Kolkata Court April 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.
Mohini Mohan Mitra and anr. Vs. Radha Sundari Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal481
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. This rule has been obtained by two out of many cosharer landlords whose application for pre-emption made under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act, has been dismissed by the learned Munsiff of Dubrajpur. Opposite parties 2 to 5 had a tenancy under the petitioners and opposite parties. 6 to 41. On 7th April 1933 they sold to opposite party 1.13 acres of land out of the said tenancy. In the conveyance the description of the property sold was given as a ryoti holding. A notice of transfer under the provisions of Section 26-C was given to the landlords and the landlord's transfer fee prescribed by Section 26-D, Ben. Ten. Act was also deposited. On 8th August 1933 the petitioners received the said notice of transfer and on the reopening of the civil Courts on 23rd October 1933 they made the application for pre-emption. It does not appear whether the notice of transfer was served upon Sasadhar Mitra, one of the cosharer landlords who had been made a proforma defendant to the a...
In Re: Tushar Kanti Ghosh. Editor, Amrit Bazar Patrika, and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal419
Derbyshire, C.J.1. On 21st March 1935, a speech was made in the Legislative Council of Bengal by Mr. N.K. Basu in which an attack was made upon the Chief Justice and Judges of this Court. On 23rd March this speech was reported in the Amrit Bazar Patrika, a newspaper having a large circulation in Calcutta and other parts of Bengal. In the same issue of the newspaper a leader appeared headed 'Calcutta High Court'. After reading the said leader which was formally brought to the notice of the Judges of this Court upon an affidavit sworn by Mr. Collet, the Registrar of this Court on its Original Side, I, on 28th March after consultation with the Judges of the Court, directed that a rule should issue upon the Editor (Tushar Kanti Ghose) and the Printer and Publisher (Tarit Kanti Biswas) ordering that the two said persons should show cause before this Court, on 5th April, why they should not be committed or otherwise dealt with according to law for contempt of Court alleged to have been commi...
Mahommed MayenuddIn Mea and ors. Vs. Prodyot Kumar Tagore and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal189
1. The whole controversy in this appeal turns on the question of the status of the defendants who are the appellants and who claim to be occupancy raiyats as against the contention of the plaintiffs respondents which asscribe to them the status of non-permanent tenure holders holding over on the expiry of their lease. The defendants have to start with a double presumption against them. They have been recorded in the record of rights, finally published in 1913, as possessors of Fazal Jote Joynal Abedin, tenure holders-non-permanent, enhancible: the subordinate interests are recorded as Chukani; the total area of the lands let out to tenants is stated to be 539 acres, and the total area in direct possession as 11.96 acres of which about 5 acres consist of low lands and bunds and the rest are in the possession of the public as Halots. And the total area of the tenancy is 550.96 acres. The question to be considered is: 'Has the presumption been rebutted?' The area consists mostly of Chur l...
Dol Govinda Das Vs. Makbul Sekh's Infant heir and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal164,162Ind.Cas.91
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent with cesses and damages for the years 1334 to the Pous Kist of 1337 B.S. and also for enhancement of rent under Section 30 (b), Ben. Ten. Act. It is admitted that the plaintiff would be entitled to claim arrears of rent if he is able to prove that the Dar Putni interest under Touzi No. 1152 of the Murshidabad Collectorate, under which the tenancy is admittedly held, has vested in him. For the purpose of proving the purchase of the said Dar Putni interest, the plaintiff proved the certified copy of the conveyance dated 13th November 1929 by which he purchased the property. At the time when the certified copy of the conveyance was put in, no objection was taken to its going in. In fact, neither in the deposition nor in the list of documents admitted into evidence nor on the back of the document is there any note that the document was objected to. For the purpose of proving the conveyance...
Abdul Alim Vs. Abdul Sattar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal130
McNair, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Tipperah, allowing an appeal from the Court of the Munsif Kasba, which dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The question for determination is the title to a plot of land which originally belonged to Jainuddin and which the plaintiff bought from his three sons in Magh 1335 B.S. The defendant claims it on the ground that Jainuddin's widow and son mortgaged the land to him and put him in possession in lieu of paying interest, and finally sold it to him in 1320 B.S. The kobala by which this sale was effected was not registered and the learned Munsif in the trial Court held that it was inadmissible in evidence as a title deed, but could be admitted to show the nature and character of the defendant's possession since its date.2. He held further that the plaintiff had not proved that his vendors had been in possession within 12 years of the date of the kobala and that the defendant had been in adverse ...
Dagu Nath Saha Roy Vs. Biswambhar Saha Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.622
ORDERMcNair, J.1. This Rule was heard ex 'parte by Mr. Justice R.C. Mitter on January 18, 1935, and was made absolute. The same learned Judge on February 25, 1935, decided that the non-appearance of the opposite party at the time of hearing bad been satisfactorily explained arid he vacated his previous order. It has now been fully argued by Advocates for both parties.2. The facts are simple.3. The plaintiff petitioner filed a suit to establish his right to an easement of light and air in the Central Munsifs Court at Dacca and obtained an interim injunction restraining the defendant from raising a wall during the pendency of the suit.4. The practice in the Court is for suits which become contested to be allocated by the Court of the Central Munsif to the Courts of the other Munsiffs under the orders of the District Judge.5. In pursuance of that practice this suit was allocated to the Court of the 3rd Munsif. Later the Court of the 3rd Munsif, on application made to it, found that there ...
Bibhuti Bhusan Ghose Vs. Baikuntha Nath Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.477
1. This is an appeal from a decision and a decree of the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, 24-Parganas, dated November, 29, 1930, in a suit 'brought by the plaintiff-appellant, for enforcement of an equitable mortgage) in which in addition to prayer incidental to a mortgage suit, it was claimed by the plaintiff in the alternative that should it be found that the plaintiff was not entitled to a mortgage decree, for any reason whatever, a decree might be passed against the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 6 for the amount claimed in the suit, on declaring the said defendants liable to pay the dues of the plaintiff according to law and contract.2. The plaintiff's case before the Court, as stated in his plaint, was that on December 2, 1920, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, father and son, took a loan and executed a promissory note for Rs. 10,003 in his favour at premises No. 13, Esplanade East, Calcutta, and delivered to him, eight mortgage bonds in favour of the defendant No. 1, and two chalans showing d...
Sailabala Dasi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal489,158Ind.Cas.7
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case, the appellant was charged with and convicted of concealment of birth under Section 318, I.P.C., and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for nine months and a fine of Rs. 300 or, in default, three months' rigorous imprisonment. She was tried with two other accused who were acquitted. The first accused Usha Bala was the daughter of the second accused Sailabala and the third accused Birendra was the grandson of the second accused Sailabala. On 4th July 1934 Ushabala gave birth to male twins in the Calcutta Medical School and, Hospital. Apparently a nurse of the Hospital knew some women who desired to adopt a newly born child and on 8th July she took all three accused with the twins to 69/3, Corporation Street, in a car. The nurse got out of the car and took the twins into these premises to show them to the women, who she hoped, might adopt them. While she was inside, all the accused went off in the car.2. For various reasons the women were not willing to a...
Lokendra Lal Pal Choudhury Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.434
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is a reference under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. A motion was made on December 10, 1934, and the Sub-Divisional Officer of Madaripur, summoned the petitioner Lokendra Lal Pal Choudhuri under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, for not obeying an ex parte order of injunction made by the Deputy Magistrate on October 12, 1934, under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sub-Divisional Officer also started a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code against the petitioner, because he apprehended that the petitioner would commit a breach of the peace regarding a Jetty which was the subject-matter of dispute in the proceedings under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code.3. The Sessions Judge recommends that all the three orders should be set aside. The first order under Section 144 was that the petitioner should remove the Jetty which had been already completed on October 5, 1934. This order the Sessions Judge considers illegal and w...
Bhupati Bhusan Mukerji Vs. Amio Bhusan Mukerji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal491,157Ind.Cas.670
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is a Reference under Section 438, Criminal P.C., recommending that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Meherpur, summoning the accused upon complaint of an offence under Section 426, Penal Code, be set aside, The facts are that on 17th May 1934, the Magistrate summoned the accused and two others to appear on the 31st. The accused duly appeared and warrants were issued against the other two. The case was adjourned to 14th June. On the 5th the second accused appeared and his case also was adjourned to the 14th. On that day accused 3 had not appeared and the Magistrate ordered the case to go on against the other two, and adjourned it to the 29th for evidence on both sides. On that day the complainant asked for time and the case was adjourned to 12th July, when witnesses were present on both sides, but both sides asked for time in order to compromise the case which was one between relatives. It was adjourned to the 23rd when the inquiry officer asked for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »