Kolkata Court May 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.
Nishi Kanta Shaha Mondal and ors. Vs. Kumar Promotha Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal145
Mitter, J.1. A very forcible argument has been addressed to us by Mr. Jogesh Chandra Roy who appears for the appellants in this case. The appeal arises out of a proceeding in execution in a suit which was instituted so far back as the year 1921 and numbered as Suit No. 53 of that year. The present decree-holders seek to recover possession in execution of the decree in the said suit. They are resisted by tenants on the land who were inducted during the pendency of that litigation by Harendra Lal Roy Chaudhury who was defendant 1 in the suit of 1921. It is true that these tenants were no parties to that suit. An objection was taken to the execution of the decree by the tennants on the ground that there had been a subsequent suit which was numbered 675 of 1927 by which an exception was taken to the delivery of the lands in suit which were determined not to belong to the present decree-holders and in respect of which their claim was dismissed; and it is generally argued that the effect of ...
Manmatha Nath Mitter Vs. Sarada Prasad Chakravarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal215
1. S. A. No. 1756 of 1931.- This appeal is by a landlord who had applied for settlement of fair and equitable rent in respect of a tenure claiming enhancement under Section 7(2), Ben. Ten. Act. The application of the landlord was opposed by the tenant, on the ground that rent payable in respect of the tenure was not liable to enhancement although the entry in the settlement Record of Eights as finally published showed that the rent was liable to enhancement. The Assistant Settlement Officer by whom the case was heard in the first instance came to the conclusion on the materials placed before him by the parties concerned that the evidence produced in the case was sufficient to rebut the presumption of correctness attached to the entry in the finally published khatian, and that the rent payable in respect of the tenure in question was not liable to enhancement. The decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer dismissing the landlord's application for enhancement of rent was affirmed on a...
Pankajkumar Ghose Vs. Sudheerkumar Shikdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal58,147Ind.Cas.1064
C.C. Ghose, Ag. C.J1. This appeal is by an attorney named Pankajkumar Ghosh against an order of Lort-Williams, J., dated 18th November 1932, directing a change of attorney without payment of his costs. The circumstances under which that order came to be made, shortly stated, are as follows: It appears that this attorney was retained by one Sudheerkumar Shikdar, who is one of the defendants in Suit No. 1528 of 1926. The suit bad gone on for some time, in this sense that the suit had been pending for some time and had not been brought to a hearing, when an application was filed on 8th March 1932 for an order thatBabu Pankajkumar Ghosh, attorney for the applicant Sudheerkumar Shikdar, be discharged from further acting as his attorney and that Babu P. L. Mitter, an attorney of this Court, be appointed in his place as attorney for the applicant in the suit and that the applicant be at liberty to file a warrant of attorney in favour of Babu P. L. Mitter to act for him in this suit.2. Lort-Wi...
Mahomed Ali Haidar Khan and anr. Vs. Upendra Nath Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal179,150Ind.Cas.214
Mitter, J.1. A short statement of the facts which have given rise to this litigation will explain the points for determination involved in this appeal.2. The case as stated in the plaint is that there was a permanently settled estate known as taluk Rai Gourhari Sing in the district of Sylhet, that a separate account was carved out of the same and was known as Kharija Hishya No. 113 and was possessed by the plaintiffs' father Muhammad Ali Amzad Khan, that the residuary Mahal which was described as Mahal No. 47031-1, taluk Rai Gourhari Sing No. 1, was purchased at a sale for arrears of Government revenue on 8th January 1892 by one Kashi Nath Ghose, the father of defendants 1, 2 and 3, now dead; that the said Kashi Nath sold some lands in chaks and four annas share of the rest of the land of the said residuary mahal to one Nobo Kumar Das, defendant 4 in this suit ; that dispute arose between Kashi Nath and Ali Amzad Khan regarding the lands of the residuary mahal ; that the dispute was se...
Maharaj Bahadur Singh Vs. Narmada Charan Banerji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal405
Mallick, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Dinajpur by which an application for impleading two men as defendants was rejected. The plaintiff petitioner sued the defendant, his retained pleader, for accounts and also for compensation for loss caused by some specific wrongful acts. One of the specific wrongful acts alleged that the defendant had made an unauthorized substitution of the defendant in a certain suit brought by the plaintiff. The pleader admitted the substitution but set up the defence that the substitution had been made under the instructions of the plaintiff's Naib, Chintaharan Ganguly and Patwari Male Mahommad. The plaintiff thereupon applied to the Court to implead the Naib and the Patwari as defendants in the suit brought against the pleader. This application was rejected and the present rule is directed against that order of refusal. This rule,. in nay opinion, must succeed. The plaintiff claimed compensation for the loss incurred ...
AsiruddIn Mondal Vs. Latifannessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal560
1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor in an execution proceeding. The only point is whether the execution should fail for want of notice under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P.C. It appears that there was a suit for partition in which a final decree for delivery of possession of property was made on 18th December 1924, and there was a further direction for inquiry into mesne profits. These were enquired into and finally there was a decree for mesne profits on 31st January 1928. The decree for possession was put into execution in Execution Case No. 55 of 1929. Within a week after the disposal of that execution case the present execution case for mesne profits was started. The point urged in this appeal is that as the decree for possession of the property was separate from the decree for mesne profits there should have been a fresh issue of notice under Order 21, Rule 22. We do not think that this point can be sustained.2. The decree for delivery of possession of property as also the dec...
Kunjmohan Shaha Poddar Vs. Karunakanta Sen Chaudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal40
Mitter, J.1. The suit in which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff to enforce a mortgage security executed by Sreematee Bangabasinee Chaudhuranee, Mahananda Sen and Karunakanta Sen (defendants 1, 2 and 3) on 25th Jais-tha 1319, corresponding to 17th June 1912. This suit was tried along with another suit brought by the same plaintiff to enforce a mortgage-bond said to have been executed on 14th Sraban 1321 B.S., corresponding to 30th July 1914, by the first two defendants in the present suit, namely Bangabasinee and Mahananda. The suit in which this appeal arises was numbered as Suit No. 101 of 1922 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca. The suit in the later mortgage was numbered as Suit No. 100 of 1922. The present suit was decreed, ex parte against defendant 3 and on contest against defendants 1 and 2 on 29th January 1924. It may be mentioned here that defendant 1 is the mother and defendant 2 is the brother of defendant 3. Defendant 3 applied to set aside the ex...
In Re: Nalinikanta Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal38,147Ind.Cas.1016
ORDER1. The Munsif, first Court, Bajit-pur, has referred to this Court for a construction of Article 12, Schedule 1, Court-fees Act 7 of 1870, as amended by Section 8, Bengal Court-fees Amendment Act of 1922. The article is as follows: 12, Certificate under When the amount of Two per centum on the Succession any debt specified such amount and Certificate Act 1889, in the certificate three per centum on (now replaced by Under Section 8 of the amount of any Succession Act 39 the Act exceeds one debt to which the of 1925). thousand rupees, on certificate is such amount up to extended Under ten thousand rupees. Section 10 of the Act.2. As the article originally stood, 2 per cent was payable on the amount of certificates for less than Rs. 1,000 and the intention of the legislature was evidently to exempt small inheritances from stamp duty. However as the article is now worded, where the original application is in respect of an amount less than Rupees 1,000 no duty is payable in respect of...
Arun Chandra Sinha Bahadur and anr. Vs. Sarojit Sen Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal44
1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the decision of oar learned brother Patterson, J., in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent which was brought under the following circumstances: A putni tenure called Putni Taluq Lakshmi Narayan Bakshi was sold in auction for arrears of rent under Regn. 8 of 1819 on the 1st of Agrahayan 1330 B.S., the auction purchasers being the plaintiffs who are themselves the zamindars. Under this putni there is an under-tenure called a howla which was held by one Rajkumar Sen, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants 3 to 8 and under them defendants 1 and 2 are the tenants in possession as raiyats. It has been found that the greater part of the land of the howla has been diluviated and that only the land comprising the holding of the tenants defendants has remained intact. The plaintiffs brought the present suit for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the raiyati holding for the period 1328- 1331 B.S. They contend that the howla of defendants 3 to 8 ...
Hemchandra Ganguli Vs. Matilal Ganguli
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal68
1. The facts giving rise to the litigation, in which this appeal has arisen, as accepted by the Court of appeal below, may be briefly enumerated, in view of the matters in controversy between the parties. One Poornachandra Ganguli had three sons: Kunjabihari, Matilal and Biharilal. Poorna, it would appear, was not at all well off, so, far as his pecuniary circumstances were concerned, and had to spend a part of his life in his father-in-law's house. Kunjabihari, the eldest son, served in the police department of the Government, and had a decent income; out of his own money he acquired property, which is the subject-matter of the present litigation, in the name of his father Poorna, the name of the father having been used for the reason that Kunja's superior officers in the department would have raised objection had it been known that he was acquiring property within the district in which he was serving. Kunjabihari predeceased his father: Kunja died in the year 1912 while his father Po...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »