Kolkata Court June 1934 Judgments
Sufal Chandra Golui and anr. Vs. Surendra Nath Dhara
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal90
1. It is too late now to dispute the proposition that the provisions of Section 144, Civil P. C, are by no means xhaustive as they do not pretend to cover all cases in which it becomes the duty of the Court to order restitution. In a long series of cases which were noticed by Mookerjee, J., in the case of Beni Madhab Singh v. Pran Singh (1912) 14 IC 456 it has been settled that the power of a Court to grant restitution is not confined to cases covered by the provisions of Section 144 of the Code. The power extends also to other cases because the Court has an inherent right irrespective of the section to order restitution. Such inherent right has been recognised by Section 151 of the Code. The result of applying the principle of the said section to a case which comes before the Court is that the Court has to make such order as would enable it to do effective and complete justice between the parties. It is not necessary therefore to support the order from which this appeal has been prefe...
Tag this Judgment!Prithwi Chand Lall Choudhury Vs. Elahi Buksh Mohamed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal108
ORDER1. This is an application in revision against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Dinajpur, dated 20th July 1933, reversing the order of the munsiff of Raigunj in a proceeding under Section 26-J, Beng. Ten. Act. The only ground on which the Rule was issued is that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Munsiff in appeal as the order of the Munsiff was not at all appealable. It appears from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge that he is also of opinion that the order in a proceeding under Section 26-J, Ben. Ten. Act is not appealable, but he treated the order as one under Section 158, Bong. Ten. Act. We have looked into the petition which was filed by the landlord on the basis of which the proceeding out of which the present Rule has arisen was started. It is clear from the said petition that it was only under Section 26-J, Ben. Ten. Act. The learned Judge was therefore in error in holding that it could be treated as a proceeding under ...
Tag this Judgment!Mir Abi Mohammad Ahasan and anr. Vs. Abu Nasar Mohammad Eusufali and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal223,155Ind.Cas.65
1. Two gentlemen of whom the appellant is one applied to be appointed guardian of the properties of a certain minor each to the exclusion of the other. The District Judge on taking evidence came to the conclusion that neither of these two gentlemen was fit to be so appointed and he accordingly refused their applications to be appointed as such guardian. He further observed thus:I intend first of all to consult the Collector as to whether the personal properties of the minor can be taken over by the Court of Wards of this cannot he done, I shall endeavour to appoint a third party acceptable to all contestants.2. From the order refusing his own application to be appointed guardian, the appellant has preferred this appeal. A preliminary objection has been taken to the competency of this appeal. Section 47, Guardians and Wards Act, lays down in Clause (a):An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order made by the Court under Section 7 appointing or declaring, or refusing to appoint or...
Tag this Judgment!Nirendra Lall Bhattacharyya and anr. Vs. BepIn Chandra Bhattcharyya an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal224,155Ind.Cas.696
1. The substance of the contention that has been urged on behalf of the appellant in this appeal relates to the question whether there should now be an enquiry such as is contemplated by Rule 15, Order 32 of the Code. The learned Judge was of opinion that inasmuch as there has been no adjudication of the question of soundness of mind of the plaintiff who has not been adjudged to be of unsound mind, there must be an enquiry for the purpose of determining whether by reason of unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity the said plaintiff was incapable of protecting his interests as plaintiff. It is true that there is some evidence in the shape of statements that are to be found on the record which would indicate that it was the case of the defendants as well as that the aforesaid person was of unsound mind. But the words of the rule require something more, namely that it should be found on enquiry that by reason of unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity the person is incapable of protecting...
Tag this Judgment!Jogesh Chandra Bandopadhya and anr. Vs. Mohini Mohan Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal125
1. This is an appeal by the decree-holders from an order passed by the Additional District Judge of Dacca reversing an order of the Subordinate Judge, First Court of that place, in an execution proceeding relating to a decree which is based on an award. The decree was put into execution in Execution Case No. 22 of 1931. An objection was taken on behalf of the judgment-debtors that the decree had not been drawn up on a non-judicial stamped paper as required by law. On 18th January 1932, this objection was upheld by the Subordinate Judge who ordered that the execution case should be dismissed and that the decree-holders would have liberty to have a fresh decree drawn up on a stamped paper according to law and then file a fresh application for execution. On 1st February 1932, a non-judicial stamp of 12 annas having been supplied by the decree-holder the Court which had made the decree, ordered the stamp to be annexed to the decree as originally drawn up and to have it defaced, the names o...
Tag this Judgment!Mono Mohan Vs. Upendra Mohan Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal127
1. This is an appeal by one Mono Mohan alias Panchkari Chowdhury, a judgment-debtor in a decree for money which was obtained against him by the decree-holders, Upendra Mohan Pal and others who are the respondents in this appeal. The facts necessary to be stated are the following: The suit decree was for a sum of Rs. 6,192 and the decree was passed in June 1931. The first application for execution was dismissed for default on 25th August 1931 under circumstances which do not appear in the papers before us. It appears however that on the same day, that is to say on 25th August 1931, a fresh application for execution was made on behalf of the decree-holders.2. In the course of the proceedings started on this second application some properties belonging to the judgment-debtor were put up for sale and it also appears that the decree-holders obtained the permission of the Court to bid at the proposed sale. For reasons which do not appear in any of the papers before us the second application ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahammad Ali Fakir Vs. Karam Ali Taluqdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal134,155Ind.Cas.506
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Bogra dated 30th May 1932 reversing the decision of the Munsiff of Bogra dated 31st March 1931. The suit in which this appeal has arisen is a suit brought by the plaintiffs now respondents for recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1333 to 1336 for two jamas one of Rs. 39-14-2 and the other of Rs. 3-12-0. The defence to the suit was that the landlord had dispossessed the defendant of a portion of the holding and that the rent should be suspended. The tenancy being one indivisible with a lump rental of Rs. 45 both the Courts below have come to a concurrent conclusion that the land now in possession of one Jahiruddin was at one time a part of the defendant's tenancy and further that it was abundantly clear from the evidence that the dispossession was by the landlord and that the dispossession was a forcible dispossession seeing that there was a regular fight at the time of the dispossessio...
Tag this Judgment!Gurudas Adhya Vs. Jnanendra NaraIn Bagchi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal268
1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Birbhum on 21st January 1933. The facts which gave rise to the proceedings in which the said order was passed are as follows: The appellant obtained a decree for money on 23rd August 1932 against the respondents judgment-debtors. The amount of the decree was about Rs. 14,000 or a little more. When the suit, as a result of which the said decree was passed was pending, the appellant obtained an order of attachment of certain properties before judgment. The suit was instituted and tried in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Murshidabad. On 24th September 1932, the appellant applied for execution of the decree and in the said application it was prayed in the first place that the properties which were under attachment and within the jurisdiction of the Murshidabad Court were to be proceeded against, and nextly it was prayed that certain other properties which the judgment-debtors had within the ...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Chandra Sinha Vs. the Hon'ble Lt. Satyendra Chandra Ghose Moulick ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1934
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.90
Costello, J.1. The suit out, of which this appeal arises, was brought by the plaintiff Satyendra Chandra Ghose Moulick against his uncle Arun Chandra Singha for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 50,800 said to be due from the defendant Arun Chandra on a promissory note executed by the defendant and dated August 9, 1929. There was also a claim for further interest at the rate of 9 per cent. per annum from the date of the institution of the said suit till judgment.2. The defendant in his written statement admitted the execution of the promissory note, but pleaded that there was no consideration for it. The defendant further set up a story that the real date on which the promissory note was executed by him was March 13, 1930, and not August 9, 1929, as the plaintiff averred, and that the promissory note had been ante-dated in pursuance of an agreement between the parties. It is to be observed, therefore, that the only defence raised on the pleadings, was that there had been no consideration fo...
Tag this Judgment!Kusum Kamini Debi Vs. Sailesh Chandra Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal118
1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder in an execution case. It appears that the appellant obtained a decree for Rs. 6,399-9-6 and costs Rupees 4-1-3 against the judgment-debtors. It further appears that on the application of the decree-holder the decree was split up into two parts and a certificate for the execution of one part of the decree, namely Rs. 1,500, was sent to the Subordinate Judge's Court at Dinajpur. The objection of the judgment-debtors was that the execution case was not maintainable inasmuch as the decree-holder had no right to split up the decree in this way. This objection of the judgment-debtors has been given effect to by the learned Subordinate Judge and the execution case has been dismissed. Hence the present appeal by the decree-holder.2. Section 39, Civil P.C, lays down that the Court which passed a decree may, on the application of the decree-holder send it for execution to another Court. Evidently the section contemplates that the entire decree and not a ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »