Kolkata Court August 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.
Hiralal Chakrabarti and ors. Vs. Lalit Mohan Banik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1934
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.362
D.N. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Faridpur, by which he reversed the judgment and decree of the Munsif of Faridpur, dated January 26, 1933. The suit in which this appeal arises was commenced by the plaintiffs, now respondents, for several declarations. The reliefs asked for were (a) that the plaintiffs and original pro forma defendants Nos. 3 (now pro forma defendant No. 9} were duly and legally elected on August 3, 1930, as members of the Panchar Union Board, (c) that the fresh election of the members of that Board on November 8 and 9, 1930, was without jurisdiction and is so a nullity and (c) that the election of defendants Nos. 6, 9 and 11 to 14 as such members at the said fresh election is invalid and that they were not duly elected. It appears that the plaintiffs were elected as members of the Union Board at the election held on August 3, 1930. The District Magistrate set aside that election. The present suit was co...
Manindra Nath Koley and ors. Vs. Sahadeb Koley and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal256
Guha, J.1. The plaintiffs-respondents in this appeal brought the suit out of which the appeal has arisen, for declaration of their title to a two-third share of the property described in Sch. Kha of the plaint (that is the only item of property in dispute in this appeal), and for ejectment of the defendants. There was in the alternative a claim for declaration of right to receive rent, on the footing that the defendants were, by virtue of an arrangement between cosharers, the plaintiffs and the defendants, under-raiyats in respect of the property in suit. So far as the under-raiyati interest alleged to have brought into existence by virtue of an arrangement was concerned, there was a suit for contribution, suit No. 457 of 1925, brought by the plaintiffs, against the defendants, directly putting the 'matter in issue. The defendants denied in that suit the existence of the under-raiyati, by virtue of any arrangement between cosharers as alleged by the plaintiffs. It was decided in that s...
Abdul Hai Vs. Abdur Rahman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal258
ORDERGuha, J.1. The rule in this case was issued by this Court on an application arising out of a proceeding under Section 26-F, Ban. Ten. Act. The opposite parties in the Rule Syed Abdur Rahman and Syed Abdul Mannan filed an application before the Munsif, First Court, Kandi, District Murshidabad, to exercise the right of pre-emption, on deposit of a sum of Rs. 55 only, in regard to a sale of a holding in favour of the petitioner Syed Abdul Hai. The sale was in respect of the lands appertaining to the holding with structures standing thereon; in one part of the conveyance in favour of the petitioner, the value of the land was stated to be Rs. 50 and the structures were separately valued at Rs. 150. The consideration for the sale mentioned in the document and the purchase money paid by the petitioner was however Rs. 200. The application under Section 26-F before the Court was on the footing that the pre-emptors were only required to deposit the amount of consideration for the land apper...
Kunja Behari Basu Vs. Rasik Lal Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal495,157Ind.Cas.846
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff for declaration of his title to 4 annas share in the lands of Dag No. 836 and to 8 annas share in the lands of Dags Nos. 161, 1-75, 283 and 316 of the settlement map of Mouza Basur Dhuljuri and for joint possession of the first plot with defendants 3 and 4, and of the other plots with defendant 3 who according to him are respectively the owners of the remaining shares. The plaintiff's case is that 8 annas share of the first plot and 4 annas share of the remaining plots belonged to one Parbati Charan Roy who died in 1327 B.S. intestate, leaving behind him surviving his widow Sukhada Sundari and two daughters Pramada and Giribala. On his death his widow Sukhada Sundari inherited his properties and possessed the same till her death which occurred in the year 1334. On Sukhada Sundari's death Promada and Giribala inherited the properties and on 22nd November 1929 sold the same to him for legal necessity by the Kobala Ex. 3. Giribal...
Gourilal Matilal and ors. Vs. Jitmal Mohata
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1936Cal47,162Ind.Cas.100
Cunliffe, J.1. This is the petition of one Jitamal Mohata, the plaintiff in a suit in the Small Cause Court, to obtain an order setting aside a direction of the Full Bench of that Court which allowed a re-opening of two cross-actions originally heard by the Sixth Judge of that Court. The learned Judge in question is no longer a Judge of the Small Cause Court. When the hearing for the new trial came on before the Full Bench he had been succeeded by another learned Judge. It is the practice of the Small Cause Court to form their Full Bench from the trial Judge and the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court. On this occasion the Chief Judge was sitting with the successor of the trial Judge. The application was made under Section 38, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. The matter comes before me by virtue of the provisions of the well--known Section 115, Civil P. C. It is a some--what curious and unusual combination of facts which has been detailed in the various affidavits before me now. Wha...
Nur Ahmad and ors. Vs. Jogesh Chandra Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal838,153Ind.Cas.657
Khundkar, J.1. This is a rule obtained at the instance of five persons of whom petitioner 1 Moulavi Nur Ahmad is the Chairman of the Chittagong Municipality; petitioner 2 Babu Mohendra Chandra Das is a Commissioner of the Chittagong Municipality; petitioner 3 Moulavi Mohammad Nasir is also a Commissioner of that Municipality; petitioner 4 Moulavi Hefazatur Rahman is a Tax Daroga of that Municipality and petitioner 5 Munshi Ashraf Ali is a clerk of that Municipality. It appears that under the provisions of Section 21, Bengal Act 15 of 1932 as amended by Act 9 of 1933, the petitioners 1 to 3 were appointed as a Committee for the purpose of preparing and publishing an electoral roll of persons qualified to vote. An electoral roll was prepared by the petitioners 1 to 3, assisted, it is alleged, by the petitioners 4 and 5, and was published as the final electoral roll on 14th February 1934. On 20th February 1934 a petition of complaint which bore the date 14th February 1934 was presented by...
Atul Chandra Sen Vs. Kaunammal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal271,155Ind.Cas.749
1. The question in this case is what is the true meaning of Section 5 Sub-section (2), Provident Funds Act (19 of 1925). The appellant applied in the Court of the District Judge of Chittagong for a Succession Certificate in respect of a debt in favour of a deceased person recoverable from the A.B. Railway Co. Ltd. The debt was an amount of Provident Fund money due to the deceased, in respect of which the appellant was the nominee. The respondent as widow of the deceased had, prior to the said application, obtained a Succession Certificate in respect of the assets of the deceased from the Court of the District Judge of Trichinopoly. The appellant's application has been refused by the learned Judge on the ground that the certificate previously obtained by the respondent affords a bar. The question turns on the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 5, Provident Funds Act (19 of 1925). The relevant words of the sub-section are:Notwithstanding anything contained in the Succession Certificat...
Radha Kisson Mahesri and ors. Vs. Tansuk Mahesri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal502,157Ind.Cas.637
ORDER1. This Rule is directed against an order of the District Judge of Jalpaiguri dated 4th May 1934 confirming in appeal an order of the Subordinate Judge of the same District in a proceeding under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. The Courts below have dismissed the petitioners' application under Order 21, Rule 90 not on the merits but on a preliminary ground that another decree-holder, who had applied for rateable distribution of the sale proceeds and had got part of them had not been made a party within the period of limitation for such an application and consequently the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application. The only point for determination therefore is whether the Courts below were wrong in dismissing the petitioners' application under Order 21, Rule 90 on this preliminary ground. Order 21, Rule 92, Clause (2) Civil P. C, is in these terms:Where such an application is made and allowed, and where, in the case of an application under Rule 89, the deposit required...
Sundar Ali and ors. Vs. Nur Mamud and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal202,155Ind.Cas.733
Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendants and arises out of a suit for possession. The plaintiffs' case is that the land in suit belonged to pro forma defendant 23 who had let it out to them. It is on the basis of this tenancy that the plaintiffs have instituted the suit for possession. The defendants in their written statement challenged the title of the plaintiffs and they further set up a right to use the land for the purpose of steeping jute, etc., a right in the nature of an easement. The Court of first instance found that the plaintiffs had not been able to establish their tenancy under defendant 23 and also found that the contesting defendants had not been able to substantiate their claim of easement as against the landlord. In this view of the matter, it negatived the claim of the principal defendants and also dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the basis that they had no title. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs. The lower appellate Court found that the plai...
Abdul Hakim Vs. Fozu Mia and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal287,155Ind.Cas.1003
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case, a rule was issued to show cause why an order;;made by B.C. Ghosh, Honorary Magistrate of Alipore in the District of 24 Parganas, under Section 350, Criminal P.C., granting a new trial, should not be set aside. The order was upheld on revision by Mr. S.N. Ray, Additional District Magistrate of Alipore. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 406, I.P.C, before Mr. L.K. Sen, the Police Magistrate of Alipore, who transferred it he case for disposal to the file of Messrs. B. Rahman and B.C. Ghose, two Honorary:. Magistrates constituting a Bench. Witnesses were examined and cross-examined on both sides, and charges framed and the trial had reached the stage when a date had been fixed for arguments when the bench was dissolved and the Magistrates were ordered to sit singly. Mr. Sen withdrew this case to his own file, and transferred it to the file of Mr. B.C. Ghose who had recorded the depositions.2. Thereupon at the re-opening of the proceedings befo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »