Kolkata Court May 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.
Hemendra Nath Roy Choudhury Vs. Jnanendra Prasanna Bhaduri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal702,159Ind.Cas.1101
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff who is the appellant before us sued for possession of some plots of land, his case being that they form parts of his estates bearing touzi Nos. 1624, 1644 and 1647 of the Mymensingh Collectorate. The defendants claim the said lands to be parts and parcels of their estate bearing touzi No. 1646 of the aforesaid Collectorate. Both the Courts below have found that portions of the lands in suit surrounded by red lines in Commissioner's map fall within the plaintiff's estates, but on the question of limitation the Courts below have differed.2. For the purpose of deciding the question of limitation it is necessary to consider the following facts: Golak Nath Roy was the proprietor in the past of the estates claimed by the plaintiff. He died on 10th May 1846, without any issue but survived by a widow, Jahnvi Choudhurani. He had given his wife power to adopt a son to him. Shortly after his death his widow, Jahnvi Choudhurani adopted Baikuntha Nath Roy Choudhury w...
Gunarberinissa Choudhurani and ors. Vs. Gopendra Prosad Sukul and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal275,163Ind.Cas.72
Henderson, J.1. The first point which arises for decision in this rule is whether the deposit which is required by proviso (b), Sub-section (3), Section 174, Ben. Ten. Act, is to be made at the time the application is filed, or before the application is allowed. The petitioners filed an application and the learned Subordinate Judge directed them to deposit the amount recoverable under the decree within ten days. The petitioners then obtained this rule. They are supported by the decision in Mofijuddin Muhuri v. Mofizuddin 1934 Cal 491. On the other hand the opposite parties rely on certain general arguments and certain observations made by Mukerji, J., in Kuloda Prosad v. Kumar Prativa Nath Roy 1935 Cal 91. On behalf of the opposite parties it is contended that inasmuch as the applicants cannot get any relief without making the deposit, it would be futile to provide that the deposit will not be required until some subsequent date; further if the intention of the legislature was to disco...
Musammat Rasul Bibi and ors. Vs. Moosa Soleman Saleji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.258
1. Amongst the several objections which have been urged on behalf of the appellants in this appeal, which they have preferred from a final decree in a suit for partition, there is one which, in our opinion, is of considerable substance.2. The appellants were the defendants Nos. 6 to 9 in the suit. The Commissioner found that the total value of the subject-matter of partition was Rs. 4,22,974-6 6 and that each of the three sets of persons (the second and the third sets being mutawallis of wakf estates) amongst whom the property was to be divided, namely the plaintiffs, the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and the defendant Nos. 4 to 9, was to get properties worth one-third of the said amount, that is to say, Rs. 1,40,991-7-6. So far as the set consisting of the defendants Nos. 4 to 9 are concerned, the Commissioner allotted to them the following properties.Lots III, III (a) and III (6) of Plot No. 1.Lot III of Plot No. 2.Lot III of Plot No. 3, and Lots III and III (a) of Plot No. 4.3. Defendants ...
Durgaram Chaudhury and ors. Vs. Amrita Chandra Goswami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.452
Guha, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents in the Court for declaration that the lands specified in schedule (fed) and (ga) to the plaint were Dharmottar lauds of Dihina Satra, and that the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, appellants in this Court, had no title to those lands. In the suit, prayer was also made by the plaintiffs for confirmation of their possession in those lands, on behalf of the Dihina Satra of which they were the Adhikars, and for recovery of possession of the lands described in schedule (oma) to the plaint. The claim in suit was resisted by the defendants Nos. 1 to 3.2. The history of the property in litigation has been given in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in the-Court below, in some detail, and it is not necessary to refer to the early history of the same as the decision arrived at by the Court below that the property was the subject of religious endowment, was not and could not be disputed on the materials on...
Ram Krishna Bera and ors. Vs. Bejoy Kumar Addya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.935
1. These two appeals have arisen out of a final decree in a suit for partition. The, facts necessary to be stated for the purposes of these appeals are the following:In 1899, the predecessors of the parties to these suits jointly took a lease of a large quantity of land in the Sundarbans which were bounded on the east and also on the west by two rivers. Being subject to the fluvial action of these rivers, the lands necessarily were liable to charge in their extent. 12 annas share of the lands was taken lease of by one Madan Mohan Jana in the name of his Benamdar one Radha Gobinda Jana and the remaining 4 annas share thereof was similarly taken lease of in the name of one Raj Krishna Bera. After the lease was obtained, there was a sort of rough and ready division of the lands between the owners, presumably in accordance with their respective shares, and thereafter a Bheri on embankment being put up as indicating the line of demarcation between the two divided shares, the parties went on...
Rai Satyendra Nath Bhadra Bahadur and anr. Vs. Charu Sankar Roy Chowdh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal100
R.C. Mitter, J.1. In this case the defendants-appellants are admittedly the tenants of the plaintiffs-respondents in respect of a plot of land in the town of Faridpore. The defendants attempted to raise pucca buildings on the lands in suit whereupon the plaintiffs instituted the suit on 16th January 1931 for a declaration that the defendants were ticca tenants on the lands, they had no right to construct pucca buildings and for an injunction to restrain them from continuing the building operations and for a mandatory injunction for removal of the structures already raised before the suit. The substantial defence of the defendants was that the tenancy was a permanent one. In the Court of first instance they succeeded and the learned Munsif held that the tenancy was a permanent one. He accordingly made a decree in part, making a declaration in the plaintiffs' favour that they had title to the suit lands but inasmuch as he found that the tenancy was a permanent one the prayer for mandator...
Surendra Kumar Roy Choudhury and ors. Vs. Ahmed Nawab Choudhury and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.897
1. These four appeals have arisen out of as many suits which were instituted by the heirs of the late Nawab Mohammad Ali, Nawab Choudhri Khan Bahadur of Paschimgaon whose estate is now under the management of the Court of Wards. Appeal No. 226 of 1931 has arisen out of Suit No. 32, No. 227 of 1931 out of Suit No. 33, and No. 17 of 1933 out of Suit No. 34. These three suits were instituted in 1927, but were numbered in 1929 when they were given these numbers. The other Appeal No. 18 of 1933, has arisen out of another suit which was instituted in 1926 but was re-numbered as No. 35 of 1929 and tried along with the aforementioned three suits. The plaintiffs in all the four suits are the owners of Touzi No. 100 of the Tipperah Collectorate and the lands concerned therein are situate in a village named Mouzah Doulkhar within Pargana Homnabad in the District of Tipperah. The village appertains to two touzis, namely Nos. 100 and 315 between which its lands are divided.2. It will be convenient,...
Ronald Duncan Cromartie and ors. Vs. Sree Sree Iswar Radha Damodar Jie ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1935
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.859
D.N. Mitter, J.1. These four appeals arise out of two suits brought on behalf of a certain idol or idols for a declaration that certain leases granted by previous shebaits are not binding on the plaintiffs who are successors to the shebaitship of the said grantors of the lease as also for a declaration that a certain mortgage and sale in execution of the said mortgage is not binding on the succeeding shebaits. It will be necessary to state the cases made in the plaints of the two suits separately as there is a slight difference between them both with regard to the lands in the two suits as also with reference to the facts of the same. The case as stated in the two plaints of suit No. 68 is that Sree Sree Iswar Radha Damodar Chandra Jieu, plaintiff No. 1, is the owner of the entire 16 annas of the zemindari right of the properties mentioned in the schedule, namely, Mouza Damodarpur the boundaries of which are given in the said schedule and that the said Thakur possessed all those proper...
Fateh Kumar Singh and anr. Vs. Kishen Chand Kachar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal816
Henderson, J.1. This is art appeal against an order rejecting an application filed by the judgment-debtors appellants under the provisions of Section 47, Civil P.C. The decree for which execution was sought was passed on the Original Side of this Court against a certain firm, and was then transferred to the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Parganas for execution. The contention of the appellants is that they are not partners of the firm, and that the decree cannot be executed against them personally. It is contended that execution can only proceed against them personally under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 50, Sub-section (2), of the Code, and that is a matter which can only be allowed by the Court passing the decree and not by the Court to which the decree has been transferred for execution. The contention of the respondent is that Sub-section (1) of the rule applies.2. In our opinion it is not possible for the appellants to contend that they are not personally liable. In the first plac...
Barisal Loan Office Ltd. Vs. Satish Chandra Das.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal12,166Ind.Cas.408
Costello, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was brought by one Satish Chandra Das against the Barisal Loan Office Limited to recover compensation in respect of certain properties purchased by him from the defendants. The plaintiff had purchased a large number of properties from the Barisal Loan Office Limited by a registered Kobala dated the 2nd Aswin 1335 corresponding to 18th September 1928, for a sum of Rs. 21,900. The Barisal Loan Office Limited had purchased these properties at a sale which took place in certain execution proceedings arising out of a decree in a mortgage suit which the defendants themselves had instituted in order to enforce the mortgage on the properties in question. The Barisal Loan Office Limited was, therefore, in the position of being not only the judgment--creditors, but also the purchasers at the auction which took place in execution proceedings.2. The plaintiff was claiming in the suit compensation in respect of six of the properties com...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »