Kolkata Court April 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.
Annanda Charan Naiya and ors. Vs. Manmatha Nath Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal51,150Ind.Cas.30
1. The plaintiff in the suit in which this appeal has arisen prayed for recovery of possession of the lands described in his plaint on declaration of his title. It appears that the lands m suit, 22 bighas 81/2 cottas in area, was comprised in a tenancy of 25 bighas 81 cottas held by one Durga Earn Ghose. The lands were purchased by one Jadu Nath Bairagi in the year 1907, and were constituted into a separate tenancy on payment of substantial selami to the landlord. It is in evidence that for a portion of the selami Jadu Nath Bairagi executed an instalment bond, which sets forth that kharij was granted on payment of selami (nazar). In the year 1913 defendant 1 in the suit purchased the lands from Jadu Nath Bairagi, and dfeendants 2 to 4 were settled as tenants under defendant 1 in the year 1925. So far as the transfer in favour of defendant 1 was concerned it is to be noticed that the landlord continued to grant rent receipts in the name of the tenant Jadu Nath Bairagi. It was in evidenc...
Prosanna Kumar Halder Vs. Girish Chandra Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal149
1. This is an appeal by the defendant mortgagee in a suit in which the plaintiffs sought to exercise their right of redemption in regard to five usufructuary mortgages, four of them executed in the year 1898, and the fifth in the year 1904, by one Dwarika Nath Ghose, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs the mortgagee was in possession of the mortgaged properties consisting of several items, in lieu of interest as stipulated in the mortgage bonds; the mortgagee in possession was to get interest on the mortgage money at the rate mentioned in the mortgage bonds, if the mortgagor failed to deliver possession of the mortgaged properties; there was the further stipulation contained in the mortgage bonds that the mortgagee was to pay the rent payable in respect of the mortgaged properties to the landlords concerned, out of the profits derived from the mortgaged properties. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that rents payable by the defendant were not paid...
Nukur Chandra Sarkar Vs. Ranjit Kumar Mullik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal217
ORDER1. This is a rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the complainant to show cause why the order made by one of the Presidency Magistrates, Mr. Wazer Ali, dated 7th March 1933 committing the accused to the Sessions Court for trial under Section 477, I. P. C, should not be quashed or why such other or further order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper on the ground that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not disclose an offence under Section 477, I. P. C., and, as such the commitment of the accused is bad in law. We have heard Mr. P. Rule Das of the Patna Bar in support of the Rule and Mr. Probodh Chandra Chatterjee has shown cause. In order to understand the facts involved in this matter and which have given rise to the present prosecution it is necessary to state a few facts very shortly.2. It appears that one Janardan Sarkar died some time in 1924 after having executed a will on 24th December 1918. The will after execution remained ...
MofizuddIn Mondal and anr. Vs. Sekandar Molla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal133,147Ind.Cas.1095
ORDERPearson, J.1. A complaint is made by the petitioners in this case that after the conclusion of the arguments the Magistrate allowed P.W. No. 2 who had already been examined--a man named Maula Bux--to give further evidence and to produce and prove a document in spite of objections taken by the defence. The counter-affidavit which has been put in alleges that the defence did not object to this evidence at the time nor was the accused prejudiced by this further examination of the witness by the Court. So far as the order-sheet goes it appears that on November 5, one defence witness was cross-examined. Then this witness who was present in Court was called by the Court for examination and he was examined for the ends of justice to prove this document to which reference has been made. Subsequent to this, arguments were heard. Then a petition was filed on behalf of the defence in which exception was taken to the calling of this prosecution witness and the filing of this document on the g...
Lala Saradakripa Vs. Comilla Union Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.165
Jack, J.1. This Rule has been directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Ghittagong, rejecting an application of the petitioners made under Order XXI, Rule 29, Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to stay the execution of the decree under order XXI, Rule 29.2. In this case a money decree was passed against the plaintiffs petitioners before us and that decree was transferred from the Comilla Court to the Court at Chittagong. In that Court, the plaintiffs filed a suit for setting aside the decree and for recording an adjustment and, therefore, applied to the Court for stay of execution of the decree, which had been transferred from the Comilla Court. The learned Subordinate Judge held that, under the terms of Order XXI, Rule 29, he was not entitled to stay the execution, inasmuch as his Court was not the Court, which passed the decree. Under Rule 29, Order XXI:Where a suit is pending in any Court against the holder of a decree of such Cou...
Nukur Chandra Sarkar Vs. Banjit Kumar Mullik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.587
ORDERC.C. Ghose, Actg. C.J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the complainant to show cause why the order made by one of the Presidency Magistrates Mr. Wazen Ali, dated March 7, 1933, committing the accused to the Sessions Court for trial under Section 447, Indian Penal Code, should not be quashed; or why such other or further order should; not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper on the ground that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not disclose an offence under Section 477, Indian Penal Code and as such, the commitment of the accused is bad in law. We have heard Mr. P.R. Das of the Patna Bar in support of the Rule and Mr. Probodh Chandra Chatterjee has shown cause. In order to understand the facts involved in this matter and which have given rise to the present prosecution it is necessary to state a few facts very shortly.2. It appears that one Janardan Sarkar died some time in 1924 after having executed a will on December 24, 191...
Satis Chandra Mukhopadhya and anr. Vs. Nuba Krishna Roy Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1933
Reported in: 146Ind.Cas.676
ORDERPearson, J.1. In this case the opposite party instituted proceedings under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, consequent upon the final publication of the Record of Rights. That publication took place on August Section 1931, according to which it appeared that the petitioner was liable to enhancement of rent. On December 4, 1931, an application was made by the landlord opposite party under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, for enhancement. The petitioners as against that set up in those proceedings that they were not tenure holders liable to enhancement of rent but were raiyats with mokarari status. The written statement was filed on April 9, 1932, that is, a considerable period after the lapse of four months which is provided for in Section 106, Bengal Tenancy Act, under which the petitioners might have made a substantive application as against the entry in the Record of Rights had they been so advised. Now, on June 6, issues were settled. Issue No. 1 raised the question whether the...
Harendra Nath Chaudhury Vs. Dwijendra Nath Banerji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal787
1. This is an appeal by defendant 2 (one of the several cosharer-landlords of a tenancy), in a suit under Section 106, Ben. Ten. Act, instituted by the tenants plaintiffs, for correction of entries in the finally published Record of Rights. The Assistant Settlement Officer who tried the suit directed the correction of entries as mentioned in his judgment; and the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer was affirmed by the learned Special Judge of the 24-Parganas, on appeal. The appeal before the Special Judge preferred by the appellant in this Court was dismissed on the ground that it was time-barred in respect of respondent 7, and that rent could not be altered in the absence of some of the cosharer landlords. The learned Judge in the Court below has held that the appeal before him had abated so far as respondent 7, one of the cosharer landlords, was concerned owing to the non-substitution of the heirs of that respondent within the time allowed by law.2. Respondent 7 was made a p...
E.A. Cohen Vs. A.M. Paruk
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal831
Pearson, J.1. This rule arises out of a Small Cause Court decree and relates to the decree passed in suit No. 3471 of 1931. It appears that the plaintiff sued to recover from the defendant certain rent for certain premises belonging to the plaintiff. He proceeded to file two suits in the Small Cause Court, one being Suit No. 3470 covering rent for the premises less certain allowances or set off for the period from December 1930 to July 1931. He also filed a second suit No. 3471, for rent of the same premises for the months of August and September 1931. The former suit was valued at Rs. 838 and the latter suit at Rs. 688. It is admitted that the suits taken together were in excess of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court Judge and the question is whether the plaintiff could split up his claim in this manner into two portions so as to bring each portion within the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court.2. Now, before me it has been contended on behalf of the defendan...
Shantaram Sharma Vs. Kanai Lal Jatia and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal137
Panckridge, J.1. This is a Rule obtained by the petitioner Shanta Ram Sharma calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the opposite parties to show cause why an order of transfer made by him on 25th March should not be set aside. The complainant is a munim gomastha of a firm known as Dilshukhroy Sagarmull and the opposite parties are members of a firm known as Mahaliram Ramjidas, opposite party 1 being a partner and opposite party 2 being a gomastha of that firm. It appears that Dilsukhroy Sagarmull instituted a suit in 1930 against the firm of Mahaliram Ramjidas on the allegation, that the plaintiffs had advanced a lac of rupees to the defendants. Among other defences taken was that the sum had never in fact been advanced and that if it had been advanced the borrower was not the firm of Mahaliram Ramjidas but a deceased partner, Gajanand Jatia. In the course of the litigation the plaintiff obtained an order for affidavit of documents. The defendants filed an affidavit, disclosi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »