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.
Mukaram Marwari Vs. Mohammad Hossain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal42
Nasim Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage bond which was executed by the predecessor in interest of defendant 1 in favour of the plaintiff on 6th November 1919. Defendant 2, who contested the suit, was impleaded on the ground that he was a purchaser of a portion of the equity of redemption. His defence was that he satisfied two prior mortgages in respect of the property which he purchased and consequently he was entitled to stand in the shoes of the prior mortgagees whose claims were satisfied by him. The trial Court repelled the defence of defendant 2.and decreed the suit in full. On appeal by defendant 2 the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was incompetent. A Second Appeal (S. A. 505 of 1930) was taken to this Court by defendant 2 and this Court set aside the judgment of the lower appellate Court and directed a re--hearing of the appeal according to law. Thereupon the lower appellate Court has re--heard the appeal and has a...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal Vs. Hungerford Investment Trust, Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1935
Reported in: [1935]3ITR188(Cal)
LORT-WILLIAMS, J. - This is an application by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal, for a certificate that this is a fit case for appeal to His Majesty in Council.The petition was presented on November 12th, the first day of sitting of the Court after the long vacation and was within time. But counsel on behalf of the respondents objected that although the petition had been served upon his clients, the notice a motion served upon them was insufficient because it was not in proper form. The notice omitted to call upon the opposite party to show cause as required by Chapter XXXIII, Rule 3, of the Rules and Orders of this Court. The Court gave leave to the petitioner to amend the notice and directed him to re-served it. This was done on November 13th.Counsel for the respondents then objected that the petition was barred by limitation because the amended noticed was not given for the first day fixed for hearing privy Council matters after the long vacation, as required by the rule and th...
Rani Kanak Prova Debi Vs. Abdulla Akunji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal544,157Ind.Cas.676
ORDER1. The petitioner as a cosharer landlord, in whose favour a decree for her share of rent was passed, applied to have that decree executed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Khulna. The application for execution was dismissed for default on 23rd November 1933 as the decree-holder did not comply with the direction of the Court to take steps in proceeding 'against the rent land' within 7 days of the order passed on 15th November 1933 after holding that:It was bad move on the part of the decree-holder to fall upon other properties in the first instance.2. It may be mentioned in this connexion that the decree-holder thought fit to proceed against the property of the judgment-debtor other than the tenure in arrears for realization of her decree for rent, and it was this to which exception was taken by the Court of execution. The application for execution came to be dismissed ultimately, the decree-holder having failed to act according to the procedure indicated by the Court of exe...
Rakhal Das Chattopadhaya and anr. Vs. Indubala Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal125
1. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, prayed for the enforcement of an equitable mortgage. The plaintiff's case was that defendants 1 and 2 executed a hand-note in her favour on 30th March 1932 and on the same date deposited title deeds of certain properties as security for the loan on the hand-note, thus creating an equitable mortgage in her favour. A memorandum was said to have been executed by the defendants 1 and 2 evidencing the fact of the deposit of title deeds. The case of the plaintiffs was that the memorandum executed by the defendants 1 and 2 had somehow passed into the hands of defendants 4 and 5 who it was alleged had succeeded in obtaining a collusive mortgage bond executed by defendants 1, 2 and 3 in their favour on 16th December 1932. It is necessary to mention in this connexion that the properties covered by the title deeds deposited by defendants 1 and 2 on 30th March 1932, were the same as those hypothecated by the three defendants 1, 2 an...
Sadhu Charan Biswas Vs. Paban Mandal Being Dead His Heirs and Legal Re ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.264
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The subject-matter of this appeal is a narrow and long strip of land about 4 1/2 bighas in area. The plaintiff who is the appellant in this appeal claims possession of 2 bighas in khas and 1 1/2 bighas through tenants, the pro forma defendants. The plaintiff and the principal defendant hold two blocks of land under the Roys of Narail either directly or through intermediate tenants The plaintiff claims the land in suit as appertaining to his Dar Ganti which is comprised in Dags Nos. 382, 383, 370 to 374. The defendants say. that the said land appertained in Dags Nos. 365 and 367 which are included within their tenure under the Roys. The defendants' lands are admitedly towards the west of the plaintiff's land and the disputed land is in between. A survey was made under Chap. X of the Bengal Tenancy Act. A map was prepared and the Record of Rights was made final on June 11, 1936. The Record of Rights recorded Dags Nos. 382, 383, 370 to 374 in the possession of the plaint...
Tarini Charan Chakravarty and anr. Vs. Devendra Lal Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.583
Nasim Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration on plaintiff's title to 8 annas share of C.S. plots Nos. 395 and 593 and for recovery of khas possession of the same after partition. Plaintiff based his claim on a purchase from a Hindu widow Satyabhama in Pous 1334 B.S. The father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the husband of Satyabhama were two brothers. The disputed land was a part of the joint family property of the said two brothers. Plaintiff's case is that the disputed plots were in the joint possession of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and Satyabhama after the death of the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the husband of Satyabhama. The defence of the defendant No. 2 who alone contested the suit was that by an amicable partition in the year 1308 B.S. between his father and Satyabhama the disputed plots were allotted to the share of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and consequently plaintiff acquired no title on the basis of his purchase from the lady. The defendant fur...
Midnapore People's Urban Co-operative Credit Society, Ltd. Vs. Bhupend ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal418
ORDER1. This is a reference under Order 46, Rule 1, Civil P.C., made by the Subordinate Judge, Third Court, Midnapore, inviting the decision of this Court on two questions of law, on the facts and circumstances stated in the letter of reference. The plaintiff decree-holder, the Midnapore People's Urban Cooperative. Credit Society, Ltd., obtained a decree for recovery of money lent on a bond by the Society to the defendant, in Suit No. 43 of 1929 in the Court of Small Causes at Midnapore. There was no contest in the suit, and a decree was passed ex parte. The decree-holder Society, in the first execution case, failed to realize any part of the decretal amount by attachment of the salary of the judgment-debtor; when the second execution case was started, the judgment-debtor made two payments, and filed a petition in Court agreeing to satisfy the debt due to the decree-holder Society, by instalments of Rs. 10 a month. It appears that in terms of this agreement dated 26th July 1930, the am...
Ala Baksa Vs. Majibal Huq and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal739,159Ind.Cas.678
1. S.A. No. 73 of 1932.-The subject-matter of the litigation which has given rise to this appeal is a tank with its banks. The plaintiff derived his title by virtue of a deed of gift dated 9th Jaistha 1332 B.S. by which one Hamid Ali, gave him two annas share of the tank and its banks. The plaintiff's claim for possession of the tank and its banks was resisted by defendant 1 in the suit, on the ground that the gift was invalid under the Mahomedan law. It was contended that the deed of gift in favour of the plaintiff was void inasmuch under the Mahomedan law, an undivided share of a property that is capable of partition cannot be the subject of a valid gift. There is no question, and it was conceded that the doctrine of Musha has no application to the tank proper, which is incapable of partition. The question of validity of the gift in plaintiff's favour so far as the undivided share of the banks of the tank were concerned was raised before the Courts below, and was urged in support of ...
Rajendra Lal Bandopadhyaya and ors. Vs. Jogendra Nath Bandopadhaya and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal800,159Ind.Cas.957
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of pro forma defendants 4, 5, 8 and 10 in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent from 1333 up to the third Kist of 1336. The first Court granted the plaintiff a decree for rent only up to the Pous Kist of 1334, but the lower appellate Court has decreed the suit in full. The lands in suit appertain to parent estate No. 4407 of Faridpur Collectorate. 4as 16 1/2 gds share of the said estate was known as Hissya Durga Ram Roy. The said Hissya was owned by four groups of persons. The owners of the said Hissya created four permanent tenures, three Shikmi Taluks and a Kayemi Mirash.2. In this suit we are concerned with one of the Shikmi Taluks, namely Taluk Kashi Chandra Bandopadhyaya. The said Shikmi Taluk was created either in favour of the 3 groups of the owners of Hissya Durga Ram Roy or have been subsequently acquired by the said owners. Proceedings under the Estates Partition Act (5 of 1897 B.C.) were started. The co-proprietors of Touzi No. 440...
BepIn Chandra Mukhopadhya Vs. Taraprasanna Chakrabarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal498
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of defendant 2 in a suit for recovery of khas possession instituted by the plaintiffs who are admittedly cosharer landlords. Defendant 1 was admittedly the tenant, holding a non-transferable occupancy holding. On 24th March 1915 he sold the holding to defendant 2, who went into possession after his purchase. Notwithstanding the sale to defendant 2 by defendant 1 the plaintiffs sued defendant 1 for the arrears of rent of the years 1319 to 1322 (i.e., for rent due up to 13th April 1916), making their cosharer landlords parties defendants. This suit was numbered Rent Suit No. 2001 of 1916. To the said suit defendant 2 was not made a party defendant as the plaintiffs refuse to recognize him as a tenant. Defendant 1 appeared in the suit, pleaded that he held a transferable holding and had transferred the same to defendant 2. Thereafter he did not take any further part in the suit with the result that Rent Suit No. 2001 of 1916 was decreed ex-parte....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »