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.
Mahammad Mia Pandit and ors. Vs. Osman Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal239,155Ind.Cas.915
Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit for possession. There are seven plaintiffs. Of them plaintiffs 1 and 2 are adult males, Nos. 3, 4 and 7 are ladies and Nos. 5 and 6 are minors. The minors were represented in the Courts below by plaintiff 1, who also represents them in this appeal. At the instance of plaintiffs there was a local, investigation by a pleader Commissioner who submitted a report in their favour. The defendants filed an objection to the said report. At the date of the hearing of the suit, which was 15th August 1930, defendant 2 filed an application stating that the parties had agreed to the lands being measured by one Shama Charan and that if it was found by him that the lands in suit were in possession of the defendants, the plaintiffs would get a decree, otherwise the suit would stand dismissed, but the plaintiffs would be entitled to get Rs. 50 from the defendants. The said defendant further alleged that Shama Charan had mea...
R.C. Curties Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal242,155Ind.Cas.710
ORDERGuha, J.1. The petitioner was tried before the Additional Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, for having committed an offence on account of contravention of Rules 12 and 13, Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Rules, 1933, in not exhibiting the token as enjoined by those rules on a motor car. The Magistrate found him guilty of breach of Rr. 12 and 13 and sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 10. According to the Magistrate, there was, on the evidence, an omission on the part of the petitioner, and a neglect of obvious duty in not demanding the token from the person by whom tax was paid on the petitioner's behalf, and which tax was accepted by the Taxing Officer; the petitioner should, have demanded the token from the person who paid the tax on his behalf, within a reasonable time and exhibited the same on the car as required by the Rules. On the findings arrived at by the Magistrate, the delivery of the token was not taken, after payment of tax; and the token was not exhibited on the c...
Jatindra Nath Sircar and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1936Cal440,166Ind.Cas.412
ORDER1. The petitioners were tried by the Sadar Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Hooghly, for having committed offences under Section 120-B and Section 420, I. P. C., and on conviction were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months under each of the above provisions of the law. The sentences as passed were to run concurrently in the case of the petitioner Jatindra Nath Sircar, and consecutively in the case of other petitioner Dhirendra Nath Ghose. The conviction of and the sentences passed on the petitioners were upheld on appeal, by the learned Sessions Judge of Hooghly. The charges against the accused persons were: (1) that they were party to a criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of cheating by dishonestly inducing people to deliver money to them, through three other persons, and in pursuance of that conspiracy one Thakimani Dasi and others, were cheated of different sums of money, and (2) that through the agents in pursuance of the conspiracy mentioned above cheated Thakom...
Raja Jagat Kishore Acharya Chaudhury Vs. Hemendra Kishore Acharya Chou ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal263
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 Raja Jagat Kishore Acharya Choudhuri and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff now respondent for recovery of some allowance due to the plaintiff from the said defendant. The case as stated in the plaint may be briefly stated thus: The plaintiff's father the late Debendra Kishore Acharya Chowdhury brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh against the defendant-appellant in the year 1880. That suit was valued at Rs. 30,00,000 (thirty laks). At the time of the institution of the suit the defendant-appellant was a minor and his property was taken possession of by the Court of Wards. That suit terminated in a compromise by which the defendant-appellant promised amongst other things to pay to the plaintiff's father a monthly allowance of Rs. 200 out of the income of the zamindari. There was a further stipulation that this allowance would be payable to the plaintiff's sons and grandsons after the death of plaintif...
Panmall Jesraj Vs. Mr. J. Macleod
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal190
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The question involved in this appeal has been already before this Court on two different occasions and it arises out of a proceeding in insolvency. The insolvent is one Maganmal who used to do business in the name of a firm styled Mohan Lal Maganmal. Another firm called Panna Chand Jetmall, which is alleged to have been owned by Daimull and Panmull, used to do business as commission agents for Maganmal. This firm existed down to 1930 when it was wound up. In 1928 Daimull is said to have retired and Panmull, who is the creditor No. 14 in the insolvency proceeding and now the appellant before us, started business under the name of Panmull Jesraj. This firm took up business as commission agents for Maganmal in succession to the other firm of Panna Chand Jetmull. Maganmal used to take out insurance policy for about Rs. 50,000 and by arrangement the creditor firm used to keep the policy and pay the premium: On 31st August 1931 the shop of Maganmull at. Chittagong was looted...
