Kolkata Court July 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.
Sasanka Bhusan Chowdhury Vs. Gopi Ballav Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal716,159Ind.Cas.437
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad, in til suit for possession, on declaration of the plaintiffs' title to the properties in suit. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 claimed to be the reversionary heirs of one Indu Bhusan Chowdhury, the adopted son of Sasi Bhusan Chowdhury. Plaintiff 4 claimed title to the properties in litigation as the purchaser of one-fourth share of the same from the first three plaintiffs. The history of the title on which the claim in suit was based may be briefly stated: One Sasi Bhusan Chowdhury died on 7th January 1908, without issue, but leaving two widows surviving him, Basanta Kumari Chowdhurani and Raseswari Chowdhurani. By a will dated 3rd August 1907, Sasi Bhusan Chowdhury appointed the widows as executrices. There was a provision made in the will for adoption of sons by the widows. The elder widow Basanta Kumar Chowdhurani adopted a son, Indu Bhusan Chowdhury, on 22nd July 1909, after probate of the will of Sasi Bhusan...
Brijmohan Vs. Mohabir and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1935
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.781
Panckridge, J.1. The plaintiff in this case claims to be the sole proprietor of a business known as Debibux Brijmohan, the gaddi of which is at No. 61, Cross St. This business was formerly a joint family business, the proprietors being the plaintiff, his brother Debibux, and Basudeo, the son of a deceased brother.2. In 1930 Basudeo separated taking his share of the assets of the business which was thenceforward carried on by the plaintiff and Debibux.3. Debibux is now dead, but before his death he too separated from the plaintiff. The dales of these two separations are-October 21, 1930, and February 28, 1932. The public was informed of them, by a notice appearing in the Calcutta Exchange. Gazette of August 23, 1932, and with regard to Debibux retirement, the entry in the firm's nakkal has also been tendered (Ex. B 1). The plaintiff says that Debibux left all his property to Basudeo's son Basant Kumar.4. For some time prior to 1931 Debibux Brijmohan had dealings with a firm of the name ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›