Kolkata Court May 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.
Secy. of State Vs. Sukh Chand Saw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal749,152Ind.Cas.557
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. These two Rules were issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be modified as prayed for in the petitions. The matter arises out of the fact that the opposite party purchased portions of two raiyati holdings at Rs. 90 and Rs. 35 and the Secretary of State who is the landlord in due course filed applications for pre-emption under Section 26-F, Bengal Tenancy Act. The learned Munsif has allowed the applications for pre-emption on payment of the amounts as required by Section 26-F. But in addition to the payments required by Section 26-F the Munsif has also directed the landlord, the Secretary of State, to pay the amount of Rs. 16 to the purchaser on account of certain improvements which he had effected on the land and this payment was directed to be made before the pre-emption is allowed under Section 26-F. It is urged by the the learned Government Pleader that the Court below had no jurisdiction to direct the paymen...
Prosanna Ram Ghosh and ors. Vs. Anfar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal833,153Ind.Cas.621
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the defendants. It is directed against the decree passed in Appeal No. 844 of 1929, affirming the decree passed in suit No. 91 of the same year. The contention of the appellants is that the suit was barred by limitation. The appellants are the heirs of one Kularam Ghosh who was the original defendant. The suit was brought under the provisions of Section 77, Registration Act. Registration was refused on 3rd November 1928; the suit was instituted on 1st December 1928; Kularam Ghose died on 15th December 1928, and the present appellants were substituted on 18th January 1929. There is a finding that Kularam Ghose was a lunatic when the suit was filed.2. The argument made on behalf of the appellants is that legally no suit was instituted against Kularam at all, because no guardian ad litem was appointed with the result that the suit was really instituted when the present appellants were brought on the record on 18th January 1929, by which time it would have...
Bhola Nath Chattopdhyay Vs. Mrityunjoy Chattopdhyay and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal851
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for confirmation of possession after establishment of title. The plaintiff's case is that the suit land appertained to a tenancy which he held under the superior landlord at a jama of Rs. 9-5-0 and that the defendants are threatening to dispossess him from the disputed land on the basis of an erroneous entry in the record of rights. The defence of the defendants 1 and 2 is that the disputed land is not a part of the plaintiff's tenancy and that even if it be so, the plaintiff cannot claim any title to this property, as he has not purchased the same. The Courts below have found that the Kobala, on the basis of which the plaintiff claims the disputed land, does not include the disputed land and in that view they have concurred in dismissing the suit. Hence the present appeal by the plaintiff.2. The first point urged in support of the appeal is that the Courts below erred in law in holding that in order to determine whether the ...
Premsukhdas Singhynia Vs. N.C. Bural and Pyne
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal168
Costello, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Ameer, Ali, J., dated 16th August 1932 and the order which the learned Judge made, as part of that judgment, is in these terms: The order I propose to make is as follows:(i) An order for payment of the costs of the applicant as are taxed against both respondents to this application.(ii) an order charging the fund in the hands of P.N. Sen & Co., with payment of such costs in support of the applicant's lien.(iii) an order against both respondents restraining them from withdrawing the said fund in excess of the amount due to the applicant without payment of such amount.(iv) an order restraining both defendants from satisfying the decree in this suit in any manner which will deprive the applicant for such costs.(v) the respondents to pay the costs of this application.2. (After reciting the facts, His Lordship proceeded). Put compendiously therefore the claim which Messrs. Bural & Pyne were making was that the settlement arrived at between...
Bhola Nath Chattopdhyay Vs. Mrityunjay Chattopdhyay and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1934
Reported in: 153Ind.Cas.532
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for confirmation of possession after establishment of title. The plaintiff's cage is that the suit land appertained to a tenancy which he held under the superior landlord at a jama of Rs. 9-5 0 and that the defendants are threatening to dispossess him from the disputed land on the basis of an erroneous entry in the Record of Rights. The defence of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 is that the disputed land is not a part of the plaintiff's tenancy and that even if it be so, the plaintiff cannot claim any title to this property, as he has not purchased the same. The Courts below have found that the kobala, on the basis of which the plaintiff claims the disputed land, does not include the disputed land and in that view they have concurred in dismissing the suit. Hence the present appeal by the plaintiff.2. The first point urged in support of the appeal is that the Courts below erred in law in holding that in order to determine whether...