Sm. Nurannessa Khatoon and ors. Vs. Osman Gani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal203,155Ind.Cas.926
1. In this appeal the question which arises for our consideration is whether a sale-deed was invalid by reason of its being registered at a place at which it could not be registered under the law. The facts necessary to be stated are the following. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for partition of certain properties, six in number, described in the schedule attached to the plaint. The plaintiffs claimed certain specified properties corresponding to a share which they alleged had belonged to defendants 8 and 9. Their case was that there was a family arrangement under which the said defendants had got those properties in lieu of their undivided share in all the six properties mentioned in the plaint and that in 1926 there was a deed of sale executed by the said defendants in their favour under which they became entitled to the said specified properties. Their case further was that there was a stipulation in the said document that in case there was any difficulty in obtaining pos...
Mousell and Co. Ltd. Vs. Ghanshyamdas Jamnadas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal231,155Ind.Cas.297
ORDERCunliffe, J.1. This is a somewhat embarrassing petition which arises out of a suit for the sale between the parties of a consignment of imported saris. In actual fact there was a cross action on the part of the defendants who were to take delivery of the goods, but at the hearing of, what I may call the main action, after the plaintiffs had called their evidence, the learned Judge presiding over the trial thought fit to make certain observations. They concerned the defendant and consisted, broadly, of a threat to sanction the defendant's prosecution for perjury if he gave evidence along certain lines. There are various descriptions of what happened during this incident. In the petition which is before me, which asks for the setting aside of the decree and for a new trial, this is how the incident was described:Paragraph 9.-' That after the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs were cross examined by my counsel, the learned Judge without giving your petitioners an opportunity to st...
Kanta Mohan Mallik and ors. Vs. Makhan Santra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1934
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.186
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal arises out of Suit No. 190 of 1929 which was instituted by seven persons as plaintiffs' for assessment of rent. The plaintiffs are the zemindars of Mandalhat Mouza Baranan is one of the mouzas which fall within the geographical limits of the plaintiffs' zemindary. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5 have 9 as. 12 gundas share and the Official Trustee of Bengal and Swarnamoyee Dassi the remaining 6 as. 8 gundas. The subject-matter of the suit and appeal are six plots of land, namely Dags Nos. 603) 604, 680, 475, 476 and 479 of the settlement map of the said village. In the Record of Rights prepared under Chap. X of the Bengal Tenancy Act, these Dags have been recorded as not paying rent but liable to pay rent. Accordingly the plaintiffs have instituted this suit for assessment of rent. The defence is that all the plots are niskar, the first three appertaining to a niskar 12 bighas in area and the others to another niskar 2 1/2 bighas in area. Both the lower Courts have ...
Bibhuti Bhusan Dutta Vs. Sreepati Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal146
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from a decree made by this Court on a first appeal. The suit was for partition of certain properties the plaintiff's claiming a half share therein, and also for accounts. The Subordinate Judge made a decree declaring in effect the plaintiffs' share to be one-third, after excluding certain properties which he found had been already partitioned, and also ordering accounts for a certain period. Of the properties in respect of which he decreed partition, he ordered a few items to be kept joint and the others he ordered to be partitioned by metes and bounds. This Court, on an appeal by plaintiff 1 and a cross-objection by plaintiff 2, varied the decree of the trial Court by dismissing the appeal save and except that it ordered a partition by metes and bounds of all the properties found to be joint. Plaintiff 1 is the applicant for leave.2. The appellant relies upon the decision of the Judicial Committee in Annapurn...
Badrinarayan Chetlingia Vs. Baidya Nath Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Cal143
1. This is an appeal by a decree-holder who has been trying to execute his decree for money which he holds against the judgment-debtors. There was an application for execution filed by the decree-holder on 19th December 1931. In that application prayer was made for realizing the decree by attachment and sale of the judgment-debtors' properties. In connexion with that application a list of properties was filed, on 25th February 1932, and these properties having been sold a part of the decree was realized on 9th June 1932 and a balance of little over Rs. 400 remained due after such realization. On 13th July 1932 the decree-holder put in a petition asking for time to put in a fresh list of properties and such time being granted a fresh list of properties was filed on 27th July 1932. In the meantime on 17th July 1932 the decree became barred in view of the provisions of 48, Civil P.C. The question which has been dealt with by the Courts below is whether by reason of the application which t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›