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.
Jotindra Nath Haldar and ors. Vs. Aswini Kumar Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal554
1. The plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, prayed for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of a tenancy bearing an annual rental of Rs. 627-13-0 held by the tenant defendants, defendants 1 to 29 in the suit. The claim for realisation of rent was in regard to the arrears due for the years 1330 to 1333 B.S. It appears to be clear from the plaint in the suit that the plaintiffs' claim for rent was on the footing that the tenant defendants held a tenancy under them comprising an area of 980 bighas of land, in respect of which the rent of Rs. 627-13-0, as mentioned above was payable annually.2. The only defence of the contesting defendants to the claim for rent as made by the plaintiffs was that the plaintiffs had dispossessed them from portions of the land in respect of which rent as claimed in the suit was payable, and substantially interfered with their possession. On that defence, it was asserted by the tenant defendants that there should be total suspension of...
Abdul Aziz Vs. (Moulana) Syed Mohammad Arab Saheb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal736,159Ind.Cas.527
ORDERNasim Ali, J.1. This is an application in revision against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 500 and 504, I.P.C. The case for the prosecution as stated in the petition of complaint is as follows:2. On 15th November 1933 the complainant Moulana Syed Mohammad Arab received a letter from the accused petitioner in which the petitioner made serious allegations against the complainant. The petitioner knew them to be false. He made those allegations with intent to insult him and to cause him to break the peace. The petitioner communicated to Mr. Noor Mohammad, Kazi Abul Karim, and others that be had already written a letter to the complainant and told them that the complainant had been implicated in a case with Moti, prostitute, in Maharaj Road Estate. The complainant was thereby defamed and the character and credit of the complainant were lowered in the estimation of others. The accused also threatened the complainant that he would publish the false allegation...
Durga Prosad Barhai Vs. Jewdhari Sing and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal116
D.N. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant and arises out of a preliminary decree in a suit on mortgage commenced by the plaintiff. The decree is dated 15th February 1932. The suit was to enforce a mortgage executed by one Jadu Nath Sarma, who is said to be the Karta of a joint Mitakshara family, on 26th May 1922. Jadunath hypothecated by this document the immoveable properties belonging to the joint family. In order to understand the position of Jadunath with reference to the family it is necessary to state the following facts: One Bhagoo Mistri had three brothers namely Gakul, Nimchand and Fulchand. There was some sort of a partition between Gakul, Nimchand and Fulchand, and Bhagoo got in his share the properties some of which have been mortgaged by the document on which the present suit has been brought. Bhagoo died leaving behind him surviving his son Kali Charan who died on 9th February 1918. Kali Charan had a son Raghunath who died at the age of 42 but during the lifeti...
Jogesh Chandra Khasnavish and ors. Vs. Suresh Chandra Namadas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.370
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of khas possession of lands described in the third schedule to the plaint, in the alternative for possession of an undivided two-thirds share of the lands mentioned in the first schedule, on declaration of their title to the same. The Court of first instance passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs, declaring the title of an undivided two-thirds share of the lands mentioned in the first schedule, and describing that the plaintiffs were to have joint khas possession of the same to the extent of the said share. On appeal by the defendants, the decision and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs were reversed, and it was held that the plaintiffs claim in respect of 3.51 acres of the lands in Schedule I of the plaint should be dismissed; in respect of the rest of the lands in that schedule, while the plaintiffs' title to two-thirds share should be declared, their claim for joint possession must be dismis...
Derby Mcintyre and Co. Ltd. Vs. Mitter and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.931
Cunliffe, J.1. This case comes beiore me on a preliminary legal issue.2. The plaintiffs obtained judgment against the defendants in the King's Bench Division in London. Their claim was for a liquidated amount, comprising money rent, disbursements, commission and so on, in relation to a cargo of mica shipped to the United Kingdom by the defendants who are an Indian firm carrying on business in Calcutta.3. The plaintiffs first endeavoured to serve the defendants in London through a representative; but they were unable to do so; and eventually, with the leave of the Court, they served the writ out of the jurisdiction in Calcutta.4. The defendants, however, put in no appearance to the action and consequently the plaintiffs, employing the expeditious procedure which is common to so many Courts in the British. Empire, signed judgment against the defendants by default No evidence seems to have been called. That is not unusual; and it-is not disputed that the judgment thus obtained was in ever...
Atul Chandra Roy and ors. Vs. Sarada Sundari Dhupi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal49
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of possession. Plaintiffs' case is that the lands in suit were made over to the defendants to be held by them in lieu of service to be performed by them, the nature of the service being washing of the clothes of the plaintiffs. The land in suit is plot No. 504 and is admittedly the land used for the purpose of growing crops. The plaintiffs, I may state, are the proprietors of Taluk No. 900, Nos. 1 to 3 having two--thirds share therein and Nos. 4 to 7 the remaining one--third share. Of the three defendants who are washermen by caste, only defendant 1 put in a contest. Her only defence appearing from the written statement was that plot No. 504 along with Plot No. 503 constituted an ordinary tenancy held under the proprietors of Taluks Nos. 900 and 728 at a cash rent of Rs. 3 per year. Her case was not that though she and the other defendants had to render service to the landlords, the plaintiffs, the land...
Atul Chandra Rai and ors. Vs. Sarada Sundari Dhupi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1935
Reported in: 161Ind.Cas.187
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of possession. Plaintiffs case is that the lands in suit were made over to the defendants to be held by them in lieu of service to be performed by them, the nature of the service being washing of the clothes of the plaintiffs. The land in suit is plot No. 501 and is admittedly the land used for the purpose of growing crops. The plaintiffs, I may state, are the proprietors of Taluk No. 900, Nos. 1 to 3 having two-thirds share therein and Nos. 4 to 7 the remaining one-third share. Of the three defendants who are washermen by caste, only defendant No. 1 put in a contest. Her only defence appearing from the written statement was that plot No. 504 along with plot No. 503 constituted an ordinary tenancy held under the proprietors of Taluks Nos. 900 and 728 at a cash rent of Rs. 3 per year. Her case was not that though she and the other defendants had to render service to the landlords, the plaintiffs, the lan...
Jyotindra Mohan Choudhury Vs. Bridhideyee Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.400
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the defaulting patnidars whose application to set aside the patni sale under Section 14-A of the Patni Regulation has been rejected, the learned Munsif holding that the sum of money which was deposited within thirty days of the sale has fallen short of the requisite amount by about Rs. 5-8-0.2. The petitioners held a patni taluk under the Maharaja of Burdwan (opposite party No. 2.) They having failed to pay the rent and cess in time, the Maharaja applied for sale of the patni under Regulation VIII of 1819. The sale was held on November 17, 1933, corresponding to the Augrahayan 1, 1340 B.S. and the Opposite party No. 1 purchased the patni for Rs. 550. The amount for which the patni was put up for sale was Rs. 501-9-0. The said amount is made up of the following items:Rs. a. p.(a) Rent due up to Assin 1340 ... 452 4 3(b) Interest on do up to Assin 1340 ... 9 14 2(c) Cess due upto Assin 1340 ... ... 32 12 9Interest on do up to Assin 13...
Mr. K.C. Mukherji, Official Receiver and anr. Vs. Khajemali Khan and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1935
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.605
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application for leave to prefer an appeal from a decree of this Court affirming on appeal a decree of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, 24 Parganas. The suit in which the said decrees were made was for recovery of possession of a garden and, in the alternative, for recovery of the money which the plaintiffs had paid as selami and also the costs which they had incurred in making improvements. The property in suit was one of the properties which were included in a deed of trust executed in 1880 by the then owners thereof, and in accordance with the terms of the said deed one Pratab Chandra Ghose came to be the sole trustee in respect of the trusts with his brother Sarat Chandra Ghose standing to come in as trustee on his death. While this was the state of things, Pratap's son Bhupendra Sri, in 1910, as attorney for Pratap, granted a maurasi mokurrari lease to the plaintiffs in respect of the garden, the property in suit. In the same year Sarat Chandra Ghose insti...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Bengal Vs. Tarak Nath ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal304
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the learned Sessions Judge at Burdwan, setting aside a conviction and sentence passed by a Magistrate, 1st Class, Burdwan, under Section 193, I.P.C. The learned Judge acquitted the accused on a point of law, and did not deal with the merits of the case against the accused. The story, shortly stated, is that on the evening of 16th March 1933, the attention of the villagers was attracted by sounds coming from the village Post Office. On going there, they found that the Post Master was lying gagged and bound and apparently in a semi-conscious state. A sum of approximately Rs. 1060 was found missing, and, the Post Master complained of having been seized and bound by robbers. The Police came to the conclusion that the story was false, and that the Post Master had set up a bogus story to cover his own defalcations. He was sent up for trial under Section 193, I.P.C. for fabricating false evidence in order to create an impression of r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »