Kolkata Court June 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.
Adhar Chandra Saha Vs. Gour Chandra Saha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal153a
ORDERS.K. Ghose, J.1. This Rule arises out of an application under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act. It appears that in the deed of transfer with regard to an occupancy holding the petitioner was described as the sole landlord and accordingly notice of the transfer was given to him. On 10th April 1933 he filed the application for re-purchasing the holding under Section 26-F impleading the purchaser, the opposite party 1. On 10th June following the opposite party 1 intimated to the Court that there was another cosharer landlord, namely, Reajuddin Khondkar who had not been made a party. On 8th July the petitioner stated to the Court that he did not admit Reajuddin Khondkar to be a cosharer, but that still to get over the objection he would pray that Reajuddin be added as a party. On 5th August Reajuddin was added as a party. The learned Munsif held that this addition was not made within time and accordingly he rejected the application. Against that order the present Rule has been obtained.2. ...
Mati Lal Das and ors. Vs. Aditya Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal179,155Ind.Cas.720
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs. They instituted the suit in order to recover khas possession of the land after service of notice under Section 167, Ben. Ten. Act. They had purchased a certain raiyati interest. The defendant is holding an under-raiyati. His case was that he had a right of occupancy by custom and in this he is supported by the Record of Rights. The plaintiffs denied the existence of any such custom but both the Courts have held that they failed to rebut the presumption that the Record of Rights was correct.2. Mr. Sen has contended that such a right, i.e., a right of occupancy existing by custom is not a protected interest' within the meaning of Section 160(d), Ben. Ten. Act, when the under-raiyati was created in contravention of the provisions of Section 85. This contention is supported by the decision of Mitter, J., in the case reported in Kamini v. Nepal 1932 Cal 389 and that decision has been approved by a Division Bench in Sonatan Dafadar v. Daulat ...
Brojendra Kumar Banerjee and ors. Vs. Symannessa Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal830
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This rule arises out of an application Under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act. The petitioners are cosharer landlords of a Sikimi Taluk and the opposite parties Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are other cosharer landlords. The opposite party No. 6 sold the land to opposite party 1 and a notice Under Section 26-C of the Act was served upon the petitioners on 27th April 1933. On 26th June following, the petitioners filed the application Under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act, making the aforesaid purchaser as also the aforesaid cosharer landlords parties and claiming to exercise the right of pre-emption. Opposite party 1 appeared and filed an objection stating inter alia that the petitioners and opposite parties 2, 3, 4 and 5 were not the entire body of land-lords. On 12th September 1933, the learned Munsiff passed an order in the course of which he stated that the petitioners had been misled by opposite-party 1 inasmuch as the notice of transfer itself did not mention the names of other perso...
Jnanana Prasanna Bhaduri and ors. Vs. Hemendra Nath Roy Choudhury and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal228
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by defendants 1 to 6. The plaintiff instituted the suit for a declaration of his title to and to recover khas possession of certain lands as appertaining to his Zemindari. The appellants, who were the contesting defendants, are the proprietors of another Zemindari. The plaintiff's case is that his grandmother was dispossessed by the predecessor in interest of the defendants in the year 1285. The learned Munsif decreed the suit in part. The present appellants appealed. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not established his title to some of the lands decreed in his favour and allowed the appeal in part The defendants have now appealed to this Court. The plaintiff has filed a cross-objection in which he contends that the decree of the plaintiff should be restored. Three points have been taken on behalf of the appellants: (1) that the suit is barred by limitation; (2) that it is barred under Section 149, Estates Partit...
Nitya Gopal Sadhu and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal120
ORDER1. The petitioners were on the unanimous verdict of the jury before whom their trial was held convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Burdwan, under Section 120-B, I.P.C., and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The jury found the petitioners not guilty under two other charges for which the petitioners were tried under Section 379 and Section 477, I.P.C., and the Judge accepting the verdict of jury, acquitted the petitioners of these charges. The sentences passed on the petitioners were appealable ones, and as such there was an appeal by the petitioners to the learned Sessions Judge of Burdwan. The Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 2nd December 1933, allowed the appeal before him accepting the argument for the defence that if the jury disbelieved that the petitioners committed theft, there was no remaining evidence on which a verdict of conspiracy to commit theft could possibly be based. The Sessions Judge held definitely that the verdict ret...
Lahiri and Co. Vs. Makhan Lal Basak and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal153
ORDERJack, J.1. This is an application for a review. By the appellate judgment it was ordered that the case should be sent back to the Court of appeal below to give a decree to the plaintiff as against defendant 2 subject to the rights and obligations subsisting between defendant 1 and defendant 2 which would be determined after giving the parties an opportunity to adduce evidence on the point. It was further ordered that in the event of the whole claim of the plaintiff being found not to be realisable from defendant 2 the balance of the plaintiff's decree would be realised from defendant 1. This was under the provisions of Section 232, Contract Act. It appeals that the trial Court found that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit as against the defendant (No 2) company. The suit was accordingly dismissed as against defendant 2. On appeal by defendant 1. the question of jurisdiction did not arise in the appellate Court and was not discussed. In the circumstances probably no decree coul...
Khudiram Kundu Vs. Surendra Mohan Chakraburty and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal666
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The petitioner in this rule is defendant 2. A suit was brought against two defendants by the plaintiff opposite party 1 in the Baliaghata Union Court, District Bogra, being Suit No. 110 of 1933. On the allegations made in the petition, the suit appeared to be one for recovery of arrears of rent which Under Section 75, Bengal Village Self-Government Act, would not lie in a Union Court. On 12th November 1933, before the suit was actually brought, to a hearing, the petitioner, defendant 2, made an application Under Section 81 of the Act for time in order to move the petition for transfer. But the Union Court refused the application on the ground that it was objected to by defendant 1 because he being a poor man would not be able to conduct the case at Bogra. Thereafter the Union Court decreed the suit. The petitioner filed a motion before the District Judge, but it was summarily rejected. It is contended for the opposite party in this Court that the present application Un...
Baruram Kalowar Vs. Upendra Nath Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal822,152Ind.Cas.1059
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is a petition by an auction purchaser against an order of the Munsif of Howrah who allowed the opposite parties to pay the decretal amount Under Order 34, Rule 5 and thereafter set aside the sale. The facts in short are that the property in question belonged to one Debidin Kalwar and on account of arrears of municipal rates the Chairman of the Howrah Municipality attached the property and sold it in auction, arrears of rates being the first charge on the property. The sale was held on 16th June 1932. Thereafter on 22nd July 1932 opposite party 1 Upendra Nath Das who had lent money to Debidin on a mortgage of this property made a petition Under Order 21, Rule 90 to set aside the sale alleging fraud and material irregularity; The learned Munsif on hearing the parties set aside the sale. In appeal the District Judge by his order dated 18th September 1933 dismissed the application Under Order 21, Rule 90. That date was the last working date before the civil Court long...
Kartick Chandra Manna Vs. Nibaran Chandra Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal832
M.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case the landlord obtained a rent decree on 16th November 1932 against a great many tenants. Thereafter on 30th May 1933 opposite party 1, purchased the right, title and interest of one of the judgment-debtors, Indra Narain Manna, in a Court sale. Thereafter, opposite party 1 applied to the Court Under Section 171, Ben. Ten. Act, to deposit the whole of the decretal amount and hold the tenanted land as a mortgagee in possession. The Court allowed the petition.2. It is urged in this Court among other grounds that opposite party 1 who purchased in a Court sale the right, title and interest of one of the judgment-debtors Indra, Narain Manna, could have no better right than the said Indra Narain who was one of the judgment-debtors in the suit. The position of opposite party 1, in my opinion, is no better than that of the judgment, debtor and the question is whether one of the judgment-debtors can deposit money and get the advantage of Section 171. The judgment-debt...
Ram Charan Sutradhar and anr. Vs. Radha Charan Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal852,153Ind.Cas.452
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit for possession. The plaintiffs' case was that one Ananda Mohan Sutradhar was a raiyat under Madan Mohan Sutradhar, the predecessor of the plaintiff; that the raiyati holding was purchased by the landlord in execution of a rent decree; that before the auction sale the predecessors of the first party defendants held the disputed lands as an under-raiyat for a period of nine years. It was further alleged by the plaintiffs that as the period of nine years had expired the plaintiffs were entitled to recover khas possession. The defence of the defendant was that after the auction purchase of the raiyati right the defendants ceased to be under-raiyats and that they were automatically raised to the status of raiyats. The Courts below have concurrently dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. Hence the present appeal by the plaintiffs. The learned advocate for the appellants however urges that the lower appellate Court was in error ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »