Kolkata Court December 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.
Bhujendra Nath Biswas and ors. Vs. Sushamoyee Basu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal67,166Ind.Cas.786
1. These appeals have arisen out of applications under Section 47, Civil P. C., made in proceedings in execution of decrees. The decrees sought to be executed were passed in suits for rent; and the question raised by the persons against whom the decrees were sought to be executed, appellants in this Court, was that they were not liable under the decrees put into execution; that the decrees could not in law be allowed to be executed against them. The facts necessary for the purpose of a decision of this question arising for consideration in these appeals, may be very shortly stated. The decrees for rent, were passed against the three daughters of one Radhajiban Mustafi, whose estate is now in the hands of the appellants as the ultimate reversioners of Radhajiban. Of the three daughters of Radhajiban, Bhababhabini survived her sisters, and she divested herself of her estate in favour of the reversioners. It would appear that the reversioners had divided the estate of Radhajiban as amongs...
Ensup Mandal and anr. Vs. Golapjan (Golapjannessa) Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal772,166Ind.Cas.1001
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is by the defendants in a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the lands recorded in Khatians Nos. 228 and 314 of Mouza Mathurapur and in Khatian No. 69 of Mouza Akatpur, constitute one Jama bearing a rental of Rs. 15 per year and that the decree obtained by the landlords defendants in rent suit No. 499 of 1931 is a fraudulent one. In the record of rights which was finally published under Ch. 10, Ben. Ten. Act, the land recorded in Khatian 314 of Mouza Mathurapur has been shown to be one holding held at a rental of Rs. 15 a year, and the lands in Khatian 228 of Mouza Mathurapur, 'and in Khatian 69 of Mouza Akatpur have been shown as constituting another holding bearing a rental of Rs. 15. In 1931 the defendants instituted a suit to recover rent for the years 1334 to 1337 at the rate of Rs. 15 a year from the plaintiffs in the present suit and their co-sharers tenants. The plaintiffs in this suit did not enter appearance but their co-ten...
Wares Ali and ors. Vs. Sheikh ShamsuddIn Alias Muntao Mia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1935
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.260
M.N. Mukerji, Acting C.J.1. These are appeals preferred by the plaintiffs from the decree and decisions of the Court of the Additional District Judge of Howrah, dated February 29, 1932 and July 15, 1932. The suit out of which they have arisen was one instituted by six persons as plaintiffs under the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the sanction of the Collector of the District as provided for in Section 93 of the said Code. The prayers in suit were for the removal of amutawalli, for accounts and for other consequential reliefs.2. The wakf in connection with which this suit-was instituted was created by-one Jitan Bibi in 1893. She built a mosque and for defraying the expenses of the mosque and also certain other religious and charitable purposes dedicated all her properties and constituted herself as the first mutawalli. In 1895 she executed a tauliatnamah an which amongst other provisions she laid down a course of succession to the mutawalliship and also dir...
Baidya Nath Pandey and anr. Vs. Hemlata Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal26
ORDER1. The question raised in this rule is whether the petitioners had the right to apply under Section 174, Clause (1) Ben. Ten. Act, for setting aside a rent sale. The facts are not disputed and the question raised before me is a pure question of law and on that the question of jurisdiction of the lower Courts depends. Both the lower Courts have held that the petitioners have no locus standi to make and maintain the said application.2. The petitioners before me obtained a mortgage decree against opposite parties Nos. 8 to 10. The preliminary decree was passed on 5th January 1933 and the final decree was passed thereafter. On 6th January 1933 the petitioners made an application for attachment before judgment of some properties belonging to opposite parties Nos. 8 to 10 other than properties included in the mortgage and covered by the preliminary mortgagedecree. The statement in that application was that they obtained a preliminary mortgage decree a day previously and there was no cha...
In Re: Aryya Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1937Cal81,167Ind.Cas.689
ORDERMcNair, J.1. This is an application by the Aryya Insurance Co., Ltd., that the register of the Registrar, Joint Stock Companies, Assam, be rectified and that the registered office of the Insurance Co. be recorded as being in the town of Silchar as provided in the memorandum of association of the company. The petition is verified by the Officiating Secretary of the Aryya Swamic Ltd., who are the secretaries of the Insurance Company. Apparently there are two factions in the company directly opposed to one another and considerable litigation has taken place in Silchar on matters connected with this company. Clause 2 of the memorandum of association is as follows:The registered office of the company will be situated in the town of Silchar. The company can open branch offices anywhere.2. At a meeting held on 14th July 1935 in the town of Sylhet a resolution was passed that the registered office of the Aryya Insurance Co., Ltd., be removed to Sylhet. The petitioner contends that resolut...
Nabendra Kishore Roy Vs. Keramat Ali Munshi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal63
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent on the basis of an estate partition. The suit was decreed in part in the trial Court. The appeal to the lower appellate Court was allowed and the suit was dismissed on the ground that no notices were served on the defendants at the time of the partition as required by Section 81, Clause 3, Estates Partition Act. It appears that on an application for information the plaintiff was informed that the notices issued under Section 81 had been destroyed and that neither at the trial Court nor at the appellate Court did he produce certified copies of the order sheet showing that notices had actually been served. The trial Court held that the search petition showing that notices had been destroyed raised a presumption of the service of notices which was not rebutted nor denied. I am inclined to think that he was correct in this inasmuch as the presumption is that the proceedings were regularly taken and that the par...
Ekkari Ghose and ors. Vs. Sideshwar Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal783
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 to 3 in a suit for declaration that the lands in suit are saleable and attachable in execution of plaintiff's decree against the judgment-debtor, defendant 4 in the suit. The facts in short are that defendant 4's husband Annanda Prosad Ghose borrowed Rs. 76, from the plaintiff by a promissory note. The plaintiff brought a suit in 1929 on the promissory note against defendant 4 as widow and heir of the said Ananda. The suit was decreed on the 24th August 1929. The plaintiff in execution of the decree attached the lands in suit. The defendants 1 to 3 thereupon preferred a claim alleging that they had purchased the land on the 8th June 1929 and been in possession since the date, that the claim was allowed by the Court. Thereupon, the present suit was instituted. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the kobala by which the defendants purchased the lands from defendant 4 was a collusive and a benami document without consideration and wa...
Sm. Hemangini Devi and anr. Vs. Sarat Chandra Basu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1937Cal96
S.K. Ghosh, J.1. This is an application for amendment of a decree and it arises under the following circumstances: The applicant Sarat Ch. Basu was originally the sole defendant in a suit for partition instituted by the plaintiffs-opposite party. He filed a W.S. on 26th November 1917. Subsequently there was an amendment of the plaint, by which the respondent Bepin Behary Choudhury was added as a defendant and he filed a W.S. on 27th May 1919. I should mention here that after the amendment by which Bepin Behary Choudhury was added as a co-defendant the plaintiffs were directed to pay and bear their own costs caused by such amendment. On 13th November 1919 the suit came up for hearing before C.C. Ghosh, J., and he dismissed the suit with costs, holding that it was barred by limitation. Thereupon the plaintiffs preferred an appeal which came up for hearing on 1st March 1920 before the Court of appeal consisting of Mukherjee and Fletcher, JJ. The petitioner states in his petition that he i...
Sm. Tusliman Bibi Vs. Abdul Latif Mia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal97
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge of 24 Parganas on the ground that the Munsiff of Baraset, in whose Court it was instituted had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain it, has preferred this appeal. Her claim is for prompt dower money from her husband. The plaint, as originally filed on 24th August 1931, gave the place of residence of the defendant as Bishanpura in the district of Balia. By an amendment dated 1st December 1931, the defendant's present place of residence was stated to be Shibpur in the district of Howrah. After reciting her claim, in para. 3 of the plaint, as originally filed, the plaintiff stated that she was residing in Bijpore within the jurisdiction of the Baraset Court, and it is on this fact alone she stated that that Court had jurisdiction to entertain her suit. By an amendment allowed by the Court certain additions were made in para. 3 of the plaint. The substance of these additions is that t...
Ramesh Chandra Guha Vs. Dinanath Mestari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal178
Henderson, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for khas possession. It was originally argued before R.C. Mitter, J., and it has now come before us on a reference by him. The substantial point urged before us is whether a decree in execution of which the plaintiff alleges that he purchased a certain tenure was a rent decree or a money decree. The landlords instituted the suit against the recorded tenants on 15th April 1920. They put up the holding to sale and it was purchased by the plaintiff on 7th April 1922. He obtained possession on 21st July 1922. It appears that the interest of one of the tenure-holders, Sashi was put up to sale in execution of a money decree and purchased by one Kunja on 12th November 1919. The sale however was not confirmed till 7th September 1922, (that is to say, after the plaintiff's purchase) and he did not obtain delivery of possession until 2nd December 1922. The contesting defendant 1 had ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »