Kolkata Court January 1935 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.
Jagadiswari Debi and ors. Vs. Tinkari Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal28,160Ind.Cas.586
1. This is an appeal by some of the defendants in a suit brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of joint possession to the extent of a seven--annas share in the lands described in the plaint, on declaration of their title. The suit as instituted was necessitated by an order passed against the plaintiffs under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P. C. It appears that there was an application made by the plaintiffs to the Court for permission to sue as paupers, the application was made on 7th June 1926, within the period of limitation prescribed for the institution of a suit of the description contemplated by Article 11--A, Schedule 1, of the Indian Limitation; it contained all the materials necessary for a plaint, and the application was in accordance with the rules prescribed for presentation of an application for leave to sue as--a pauper:. The application for leave to sue as pauper was refused on 30th January 1928, and on 8th February 1928, time was allowed by the Court for payment of court--f...
Sm. Sarala Sundari Dassi and anr. Vs. Surendra Narayan Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.449
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. This Rule must be made absolute. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendants to establish a right of way over a certain piece of land. That suit was instituted on April 21, 1933. On May 21, 1931, the suit was dismissed for default of appearance on the part of the plaintiff. Thereafter on June 2, 1931, the plaintiff put in an application for restoration of his suit under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of (Civil Procedure). As his case was that he could not attend the Court on May 31, 1934, on account of illness he considered it necessary to have his deposition on record so that his c se might be restored. On July 10, 1934, he made an application in the restoration case for his examination en commission. That application was supported by a medical certificate granted by a Doctor named Dhirendra Nath Ghose. In the said certificate tie Doctor said that the plaintiff was for several years past under his treatment and had been suffering from dyspepsia, palpi...
Hara Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Bholanath Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.75
1. This plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, sought to exercise right of pre-emption in respect of the property described in the plaint, against the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the suit, as purchasers of the property in question from the defendants Nos. 4 and 5 by a kabala, Ex. B in the case dated Bhadra 25, 1335. The plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 4 and 5 were admittedly co-sharers in regard to the property in dispute and the right of pre-emption sought to be exercised in the suit was right to a certain share in joint property, owned by the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 4 and 5, the vendors of the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the suit. The claim to the exercise of the right of pre-emption as made by the plaintiffs was resisted by the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3; the defendants Nos. 4 and 5 supported the case by these defendants, by the written statement filed by them but they did not appear at the hearing of the suit,2. The plaintiffs' claims for pre-...
Jogendra Chandra Das Vs. Birendra Lal Das Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal454
ORDERMitter, J.1. This rule has been obtained by a defendant, (defendant 3) in a suit instituted under Section 9, Specific Relief Act. The points for consideration are (1) Whether the plaintiffs have at all been dispossessed, and (2) if dispossessed whether the dispossession was otherwise than in due course of law. The subject-matter of the suit is a narrow and long strip of land. It was with other lands, the subject-matter of a suit for partition between the plaintiffs and defendant 1 and others. Defendant 3 was not made a party in the partition suit. The partition suit ended in a decree some time in the year 1931. The plot in suit was given to the plaintiffs. On 9th April 1932 the plaintiffs took possession in 'execution of the decree for partition.2. The defendants started proceedings under Section 147, Criminal P.C., on 3rd February 1932, their case being that they had a right of way over the lands in suit and the plaintiffs were attempting to obstruct the pathway. At the date when...
Lalit Mohan Mukhopadhya Vs. Hara Mohan Banikya Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal813,159Ind.Cas.1016
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff whose suit for khas possession has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff claims the suit land, which is in village Kurasi, as appertaining to his estate No. 5642 of the Faridpore Collectorate (formerly numbered as No. 631 of the Dacca Collectorate). There is no dispute now that the plaintiff is the proprietor of the said estate, although it was at one stage of the suit contended by defendant 1, that he had no beneficial interest therein. The said estate was sold for arrears of revenue on 29th June 1881 and purchased by Girish Chandra Sen and others, hereinafter called the Sens, from whom the plaintiff has derived his title. Shortly after their purchase the Sens applied for measurement of the lands appertaining to their estate under Section 38, Act 8 of 1869 (B.C.) and proceedings started under the said section were duly completed on 19th March 1885. The application is not on the record, but the Robakari of...
In Re: Melanda Loan Office, Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.189
Cunliffe, J.1. This matter comes before me on an application to sanction the scheme of arrangement said to have been come to at a meeting of the creditors of the Melanda Loan Office, Limited, a concern which finds itself in financial difficulties. The order for the holding of this meeting was made by this Court and it is said that a certain scheme was approved of by the necessary statutory majority of the creditors present. There is no need to go into the scheme in its details. It is opposed by a gentleman who is a creditor of the Company. He is a decree-holder for a debt of Rs. 5,000. I am also told by Counsel that there is another creditor who has obtained another judgment for a small amount who is not represented before me on this application.2. The objection which is put forward on this creditor's behalf is an objection on principle based upon the wording of the Section 153 of the Indian Companies Act. That section deals with the power to compromise lying in the hands of the credit...
Amina Bibi Vs. Akshoy Kumar Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal31,160Ind.Cas.867
Mukerji, J.1. In this appeal which has been pressed only as regards item 1 of property namely plot No. 1 of the schedule to the plaint the substantial question in controversy, such as it 'was before the Court below, was whether that property was originally acquired by one Ijjatannessa Bibi or had belonged previously to her father Nasirulla. By reason of some documents which the appellant has discovered during the pendency of the appeal the question has been placed before us for our consideration in a somewhat altered form namely whether it 'had not belonged to Ijjatannessa Bibi's mother who is said to have been one Mariam Bibi. The appellant has applied for the reception of the said documents as evidence at this stage. Order 41, Rule 27, of the Code as explained by the decisions of the Judicial Committee in the cases of Kessowji Issur v. G. I. P. Ry. (1907) 31 Bom 381 and Parsotim v. Lal Mohan 1931 P C 143 would not enable us to receive these documents as additional evidence, even thou...
His Highness Maharaja Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Chairman, ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.109
Nasim Ali, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits brought by the Maharaja of Hill Tippera against the Comilla Municipality and the lessees from the said Municipality. The case of the plaintiff briefly stated is as follows:The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff made a grant of certain lands included in his zemindary for construction of roads for the use of the public, reserving the right to resume them when they would be no longer required for purposes of road. Roads were thereafter constructed on those lands and were being used by the public. Recently the defendant No. 1, i.e., the Chairman and the Commissioners of the Comilla Municipality within which the roads are situated let out portions of the side slopes of these roads to the other defendants for the construction of certain huts. Plaintiff is therefore, entitled to resume possession of these lands; plaintiff is also a rate-payer of the Municipality. In addition to the damage sustained by him along with other rate-pay...
Chandulal Seraogi Vs. Purna Chandra Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1935
Reported in: ILR1935NULL73
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the plaintiff against whom damages have been awarded under the provisions of Section 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that the plaintiff instituted a suit to recover a sum of money from the defendant on the basis of a promissory note. After filing the suit he made an application for attachment before judgment of some immovable properties belonging to the opposite party. On January 7, 1933, the conditional order for attachment before judgment was made and that order was made final on January 10,1933. Seven days later, the opposite party came to Court, deposited the amount of the claim and the attachment was withdrawn. Later on, he did not contest the suit which was decreed without contest. Thereafter, the opposite party made an application for compensation under the provisions of Section 95 of the Code. The allegations made in the said application are recited in para. 5 of the application for revision filed in this Court...
Bishnupada Samanta and anr. Vs. Munshi Muhammad Esmail Sircar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1935
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.381
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendants in a suit instituted against them by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of some plots of land and for confirmation of possession on others. The learned Munsif decreed the suit, but on appeal the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiff's claim for possession in respect of plot No. 4 but decreed his claim for possession of the other plots. The defendants have preferred this appeal against the said decree. In my judgment the appeal must succeed and the plaintiff's suit must be dismissed in its entirety.2. To follow the controversy between the parties the following facts are relevant. One Gopal Samanta, the father of the defendants held an area of 2 bighas 19 cottas 12 chittaks of land as a tenant under the plaintiff. The lands in suit were admittedly comprised in the said tenancy. Gopal died in December, 1925. After his death the plaintiff dispossessed Gopal's sons, the defendants, from plot No. 4 of this suit an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »