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.
AptabuddIn Khan and anr. Vs. Johar Ali Kazi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal201,155Ind.Cas.75
Patterson, J.1. This is an appeal by two of the defendants, and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf of the other inhabitants of a village called Piparia, for a declaration that a certain strip of land forms part of the village gopat, for an order on the defendants to fill up a tank that they have excavated in such a way as to block the gopat, and for certain other reliefs. The strip of land in suit lies to the west and north of the defendants charabari, and according to the defendants' case, it forms part of their charabari, while according to the plaintiff's it is the zemindar's khas land and forms part of a village gopat that has existed and has been used by them from time immemorial.2. It is undisputed that a village gopat runs from south to north through the part of the village to the south of the defendants' charabari, and also that a similar gopat runs from south to north through the part of the village to the north thereof. The plaint...
Jasoda Kumar Roy Choudhury and ors. Vs. Abdul Rahaman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal768,152Ind.Cas.930
Nasim Ali, J.1. These three appeals arise out of three suits for ejectment. The plaintiffs' case in all the suits is that the defendants held the disputed lands as under-raiyats under the plaintiffs, that the terms of the under-raiyati leases expired, that the defendants ware therefore not entitled to remain in possession of the lands after the expiration of the terms of the leases. The defence in all the suits was that though the terms of their under-raiyati leases, had expired, the defendants were entitled to remain on the land by virtue of the provisions of Section 48.0 of the new Bengal Tenancy Act. In Section A. No. 1911 arising out of Suit No. 63 there was another objection on behalf of the defendants that the suit for ejectment was not maintainable as all the landlords had not joined in the suit. The Courts below have concurred in dismissing the suit. Hence the present appeal by the plaintiffs. It has been found by the Courts below that the terms of the under-raiyati leases expi...
Bibhuti Bhusan Mozumdar Vs. Majibar Rahaman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal842,153Ind.Cas.247
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by Ameer Ali, J., in a mortgage suit. The preliminary decree in the suit was made on 7th May 1930, and the Registrar reported that Rs. 5,110 odd was due to the plaintiff. In the final decree, made on 14th December 1931, it was ordered inter alia that the premises be sold; and in pursuance of these two decrees, the property was sold on 3rd February 1933, and purchased by one Haji Abdur Rahim for Rs. 6,450, The sale was subsequently confirmed, and after payment of the commission of the Registrar and the Accountant-General, there is now lying in Court standing to the credit of the suit a sum of Rs. 6,151 odd. The plaintiff's dues amount now to Rs. 6, 530 odd, and apart from his costs, which have not yet been taxed, the money in Court will not be sufficient to meet his claim, and he has given up his costs up to the preliminary decree. That being the position, the plaintiff asked for payment to him out of the sum lying in Court.2. ...
Tofazzal Ahmed Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Masalat Khan Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal747,152Ind.Cas.484
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case a Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Munsif, North Raozan, complained of in the petition should not be set aside or why such other or further order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. The petitioner's case is that Ram Sundar De and others held certain lands under the petitioners and their co-sharers and that the said tenants sold their holding to the opposite party describing the same as a mokarari holding and served a notice on the petitioners with landlord's fee of Re. 1 only and the petitioners made an application under Section 26-J, Ben. Ten. Act, claiming that the holding was a raiyati holding and that they were entitled to transfer fee and compensation under Section 26(J). The Munsif on hearing the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the holding was mukarari, held at a fixed rent and rejected the petitioners' application.2. In this Court it has been urged by...
Laduram Hiralal Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal834,153Ind.Cas.867
M.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case a Rule issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the judgment dated 25th July 1933 and the amended judgment dated 26th August 1933 in the Small Cause Court suit of the Sealdah Court as complained of in the petition should not be modified or why such other or further order should not be passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper. Upon hearing the learned advocates on both sides and upon consideration of the record the facts appear to be as follows: On 13th October 1931 at Kalukhali the plaintiff offered to the Railway Station 63 bales of jute for delivery at Cossipore Road Station near Calcutta, The officers of the Railway found that of these 63 bales, 31 bales were jute of good quality but 32 bales consisted of damaged jute which they declined to book as ordinary goods. They were booked under Risk Note A, being in bad condition, liable to damage, leakage or wastage in transit. The 63 bales however were all put into the same waggon and t...
Sailendra Nath Das and anr. Vs. Saroj Kumar Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal823,153Ind.Cas.272
1. As regards the power of this Court Under Order 45, Rule 13 of the Code to stay further proceedings in the suit as distinguished from proceedings in execution, we are not prepared to dissent from the view taken in the case of Laliteswar Singh v. Bhabeswar Singh, (1909) 1 IC 812. That decision has been followed in Ram Narain v. Harnam Das, 1919 All 14, and though referred to in other cases does not appear to have been ever dissented from. But it is now well settled that apart from the aforesaid provision of the law there is abundant inherent power in this Court to stay such proceedings in a suitable case. One of the latest cases in which such inherent power has been recognised is the case of Sarat Kumar Roy v. Official Assignee Bengal, 1931 Cal 79. And indeed from what the Judicial Committee have said on more occasions than one as regards the advisability on the part of this Court to deal with matters of this description, at least in the first instance, it would seem that such power h...
Golam Mustapha Vs. Hanumandas Mundra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal80,155Ind.Cas.321
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of an occupancy holding on the allegation that it has been abandoned by the recorded tenant. The case for the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint is that defendant 3 was the original occupancy raiyat in respect of the land in suit, that defendants 1 and 2 are now in possession of this entire holding on the basis of purchase, and that defendant 3 is not in possession of any portion of the holding. It is on these allegations that the plaintiff wanted khas possession of the land. Defendant 1, who contested the suit, resisted the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the original tenant, that is defendant 3, was still in possession of a portion of the land, that there was not a transfer of the entire holding, inasmuch as the purchase of defendant 2 was only a benami purchase and was for the benefit of defendant 3. Defendant 2 and 3 did not appear and contest the plaintiff's claim. The trial Court held tha...
Ahamed Muhammad Paruk Vs. Praphullanath Tagore
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1934
Reported in: 154Ind.Cas.524
Costello, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of Panckridge, J., dated August 22, 1933. That judgment was given by the learned Judge when exercising the Insolvency Jurisdiction of this Court and in connection with a petition for adjudication, presented by one Praphullanath Tagore against Ahamed Muhammad Paruk. The petition set out that Paruk was justly and truly indebted to the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 1,05,647-15-9, being the total amount of several decrees which had been obtained by the petitioner in a number of suits, particulars of which are set forth in para. 2 of the petition. The petition alleged that within three months of the date of the presentation of the petition, Paruk had committed certain acts of insolvency. They are set forth in this form:(a) that in execution of the decree obtained by me against the said Ahamed Muhammad Paruk and others for Rs. 10,270 1-9, in Rent Suit No. 2 of 1932, in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge of Faridpur, which was subseq...
Ananda Charan De Vs. Mahalakshmi De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal795
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is a petition by the judgment-debtor. The facts are that in execution of a money decree of 1930 the petitioner's property now in suit was sold in auction on 26th January 1931 and purchased by opposite party No. 6. Thereafter on 16th March 1932 the petitioner filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C, to set aside the sale. Meantime opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 who are co-sharer landlords in respect of the property applied under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act, for pre-emption. While that petition of pre-emption was pending on 23rd May 1932, the decree-holder the auction purchaser and the judgment-debtor together filed a petition of compromise by which they agreed that the sale should be set aside. The Court passed the following order:The petition of compromise filed by both parties be kept on the record and put upon the date fixed for necessary orders. Thereafter on the prayer of the opposite parties they were made parties to the sale set aside case and...
ShamsuddIn Ahmed Vs. Charu Chandra Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal621
Roy, J.1. The plaintiff is an elected Councillor of the Calcutta Corporation and on 20th April last filed this suit on behalf of himself and other elected Councillors of the Calcutta Corporation for a declaration that the plaintiff and the other persons on whose behalf the rait has been instituted are the only Councillors entitled to attend the meeting of 21st April 1934 and subsequent meetings of the Calcutta Corporation, for a declaration that the plaintiff and the said other persons on whose behalf the suit has been brought along with the Alderman alone constitute the whole Corporation under the Calcutta Municipal Act, for a declaration that the appointment of the defendants is illegal, and that they are not entitled to take part in the proceedings of the Corporation, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from attending any meeting of the Calcutta Corporation or from acting any way as Councillors of the Corporation.2. On the day the plaint was filed an application was mad...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »