Kolkata Court May 1934 Judgments
Purna Chandra Choudhury Vs. Sarojini Choudhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal234,155Ind.Cas.1027
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for a declaration that the darpatni patta granted by the plaintiff to the defendant is invalid and inoperative and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking possession of the property leased out by the darpatni patta. The plaintiff's case briefly stated is as follows: Jadab Chandra Chowdhuri, the plaintiff's husband, died in 1323 B.S. leaving two widows, the plaintiff and Indureka and a daughter by Indurekha who has been married to one Ghanashyam. Indu Rekha subsequently died, consequently the plaintiff became the 16 annas malik of the property left by her husband. One of the properties left by her husband is Jalkar which was acquired by the plaintiff's husband on payment of Rs. 1,000 as Nazar on an annual rental of Rs. 180. After the death of the plaintiff's husband the plaintiff and her co-wife Indurekha were in possession of all the properties left by her husband. Ghanashyam managed these properties ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Dad Ali Vs. JamiruddIn Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal715
Henderson, J.1. These three appeals are by the plaintiff. He and one Shufi Khaleque purchased estate No. 1613 of the Burdwan Collectorate at a sale held for arrears of revenue. This Khaleque later sold his share to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then instituted 22 suits in order to obtain khas possession of various portions of this estate. In the three suits with which the present appeals are concerned the defendants are in possession under proprietors of adjoining toujis and their case was that the lands did not appertain to touji No. 1613. They made a further defence that in any case they were protected from ejectment because they took settlement bonafide. It is now not disputed that the lands belonged to the appellant's estate. The defendants however maintained that their case was covered by the decision in Benod Lal Pakrashi v. Kalu Pramanik. (1893) 20 Cal 708. The learned Munsif over-ruled this contention and gave the plaintiff decrees. The defendants appealed and the learned Subord...
Tag this Judgment!Mukhram Agarwalla and ors. Vs. S. Ehsan Ahmad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal764a,152Ind.Cas.770
1. This rule is issued on the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and order dated 5th September 1933 of the Subordinate Judge of Darjeeling in Mortgage Execution Case No. 9 of 1933 should not be set aside and the sale confirmed. The circumstances are as follows: The decree-holders Mukhram Agarwalla and others obtained a decree against Section Ehsan Ahmad and others and in execution of that decree, they on 4th August 1933 purchased in auction sale the properties of the judgment-debtors worth Rs. 7,000. On the date of sale and shortly before the sale was held Mukhram Agarwalla and another and Nagar Chand Goenka Agarwalla proprietor and partner of the firm of Pokurmull Shew Narayan applied for rateable distribution in execution of the decree held by them against the judgment-debtor. The learned Subordinate Judge directed rateable distribution of their decree which was for Rs. 6,125. It is against this order that this rule has been issued and also against the order of the Court d...
Tag this Judgment!Leath Elies Joseph Solomon Vs. H. C. Stork
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal758
1. This Rule has been issued to the learned 1st Land Acquisition Collector in connexion with his order dated 1st September 1933 rejecting the petitioner's application requiring a reference to the Collector under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act for decision of her objection to the amount of an award made by the Land Acquisition Collector under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. The application was rejected on the ground that it was noli within the time allowed by law. A preliminary point was raised that this Court has no jurisdiction in revision either under Section 115, Civil P. C., or under Section 107, Government of India Act. The High Court has no powers of revision unless the ease is decided by a Court Subordinate to the High Court, viz. subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. It is true that a decision of the Collector as to the amount of an award may indirectly come before the High Court in ! its appellate jurisdiction where a reference has been made to th...
Tag this Judgment!Leath Elies Joseph Solomon Vs. H.C. Stork
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1934
Reported in: 153Ind.Cas.938
1. This Rule has been issued to the learned First Land Acquisition Collector in connection with his order dated September 1, 1933, rejecting the petitioner's application requiring a reference to the Collector under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, for decision of her objection to the amount of an award made by the Land Acquisition Collector under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. The application was rejected on the ground that it was not within the time allowed by law. A preliminary point was raised that this Court has no jurisdiction in revision either under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code or under Section 107, Government of India Act. The High Court has no powers of revision unless the case is decided by a Court subordinate to the High Court, viz., subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. It is true that a decision of the Collector as to the amount of an award may indirectly come before the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction where a reference has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Nurul Anwar and ors. Vs. Sm. Golenoor Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal845,153Ind.Cas.289
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is only concerned with one Small point but it will be necessary to set out the facts at some length. There was a certain suit, No. 549 of 1925, instituted in the Munsif's Court at Uluberia in which the present plaintiffs were defendants. There was a reference to arbitration. The present plaintiffs were minors and were represented by a pleader guardian. The natural guardians then got the pleader discharged and themselves represented the minors. They assented to the reference which was therefore complete. The learned Munsif did not expressly note on the record his sanction to this agreement. Eventually an award was made and a decree passed in accordance with the award. The minors then instituted the present suit in which they asked for various reliefs. As usual in these cases, various allegations were made against the natural guardians. The learned Munsif took one view of the conduct of these ladies whereas the learned Subordinate Judge took another. The learn...
Tag this Judgment!Nalini Kumar Roy Vs. Kamini Kumar Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal93
Hendeeson, J.1. This appeal is by defendant 1. The plaintiff and this defendant had a share in a certain separate account in a certain taluk. They leased the land in question to pro forma defendants 2 to 6 who sold it to defendant 1 in 1328. The plaintiff then instituted the present suit to establish his title and to get joint possession with defendant 1. The munsif decreed the suit. There was an appeal to the District Court and the learned Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal dismissed it. Defendant 1 has therefore appealed to this Court. The chief point taken on behalf of the appellant is that the plaintiff cannot get any relief unless he makes all the proprietors of the Taluk parties to the suit. On behalf of the respondent Mr. De has contended that this argument really confuses joint owners with joint landlords. I am clearly of opinion that this is correct. The only persons among the owners with whom there was any relationship of landlord and tenant on the part of defendants 2 to...
Tag this Judgment!Nalini Kumar Ray Vs. Kamini Kumar Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1934
Reported in: 154Ind.Cas.712
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by defendant No. 1. The plaintiff and this defendant had a share in a certain separate account in a certain taluk. They leased the land in question to pro forma defendants Nos. 2 to 6 who sold it to defendant No. 1 in 1328. The plaintiff then instituted the present suit to establish his title and to get joint possession with defendant No. 1. The Munsif decreed the suit. There was an appeal to the District Court and the learned Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal dismissed it. Defendant No. 1 has, therefore, appealed to this Court. The chief point taken on behalf of the appellant is that the plaintiff cannot get any relief unless he makes all the proprietors of the taluk parties to the suit, On behalf of the respondent Mr. De has contended that this argument really confuses joint owners with joint landlords. I am clearly of opinion that this is correct. The only persons among the owners with whom there was any relationship of landlord and tenant On the ...
Tag this Judgment!imadul Huq Vs. Moni Mohan Basu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal820,152Ind.Cas.889
1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Khulna setting aside the dismissal of an execution case and directing the Court of first instance to proceed with the case. The application for execution was filed by the purchaser of the decree Under Order 21, Rule 16. This judgment-debtor filed an objection Under Section 47, Civil P. C, and contended that the purchase was a sham and paper transaction and the purchaser had no right to put the decree into execution because the judgment-debtor had got a cross-decree for a larger sum against the transferee decree-holder. The trial Court held that under the provisions of Section 49 and Order 21, Rule 18, Civil P. C., a decree for a less amount could not be executed even by a purchaser of the decree. He also mentioned that on the evidence he was not satisfied that the alleged purchase by the applicant was a bona fide one for consideration. The learned District Judge has held that:Order 21. Rule 18 merely lays down the manner of...
Tag this Judgment!Bengal Nagpur Ry. Co. Ltd. Vs. Ruttanji Ramji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal347
Mitter, J.1. The action which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiffs, now respondents, to recover Rs. 1,66,493-4-0 from B.N. Ry. Co., on account of price of work done by the plaintiffs as members of a joint Mitakshara family in a certain section of the construction known as the Amda-Jamda Branch. The case stated in the plaint is that the defendants offered to the father of the plaintiffs Ramji Madhoji, who is now dead, contract work in the said construction subject to his signing certain schedules which are usually printed forms of agreement; that the plaintiffs' father signed the schedules for earthwork, bridge work and miscellaneous work and delivered the schedules to the District Engineer of Chaibasa; that after carrying on the works for two or three months plaintiffs and father discovered the work to be unusually difficult and expensive and the scheduled rates to be grossly inadequate and the conditions contained in the schedule were hard and unjust.2. The cont...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »