Kolkata Court August 1934 Judgments

Krishna Chandra Bhoumick Vs. Pabna Dhanabhandar Co. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal225,155Ind.Cas.991

Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the judgment-debtor whose objection under Section 47, Civil P. C, has been rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge of Pabna. The appellant purchased on 26th June 1924, at a revenue sale, a zamindary which belonged to the Pakrasis. The Pabna Dhanabhandar Co. Ltd. which had not then gone into liquidation, had before the revenue sale advanced money to the Pakrasis on a mortgage of the said zamindary, At the date of the revenue sale and at all material times the position of the respondent company was that of a mortgagee. The appellant paid the whole of the purchase money which remained in deposit in the Pabna Collectorate.2. The respondent company instituted on 7th July 1925 suit to set aside the revenue sale. To the said suit the appellant was defendant 1 and the Pakrasis defendants 2 to 11. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit with costs against the appellant, which costs was assessed at Rs. 989-11-0. The appellant before us preferred ...

Debji Ghelabhai and Brothers Vs. R.D. Mehta and Co.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal255,155Ind.Cas.721

ORDERMitter, J.1. The, defendant has obtained this Rule under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, and the only point pressed on his behalf is that the plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation. The plaintiff agreed to supply to the defendant 2000 pieces of sal wood sleepers at his colliery and on 9th September 1930, delivered the same. The defendant paid to the plaintiff some money which I am told amounted Rs. 250. The suit was filed on 11th September 1933, just two days after the period of limitation. Apart from the question of limitation the case of the defendant is that out of the 2000 pieces of sleepers 800 pieces were bad and had been rejected. For the purpose of getting over the bar of limitation the plaintiff relied upon a letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff on 12th September 1930, which is in these terms:'Dear Sirs,We are in receipt of your letter No. nil of 7-9-30 and noted the contents thereof.In reply was beg to inform you that as per amicable settlem...

Nagendra Chandra Nag Vs. Purna Chandra Gupta and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal261

1. This is an appeal under Section 15, Letters Patent, by one of the plaintiffs in a suit which was brought for confirmation of possession on declaration of title of plaintiffs' 9 annas 10 gandas share in Mouza Haria and others and for declaration that there is no 'jibka' tenure under the name of Ram Narayan Chakraburty under them and that the Record of Rights showing the existence of such a tenure is incorrect. The Courts below and the learned Judge of this Court have confirmed the proprietary title of the plaintiffs to the 9 annas 10 gandas share in the said mouzahs, but have dismissed the plaintiffs' suit in so far as they seek for a declaration that the jibka tenure is not in existence and that the Record of Rights showing the existence of a jibka tenure as a permanent rent-free tenure is wrong. It is against this portion of the decree dismissing the plaintiffs' suit that the present appeal has been directed and is brought against the decision of Jack, J., under Section 15, Letters...

Mannilal Anandji Vs. B.N. Ry. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal271a,155Ind.Cas.1052

ORDERMitter, J.1. This Rule is on behalf of the plaintiff whose claim for damages against the B.N. Ry. Co. has been dismissed by the learned Small Cause Court Judge of Sealdah. The plaintiff is a dealer in biri. His agent booked consignments of Biri leaves from Amgaon to Shalimar under invoice No. 16 dated 17th September 1930 and from Gondia to the same station under invoice No. 47 dated 28th October 1930. On arrival of the goods at Shalimar it was found that 8 bags of the first and 6 bags of the second consignment had been damaged by wettage. The railway officers estimated without prejudice the damage at 20 per cent and the plaintiff took delivery. The plaintiff has now claimed damages. For both the consignments the plaintiff's agent executed risk notes in Form B approved by the Governor-General in Council which would make the Railway Administration liable for 'loss, destruction, deterioration or damage' only if the plaintiff proved misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration...

Nishi Chandra Sen Vs. Romesh Chandra Majumdar and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal209,155Ind.Cas.72

Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff for declaration of 'his alleged 8-annas share in a certain holding and for confirmation of possession. The subject-matter of the suit is the watery portion of a tank recorded in Dag No. 1609 of the settlement map. The plaintiff's case is that the said tank was recorded as Dag No. 328 of the Chitta of 1200 M.E. in the possession of Srimanta and Kalidas. The plaintiff's further case is that on the death of Srimanta, the property was inherited by Srimanta's son Radhakrishna on whose death the same passed to Brajeswari. The plaintiff is the daughter's son of Radha Krishna. The plaintiffs further case is that Kalidas' rights devolved ultimately upon Harapriya who is defendant 1. The other defendants are the sons of Harapriya. It appears that in the 1871 Biswambar purchased at an execution sale Brajeswari's alleged right whereupon Brajeswari instituted a suit to recover possession of her alleged share challenging the decree and the execu...

Sm. Sarala Debi Vs. President, Calcutta Improvement Tribunal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal248,155Ind.Cas.999

Mitter, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P. C, as well as under Section 107, Government of India Act, on behalf of one Sarala Debi against an order of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal dismissing her application by which she objected to the re-investment of certain Government securities which were deposited under the provisions of Section 32, Land Acquisition Act, for the purchase of land. The proceeding originated with a notice which was given by the President on 22nd March 1934 to the petitioner to the following effect:Whereas a sum of Rs. 33,210-15-6 was remitted to this Court by the Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, for deposit under Section 81, Land Acquisition Act, and whereas Government Promissory Notes for Rs. 48,600 is now held in deposit to your credit in the above case, you are hereby required to show cause on the day of 5th April 1934, why the said sum should not be applied in whole or in part, in the purchase of lands in accordance ...

Rati Lal Nanji and ors. Vs. Uttam Lal Sarcar and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal275,155Ind.Cas.842

Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Asansol dated 23rd July 1930 by which their suit claiming several reliefs was dismissed. The reliefs claimed in the plaint are: (1) that certain coal lands mentioned in Schedule (1) to the plaint be declared to be the joint and partnership properties of plaintiff 1 and defendant 2 constituting the firm, of Khengarji Amritlal & Co., (plaintiff 2); (2) that a decree in money suit No.207 and the subsequent proceeding thereof are not binding on the plaintiffs or either of them; (3) that the sale in execution of the said decree is void or even if it be held to be valid is not binding on plaintiff 1. and his share has not been affected thereby, and (4) that it be declared that plaintiff 1 has a right to redeem the schedule properties and the decree for redemption may be passed after taking an account of what would be due to the principal defendant.2. The case stated in the plaint is that the principle ...

Gajendra Nath Saha Chowdhury Vs. Sulochana Chaudhurani and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Mitter, J.1. The question which we have to decide in the present case comes before us under Section 12, Court-fees Act. It appears that an appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights to which is added a prayer for injunction restraining the parents and other relations of the wife from obstructing the recovery of the wife by the husband. The suit was valued at Rs. 5,001 in the Court below and a fixed fee of Rs. 15 was paid on the same and the prayer for injunction was valued at Rs. 25 and court-fees paid on the same. The suit was dismissed by the Court below and appeal has been taken to this Court by the plaintiff.2. On the Stamp Reporter reporting that the court-fees on the memorandum of appeal was insufficient the matter was dealt with by the Registrar who is taxing officer under Section 5, Court-fees Act and he has held that the court-fees are insufficient and that ad valorem court-fees on Rs. 5,001 should be paid and that the appellant sho...

In Re: Jambad Coal Syndicate, Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1936Cal628

Remfry, J.1. This is a petition for winding up a public company with limited liability. The ground in the petition is that after the statutory notice the company has failed to pay a debt of some Rs. 72,000 due for royalties and rent. For the company it is stated in the affidavit that a claim by a third party who is alleged to have a title paramount to that of the petitioning company is apprehended, and that as the lease has not been registered the petitioners are not entitled to claim rent or royalties. As far as the first ground is concerned an alleged apprehension, that their possession may be disturbed, or ended by a party said to have a title paramount to that of their landlords, is no excuse for tenants to withhold their rent. The other point is more difficult. It appears that by a consent decree in 1927 the Syndicate, as the company is called, agreed to take a new lease and surrender their old one. This lease has been executed by all the parties and as the affidavit states:The le...

Jatindra Nath Raha and ors. Vs. Uzir Sheikh and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.676

Nasim Ali, J.1. The only point for determination in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to enhance the rent of the holding of the defendants under Section 30(b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. I he Courts below on a consideration of the kabuliyat Ex. 1 have come to the conclusion that by the kabuliyat a mokarari tenancy was created. The kabuliyat Ex. 1 has been placed before me. It appears that the lease in this particular case is not a lease from generation to generation. The words such as 'Putra Poutradikrama'', that is generation after generation, as used in the lease which was under discussion m the case of Golam Rahaman Mistri v. Gurudas Kundu Chauduri 38 C.L.J. 350 : 76 Ind. Cas. 586 : A.I.R. 1923 Cal. 505, are not to be found in the present lease. The kabuliyat further indicates that at the time of survey and settlement the tenant would execute a separate kabuliyat and pay the rent which would be settled. This would be inconsistent with the rent being fixed in perpetui...