Kolkata Court July 1934 Judgments

Haripado Mazumdar and ors. Vs. Dhani Ahamad Sarkar and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal494,157Ind.Cas.674

ORDER1. This rule is directed against an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mainckgunge, in the District of Dacca on 11th of June, 1934 restraining the petitioners from entering upon the lands which were the subject matter of a proceeding under Section 144, Criminal P.C., started by the Magistrate. It appears that on the facts and in the circumstances appearing from the Magistrate's order, to which reference has been made above, the proceeding under Section 144, Criminal P.C., was somewhat misconceived and was not an appropriate proceeding under the law. The Magistrate thought that a previous order of the year 1919, made under Section 145 of the Code, stood in his way so far as the initiation of fresh proceeding under Section 145 Criminal P.C., was concerned. With this view of the case we are not in agreement as the question to be taken into consideration by a Criminal Court under Section 145, Criminal P.C., is the question as to the present possession of the parties conc...

Sarup Ali and anr. Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1934Cal744,152Ind.Cas.661

1. The appellants were tried before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Tippera, and a jury, on the charge of having committed an offence Under Section 395, I.P.C. On the, unanimous verdict of the jury, they were convicted and sentenced by the Judge to rigorous imprisonment for six years each.2. The only question that required consideration in the case before us was whether the verdict of the jury could be taken to be a proper verdict, in view of an apparent irregularity in the procedure allowed to be adopted by the; Judge in the matter of the jurors coming to their conclusion on the most material question in the case: the question of identification or recognition of the appellants as members of the party of dacoits who participated in a dacoity in the house of one Warish Bepari. On the question of recognition of the dacoits, the Judge charged the jury in the following manner, in which statement by the Judge reference was made to the method allowed to be adopted by them in the matt...

indu Bala Dassi and anr. Vs. Lakshmi Narayan Ganguly and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal102,155Ind.Cas.1109

ORDER1. The facts which give rise to these rules are as follows: One Indu Bala instituted Suit No, 86 of 1933 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia for recovery of a certain amount of money on certain promissory notes. Another suit, viz., Suit No. 85 of 1933, was instituted by one Gurudasi against the same defendants for recovery of another sum of money on the basis of certain other promissory notes.. The two suits were consolidated. It appears that both the suits were instituted on 29th May 1933. Written statements were filed by the defendants on 19th August 1933. Certain issues were settled by the Court on those pleadings on 30th August 1933. The issues which are relevant for the purposes of the present rules are as follows:Issue 7. Is the business an ancestral joint Hindu family business? Was it inherited by the sons of Ananda Ganguly? If so, did the business go by the name of Ganguly Brothers?Issue 8. Did the father of defendants 7 to 14 inherit along with the brothers the...

Lal Behary Dhur And, anr. Vs. Administrator-general and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Lort-Williams, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Panckridge, J., upon an originating summons concerning the validity of certain dispositions in the will of Luckey Narain Dhur dated 18th November 1923. The testator died on 26th March 1927, leaving three sons, Ram Chunder, Kartick and Ganesh. Kara died on 17th October 1928, and Kartick on 2nd May 1927.2. Ram left four sons, Lal Behary, Bon Behary, Rash Behary and Banku Behary, and Kartick left one son Netye. All these are alive, and Ganesh has one son, Madan. On 25th April 1929 letters of administration de bonis non Were granted to the Administrator-General, Bengal, who wishes to know who are the persons now entitled to act as Shebaits of a religious endowment created by Clauses 9 and 10 of the will. Clause 11 provides as follows:I appoint my sons Kartick Chunder Dhur and Ram Chunder Dhur to be the Shebaits of the Thacoors and I direct that upon the death, retirement or refusal to act of any of them or any of the future Shebaits ...

Kumar Raj Krishna Prosad Lal Singh Deo Vs. Barabani Coal Concern Ltd. ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal368

Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Asansol dated 23rd December 1929 dismissing his suit for recovery of arrears of royalty and for a declaration that the royalty payable to the plaintiff is the first charge on the colliery described in the schedule to the plaint including machinery boiler, implements and office rooms.2. The case stated in the plaint is that Mouza Manohar Bahal appertains to the permanently settled estate, Chakla Panchakote belonging to the Raja of Panchete who is a pro forma defendant to the suit; that while possessing the undergrounds of the said mouza the Raja settled the said underground rights with Radha Ballav Mukherjee on 25th January 1912 and registered pottahs and kabuliyats were exchanged between the parties, that according to the terms of the kabuliyat Radha Ballav was to pay annually a minimum royalty of Rs. 3,200 and royalty at varying rates for different kinds of coal and that the royalty ...

Gosai Chandra Ray Vs. Churku Singh Babu and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal402

Edgley, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of Mr. Sarat Chandra De, Additional Subordinate Judge of Asansol, dated 22nd August 1931, in which he dismissed an appeal from the decision of Babu Khagesh Chandra Mitter, Munsif of Asansol dated 29th July 1930.2. In the case with reference to which this appeal arises it appears that one Jugal Roy held certain land under defendants 2 and 3. The land in question was held under a service tenure. He also appears to have held certain other lands under the same proprietors under another tenure. When Jugal died the Chakran land was resumed by defendants 2 and 3, and in 1926 defendants 2 and 3 settled this resumed land with the plaintiff Churku Singh. It is admitted that, before this land was settled with Churku Singh, the estate of defendants 2 and 3 had been declared to be an Encumbered Estated under the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act (6 of 1876). In order to obtain possession of the land which was settled...

Musammat Mahboob Begum Vs. Tulshi Bibi

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.1000

ORDER1. This Rule was issued on these opposite parties Tulshi Bibi, Najibannessa Bibi, Gabu alias Rabia Khatun to show cause why the petitioner in this Rule Musammat Mahboob Begum should not be substituted as an heir of the deceased Furrok Bibi both in the appeal and the Rule, which is connected with the appeal, now pending this Court. It appears that one Golam Jellani Khan a wealthy Peshwari Muhammadan died intestate in March 1927 at Talligunj leaving considerable movable and immovable properties; that Tulshi Bibi one of the opposite parties brought a Title Suit for partition in respect of the property left by Golam Jellani Khan and account, valuing the suit at Rs. 1,60,000 in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge at Alipore. Her allegation was that the late Golam Jellani Khan left three widows, Tulshi Bibi, Farrokh Bibi and Najibannessa and one minor daughter Gabu, alias Rabia Bibi by the plaintiff. The plaintiff-appellant alleged that according to the special custom of the Peshwa...

Abdul Jabbar Talukdar Vs. Sanu Bibi

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1934Cal740,152Ind.Cas.514

ORDER1. This Rule is directed against an order of 2nd Court of the Subordinate Judge of Pabna dated 21st May 1934 allowing the application of the opposite party Sanu Bibi to sue in forma pauperis. The learned Subordinate Judge on a consideration of the evidence has come to the conclusion that she is a pauper. The learned Judge has also found that a mortgage bond which was executed by the lady three weeks after the presentation of the petition was not for any money paid to her in cash but the mortgage was given under pressure for previous loans of her husband. In this view of the matter the learned Subordinate Judge has allowed her application.2. The only point which is urged in support of the rule is that the mortgage executed by the lady is an agreement which she entered with reference to the subject matter of the proposed suit under which the mortgagee has obtained an interest in such subject matter. In our judgment the agreement referred to in Rule 5, Clause (e), Order 33, Civil P.C...

Badar Rahim Vs. Badhshah Meah

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1934Cal741,153Ind.Cas.291

ORDER1. This is an application in revision by one Badar Rahim of Chittagong, the muttawali of a certain wakf, which was created in the year 1907; against the order of the District Judge of Chittagong dated 9th November 1933; granting permission to the opposite parties to sue the petitioner Under Section 18, Religious Endowments Act (Act 20 of 1863). The only point urged in support of the application is that the wakf having been created after the year 1863 the provisions of Act 20 of 1863 are not applicable to this wakf. Under Section 18 of the Act no suit under that Act can be entertained without the permission of the Court to institute such a suit. The opposite parties applied to the Court for leave to sue the petitioner Under Section 14 of the Act which runs as follows:any person or persons interested in any mosque, temple or religious establishment, or in the performance of the worship or of the service thereof, or the trusts relating thereto, may, without joining as plaintiff or an...

Kaharjannessa and ors. Vs. Saradindu Narayan Roy and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal130

1. Upon the findings arrived at by the Courts below the facts of this case, which cannot be disputed, seem to be the following that the decree-holders obtained a decree far rent in respect of a certain tenancy against a number of defendants amongst whom was one namely, defendant 2. This defendant was dead, but the fact that he was dead was not brought to the notice of the Court, and on the other hand a false return was lodged through a peon alleging that there was proper service of summons on him. In such circumstances the decree was obtained on 26th November 1930. On 20th April 1932 the decree-holders put the decree into execution under the provisions of Ch. 14, Ben. Ten. Act, as a rent decree. They applied for substitution of the heirs of the said judgment-debtor 2 on 4th June 1932 and obtained from the Court an order substituting the appellants as his heirs and legal representatives. After the order was passed notice was issued on the appellants under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P.C. T...