Kolkata Court August 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.
Bibhu Bhusan Dutta and ors. Vs. Anadi Nath Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal87,150Ind.Cas.398
1. The facts of the case may be stated quite shortly. Three brothers, Rajendra, Debendra and Gobendra, lived in commensality as members of a joint family. They had G P. notes of the face value of Rs. 33,000 as part of their joint family properties. Gobendra held the post of Dewan under the Burdwan Raj. In 1305 (1898) he put in as securities with the Raj for his service G. P. notes of the face value of Rs. 20,000 out of the aforesaid securities. In 1309 (1902) the brothers separated in mess. In 1311 (1905) they had a partition of their properties and as a result thereof, so far as the G.P. notes are concerned, they were divided into three shares. G.P. notes of the face value of Rupees 11,000 going to each of the two brothers, Debendra and Gobendra, and to the sons of Rajendra who had by that time died. Rajendra's sons got the notes that were with the family, but Debendra could not do so as the notes of his share formed a part of the security which Gobendra had lodged with the Burdwan Ra...
Kandarpa Mohan GossaIn Vs. Akhoy Chandra Bose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal379,150Ind.Cas.179
1. For the purposes of the question which falls for determination in this appeal it would be sufficient to state the following facts: On 13th September 1916 two ladies, Surobala Dasi and Sarajubala Dasi, who were sisters, dedicated by a deed of settlement a piece of land with a temple and a house standing thereon to a deity whom they had installed and consecrated there in and appointed themselves shebaits and conveyed to themselves the said properties upon trust for the management and performance of the worship of the said deity, It was provided in the deed that the expenses of the worship were to be defrayed out of the moneys to be paid to them by the trustees of the temple, derived from properties to be settled thereafter for the maintenance thereof and that the shebaits shall have no proprietary interest in the temple and house and the land appertaining thereto and shall have no power to sell, mortgage, alienate, encumber or in any way deal therewith but shall merely be managers for...
Joy Kumar Deb Vs. JamiraddIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal307
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for ejectment of the defendant under-raiyats after notice to quit Under Section 49(b), Ben. Ten. Act of 1885. Notice was served on them on 10th April 1928 (viz. before the end of Chaitra 1334 B. S.) requiring the defendants to leave the land by the end of Chaitra 1335 B. S. Before this period expired, from February 1929 the amended Tanancy Act came into force. Admittedly if it applies the under-raiyats are not liable to ejectment, whereas if the old Act fact that the defendants were still under-raiyats after the new Act came into force, and therefore it is claimed that their rights as under-raiyats are determined by the provisions of the amended Act. This view however fails entirely to take account of the fact that immediately on service of notice Under Section 49(b) of the old Act a right to eject the tenants on and after the end of Chaitra 1335 vested in the landlord, and unless the provisions of the new Act as to ejectment after notice...
MasihuddIn and ors. Vs. Akbar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal367
Jack, J.1. These two analogous appeals have arisen out of suits for ejectment of under raiyats after service of notice Under Section 49(b), Ben. Ten. Act, of 1885. In each case the notice expired on 13th April 1929 and under the provisions of the Act the tenant was on that date liable to ejectment. But meantime Act 4 of 1928 repealed Section 49 of Act 8 of 1885. The new Act came into operation on 21st February 1929. Admittedly if the new Act applies the tenants would not be liable to ejectment as they have homesteads on the land [Section 48(c), Clause (d) proviso 1(2) ] and have been in possession for more then 12 years.2. Under Clause 6(o), General Clauses Act, the repeal of an Act shall not affect any right acquired under the Act so repealed unless a different intention appears. There is nothing in the new Act showing that it was intended to be retrospective in its effect and therefore the repeal of the old Act will not affect the right which the landlord acquired to eject the tenant...
Ashutosh Ghose Vs. Sudhangshu Bhusan Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal494
1. The plaintiff who is the appellant in this appeal and the defendant who is the respondent therein are two brothers. They had an 8 annas share and their cousin had the remaining 8 annas share in a residential house, which was joint, but for convenience of possession they were in separate possession thereof from their said cousin. Besides the dwelling house, the two brothers had various joint moveable properties, some moneys invested on interest, some G. P. notes, a Life Insurance' Policy, the worship of family deities, and also some joint debts. Disputes' having arisen between the two brothers, two proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P. C, were started against them in the Court of the Subdivisional Magistrate of Sadar (South) in Dacca. Upon that through the intervention of mutual friends and on the advice of well-wishers of them both, the two brothers voluntarily approached Mr. Sachindra Nath Chatterji, the said Magistrate, and prevailed upon him to act as arbitrator for effectin...
Khagendra Nath Ghose Vs. Monmotha Nath Manna and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal469
Mitter, J.1. In this case much unnecessary time has been wasted in argument over points which seem to be firmly settled so far as this Court is concerned. The appeal is on behalf of defendant 1 and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, now respondent, for declaration of his title to certain properties mentioned in the plaint on the allegation that he is the successor of the reversionary heir to one Kartick Manna and is entitled to the properties in suit and that a previous alienation by the heir whom he has divested is not valid. In order to understand the contention raised in this appeal it is necessary to state a few facts regarding which there is no dispute before me. It appears that the property in suit belonged to one Chandra Manna who died leaving behind him a son Kartick and a daughter Panchubala and a sister's son Rajani Kanta Manna who is defendant 2 in the present suit. Kartick was married to one Promila who died on 1st Sravan 1332 B. S. and the question arose on her...
(Prince) Gholam HossaIn Shah and ors. Vs. Altaf HossaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal328
1. This appael has arisen out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs appellants, as the members of the committee for the management of the Hooghly Imambarah, appointed under Act 20 of 1863 (I. C.) for a declaration that defendant 1, respondent has been validly removed from his office as manager or muttawali of the Hooghly Imambarah, and that defendant 2 has been validly appointed in his place. In addition to the declaration mentioned, the plaintiffs in the suit prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining defendant 1 from asserting his alleged right to the office, and interfering with defendant 2 in the execution of his duties. The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, in whose Court it was instituted, on 21st May 1929; and this appeal was preferred by three out of the five original plaintiffs in the suit. One of the plaintiffs, plaintiff 2, died before this appeal was filed; plaintiff 3 died alter the filing of the appeal to this Court.2. The history of the litigation has to b...
Gholam HossaIn Shah and ors. Vs. Sayed Muslim HossaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal348,150Ind.Cas.124
1. This appeal was, at the instance of the learned advocates for the parties concerned, heard before the appeal from Original Decree No. 248 of 1929, but as the said appeal arose out of a previously instituted suit, and inasmuch as the decision of the trial Court was given before the decision of the trial Court in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, we have dealt with the appeal No. 248 first. One of the main points argued before us in this appeal, arising out of the specific prayer in the plaint, is the same as the one decided by us in the other appeal, and our judgment in Appeal No. 248 is therefore to be treated as a part of this judgment.2. The previous history of the litigation is the same as that in the other case. The plaintiffs-respondents in this appeal, as members of the Mahomedan public, instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, with the sanction of the District Judge of Hooghly, Under Section 14 read with Section 18, Religious Endowments Act (Act 20...
Haripada Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Jagai Shao
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal511
Jack, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent in which interest on the arrears was claimed at the rate of one anna per rupee, per mensem in terms of a kabuliyat, i.e., 75 per cent, per annum. Both the Courts below decreed the suit for the rent claimed with interest at 25 per cent, per annum instead of 75 per cent, as stipulated in the kabuliyat.2. In this appeal it is contended that the Courts below erred in law (first) in not allowing interest at the contract rate and in holding that the stipulation relating to interest amounted to a penalty Under Section 74, Contract Act ; (second) in holding that the rate of interest was hard and unconscionable in the absence of any evidence to that effect and that there being no case of undue influence as mentioned in Section 16, Contract Act, the Court had no jurisdiction to re-open the contract between the parties. The only point at issue in this appeal therefore is whether Under Section 74, Contract Act, it was open to the Cour...
Hriday Kishore Nandi Vs. Hari Bhusan Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal250
ORDER1. The question in controversy between the parties in this case is whether ad valorem court-fees should be paid in view of the nature of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 3 of 1932, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 24-Parganas. The prayers made by the plaintiff in the suit, the petitioner in this Rule, are set out in the application to this Court on which this Rule was granted. The plaintiff instituted the suit in the allegation that the opposite party No. 1 has assumed office of the shebait of a private debuttar without any right to do so and has been mismanaging the debuttar estate and misappropriating the income thereof; and has committed acts of malfeasance and misfeasance, so far as this debuttar estate was concerned. The prayers made in the plaint were mainly the following: 1. A decree be passed for the removal of defendants 1 and 2 on a declaration that they have no manner of shebait right to the properties described in the plaint. 2. After declari...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »