Kolkata Court November 1934 Judgments
Sm. Charan Manjari Dasi Vs. Land Acquisition Collector
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal119
ORDER1. This Rule was directed against an order of the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge at Alipore, passed on 18th June 1934, purported to have been made under Section 32, Land Acquisition Act, disallowing certain charges and expenses as contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Section 32, incidental to the purchase of property by way of investment of money deposited in respect of acquired lands belonging to a person incompetent to alienate property.2. It appears that it was necessary to engage the services of an Attorney for the purchase of the property which had been advertised for sale by the Registrar of this Court in the Original Side. The Attorney engaged with the approval of the Special Land Acquisition Judge, made necessary investigations regarding the suitability, market value and title of the property in question; and did other things incidental to the completion of the purchase as made at the Court sale. The Attorney submitted his bill, to which objection was taken by the La...
Tag this Judgment!Prativa Nath Roy Vs. Benode Behari Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1936Cal181
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 in a suit for a declaration that the plaint lands are not saleable in execution of a rent decree and for obtaining a perpetual injunction restraining defendant 1 from putting that land to sale in execution. The plaintiffs' case briefly stated is as follows:2. The disputed land previously belonged to the pro forma defendant 1 in tenancy right under Kumar Protiva Nath Roy, defendant 1. The latter in execution of a rent decree against the pro forma defendant 2 put the suit land to sale and one Jatin Saba purchased the same. The landlord again put the disputed land to sale in execution of a decree against Jatin Saha and this time Krishna Nath Ghose purchased the tenancy. Defendant 1 again put the suit land to sale in execution of a rent decree against Krishna Nath Ghose and plaintiff purchased the disputed land at that sale and took delivery of possession through Court: that thereafter defendant 1 brought a rent suit against the pro forma de...
Tag this Judgment!Kashinath Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Paban Chandra Manna and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1936Cal169,162Ind.Cas.36
Nasim Ali, J.1. The appellants are the plaintiffs in a suit for ejectment under Section 48-C, Clause (a), Ben. Ten. Act as also for recovery of the price of Bhag produce for the years 1332 to 1335 B.S. with damages thereon. The Courts below have decreed the plaintiffs' claim for rent for the year 1335 B.S. at Rs. 40 per annum with damages thereon at 25 per cent. They agreed in dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for ejectment. Hence the present appeal by the plaintiffs. The only point urged in support of the appeal is that in view of the terms of the kabuliyat the defendants are not entitled to get the benefit of the proviso to Section 48-C, Clause (a). Assuming that this contention is correct still the plaintiff cannot succeed in the present appeal. The facts in this case are not disputed. The defendant held the under-raiyati on the basis of a registered kabuliyat dated 1306 B.S. From the terms of the kabuliyat it is clear that the tenants have got the option of paying their rent either ...
Tag this Judgment!Harendra Nath Basak and ors. Vs. Gopal Chandra Basu Thakur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal177
1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 to 5 in a suit for permanent injunction in the matter of execution of a decree in a suit for rent, (Rent Suit No. 2 of 1927, in the First Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dacca), on the ground that there was a contract between the plaintiff and the contesting defendants, before the decree was passed in the suit, that the decree was not to be executed against the plaintiff if he withdrew from the contest of the suit in which the decree was passed; the plaintiffs, case before the Court was that he did withdraw from contest, and suffered the decree to be passed in view of the contract. The plaintiff set up another agreement between the parties to the rent suit, in the nature of adjustment of the decree which was passed in the suit. As indicated already, the prayer made by the plaintiff in the suit in which the appeal has arisen, was in view of the two different agreements between the parties concerned, one for a permanent injunction, so that the decre...
Tag this Judgment!Sailendra Nath Kundu Vs. Surendra Nath Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal279
ORDER1. This Rule is directed against an order passed by the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, 24-Parganas, in title suit No. 12 of 1933, directing the plaintiff in the suit, a shebait, to pay court-fees on the plaint on the value of the subject-matter of the suit. The plaintiff in the suit prayed for a declaration that certain leases executed in respect of debuttar properties were illegal, invalid, and inoperative; there was also prayer for khas possession of the properties, covered by the leases. The leasehold properties which were the subject-matter of the suit were valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 2,000 and ad valorem court-fees were paid on that amount. It appears that a commission was appointed for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the properties in suit irrespective of the leases; and the valuation made by the Commissioner was Rs. 69,921-5-0. The plaintiff was then directed by the learned Judge to pay court-fees on the aforesaid sum of Rs. 69,921-5-0, the value of the su...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhendu Mohan Bagchi Vs. Khitish Chunder Dass Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1934
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.858
Cunliffe, J.1. This is an unfortunate type of action from the point of view of the pleadings. It is brought before the Court as if it were a suit upon two bare promissory notes, claiming principal and interest for money lent. In point of fact there are a number of very material circumstances between the parties which have never been pleaded at all. I find the facts as follows:The plaintiff and the defendant were old friends. The plaintiff was a man in better financial circumstances than the defendant. From time to time out of friendship he appears to have assisted him in his monetary difficulties. For example, on some date before the year 1927, he lent him three sums of money amounting to Rs. 1,800. For that loan the defendant signed a promissory note. In addition, the defendant was apparently in trouble with the Bengal National Bank who were pressing him for a debt. The Bank consented to take a certain form of security from him. That was a hundi drawn by the defendant upon the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Zerman Gomez Vs. Mahima Chandra Kaibarta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal399
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before me, instituted the suit for a declaration that he has 11 as 11 gds. odd share in a jalkar called the, Sutberia done, for possession and damages; in the alternative for rent. The case made by him in the plaint is that he and his co-sharers, the pro forma defendants, have a jalkar mehal recorded as touzi No. 1427 of the Bakarganj Collectorate. The jalkar is called Bishandi and comprises the rivers and dones that fall within the boundaries stated in the plaint and that Satberia done is a part of the said jalkar. He claims an exclusive right to fish therein with his co-sharers by triangular nets. In the evidence it was stated that Satberia done is a part of the river system in which ha and his co-sharers have a right of fishery, being a done that connects the Golapdi River, the Golapdi done and the Lohalia river which are shown to be big rivers in the settlement map. He does not claim the soil of the said done and his first witness ad...
Tag this Judgment!Giribala Debi Vs. Nirmalabala Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal578,157Ind.Cas.1089
1. The question arising for decision in this appeal relates to the legality or otherwise of the orders passed by the Courts below holding that arrears of maintenance allowed by a Criminal Court under Section 488, Criminal P.C., were not liable to be attached and sold in execution of a decree for costs passed by a civil Court. The orders were passed on an application made by the decree-holder under Section 60, Civil P.C. on the footing that the arrears of maintenance were debts within the meaning of the aforesaid provision of the law, and were attachable as such. The application for attachment was resisted by the judgment-debtor. The Subordinate Judge, by whom the question was dealt with in the first instance, came to the conclusion that maintenance allowance allowed by a Court was not assignable and was not liable to be attached in execution of a decree for money. The Additional District Judge, in the Court of appeal below, was of opinion that the case before the Court must be governed...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gobindlal Mohata
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1934
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.428
ORDERMcNair, J.1. This is an application by the insolvent, Gobindlal Mohata, in which he originally asked that the two orders made in his insolvency should be vacated and set aside on the ground that proceedings have been instituted by a joint Hindu family and that no such proceedings can be brought by such a family under the provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act.2. Learned Counsel, however, has informed me that he does not now press for setting aside the earlier order but that he presses the second prayer in his petition, namely, that the order dated September 15, 1933, for examination of the petitioner and Sohanlal Mohata under Section 36 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act should be vacated and set aside on the ground that the application on which that order was passed, was made by Bhimraj Pursuram which admittedly is the trading name of a joint family business. It has been referred to as a ''firm' and the petitioner points out that that term is no longer applicable t...
Tag this Judgment!Santabir Lama and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal122
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The two petitioners have filed an application under Section 491, Criminal P.C., and obtained a rule in their favour in terms of a writ of Habeas Corpus upon the authorities concerned to show cause why the petitioner should not be set at liberty. It appears that there is an allegation that these two petitioners together with three others forcibly seized within British territory a Sepoy of Pashupatinagore Court of Nepal territory, took him into Nepal territory and there assaulted him and took away some money and certain letters which he was carrying. On 2nd September 1934, an information was lodged at Sakiapokra Thana in British territory of an offence under Section 341, I.P.C., but in this matter a final report 'true' was submitted for lack of evidence. Subsequently the lieutenant Hakim of Illam Amin, a Court in Nepal territory, addressed letter No. 16 and bearing the date 16th August 1934, to the Deputy Commissioner of Darjeeling to the effect' that the five accused pe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »