Kolkata Court August 1933 Judgments
Sree Sheikh Arip Vs. Brojendra Kishore Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal26,147Ind.Cas.191
Costello, J.1. We see no reason for interfering with the decision of the Court below. The two points argued by Mr. Lahiri and argued, if I may say so, very ably and cogently, are, first of all, that in connexion with a matter in proceedings Under Section 174, Ben. Ten. Act, where there is an appeal Under Sub-section (5) of that section it is not competent to the appellate Court to dispose of the appeal in the manner provided for in Rule 11, Order 41, Civil P. C. Mr. Lahiri has based his argument with regard to that on the fact that there is a proviso to Sub-section (5), Section 174, which requires that before an appeal under that section can be admitted the unsuccessful assailant of a sale must deposit the amount recoverable in the execution proceeding. That procedure was adopted in the present instance and therefore, says Mr. Lahiri, the appellant had a right to insist on the appeal being heard at length. We need not however discuss this point at any length because it seems to us that...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Kirtyananda Singh Bahadur and ors. Vs. Radha Benode Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal278
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the land in suit and for confirmation of possession therein. The plaintiff's allegation was that the land was originally held by one Dayamayi. Dayamayi had a nephew named Sibcharan who had two sons Tarini and Annada. The plaintiff purchased the interest of Tarini, Dayamayi having bequeathed her interest to Tarini. At the survey and settlement operation in 1891-92 the land was recorded as being held by one Sibcharan. Defendants 1 and 2 claim that the land is within the ambit of their zamindari and in 1914 they instituted a rent suit against Tarini and Annada and got a decree. In execution thereof they purchased the land and took symbolical possession through the Court. The plaintiff now maintains that the decree obtained by defendants 1 and 2 was fraudulent and collusive and that the land had been held by himself and his predecessors Dayamayi and Tarini all along rent-free and that he is still ...
Tag this Judgment!Dahu Raut and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal870,145Ind.Cas.937
Lort-Williams, J.1. Some weeks ago a complaint was made in Court to the Acting Chief Justice by the Deputy Legal Remembrancer that certain orders passed by my learned brother and myself were illegal and made without jurisdiction. No petition or affidavit was filed, and the process was wholly irregular, as the Deputy Legal Remembrancer, and the Legal Remembrancer who instructed him, ought to have known. The Acting Chief Justice quite properly decided that he had no jurisdiction whatsoever to interfere with the orders of the Division Bench. But as I had heard about the complaint, and expressed my willingness to consider the matter further, he directed that my learned brother and myself should form a Division Bench, when the Crown could mention the matter, if it was so advised. I fail to understand what was the object of making a complaint to the Acting Chief Justice, or what interest he was alleged to have in the matter. Such a procedure was an act of disrespect to the Court, directly to...
Tag this Judgment!Bhabadeb Chatterjee Vs. Gopesh Chandra Nandi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal306
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for recovery of rent for the years 1331 to 1334 B. S. at Rs. 6-9 15gds with cess at two pice per rupee, twenty-five per cent, damages, the total claim being Rs. 29-6-0. The suit was dismissed in the trial Court and also in the Court of appeal below, on the ground that the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, read with Section 107 of the Act. The ground on which this appeal was urged was that the learned Subordinate Judge erred in law in his appreciation of the effect of the proceedings Under Section 105, Ben Ten. Act, and that the learned Judge ought to have held that the question whether the holding was rent-free was really decided in the previous case Under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, and therefore res judicata between the parties and cannot be agitated in any subsequent suit between the same parties. In this case the entry in the khatian was that the land was liable, to the payment of rent, whereas the de...
Tag this Judgment!Bhabadeb Chatterjee Vs. Hemanta Kumari Debi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal467,152Ind.Cas.172
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for confirmation of possession on declaration of plaintiff's Niskar right to the land in suit, which is eighteen cottas in area in two plots deser bed in the plaint. It is recorded in the settlement khatian to he in possession of the plaintiff's son and some other persons and liable to the payment of rent. This settlement was held at the instance of the defendant who purchased the Patni right in the Mouza, in which this holding is included, at a Patni sale. The defendant subsequently applied for settlement of fair and equitable rent under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, and the rent was fixed by the Settlement Officer in an ex parte proceeding. Thereafter the defendant instituted a suit for recovery of rent in 1928 and subsequently the plaintiff instituted the present suit for a declaration of her Nishkar right to this land. The suit was dismissed in the trial Court but decreed in the Court of appeal below. The grounds urged in this appe...
Tag this Judgment!Sheik Yusuf Vs. Jitendra Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal489
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit instituted by the plaintiff landlord to recover the amount of Rs. 59-12-12 gds, as interest on rent payable by the tenant defendant. The claim was made by the landlord on the footing that rent and cesses from 1332. to 1334 B. Section in respect of a tenancy had been sent by postal money order and were accepted by the plaintiff, but as the rents due were not received on due dates, interest was claimed according to contract between the parties concerned. One of the pleas raised in defence by the contesting defendant was that the suit was not maintainable. The Courts below have agreed in passing a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The effect of which is that interest on rent as claimed in the suit has been made recoverable as rent. In our judgment interest on rent cannot be held to be rent as defined by the Bengal Tenancy Act, and the term 'rent' as defined in the said Act does not include interest: see in this connection Koylash Chandra De...
Tag this Judgment!Sheik Eusuf Vs. Jitendra Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1933
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.195
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit instituted by the plaintiff landlord to recover the amount of Rs. 59-12-121 gds. as interest On rent payable by the tenant defendant. The claim was made by the landlord on the footing that rent and cesses from 1332 to 1334 B.S. in respect of a tenancy had been sent by postal money order and were accepted by the plaintiff, but as the rents due were not received on due dates, interest was claimed according to contract between the parties concerned. One of the pleas raised in defence by the contesting defendant was that the suit was not maintainable. The Courts below have agreed in passing a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The effect of which is that interest on rent as claimed in the suit has been made recoverable as rent. In our judgment, interest on rent cannot be held to be rent as defined by the Bengal Tenancy Act, and the term 'rent' as defined in the said Act does not include interest: see in this connection Koylash Chandra De v. T...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Nath Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal833,147Ind.Cas.999
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case the appellant was charged with rape under Section 376, I.P.C., and tried by the Sessions Judge of Burdwan and a jury who found him guilty by a unanimous verdict, and he was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. The case for the prosecution was that the girl Rajlakshmi Debi lived with her parents at Kalna. On 10th Jaistha it is alleged that she went out to the house of one Panchu Moira to a wedding of Panchu's daughter. On the way she met the appellant's wife, who asked her if she would pluck out the grey hairs from her head. She said that she would, and asked her to sit down by the roadside. But the appellant's wife asked her to go to her house to do it, so she went there. While there the appellant came in, and according to her story she was made to lie down on the bed, when the appellant's wife produced a pot containing oil, which the appellant applied to the girl's private parts and to his own, and then raped her. His wife, who was a woman o...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Chandra Naskar and anr. Vs. Narendra Nath Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal402
Mukerji, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are quite simple and the question which falls for determination therein is equally so. The two' parties are owners of lands on opposite sides of a river called Sumed Giri. In 1923 the appellants and others, as plaintiffs, sued the respondents, alleging that the latter had made openings at 31 places in the bund on the western bank of the river in order to convert their cultivable-lands into fisheries and had thereby caused injury to the fisheries which the plaintiffs had from a long time before on the opposite bank. The substantial prayers-in the plaint were the following: (Ka) a declaration in favour of the plaintiffs-affirming their right and negativing the right of the defendants to take water from the river; (kha) a mandatory injunction, on the defendants to close the 31 openings-they had made; and (ga) a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from diverting the water and so the fish on to their lands...
Tag this Judgment!Lotus Ltd. Vs. Mt. Nasiunnessaba Begum
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal600
Panckridge, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case are a company registered at Stafford in England carrying on business as boot and shoe manufacturers. They state that they are the sole proprietors of a registered trade mark known as 'Lotus' in respect of boots, shoes and slippers manufactured and sold by them. It appears that the plaintiffs are the succes-sors-in-title of a corporation known as F. Bostock & Co., Ltd., and that the trade mark has been registered in England since 1903, and in India since 1911. The plaintiffs further say that the boots, shoes and slippers manufactured by them are well known to the public generally by the name of 'Lotus', 'which name distinguishes the plaintiffs' goods from the goods of other manufacturers.2. They set out in the plaint particulars of the label which is affixed to the boxes in which their goods are sold, and also particulars of the representation of a lotus flower which is stamped upon the soles of the boots, shoes and slippers of their manufact...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »