Kolkata Court July 1935 Judgments

Jnanendra Nath Dey Vs. Kshitish Chandra Dey

Court: Kolkata

Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case a Rule was issued to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed upon the petitioner should not be set aside. The petitioner was charged with an offence under Section 498, I.P.C. and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment. The complainant married his wife Shantilata seven years ago. The accused Jnanendra was his sister's husband, that is to say, his brother-in-law, who lived in a neighbouring house. For sometime, the complainant noticed undue intimacy between his wife and Jnanendra. In Agrahayan last, she went to Jnanendra's house for a social ceremony and put off coming back on one pretext or another until the next month. Six days' after that, she again went to Jnanendra's house, whence Jnanendra took her to her mother. From there she refused to return to her husband's house. Later, Jnanendra took her to his house. There was a village Salish and Jnanendra agreed to let the complainant take his wife away. The wife was unwilling to go and...

A.R. Manuel Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal678,158Ind.Cas.791

Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case a Rule was issued to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed upon the petitioner should not be set aside. The Rule was issued on the ground that the age being required to be put in under the schedule to Section 38, Indian Christian Marriages Act (15 of 1872), although not required by the section, the misdescription of the age in the notice form does not amount to an offence under Section 66(b) of the Act.2. Mrs. Gilbert, wife of Ivan Gilbert, filed a complaint against the accused, alleging that he had abducted her daughter Noreen, aged 17 years. That was on 22nd January 1935. On 12th January the accused had applied to the Marriage Registrar in Writers Buildings for a license to be married on 17th January, declaring the girl's age to be 22. The girl left her home on the 17th and could not be traced. Thereupon a warrant was issued for the production of the girl and a summons against the accused under Section 366, I.P.C. The accused appeared in C...

Bisweswar Ray Chaudhury Vs. Khagendra Kaibarta and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal683,159Ind.Cas.423

R.C. Mitter, J.1. The petitioner is a contractor employed by the Assam Bengal Railway, opposite party No. 7, in this rule. He employed a labourer of the name of Bhogiram Nadial, the father of the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 6. Bhogiram Nadial fell down from a ballast train on 4th August 1934 and died on the following day. The Commissioner appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act served a notice on the Assam Bengal Railway under Section 10-A, 'Workmen's Compensation Act. The Railway Company admitted liability and deposited Rs. 600 under the provision of the said section. Thereafter it is stated that the Railway Company deducted Rs. 600 from the petitioner's bill. The petitioner thereafter made an application before the Commissioner for being given an opportunity to contest his liability, he taking up the position that the dependents of the deceased labourer are not entitled to claim any compensation. The Commissioner passed the following order on the 3rd January 1935:I am not requi...

Saroj Kumar Bose Vs. Surjya Kanta Sarkar and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal771,159Ind.Cas.685

1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for realisation of rent and cesses, in which additional rent was claimed for excess area found in the possession of the tenants defendants. The question for consideration in the case is whether the plaintiffs were entitled to get additional rent as claimed by them in the suit. On the facts found in the case, a good portion of the lands in suit was outside the plaintiff's estate bearing Touzi No. 3846, to which the taluk in respect of which rent was claimed in the suit appertained. There is no question that the defendants had encroached on the lands of other adjoining estates; and the Courts below proceeded on the footing that the tenants had acquired title to the same by adverse possession against the rightful owners, the neighbouring proprietors, and further that the tenants held the lands encroached upon as appertaining to the taluk comprised in the estate of which the plaintiff was the proprietor. The question was whether the plaintiff landlor...

Jadu Nath Guha Roy and ors. Vs. Kasiswar Guha Roy and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal779

R.C. Mitter, J.1. The facts on which the controversy in this appeal rests are very simple and may be stated as follows:2. Kalinath Guha, the father of defendants 1 to 4 and husband of defendant 5 Dinabandhu Guha, Kasiswar Guha, the plaintiff, Sulata Sundari Chaudhurani, widow of Biseswara Guha and Durga Mohan Guha, were the joint proprietors of certain properties. On 8th September 1912 the said persons partitioned their properties by a registered deed. In Clause 19 of the said deed it is provided that:A co-sharer shall not be able to purchase in his own name or in benami any ryoti or under-ryoti holding or any portion thereof situate within the allotment of another. If he does the person in whose allotment it is situate shall be entitled to take khas possession, and the purchaser or his benamidar shall not be entitled to raise any objection; i he does it will be disregarded.3. The said clause as also other clauses of the partition deed are expressly made binding not only on the executa...

Gosta Behari Pramanik and ors. Vs. Amiya Kumar Das

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.135

1. The question for consideration in these appeals is whether the suits giving rise to the same were barred by the special law of limitation as prescribed by Article 3, Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act for a suit for recovery of possession of land claimed by the plaintiff as a raiyat or an under-raiyat,--the period of limitation being two years from the date of dispossession.2. The facts of the case on which the rule of limitation had to be applied were these: The plaintiffs were the mortgagee purchasers at a sale in execution of decrees on mortgages executed by a raiyat who, on the finding arrived at by the trial Court and not reversed by the District Judge on appeal, had transferable occupancy right in the holding mortgaged to the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-title. The mortgagees purchased the holding at the sale held in execution of these decrees on mortgage, and took delivery of possession through Court on August 20, 1927. At the time of their attempting to take actua...

Kiran Chandra Pramanik Vs. Purna Chandra Pramanik and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal764

R.C. Mitter, J.1. The property in suit, which is a plot of land in the town of Khulna, twelve and half cottas in area, is a part of a bigger block of 25 cottas, which originally belonged to defendant 1 and one Krishnadhone Pramanik in equal shares, On 8th January 1927 defendant 1 sold his undivided eight annas share in the block of 25 cottas to the plaintiffs, who thereafter instituted a suit for partition against Krishnadhone Pramanik. That suit terminated on 8th January 1929 with a compromise decree. A commissioner of partition was appointed and the block was partitioned by metes and bounds; the northern half with an area of 12 cottas was allotted to Krishnadhone and the southern half with an area of 12 cottas was allotted to the plaintiff. While the partition suit was pending defendant 1 sued defendant 2 for arears of rent on the allegation that the latter was a tenant under him of 10 cottas of land out of the said block of 25 cottas at a rental of Rs. 5-8-0. This 10 cottas of land ...

Kameswar Singh Vs. Kulada Prosad Sahu and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal732,159Ind.Cas.1070

1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent with cesses; and the question for consideration at the present stage of the litigation is confined to the amount of cesses payable by the tenants defendants to the plaintiff landlord. The Courts below came to the decision that the plaintiff was not entitled to realize cesses according to the valuation roll prepared by the revenue authorities, on the basis of the Record of Eights, in as much as the entries in the record, showing six different tenancies were erroneous; it having been held by those Courts that there was one tenancy bearing a rental of Rs. 19-15-17 gandas as stated by the plaintiff landlord and not six different tenancies, as shown in the Record of Rights and as asserted by the tenants defendants in the suit. The decision arrived at by the Courts below was accepted by our learned brother Rupendra Coomar Mitter, J., on second appeal to this Court.2. As has been pointed out by Mitter, J., the cess valuat...

Narayan Chandra Chatterjee Vs. Panchu Pramanik and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal684,159Ind.Cas.180

Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case a Rule was issued on the opposite parties to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt, or why such other or further order should not be made as to this Court might seem fit and proper. There are 21 persons against whom this Rule has been issued, and, so far as I can understand the affidavit in reply, the acts alleged by the petitioner to have been committed by these respondents are admitted by them, and, if so they clearly amount to contempt of Court. The petitioner as a liquidator of Joakim Nahapiet & Co. Ltd. in liquidation instituted a mortgage suit numbered 114 of 1932 in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge of Pabna for a decree for foreclosure against Badruddin Biswas the mortgagor, and several other persons including the opposite parties who were impleaded as persons who had been inducted or let in as tenants on the land by the mortgagor, who had executed an English mortgage in favour of the company.2. Under this mortgage the ...

Humayun Raja Chaudhury and anr. Vs. Jyotirmoyee Debi and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1936Cal452

M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of certain lands. The plaintiff, who may be called the Rani of Pakur, is the widow of Kalidas Pandey, who died in 1928. The plaintiff is the tenure holder of Mouza Chak Purapara and the defendants are the tenure holders of Mouza Purapara. In the old days between the two Mouzahs ran the river Bhagirathi, Purapara being on the west and Chak Purapara being on the east. In course of time the river shifted over to the east or to the west and thereby threw up lands either side till the boundaries of the two villages have become difficult to ascertain. In the present case the suit lands were divided into three schedules. The Ka schedule lands which were fit for cultivation from before 1914, and the Kha schedule lands which were sandy and not fit for cultivation in 1916 and, lastly, the schedule lands which were under water in 1916 and rose above water thereafter. A Commissioner w...