Kolkata Court November 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.
Secy. of State Vs. Jitendra Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal70
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent for a declaration that certain re-valuation proceedings in connexion with assessment of cess under the provisions contained in the Cess Act (Bengal Act 9 of 1880) were illegal, ultra vires and not binding on the plaintiff. The question relevant for the purpose of this appeal raised before the Courts below, and which was argued in support of the appeal was whether the re-valuation for imposition of cess made in respect of Jessore portion of Touzi No. 132 of the Jessore Collectorate, under Section 21, Cess Act, was ultra vires, illegal and not binding against the plaintiff, for non-service of notice under Section 16, Cess Act, upon the plaintiff, the plaintiff, not having been otherwise cognizant of the order calling for return as prescribed by law, before the making of valuation under Section 21 of the Act.2. The Courts below have concurrently found on evidence before the Courts that there was no proof of any...
Siva Mohan Kundu Choudhury and ors. Vs. Sm. Bechumoyee Dasi-plaintiff ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal585
Costello, J.1. These appeals are from a judgment dated 17th August 1934, whereby the learned Judge in the Court below made a decree in favour of the plaintiff Srimati Bechumoyee Dasi declaring that she is entitled to a one-twelfth share in certain properties and in the business referred to in Schs. B and C annexed to her plaint and to a one-fourth share in properties and in the business mentioned in Schs. D and E. The decree made by the learned Judge also included an order for partition and all other necessary reliefs in that connexion. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 19th August 1931 and by the plaint it was averred that one Kissori Mohan Kundu Choudhury, who was during his life time and at the time of his death governed by the Bengali School of Hindu Law, died intestate on 12th March 1880 without any male issue but leaving his widow Srimati Manorama Dassi and the plaintiff who is the only daughter of Kissori Mohan and his wife Manorama.2. The plaintiff Bechumoyee Dassi cl...
Uddab Nath and ors. Vs. Gokul Chandra Deb Nath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal700
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiffs' 3 annas and 3 pies maliki right in the land described in the plaint, and for recovery of joint khas possession in the trial Court the plaintiffs's title to 1&frac1;/2; pies share in the holding was declared. In the lower appellate Court, in addition to the 1 pies share awarded by the trial Court the plaintiffs were declared to be entitled to another 1 anna 2 pies share in the property in suit, as being the share originally held by Moiram Chand Banu, the predecessor of the plaintiffs. This appeal is with regard to 1 anna 2 pies share. The plaintiffs are claiming by purchase from defendants 14 and 15. These defendants purchased the share which they held in a revenue paying estate. The whole question is whether their predecessor had the share which they purported to have sold to the plaintiffs. This again depends upon the question whether Moiram Banu had inherited this share of 1 anna 2 pies. The defendants...
Corporation of CalcuttA. Vs. Ganesh Chandra Dhar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal20
Bartley, J.1. This rule was issued on the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta, calling on him to show cause why his order dated 20th May 1935 striking off proceedings against the other opposite parties to the rule, on the ground that they were barred by limitation, should not be set aside. The material facts are that on 5th September 1933, the Magistrate, on an application by the Calcutta Corporation, passed orders under Section 363, Calcutta Municipal Act, directing demolition of certain structures erected by the opposite parties, within three months. These orders were not complied with, and on 12th March 1935, about 18 months later, an application was made on behalf of the Corporation to prosecute the offenders under Section 488 of the Act. This was refused, on the ground that further proceedings were barred by limitation.2. Now under Section 534 of the Act, no person is liable to punishment for an offence unless the complaint is made within three months of its commission, or, in the ca...
Shamlal Singh Vs. Hiru Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal472,166Ind.Cas.942
Costello, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiff, who is now the appellant before us, was seeking partition of certain properties which were family properties belonging to the plaintiff's father, Ramgopal Singh and after his death, to the plaintiff and his two brothers. The defendant is the half brother of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's case was that he and the defendant Hiru Singh together with another brother Kissen Singh formed a joint undivided Hindu family, Kissen Singh was the full brother of Hiru Singh those two being the sons of the second wife of Ramgopal. Ramgopal died on 11th June 1928, and Kissen Singh on 11th November 1928. The only point which was argued in the suit is the question whether or not the three brothers, Sham Singh, Hiru Singh and Kissen Singh, formed a joint undivided Hindu family at the time of the death of Kissen Singh, that is to say, on 11th November 1928. The plaintiff's father, Ramgopal had five brothers and in the year 1926 a...
Arman Shaik and ors. Vs. NaimuddIn Shaik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal157
ORDERJack, J.1. In this case a rule was issued on the District Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why an order convicting the petitioners under Sub-section 143 and 427, Penal Code, and fining one Rs. 100 and the other petitioners Rs. 50 each should not be set aside.2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners and others forcibly cut and took away unripe paddy from the complainant's land and thereby committed mischief to the extent of Rs. 1,200. The finding is that the petitioners had been put in symbolical possession by a civil Court and that they had been trying to oust the complainant and one Musobdi from the land. These were the persons who actually grew the crop and the petitioners came there and cut away the unripe crop while the complainant left the locality in order to institute a suit to restrain the petitioners from cutting away the standing crop from the land.3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they had been put into actual physical possession...
Baidya Nath SeIn Vs. Kumud Chandra Paul and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.815
Panckridge, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Ameer Ali who passed a decree in the respondent's favour for Rs. 2,400, with interest and costs.2. The suit was for the sum decreed, which was claimed on the footing that the respondent had paid it as the guarantor of the appellant, from whom as principal debtor, the respondent, was entitled to recover it under Section 145 of the Indian Contract Act. The defence was that in fact the appellant was the guarantor, the respondent being the principal debtor.3. On October 3, 1928, the respondent and one Prandhone Kundu, who was the second defendant in the suit, executed a promissory note for Rs. 3,000 in favour of one Sankar Lall Datta. The numbers of the currency notes that made up the consideration were set out in the note which was witnessed by the appellant, who is an attorney of this Court. Subsequently on the same day the appellant executed a second promissory note in Datta's favour for Rs. 3,000, the consideration bei...
In Re: Girish Chandra Seal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal212
ORDERMcNair, J.1. Two applications have been made by the Official Assignee to set aside a series of transactions by which the insolvents Manindra Chandra Seal and Girish Chandra Seal have parted with property, as the Official Assignee contends, in defraud of their creditors. The questions for .determination in each application are similar and it has been agreed that this judgment shall control the rights of the parties in both cases. The insolvents Manindra and Girish are two of the sons of Durgadas Seal who died in September 1925 leaving seven sons. By his will dated 28th April 1924, Durgadas appointed his sons Ashutosh and Umesh as his executors. The only other son who is remotely concerned with these transactions is named Jadab. Durgadas died on 19th September 1925 having made a will dated 28th April 1924 under which each of the insolvents Manindra and Girish became entitled to a one-eighth share in the rest and residue of his father's estate. In order to appreciate the extent of th...
Sagoremull Khaitan Vs. Gajadhar Mansinghka and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal703
ORDERMcNair, J.1. This is an application on the part of the purchaser of premises No 1, Jugmohan Mullick Street, for an order that the sale held by the Registrar on 26th July 1935 be set aside and the money paid by the applicant refunded. There is an alternative prayer that a reference be directed to the Registrar to enquire and report on the title of the premises. On behalf of the respondent to this motion Mr. Mazumdar has stated that he is agreeable to an enquiry as to title, but the applicant preferred to proceed with his application to set aside the sale. The sale was held pursuant to a final mortgage decree, and the petitioner was declared the highest bidder and purchaser for a sum of Rs. 34,500. The petitioner paid the sum of Rs. 8,625 to the Registrar being twenty-five per cent of the purchase money. The petitioner contends that the vendor was unable to give him a good title, and he seeks to have the sale set aside. It appears that the property was purchased in 1887 by one Hanum...
Surput Sing and ors. Vs. Maharaj Bahadur Sing
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal476
McNair, J.1. In this suit the defendant applies for leave to defend. The suit was filed on 12th August of this year under Order 37, Civil P. C. The plaintiffs' claim is based on two promissory notes dated respectively 24th August 1934 and 27th August 1934, and the amount due on those two notes is said to be nearly Rs. 3,15,000. In para. 3 of their plaint the plaintiffs further state that they are pledgees in respect of certain articles of jewellery for payment of the money due in respect of the said notes and they ask for leave under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P. C., to reserve their rights as such pledgees. It is not denied that these two promissory notes were executed on the cancellation of the two promissory notes which had been made in 1931. There is no doubt that jewellery was pledged sometime in 1931 with the father of the plaintiffs, and it also appears quite clear that that jewellery was given as security for the loan for which the promissory notes were also executed. On behalf of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »