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.
Harimohan Vs. Dulu Miya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal198,155Ind.Cas.1017
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money on a mortgage bond. The substantial defence of the defendant was that he was a minor at the time of the loan and as such plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. The Courts below have found that defendant 1 executed the mortgage bond and borrowed the money. It has been further found by the Courts below that defendant 1 was a minor at the time when the bond was executed and the money was advanced. The Courts below have also found that there had been no fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of defendant 1 about his age at the time when he executed the bond. On these findings the Courts below have dismissed the suit. Hence the present appeal by the plaintiff.2. The first point urged on behalf of the appellant is that the finding of the lower appellate Court, that there had been no fraud by the minor, is wrong, inasmuch as it was the duty of the defendant to disclose to the plaintiff at the time of the t...
Madhu Sudan Shaha Vs. Ram Pershad Chimanlal, Firm and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal827,153Ind.Cas.777
Jack, J.1. On 21st September 1932 the petitioner purchased 1 Bigha 4 Cottas of land on which were tin sheds and a godown in Mouza Panjagram. The purchase was made at an auction sale in execution of a rent decree against opposite party 2 and his cosharers. The sale was subsequently confirmed and the petitioner obtained possession through Court and has since been in possession of the property.2. Opposite party 1 had also got a deceree against Opposite Party 2 and in execution of his decree had attached on 12th June 1931 a four annas share of the same property, and in execution of his decree this share of the property was sold on 18th June 1932 ; an application was made to set aside this sale and it was set aside on 29th July 1933. Thereafter proceedings were taken for re-sale and 23rd October 1933 was fixed for the sale. On that date the petitioner applied to the learned Subordinate Judge for exemption of the property from sale on the ground that the judgment-debtor had no saleable inter...
Majid Bux Mondal Vs. Ajghar Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal38
ORDERS.K. Ghose, J.1. The petitioner in this case instituted a civil suit before the Union Bench Court making a claim of Rupees 136-12-9 against the opposite party. On 7th May 1933 the case came on for hearing, but the opposite party applied for time on the ground of ill-health. This was refused by the Union Court and the trial of the suit was proceeded with. Three witnesses for the plaintiff were examined and cross-examined. Thereafter, the Union Court fixed 21st May 1933 for further hearing. On that date the opposite party appeared and stated that he had no witness to examine. On the same day the Union Court decreed the suit. Meanwhile, on 12th May 1933, after the conclusion of the examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, the opposite party made an application before the local Munsiff for the transfer of the suit and the learned Munsiff made an order calling for the record of the suit from the Union Court. But apparently, this order did not reach the Union Court before it delivered ...
Nagendra Nath Biswas Vs. Kripanath Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal94
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by plaintiff 2 and is concerned with the validity of a sale by one Jogtara Debi, widow of Kali Nath Sarma who was the owner of one-sixth of the property which was the subject-matter of the suit. The kobala was executed in favour of plaintiff 3; but she did not dispute that the purchase was really made by all the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs supported the sale on two grounds (1) that Jogtara obtained an absolute interest in the property by her husband's will (2) that in any event the sale was for legal necessity. Both these points were decided in favour of the plaintiffs by the Munsif. This decision was reversed by the Subordinate Judge. It is now contended that the decision of the learned Munsif on both points was correct. On the first point the learned Subordinate Judge appears to have applied the correct principles. He points out that if the will conveys an absolute interest, the subsequent provisions cutting it down would have no effect. But he points ou...
(Khondakar) Kasemali Vs. Hriday Nath Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal142
Henderson, J.1. This appeal which is by defendant 1, raises a question of limitation. The facts upon which it has to be determined are as follows: A certain holding belonged to one Nitai; eight annas share passed to his son Rasik and then to Rasik's widow Kali Dasi. Kali Dasi granted a lease to the plaintiff, who had a lease of the other eight annas from one Panchanon. The plaintiff sold his interest to Sukumari, wife of Panchanon, and on the same day took a sublease from her. The appellant purchased the interest of Kali Dasi in execution of a decree and entered into possession of half the holding. The plaintiff instituted the present suit for a declaration of his title and recovery of possession. Among other defences the appellant pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation, as Article 3, Schedule 3, Bengal Tenancy Act, applies. This contention prevailed in the first Court with the result that the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff then appealed and the learned Subordinate Judge has ...
Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. Haji Latif Abdullah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal809,159Ind.Cas.886
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. This is a petition by the Madras and South Mahratta Railway against whom the Small Cause Court Judge of Howrah has passed a decree for Rs. 469. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff on account of damage by wet to 22 bags of tobacco out of a consignment of 225 bags sent from a place called Nepani to Calcutta. The goods were made over to a contractor at Nepani. The contractor carried them 29 miles in ox carts to Chakodi Railway Station on the M.S.M. Railway. There an assistant, Rangia Charia, defence witness 2, loaded the bags in two wagons. He deposed that he chose the two wagons and he found no defect in them. He received the consignments at 15 hours on the 22nd July and sent the same at 11 hours on the 23rd July. After the wagons had gone 143 miles to Hubli junction on the M.S.M. Railway it was found that a wire of one of the seals was cut; suspecting theft the two wagons were taken to a covered shed where they were opened in the presence of the watch and ward...
Hemodhar Sarmah Vs. Anandiram Ram Saikia and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1934
Reported in: 154Ind.Cas.197
ORDERS.K. Ghose, J.1. The petitioner in this Rule has been convicted under Section 22 of Act I of 187l, Cattle Trespass Act. One of the grounds on which the Rule was issued is that although the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on September 29, 1933, the complaint was not filed until October 10, 1933, and that therefore it was time-barred under Section 20 of the Act. The learned Magistrate in showing cause admits the correctness of this ground which does not appear to have been taken in the Court below. I accordingly make the Rule absolute. The petitioner is acquitted and directed to be set at liberty. The fine, if paid, must be refunded....
Nabakumar Singh Dudhuria Vs. Fateh Singh Nahar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal33
1. This appeal has arisen out of an application for managership of the estate of lunatic Jnanchand Golecha. The estate was under the joint managership of Fateh Singh Nahar and Raja Bijay Singh Dudhuria of Azimganj by an order of the District Judge of Murshidabad under Act 35 of 1858. Raja Bijay Singh, having died on 18th May 1933, it is claimed that by his death the managership of Fateh Singh Nahar was terminated and the petitioner Nabakumar Singh Dudhuria applied to be appointed sole manager. The learned District Judge found that the original managership of Fateh Singh was not terminated by the death of Rajah Bijay Singh and that consequently there was no vacancy in the managership and, therefore, dismissed the petition of Nabakumar Singh. The question, therefore, to be decided in this appeal is whether the management of Fateh Singh terminated on the death of Raja Bijay Singh.2. There is no provision in the Lunacy (District Courts) Act,(35 of 1858) nor in the present Act on this point...
Dhanabati Bibi Vs. Protapmull Agarwalla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal131
Lort-Williams, J.1. This appeal raises some interesting and important points of Hindu Law. It concerns a joint. Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara School of Law. Prior to 1927 the family consisted of Chunilal Johury, whose wife Dhanabati Bibi is the present appellant, and his son Motilal, whose wife Jasbati was a defendant in the suit, but has not appealed. Between 1927 and 1929 Chunilal and Motilal mortgaged the family property in order to raise money. In 1929 there was an addition to the family when Narendra Singh, Motilal's eldest son, was born. In 1930 Motilal filed a suit against Chunilal, Narendra and Dhanabati for partition. In 1931 Basanta Singh was born to Motilal and he was added as a defendant in the partition suit. In 1931 the mortgagees instituted a suit against Chunilal, Motilal, Narendra and Basant Singh to enforce their mortgage. Dhanabati acted as guardian-ad-litem for the two infants, and in July 1931 a consent decree and an order for sale was made. In August 193...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Kumar Arun Chandra Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal862,153Ind.Cas.972
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this suit, the Corporation of Calcutta claimed Rs. 134-4-9 on account of consolidated rates payable in respect of premises No. 2, Payari Das Lane, Calcutta, which are part of a debutter property of which defendant No. 1 is the shebait, defendant No. 2 a lessee, and defendant No. 3 a mortgagee of defendant No. 2. The defence of defendant No. 1, who alone contested the suit, was that the Corporation's claim arose by reason of a statutory charge created under the provisions of Section 205, Calcutta Municipal Act, that it had similar charges over other properties belonging to the same defendant, for the enforcement of which it had brought five other suits, four of which had been decreed by consent, and that by reason of the provisions of Section 67A, Transfer of Property Act, the Corporation must enforce all such charges in one suit. Section 205, Calcutta Municipal Act, provides:The consolidated rates due from any person in respect of any land or building shall, subj...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »