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.
Sukhomoy Biswas and anr. Vs. Asia Khatun
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal653,152Ind.Cas.24
M.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case the decree-holders, petitioners in this case, brought a Title Suit in 1927 and obtained a decree in the appellate Court in 1929 and thereafter in May 1932 took delivery of possession of the decretal land.2. Thereafter the opposite party filed an application Under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P.C., complaining that she who was not a judgment-debtor had been dispossessed of her property. A miscellaneous case was thereupon started. The decree-holders filed their objection and were ready with evidence on 30th July 1932. But when the case was called on for hearing, the opposite party did not appear and the miscellaneous case was dismissed for default. Subsequently the opposite party filed an application Under Order 9, Rule 9, Order 47, Rule 1 and Section 151, Civil P.C., for setting aside the aforesaid order of dismissal and for restoration of the Miscellaneous Case to its original number. The Court below by an ex parts order set aside the order of dismissal. But ...
Nripendra Bhooshan Ray Vs. Jogendra Nath Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal890,147Ind.Cas.1220
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment under Section 155, Ben. Ten. Act. The suit was based upon the allegation that the defendant took settlement of two plots of land as an agricultural holding and has used the land in a manner which renders it unfit for the purposes of the tenancy and has also broken a condition of the lease which has made him liable to ejectment. The lease contained the following stipulation:On the lands of the aforesaid jama, I shall not bo able, without your permission, to set up any hat, bazar, gola or ganja or to erect a building or to manufacture bricks or to excavate a tank or pond; nor shall I be able to do anything, which renders the land unfit for agricultural purpose, that is, anything that impairs the value of the lands; but, if I do so, you shall be entitled to eject me from the jote with damages.2. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant, in contravention of the stipulation aforesaid, has used the lands as a hat for molasses. T...
Shreehari Das Vs. Adwaitachandra Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal908,147Ind.Cas.727
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for recovery of possession after declaration of plaintiffs' title to the lands in suit. The lands originally belonged to Amarchand Mandal, who died leaving a widow and two daughters. After the death of the widow and the two daughters, the' plaintiffs and the father of the pro forma defendants 30' and 33 became the reversionary heirs of Amarchand. Defendant 1 is Amarchand' sister's son. Defendant 2 is the husband of the daughter of Amarchand. Defendant 4 was substituted in place of the original defendant 3, who was the husband of the daughter's daughter of Amarchand. After the death of the widow of Amarchand, defendant 1 applied for probate of a will left by Amarchand, The plaintiffs entered a caveat and subsequently a compromise was entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant 1,. by which it was agreed that each party would take a moiety of the estate. It is alleged that defendant 1 did not comply with the terms of the compromise an...
Anupama Ghose and ors. Vs. Parbati Mistery and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal92
Mukerji, J.1. The facts of the two suits which have resulted in these appeals are the following: One of these suits relates to a jama which used to be held by one Goloke, mistri, and the other to a jama which one Sridam Mandal held, under two persons named Chandramani Majhi and one Asanullah Gain who were temporary settlement holders from Government. The interests of Chandramani Majhi and Asanulla Gain have eventually passed to two persons, Charu Chandra Gbose and Purna Chandra Ghose. Goloke's rent was Rs. 29-1-4 and Sridam's Rs. 55-12-4. In 1920 B.S. Goloke and Sridam sold their respective jamas to Baroda Kanta Ghose, father of the aforesaid two persons Charu and Purna, when he was alive, and purported to execute kabuliyats in favour of Baroda at rentals of Rs. 38-2-5 and Rs. 70-15-0 respectively for the two jamas, and promising that if under any future settlement from Government there be any increment of the rent payable by the lessor they would pay the same by executing a fresh kabu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›