Ramgopal Das Naskar and ors. Vs. Purnachandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal619
Henderson, J.1. The question raised in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen is whether the disputed land belongs to the residuary share or to separate account No. 3 of Touzi No. 1 of the 24.Pargana Collectorate. The defendants, appellants are transferees of one Atul Chatterjee, who purchased the residuary share at a sale held for realisation of arrears of revenue. The learned Munsiff gave the plaintiffs a decree which was affirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal. Both the Courts found that the property formed part of the separate account and the trouble was due to clerical mistakes made by clerks in the Collectorate. The first point taken on behalf of the appellants is that the lower Courts were not justified in coming to this finding of fact because certain documents were misconstrued. On the other hand it has been naturally contended for the plaintiffs that this is a finding of fact which cannot be questioned in second appeal. There can be no question that by mista...
Bhagabat Prasanna Shah Shankanadhi Vs. Rai Revati Mohan Das Bahadur an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal818,153Ind.Cas.126
ORDER1. This rule is directed against an order passed by the learned District Judge of Dacca, directing that the petitioner Bhagabat Prasanna Saha be arrested and sent in custody to the Sheriff of Calcutta in execution of a writ issued by Panckridge, J., sitting on the original side of the Court to the Sheriff of Calcutta with orders directing its transfer for execution to the Court of the District Judge of Dacca, Under Section 136, Civil P. C. On behalf of the petitioner it is urged that the order was made as a punishment for contempt and not being one made under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code but in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, Section 136 of the Code had no application and the warrant could not be executed outside the territorial limits of the ordinary Original Jurisdiction of the Court which does not extend to the mofussil. The order directing the execution of the warrant in the District of Dacca was therefore without jurisdiction and the order di...
Sm. Annapurna Dassi and ors. Vs. Sarat Chandra Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal157
ORDER1. This rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why two orders of the District Judge of Hooghly dated 7th June 1933 and 11th July 1933 should not be set aside. The order of 7th June was that the suit must be valued at the valuation of the decree itself and in that view the learned District Judge allowed the petitioners time for six weeks in which to pay the deficit court-fee on the valuation of Rs. 13,000 and he further directed that if the petitioners complied with this order they would be permitted to proceed with the suit, otherwise the appeal would stand dismissed with costs. The petitioners failed to comply with this order and then the learned District Judge on 11th July 1933 dismissed the petitioners' appeal with costs and he added that the petitioners were liable to pay Rs. 242-8-0 as additional court fees for the appeal to the Government.2. A preliminary point has been taken in opposing this rule, namely, that a second appeal lies against the order ...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Bhagirath Mahto a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal610
Patterson, J.1. This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Lagal Affairs, Bengal, against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Midnapur, dated, 7th July 1933, by which he acquitted one Bhagirath Mahato and his three sons Uma Charan, Mahesh and Mahinti in respect of the charges Under Sections 147, 342/34 and 323, I.P.C. on which they had been tried. The complainant, a certain Mr. Crawley, being a European British subject, the trial was held under the provisions . of Section 446, Criminal P.C, the jury being chosen in the manner laid down in Section 275 of that Code. At the conclusion of the trial the jury, by a majority of 3 to 2 found all the accused not guilty in respect of all the charges, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, accepting the verdict of the majority of the jury, recorded an order of acquittal. It may here be observed that two of the respondents, namely, Bhagirath and Mahesh, died during the pendency of this appeal, so the appeal is now onl...
Keratali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal616,150Ind.Cas.980
Patterson, J.1. The petitioner, Karat Ali, was arrested at Sitakund Railway Station on 31st December 1932, along with three other persons, named Abdul Jalil, Azahar and Badu Mia. Two seers of opium were found on the person of each of the petitioner's three companions, and another two seers of opium, wrapped up in a quilt, were found OK. the rack in the compartment in which they all four had been travelling. All four were sent up for trial under the Opium Act. Abdul Jalil, Azahar and Badu Mia pleaded guilty and were convicted and sentenced. The petitioner pleaded not guilty, and was tried separately on the allegation that the two seers of opium wrapped up in a quilt that was found on the rack had been in his possession. He was convicted by a Deputy Magistrate of Chitagong Under Section 9(c), Opium Act, 'and was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 and in default to undergo a further period of four months' rigorous imprisonments On appeal, the Magis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »