plaintiff gave up the land at the end of 1322, when his lease expired, after which the land was in khas possession of defendants 3 and others until defendants 1 and 2 took a lease from them on 25th Chaitra 1323, and have been in possession since that time. The plaintiff brought a suit under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, in 1329. In that suit it was found that he had not been in possession of the suit land within six months of the institution of the suit, which was, accordingly, dismissed.2. In this appeal it is urged, first, that this suit is barred under the provisions of Article 3, Sch. 3, Ben. Ten. Act, having been brought more than t...
Tag this Judgment!Sanatkumar Mukherji Vs. Narayanchandra Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal926,147Ind.Cas.507
1. These appeals are by The defendant landlord in suits instituted by the plaintiffs tenants under the provisions of Section 106, Ben. Ten. Act, for correction of entries regarding the status of the tenants as finally published These tenants had been recorded as raiyats with occupancy rights, and the case made before the settlement officer in their plaints, filed under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, was that they were raiyats at fixed rates. The claim so made in the suits by the plaintiffs tenants was resisted by the defendant landlord, and the question in controversy was whether the plaintiffs tenants were raiyats at fixed rates or raiyats with occupancy rights. It may be stated, at the very outset, that, for the purpose of these appeals, regard being had to the judgments of the Courts below, it may be taken to be established that the jama-wasil-bakis, filed by the defendant landlord, in the suits on which he based his case that the tenants had merely rights of occupancy and that they we...
Tag this Judgment!New Birbhum Coal Co., Ltd. Vs. Surendra Nath Laik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal205,150Ind.Cas.504
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the decree-holder auction-purchaser against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Asansol dated 10th October 1931 by which he set aside a sale of certain coal lands in execution of a decree.2. I cannot say that I have found this case free from difficulty or that my opinion has not been in suspense during a considerable part of the argument. For a long time during the course of the argument I had relected whether I should be justified in upholding an execution sale which has fetched a very inadequate price, but after full consideration of the evidence and the authorities I have come to a conclusion satisfactory at least to my own mind. I am constrained to arrive at the conclusion that the sale must be upheld and the order of the lower Court set aside for reasons which are detailed below:3. It appears that on 1st August 1904 a lease was granted by the New Birbhum Coal Co., who are the appellants before us to the Laiki in respect of certain coal ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalidas Das Vs. Satyesh Chandra Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal554
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of a patni taluq on a, declaration of the plaintiff's title thereto and after annulment of the encumbrances, if any, claimed by the defendants, and also for mesne profits. A decree having been passed in plaintiff's favour defendant 2 has preferred this appeal.2. The facts, according to the plaintiffs, are the following: Touzi No. 148 of the Birbhum Collectorate which comprises lot Gomai was sold for arrears of revenue on 27th March 1924, and was purchased by defendant 17 in the benami of defendant 16. On 7th December 1924, defendant 16 took possession of the mehal through the Collectorate. Thereafter, on 5th January 1925, defendant 16 executed a deed of release in favour of the defendant 17. On 30th January 1925 (=17th Magh 1331) defendant 17 settled the mehal in patni with the plaintiff's with power to annul incumbrances, if any. The zamindari originally belonged to the deity Radh...
Tag this Judgment!Kalidas Das Vs. Srimati Satkari Dassi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.466
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of a Putni Taluq on a declaration of the plaintiff's title thereto and after annulment of the encumbrances, if any, claimed by the defendants,, and also for mesne profits. A decree having been passed in plaintiffs' favour the defendant No. 2 has preferred this appeal.2. The facts, according to the plaintiffs, are the following:3. Touzi No. 148 of the Birbhum Collectorate which comprises lot Gomai was sold for arrears of revenue on March 27, 1924,and was purchased by the defendant No. 17 in the benami of the defendant No. 16. On December 7, 1924, the defendant No. 16 took possession of the mahal through the Collectorate. Thereafter, on January 5, 1925, the defendant No. 16 executed a deed of release in favour of the defendant No. 17. On January 30, 1925 (Magh 17, 1331) the defendant. No. 17 settled the mahal in putni with the plaintiffs with power to annul encumbrances, if any. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Haridas Sadhu Khan and anr. Vs. Giridhari Sadhu Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal59
Jack, J.1. This rule has been issued on the opposite party to show cause why an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Howrah, permitting the plaintiff opposite party to withdraw a suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit, should not be set aside. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge purports to have passed the order under Order 23, Rule 1, Clause 2(a), Civil P. C, on the ground that the suit must fail by reason of formal defects. The formal defects he refers to are that some necessary parties have not been impleaded and that some de-buttar properties disposed of by defendant 3 have not been included in the claim. The necessary parties referred to are those to whom some of the debuttar properties were transferred. The suit was for declaration that certain properties were debuttar properties, that the plaintiff was the sole shebait and that the defendants having acted in contravention of the term of the shebaitnama for an injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the...
Tag this Judgment!Monomohan Roy Choudhury Vs. Bhupal Chandra Roy Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal122a
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by the District Judge of 24.Parganas dated 29th August 1932 purporting apparently to have been made Under Section 4, Provincial Insolvency Act, 5 of 1920. The appeal is on behalf of one Monomohan Row Choudhury, the claimant who made an application On 11th April 1932, claiming certain plots as belonging to him which had been included in the mortgage executed by the insolvent in favour of the Ghoses. In that petition be alleged in para 3 that the entry of the dags Nos. 467, 468. 471, 463, 464 in Khatian No. 38 is incorrect ; that the appellant was entitled to those dags Nos. 467, 468 and 471, in their entirety and half of dags Nos. 463 and 464, and that they are wrongly recorded in Khatian No. 38. He prayed to the insolvency Court to inquire into the matter after taking evidence and after obtaining a report from the Receiver in insolvency. On that application the learned Judge directed an inquiry by the Receiver. After the Receiver had su...
Tag this Judgment!Khantamoni Dassi and anr. Vs. Biswa Nath Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal786
Pearson, J.1. This suit was originally brought as a Small Cause Court suit upon a bond. But the formality of registration which was essential was not complied with. Various points were raised, amongst others, that the suit was not maintainable having regard to the fact that the bond was not registered, that the rate of interest was very high and so on. A point was taken before me to the effect that there was no proper finding as regards the execution of the document on the part of the defendants. This however, in my opinion, is not borne out by the defence because the evidence shows that the document was proved which means that the signatures were identified. As regards the question of the bond what the learned Judge did was to say:It is true that the bond cannot be admitted in evidence as it has not been registered, but it can be admitted in evidence for proving the admission of the defendant.2. Now, reference has been made before me to the case of Skinner v. Skinner AIR 1929 PC 269. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »