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.
Ayatullah and anr. Vs. NabIn Chandra Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal28
1. The plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen prayed for ejectment of the defendants on a declaration of their title to the lands in suit which appertained to a tenancy, which were admittedly non-transferable holdings. The plaintiffs' claim in the suit was resisted by defendants 1 and 6 who filed separate written statements in the Court of first instance.2. It may be mentioned that the plaintiffs' cause of action in the suit was based upon the allegation that the non transferable holdings to which the lands in suit appertained were transferred by the tenant-defendants 5 and 6 to defendant 1 by a usufructuary mortgage deed dated 1st May 1927. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs on 20th July 1928 on the ground that the original tenants, defendants 5 and 6, had abandoned the holdings. The material issue raised for determination in the suit was issue 2: 'Have the jotes in question been abandoned by defendants 5 and 6? If so can the plaintiffs get khas possession?' On...
Moni Mohan Pal and ors. Vs. Gour Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal71
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of their title to the lands in suit as tenure-holders, in respect of 8as 2gds 2ks share of the same, and for partition of the lands by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs' claim in suit was resisted, by defendant 1 whose tenancy right under the zemindars concerned in respect of the remaining share of the lands in suit was not disputed, and it was not also disputed that the zemindars under whom defendant 1 held his tenancy were the cosharers of the zemindars under whom the plaintiffs held. The question in controversy in the case as between the plaintiffs and defendant 1, so far as the appeal to this Court is concerned, was whether the plaintiffs' title was extinguished by adverse possession on the part of defendant 1; whether the defendant has acquired a title to the 8as 2gds 2ks share of the lands in suit by adverse possession.2. The Court of first instance came to be of the opinion thatpeople who derive title, from cosharer...
Bijaya Kanta Lahiri Chaudhury Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal97,150Ind.Cas.368
Mitter, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and award of the District Judge of Mymensingh, dated 16th May 1929, and arises out of a reference Under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), made by the Collector at the instance of the claimant who was dissatisfied with the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector.2. It appears that the Assam Bengal Railway required certain lands belonging to the claimant for a bazar siding out of an area of 1.394 acres. The original proposal was to acquire a portion of this land. The Assam Bengal Railway required early possession of the land and the appellant, through his agent expressed his willingness to give up early possession if the entire plot was acquired. These negotiations took place before 21st June 1926 and then followed certain correspondence between the District Engineer of the Assam Bengal Railway, the Collector and the present claimant. The details of the correspondence will be given later. The declaration was publi...
NabIn Kishori Choudhurany Vs. Jagneswar Sanyal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal809
Mitter, J.1. (In No. 66). This is an appeal on behalf of the Pabna Dhanabhandar Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Pabna dated 18th September 1930 by which he disallowed an objection of the appellant to the assignment of a decree made by the said company in favour of the respondents. A preliminary objection has been raised to the hearing of this appeal. In order to understand the soundness or otherwise of the preliminary objection it is necessary to state a few salient facts. The Pabna Dhanabhandar Co. Ltd., had a decree against the judgment-debtor Nobinkishori Chaudhurani and another. The respondents had certain deposits in the company. On 5th June 1929 they conveyed the decree to Jagneswar Sanyal, the respondents to the present appeal. On 8th. July 1929 an application was made by one of the creditors of the bank for winding up. On 18th November 1929 the High Court, on its original side, passed the winding up order. On 5th July 1929 the respondents...
Ahamed Mahammad Paruk Vs. Praphullanath Tagore
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1935Cal84
Costello, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of Panckridge, J., dated 22nd August 1933. That judgment was given by the learned Judge when exercising the Insolvency Jurisdiction of this Court and in connexion with a petition for adjudication, presented by one Praphullanath Tagore against Ahamed Mahammad Paruk. The petition set out that Paruk was justly and truly indebted to the petitioner to the extent of Rupees 1,05,647-15-9, being the total amount of several decrees which had been obtained by the petitioner in a number of suits, particulars of which are set forth in para. 2 of the petition. The petition alleged that within three months of the date of the presentation of the petition, Paruk had committed certain acts of insolvency. They are set forth in this form:(a) that in execution of the decree obtained by me against the said Ahamed Mahammad Paruk and others for Rs. 10,270-1-9, in Rent Suit No. 2 of 1932, in the Court of the first Subordinate Judge of Faridpur, which was sub...
Surendralal Kundu Vs. Ahmmad Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal912,147Ind.Cas.808
Mallik, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of three plots of land on a declaration of plaintiffs' title thereto and also for mesne-profits.2. The allegations on which the plaintiffs brought the suit were briefly these: In April 1911, defendant 1 mortgaged three plots of land to the plaintiffs. A mortgage suit was instituted against defendant 1 and a mortgage decree was obtained in April 1923. In execution of that mortgage decree, the property was sold and formal delivery of possession was obtained on 4th May 1925, corresponding to 21st Baisakh, 1332. But when the plaintiffs' men went to take actual possession by the end of Baisakh 1332, they were opposed by defendants 2 to 4, defendants 5 to 7 and other persons. The defence of defendants 2 to 4 and defendants 5 to 7 inter alia was that the plaintiff's' suit was barred by limitation and the plaintiffs could have no remedy against them inasmuch as they had purchased from defendant 1 the equity of redemption ...
Govinda Chandra Choudhury and ors. Vs. Nagendra Kumar Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal39
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. This rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the learned Munsif, third Court at Patya, complained of in the petition, should not be set aside or why such other or further order should not be passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper. The matter relates to an application made Under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act, for pre-emption of the lands of the schedule of the application. It appears that one Kamini Kumar Choudhury sold certain lands to the preseno petitioner by a Kobala dated 10th October 1932. The applicant, who is one to the landlords, applied within the period of two months after receiving the notice for pre-emption Under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act.2. There upon the purchaser Gobinda Chandra Choudhury mentioned in the notice appeared and stated that he had two co-sharers in the purchase. The applicants made the two other persons parties to the case. The first point taken in appeal is that, inasmuch as the landlord ...
Sukhadakanta Bhattacharjya Vs. Jogineekanta Bhattacharjya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal73
1. The common ancestor of the parties to this suit was one Kamala-kanta. He left three sons, from whom three branches of the family originated. From Ramanikanta, the barha hishya; from Durgakanta, the madhyam hishya and from Anandakanta, the chotta hishya. The plaintiff Jogineekanta is the son of the eldest son of Durgakanta, whose other three sons are not parties to this suit. Defendants 1 and 2 are Uday-kanta and Hridaykanta, two of the sons, of Ramanikanta, whose other two sons, Jamineekanta and Kumudakanta, are defendants 3 and 4 respectively. Defendant 5 is the grandson of Anandakanta by his son Saradakanta. The plaintiff's case was as follows:-That, in 1313, madhyam hishya separated in mess from the other two branches, which remained joint; that Saradakanta, father of defendant 5, the then head of the chhota hishya, was the karta of the joint family consisting of the said two hishyas, but in and from 1317, defendants 1 and 2, Udayakanta and Hridaykanta, managed its affairs; that,...
Debendra Kumar Dutta Vs. Pramada Kanta Lahiry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal879,147Ind.Cas.718
Mallik, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of plaintiffs' title to and recovery of possession of some plots of land on the allegation that the land in Schedule I which comprises four plots was held by the plaintiff as part of a permanent tenure under defendant 1 and that the land in Sch. 2 which comprises 2 dags was held as a Brohmottar in defendant l's zemindary. The defence was that the plaintiff had no title to the lands in suit and the lands appertained to the zemindari of defendant 1 and that the suit was also barred by res judicata, there having been two suits in the year 1913 being Suits Nos. 2503 and 2504 where it had been held that the plaintiff had no permanent tenure or Lakheraj as alleged now. The first Court gave a decree to the plaintiff. This decision on appeal was reversed by the lower appellate Court, the learned Subordinate Judge holding that the suit was barred by res judicata and also that the plaintiff had no title and had never been in possessio...
Abdul Jalil and ors. Vs. Mahamuda Khatun and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal3,147Ind.Cas.1040
Mallik, J.1. This rule is directed against an order by which an application made by the petitioners under Section 26-F, Bengal Tenancy. Act, to have the share of a holding transferred to them, was refused. The petitioners are the landlords and the opposite party No. 2 is one of the tenants in respect of the holding under them. In 1931 the opposite party 2 sold his share to his wife, the opposite party 1, for Rs. 40 and it was for the transfer of this share to them that the petitioners applied under Section 26(F) The petitioner's application was refused on the ground that the opposite party 1 had been a cosharer in the tenancy from 1927 and according to the learned Munsif the transfer to the opposite party 1 was protected by the provisions of Clause 1(a), Section 26(F). Clause 1(a) could protect the transfer if the interest of opposite party 1, which was existing at the time, had nob been acquired by purchase. But Ex. 1 (a kobala) shows that it was by purchase that that interest had bee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »