Kolkata Court November 1934 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.
Bhupati Charan Basu Vs. Chandi Charan Basu Mallik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal154
Mitter, J.1. Two questions arise in this appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Hooghly refusing letters of administration to the estate of one Bhuban Mohan Roy who died on 23rd November 1930. The proponent, who is now the appellant before us, set up a Will said to have been executed by Bhuban Mohan several years before his death. Bhuban died leaving behind him a widow, Krishna Bhabini Dassi, but no issue. The widow died shortly after on 20th February 1931. The widow had two sisters, Karuna Moyee Dasi and Ayhore Moni Dasi. Chandi Charan Basu Mallik, who is the respondent before us, is a son by the first sister, and Bhupati Charan Bose, who is the applicant for letters of administration, is the son by the last named sister. According to the ordinary law of inheritance the applicant as well as the objector would be entitled to a share in the properties of Bhuban after the death of the widow in case of his dying intestate. When the application for letters of administration with...
Helim Ulla Vs. Hakim Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal157a
Mitter, J.1. This appeal must be dismissed. The plaintiff instituted a suit in the year 1922 for possession being Suit No. 286 of that year for declaration of title alleging that he had been dispossessed from the lands by the defendants in Chait 1326 B.S. While the suit was pending the plaintiff made an application to withdraw the suit on the plea that the matter would be settled out of Court through the intervention of arbitrators. In this application he did not ask the Court to reserve in his favour a right to bring a new suit on the same cause of action in case the settlement out of a Court through arbitration fell through. On 17th February 1923, the Court permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and as no leave to institute a new suit on the same cause of action had been prayed for no order granting leave was passed. Eventually there was a reference to arbitration out of Court but that arbitration failed. The plaintiff now institutes the suit basing his claim on the same title ...
Satyanarayan Banerjee and anr. Vs. Dinesh Chandra Roy Choudhury and an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal388
1. This is an appeal arising out of an insolvency proceeding started at the instance of a creditor. The question raised before the learned District Judge of the 24-Parganas, which has given rise to this appeal was whether the Judge was right in interpreting or confining the word 'moveable' to machineries, as was done by him in his order dated 27th November 1933, when the learned Judge was apparently asked to determine what his predecessor in office meant by 'moveables' in his order of 8th May 1933, passed in Insolvency Case No. 14 of 1931, in the Court of the District Judge of the 24-Parganas. The creditors applying for adjudication, the appellants in this Court, placed before the Court a document purporting to be a mortgage-deed, in which both moveable and immovable properties were hypothecated. The document however was not a registered one, and the transaction evidenced by the same could not therefore operate as valid mortgage of immovable property under the law. It could not affect ...
Phani Bhusan Basu and ors. Vs. Shashi Bhusan Maity
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal391
1. This appeal has arisen out of an application made by an insolvent purported to have been made under Section 28(2) Prov. Ins. Act, for having it declared that a sale in execution of a decree was void, on the ground that the sale having taken place without the leave of the insolvency Court, could not be allowed to stand. There is no question that the order of adjudication under the Provincial Insolvency Act was passed on 22nd April 1933, and the order related back to the date of the presentation of the petition for insolvency, on 21st November 1930, and as such the order of adjudication must be taken to have been in force when the sale in question took place on 15th March 1932. The only point for consideration in the case before us therefore is whether the application before the Court with the prayer for declaration that the sale held on 15th March 1932 was void was maintainable, at the instance of the insolvent whose properties had at the time of the application vested in the receive...
Abdul Khaleque Vs. Susil Chandra Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1934
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.603
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate of Sylhet affirming the decree for possession passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Sylhet, in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. The plaintiffs fall into 3 groups, the second and third groups claiming as tenants and sub-tenants, respectively of the plaintiffs of the first group.2. The root of the title of the plaintiffs of the first group, according to them, is a purchase by their predecessors from one Rajani Kanta of the lands in suit which they say are specific lands of taluq Ram bullav Nij Hissya. They also claim title by adverse possession. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge has held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the title set up by them, but they have acquired title by adverse possession.3. It appears from the record that the defendants instituted a suit in the year 1927 against the plaintiffs for possession under Section 9 of the Specific Reli...
Jagadish Chandra Maity Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal550,157Ind.Cas.1030
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. Upon hearing the advocate for the accused it appears that the petitioner's son was charged with an offence under Section 17(2), Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act in April 1932 and the said son absconded and could not be found. The petitioner was appointed a special Police Officer and was directed to produce his son at the police station. On 24th November 1933, about 18 months afterwards a Police Officer went to the petitioner's house and demanded him to produce his son whereupon the petitioner sent for his son who was said to have gone out for a walk, and when the son came back the petitioner produced him to the Police Officer without delay. Upon these facts the petitioner has been convicted under Section 212, I.P.C. The two facts upon which the learned Sessions Judge has based the conviction are (1) that the petitioner knew the whereabouts of his son and (2) that he did not himself produce the son nor gave information to the Police Officer as to the whereabouts o...
Gour Chandra Pramanik Vs. Ranaghat Peoples Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal396
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit with the prayer for a, declaration that an award made in favour of the Ranaghat People's Bank, Ltd., the defendant in the suit, under Rule 22 of the Rules framed under Section 43, Co-operative Societies Act (2 of 1912), against the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 489-8-0, was without jurisdiction, and null and void as such. It was the case of the plaintiff before the Court that the award had not the force of a decree; was not capable of execution as decree passed by a competent civil Court. The plaintiff prayed for the relief that a permanent injunction be granted to restrain the Bank for executing the award. The Bank asserted that the award was a valid award under the law, and was not liable to be called in question in any civil Court.2. The Courts below have agreed in dismissing the plaintiff's suit; and in support of the appeal to this Court it was urged that inasmuch as in the reference the Bank had included a stranger as surety for the...
Kadamali and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal551,157Ind.Cas.1004
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case accused Kadamali, has been convicted under Section 342, I.P. C, and accused Jatindra Banerjee 'has been convicted under Sections 342/109, Penal Code. No one appears to oppose the rule. Upon hearing the learned advocate for the accused petitioners, it appears that accused Kadamali was a civil Court peon and accused Jatindra was a decree-holder in a suit in the Munsif's Court. The decree was against the complainant Asutosh Roy. The decree being unsatisfied the decree-holder obtained from the Court a warrant of arrest of the judgment-debtor in execution of the decree. The warrant was made over to the accused Kadamali for execution. The complainant was arrested at about 3 p.m. on the day of occurrence in a betel shop in the (civil Court compound. The peon arrested him on the identification of the accused Jatindra and took him forthwith to the civil Court but as the Munsiff was busy in trying a title suit the judgment-debtor was detained till 5 p.m. when t...
Shahebzada Muhammad Habeeb Alum Vs. Shahebzadi Anjuman Ara Begam
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1934
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.109
Panckridge, J.1. This is an application by Shahebzadi Badshah Begam that the report of the Assistant Master and Referee be set aside and discharged and that it be directed that the petitioner do receive and recover out of the estate of Shahebzada Muhammad Sultan Alum the sum of Rs. 10,401-4-6 with costs of the reference.2. The petitioner is the daughter of Abdus Salim deceased. By an agreement come to as long ago as 1881 Abdus Salim received a monthly sum of Rs. 25 which was to inure to the benefit of the petitioner during her minority after the death of Abdus Salim. Abdus Salim died when the petitioner was a child of four months old, and the petitioner thereupon became entitled to receive the monthly sum up to the date on which she attained majority, namely, up to June 29,1918. The source of this monthly sum was the wakf estate of the Nawab of Dacca.3. The petitioner's mother was the daughter of one Shahebzada Muhammad Sultan Alum, an attorney of this Court, It appears that after the ...
Surendra Nath Saha and ors. Vs. Harendra Kumar Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal413,157Ind.Cas.224
Mitter, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, First Court of Faridpur which affirmed the decree of the Munsif, First Court of Goalundo. Four persons instituted the suit for declaration that the portion of the Khal, which is the subject-matter of the suit is a part of a public water passage and for injunction to restrain the defendants from obstructing the same. The suit was instituted by the said persons on behalf of the public. They applied for and were given the permission to sue on behalf of the public under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8,. Civil P.C.2. It is admitted that the Khal flows in a westerly direction from the Pachuria River, a tributary of the River Padma, passes over Dag No. 321, which belongs to the Secretary of State, then over Dag No. 303, which belongs to the contesting defendant, then over Dag No. 299 which belongs to one Sorojendra Shaha, and goes to a long distance towards the west. The plaintiffs' case is that i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »