Kolkata Court April 1934 Judgments
Damodar Saha Vs. Aswini Kumar Saha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal846,153Ind.Cas.807
1. This is an appeal against an order of the lower Court directing that the plaintiff appellant's fuit be disposed of in terms of the draft solenama. A preliminary point has been raised that there having been no appeal against the decree the appeal against the order for the compromise to be recorded is incompetent. In support of this the case of Bengal Coal Co. v. Apcar Collieries Ltd., 1926 Cal 412, has-been relied on. On the other hand in the case of Provabati Debya v. Sarojini Devi, 1933 Cal 72, it has been held that an appeal lies, their Lordships holding that the decision in the former case is no longer good law in view of the Full Bench decision in Taleb Ali v. Abdul Aziz, 1929 Cal 689, in which it has been held that an appeal against a preliminary decree lies although there has been no appeal against the final decree. It is true that the Full Bench case distinctly refers to preliminary decrees and not to-interlocutory orders but the same principle applies in the case of an order...
Tag this Judgment!Prafulla Nath Tagore Vs. A.M. Paruk
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal13
Jack, J.1. This is an appeal against the dismissal of an execution case and an order withdrawing the attachment of the judgment-debtor No. 70's share in the attached properties. Certain rent decrees were passed against this judgment-debtor and others and against these decrees nine title suits were instituted on the ground that the rent decrees were null and void having been obtained by traud and misrepresentation. The trial Court issued an order for injunction restraining execution of the rent decrees pending the hearing of the title suits. Against that order there was an appeal to the District Judge of Backerganj who modified the order to the extent that he ordered that execution might proceed against the tenures in arrears only without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff which might be determined in the title suits and that all other proceedings should be stayed pending the disposal of the title suits. Thereafter the Subordinate Judge in the execution case passed the order which...
Tag this Judgment!Hafijuddi and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal678
1. The prisoners Hafijuddi (Hafijuddin) alias Bengu, Asgar Ali, Har Chandra De (Chowkidar) alias Hari Chandra De alias Hari Chowkidar, Kalai Prodhan, Syed Ali (Haji), Kadam Ali Sarkar Maharam Ali Talukdar alias Mohor Ali, Abdul, Jahar Ali and Kali Prosonna De were tried before the Sessions Judge of Tippera and a Jury, as concerned in the murder of one Hari Dutta alias Proka Chandra Dutta, on 12th March 1933. The accused Hafijuddi, Maharam Ali, and Kalai Prodhan were charged substantively with murder, Under Section 302, I.P.C.; all the accused were charged Under Section 149 read with Section 302, I.P.C., and they were further charged Under Section 120-B read with Section 302, I.P.C. In consonance with the majority verdict of the jury, the learned Sessions Judge convicted Hafijuddi, Asgar Ali, Har Chandra De Chowkidar and Kalai Prodhan Under Sub-section 120/302, 147 and 149/302, and under each of the Sub-section 120-B/302 and 149/302, I.P.C., and sentenced them to death. The prisoners Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Mahamad HossaIn Khan Vs. Mansur Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal809,153Ind.Cas.366
ORDER1. This is an application by the plaintiff for leave to prefer an appeal to His Majesty in Council. The plaintiff instituted the suit asking for a permanent injunction on the defendants, with reference to a plot of land, restraining them from mooring any boat of paddy on the plot carrying on paddy business thereon and also exercising other rights incidental to the said business on it and praying further for a declaration that the defendants have no right to carry on their Gulla business on the said land. The defendants resisted the claim alleging that they had acquired the rights which were disputed on behalf of the plaintiff, under a grant from some predecessor of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that the rights which his predecessor had conferred were confined only to the banks of a khal called the Jinjira Khal and did not extend to the land in suit. In the plaint the plaintiff valued the disputed rights at Rs. 2000, the injunction at Rs. 100 and th...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Chandra and anr. Vs. Labanya Kumar Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal755,153Ind.Cas.141
1. This is an appeal by defendants 2 and 3 in a money suit. Plaintiff's case was that defendant 1 was a managing partner of a joint family business of which his brother defendant 3 and his cousin, defendant, 2, were partners and that as the managing partner of the business defendant: 1 borrowed a sum of Rs. 700 from the plaintiffs and applied the money to the use of the business. Certain payments were made from time to time. Ultimately defendant 1 executed a fresh promissory note for Rs. 890. Defendant 1 did not contest the suit. Defendants 2 and 3 contended that there was no joint family business and that ,no money was borrowed from the plaintiffs for any such business by defendant 1. The trial Court accepted the defence, decreed the suit ex parte against defendant 1 and dismissed it with costs against defendants 2 and 3. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge found that there was a joint family business of the three defendants, that defendant 1 who was a partner of that business bor...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Gobinda Chowdhuri Vs. Maharaja Rao Jogendra Narayan Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal812,153Ind.Cas.304
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why the order of the District Judge of Pabna refusing the application of the petitioner for setting aside a patni sale Under Section 14-A, Patni Regulation, should not be set aside. The facts giving rise to the rule are as follows:2. A patni belonging to the petitioner was sold under the Patni Regulation at the instance of the opposite party No. 1, the zamindar, on 15th May 1933 and was purchased by the opposite parties 2 and 3 for Rs. 16,000 out of which Rs. 4,000 was deposited on that day. On 18th May 1933, Bengal Act 4 of 1933 came into operation. By this Act the defaulting patnidar was given the right of getting the patni sale set aside on conditions analogous to those contained in Section 174, Ben. Ten Act and Rule 89, Order 21, Civil P. C. On 22nd May the purchasers deposited the balance of the purchase money. On 13th June 1983 the petitioners applied to the Collector under the new provisions which are...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra Das and anr. Vs. Narayan Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal786,152Ind.Cas.97
1. In this case a rule was issued on the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside or why such other or further order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit on the grounds stated in the petition. The facts are that the opposite party had brought a suit on accounts valuing their suit at Rs. 1,200 and paying court-fees upon that amount. The trial Court finally decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 9,154. Against that decree the* petitioner made an appeal. The Court of appeal below on a preliminary objection came to the conclusion that the appeal is to be valued for the purposes of court-fees at Rs. 9,154 only and that the court-fee payable on that sum is Rs. 705 and that this court-fee must be paid or the appeal will stand dismissed.2. It is urged before us that the plaintiffs, opposite party, having paid the court-fees on Rs. 1,200 only the petitioners are not bound to pay the court-fee for a larger sum specially because the plaintiffs have n...
Tag this Judgment!Mohendra Nath Banerjee Vs. Roy Satish Chandra Choudhury Bahadur and an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal569,150Ind.Cas.985
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of an application Under Section 47 Civil P. C, in an execution case in which it is sought to realize from the petitioner Mohendra Nath Banerjee, Rs. 6,106 due under a mortgage decree by enforcing a security bond executed by him. Mohendra was a puisne mortgagee. The decree-holders in March 1929 obtained a mortgage decree for sale of the property mortgaged for the realization of Rs. 59,984 with interest up to the date of payment. Mohendra appealed against the decree and obtained a stay of execution on condition of executing a security bond for Rs. 5,000 as security for the increase of interest which would be due owing to the stay of execution pending the appeal. The appeal was dismissed and the property was sold in March 1932 for Rs. 65,000 the decretal amount having in the meantime mounted up to Rs. 70,446 with further interest.2. The order of the Court dated 20th December 1929, shows that the petitioner was ordered to execute a security bond making...
Tag this Judgment!Pranballav Saha and anr. Vs. Bhagban Chandra Seal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal775,152Ind.Cas.429
Mitter, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs under Section 15 of the Letters Patent from a decision of my learned brother Mukerji, J., and arises in an action commenced by the appellants for enforcing a mortgage security. It is not necessary to restate the facts as they have been stated with sufficient fulness by my learned brother Mukerji, J. The question of law which falls for determination in this appeal is whether defendant 8 who is a purchaser of a portion of the equity of redemption is entitled to redeem his property only when subsequent to his purchase, the plaintiffs without the knowledge, of the said purchase released from the mortgage some other of the mortgaged properties. The contention of the plaintiffs-appellants before us is that it is only when the mortgagee grants a partial release with the knowledge of change of ownership of a part or the whole of the mortgaged properties that a partial redemption is to be allowed and that where he does so without any...
Tag this Judgment!Sourish Chandra Roy Bahadur Vs. Saroj Ranjan Singha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal571,150Ind.Cas.1019
Mitter, J.1. These seven appeals arise out of seven suits instituted in the Court of the Additional Sub-ordinate Judge of Nuddea for the setting aside of a sale held under the provisions of the Putni Regulation (Reg. VIII of 1819). The Suit No. 174 of 1927 to which the renumbered 3 of 1930. First Appeal No. 205 relates was brought by Saroj Ranjan Sinha and others, now respondents, who are co-sharers to the extent of eight annas in the patni tenure which has been sold, the other eight annas co-sharer, a lady of the name of Joy Durga Dasi, having been impleaded as a pro forma defendant as she did not join in the suit. The principal defendant to the suit was the Hon'ble Maharaja Khaunish Chandra Roy of Krishna-nagar, who died pending suit on 22nd May 1928, leaving behind him an infant son Kumar Sourish Chandra Roy whose estate was taken charge of by the Court of Wards and the suit was defended by the Collector of Nadia through the Manager Birendra Nath Roy at all subsequent stages.2. Appe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »