Kolkata Court February 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.
Birendra Lal Chaudhury Vs. Nagendra Nath Mukerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.573
ORDERS.K. Ghose, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order dismissing a petition for setting aside an election. The facts relevant to the Rule may be stated as follows;2. The Government of Bengal fixed March 10, 1931, as the date for holding the first genera election under the Bengal Municipal Act of 1932 in Ward No. 2 of the Hoognly Uminsura Municipality. There were four candidates for two seats, of whom one was Babu Sachindra Lal Chaudhury since deceased, the brother of the petitioner Birendra Lal Chaudhury, It appears that after the polling had gone on for some time on March 10, it was discontinued and the election was not held on that date. By a subsequent order the Local Government fixed another date, namely, April 15, 1934 for holding the said election and directed that the proceedings should commence from the stage where the election had failed on the previous occasion. On April 6, 1934, Babu Sachindra Lal Chaudhury died. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of thi...
WazuddIn Gazi and anr. Vs. Munshi Sayeb Ahamed and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal464,157Ind.Cas.353
1. These are separate appeals by defendants in a suit. The plaintiffs in the suit in which these appeals have arisen, claimed damages and prayed for a perpetual injunction on the facts and in the circumstances stated below: According to the plaintiffs there were three separate tenancies created in favour of the plaintiffs or their predecessors in title, comprising 121 bighas odd, by defendants 2 to 4, the Sur defendants or their predecessors in interest, described in schedule (ga) to the plaint. The lands in respect of which these tenancies were created were comprised in what is known as Chak Ghosalarabad. The tenancies had been in existence long before the year 1321 B.S., and the plaintiffs were in possession of the lands comprised in the same. In the year 1321 B.S., the Sur defendants leased out the whole chak to one Tarak Nath Banerjee. Subsequently, the interest created in favour of Tarak Nath Banerjee was sold for arrears of rent, and was purchased by the lessors, the Sur defendan...
ShamsuddIn Ahammed and ors. Vs. Suresh Chandra Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal22,160Ind.Cas.691
1. The suit in which this appeal has arisen, was instituted by the plaintiffs, as the purchasers of a Patni Taluk, for establishment of their title to the lands in suit, for khas possession of the same, as also for realisation of mesne profits. The entry in the finally published record of rights was against the plaintiffs, inasmuch as it showed defendants 1 and 2 had a nishkar, called an upajibika carved out of the patni, purchased by the plaintiffs, and that the defendants were in possession in that niskar right. The case of the plaintiffs was that the lands never appertained to any upajibika or nishkar, and even if defendants 1 and 2 possessed the lands on assertion of a nishkar right, that possession could not affect the plaintiffs' right to get possession of the lands appertaining to the patni purchased by him, free from all incumbrances.2. On the pleadings of the parties, the issues raised in the suit relevant for the purpose of this appeal, were these: Are the lands in suit cover...
Kandan Majhi Vs. Kulada Prosad Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.631
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for assessment of fair and equitable rent of a certain holding. The main defence of the tenant was that Section 109 of the Bengal Tenancy Act is a bar to the present suit. The Courts below have decreed the plaintiff's suit. In the present appeal of the tenant the only point urged by the learned Advocate for the appellant is that the present suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 109 of the Bengal Tenancy Act as it stood before the amendment in 1928.2. It appears that the suit was instituted before the new Act came into operation. It cannot be disputed that at the time when the suit was instituted Section 109 of the Bengal Tenancy Act as it then stood was a bar to the plaintiffs' suit. The question is whether this bar was removed by the amendment which came into force in February 1929. I am clearly of opinion that the amended provisions cannot revive a right which was already extinguished by operations o...
Prohlad Chandra Manna Vs. Kshirode Chandra Jana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.696
ORDERS.K. Ghose, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order dismissing an application for pre-emption under Section 26(F) of the Bengal Tenancy Act as being not maintainable on the ground that 1 he heirs of one Haru Manna have not been impleaded as co-sharer landlords. The learned Munsif has found on the evidence that although by amicable arrangement rent is realised by the petitioner alone, the Leirs of Haru Manna are, in fact, the co-sharer landlords. This finding cannot be interfered within this Rule. But it is contended for the petitioner that the objection as to non-joinder of Haru Manna's heirs cannot be raised by the opposite party who is the transferee from the tenants, because in the deed of transfer itself the petitioner is described as the sole landlord and the notice of transfer was also given to the petitioner as the sole landlord. It is contended that in these circumstances the opposite party transferee is estopped from raising the point that the petitioner is not the so...
Srish Chandra Mukhopadhyay and on His Death His Heirs and Legal Repres ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.164
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was originally, laid by the plaintiff No. 1 Sarojini Debi. Her adopted son Chandra Kanta Ganguly, who was originally apro forma defendant, was subsequently transferred to the category of plaintiffs, as plaintiff No. 2. The plaint set out a long history but for the purposes of the appeal now before us only a short statement of the salient facts alleged therein is necessary. They are as follows:The plaintiff No. 1 is the widow of one Nibaran Ganguly who died childless in 1306 B.S. leaving her as his only heir and giving her by a will authority to adopt a son and to possess his properties for her life. Nibaran's father Parbati left four widows of whom the youngest Swarnamoyi was the mother of Nibaran. Of the other three, the eldest Uma Sankari came, on Nibaran's death, to be in actual management of the properties. Uma Sankari and Swarnamoyi in concert with one Uma Kanta Ganguly, who was an agnatic relation as well as a debtor of Nibaran, man...
Nabendra Kishore Roy Vs. Abdul Majid and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1935
Reported in: 162Ind.Cas.938
1. This Rule has been obtained by the landlord whose application for preemption under Section 26-F of the Bengal Tenancy Act has been dismissed by the learned Munsif of Lakshimpur.2. The subject-matter of the application is an occupancy holding admittedly held under the petitioner. It formerly belonged to one Samar Ali Patvmri, on whose death it devolved upon his heirs. Two of them, namely, his sons Nana Mia and Nural Huq, who had inherited 5 annas 8 gundas share therein, sold their interest to the opposite party No. 1, Abdul Majid Mia, by a registered conveyance dated October 5, 1933. Samar Ali Patwari also left him surviving a son, named Sarajul Haque, who is admittedly a co-sharer of Nana Mia and Nural Haq.3. The notice of transfer under Section 26-C being served on the petitioner he applied for preemption on November 25, 1933. His application has been defeated on the ground that the purchase by Abdul Majid Mia is a benami purchase for the benefit of Sarajul Haq, an admitted co-shar...
Ahmed HosseIn Bepari and ors. Vs. Digendra NaraIn Singha Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal801
Mukerji, J.1. These appeals have arisen out of a suit which was commenced on the following allegations:2. That the lands of Taluk No. 1116 of the Dacca Collectorate are owned and possessed jointly by the plaintiffs, the principal defendants and the proforma defendants, the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants having an 8 annas share and the principal defendants the remaining 8 annas share; that a debuttar, a brohoottar and a shikari have been wrongly recorded as interests held under the 16 annas of the Taluk; and that in a partition pending before the Collectorate, the said interests were being treated as such. The plaintiffs as owners of a 5 annas 12 gandas share in the taluk alleged that the said interests had no existence in fact, and that at least none of them was held under the 8 annas share belonging to themselves and to the proforma defendants. The reliefs asked for were several, but for the purposes of this appeal they may be taken to have been the following: (a) A declaratio...
Abdul Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1935
Reported in: 162Ind.Cas.931
Jack, J.1. In this case the accused was tried on charges of murder and conspiracy to murder under Sections 302 and 302-120-B of the Penal Code.2. He was acquitted on the charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, but convicted on the charge under Sections 302-120-B.3. On appeal to this Court against his conviction under Sections 302-120-B this Court ordered as follows 'the verdict of the Jury and along with it the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and we direct that the appellant be tried according to law.'4. Prima facie this order would only appear to refer to the conviction of the accused and have no reference to his acquittal. The order was presumably passed under the provision of Section 423(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which states that an Appellate Court may:In an appeal from a conviction (1) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or older him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such A...
Manoranjan Rai and ors. Vs. Srijukta Munshi SelamuddIn Ahmed Chaudhuri ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.293
D.N. Mitter, J.1. In this appeal which arises in a suit for arrears of rent a question of some importance has been raised. The question which we are to decide is really a question of first impression turning on the provisions of Regulation VIII of 1819, and also on the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. it appears that the predecessors of respondents executed so far back as in the year 1869 a putni kabuliyat in favour of the predecessor of the present plaintiffs. In that kabuliyat one of the stipulations was that in case of default of any kist the lessee should pay interest at the rate of two per cent. per month and that the amount in arrears together with the said interest should be realized without any objection under Regulation VIII of 1819 and Act X of 1859 and under the provisions of other laws in force for the time. On the basis of that kabuliyat a suit was instituted by the present plaintiffs for the recovery of the arrears of rent in respect of the nutni for the whole of 133...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »