Kolkata Court August 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.
Mati Lal De and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal675,159Ind.Cas.36
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case a Rule was issued to show cause why the convictions and sentences passed upon the petitioners should not be set aside. They were convicted under Section 379, I.P.C., for cutting and taking away paddy from a certain piece of land. They admitted that they did so, but claimed that as they had grown this paddy they were entitled to remove it.2. The facts are that the complainant obtained a civil Court decree in respect of this and other lands against a large number of defendants, of whom Ruplal, the father of the petitioners, was defendant 29. The effect of that decision was that it was adjudged that the complainant was entitled to khas possession of this land. Certain of the other defendants appealed. Ruplal did not. The effect of the appeal was that it was decided that the complainant was entitled only to an eight annas undivided share in the land and the rest of his claim was dismissed. It was also ordered that the defendants, who had not appealed includ...
Dinanath Kar and ors. Vs. Choudhuri Jitendra Nandan Das Mohapatra and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal744
1. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was instituted by the plaintiffs-appellants in this Court for a declaration that there is a custom of remission of rent of Jal (paddy) land of occupancy raiyats on account of entire or proportionate destruction of crops by drought or inundation. The suit was one contemplated by Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. C, brought by certain occupancy raiyats of estates Nos. 10, 14 and 60 of the Midnapore Collectorate in Mouza Baruipur. The Court of first instance passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs granting the relief prayed for in the suit in this form: that the plaintiffs are entitled to and will get a declaration that the occupancy raiyats who hold the holdings in estates Nos. 10, 14 and 60 within Mouza Baruipur directly under the defendants and pay them rent in cash are entitled to get proportionate deduction of rent for their paddy lands within such holdings in years of Haja and Sukha, that is, in proportion to the quantity of paddy destroyed in...
Umasundari Dasi Vs. Prafulla Kumar Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal786,159Ind.Cas.1089
Nasim Ali, J.1. This appeal arisen out of a suit for a declaration of the plaintiff's right on certain char lands which are described in schedule of the plaint. The plaintiff's case briefly stated is as follows: Plot 1 of the plaint appertains to Mouza Gohagram of which the defendants are the talukdars. Plot 2 appertains to Mouza Sansar and the defendants are lessees in respect of the said plot under the proprietors of Mouza Sansar. One Dhan Krishna Jas was in possession of these two plots of lands as, a permanent raiyat at a yearly rental of Rs. 20 and that while he was in possession of these lands he used to grow Paddy on portions of them and take the reeds kasia grass and other self-sown plants and trees on these lands. Dhan Krishna died leaving his son Hanseswer as his sole heir. After Hanseswer's death his widow Aghore Kumari inherited this jama and after her death Bhutnath and Provakar, the reversionary heirs of Hanseswer, inherited this property and sold them to the plaintiff on...
Purusottam Sinha Vs. Satyendra Chandra Ghose Moulik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.747
1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the learned District Judge Murshidabad, directing an insolvent, the appellant in this Court, to pay to the Receiver in insolvency a sum of Rs. 50 per month out of his pension.2. The question arising for consideration in the case is this Whether in view of the provision contained in Section 28(5) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the order passed by the Judge in the Court below is in accordance with law. There is no question that the appellant, draw a pension of Rs. 1-12 from the Government, for past services, and the amount, ordered to be paid to the Receiver is to come out of that pension; it was, therefore, urged in support of the appeal that the pension enjoyed by the insolvent being in law incapable of being attached, the Court below was in error in directing payment of Rs. 50 per month out of the pension and in ordering that in default of such payment the insolvent was liable to have the order of adjudication annulled.3. The Provincial ...
Sagoremal Gopalka Vs. A.C. Banerjee and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal721,159Ind.Cas.618
Panckridge, J.1. This is a suit on a promissory note executed by the defendants on 12th November 1927. On that day there was also a deposit of certain shares in the Bihar Firebricks and Potteries, Ltd., the particulars of which are given in a memorandum of deposit also signed by the defendants. The shares are described as security against our handnote for Rs. 20,000 only of date.' Prima facie the plaintiff's claim on the note is barred by limitation, The plaintiff submits that limitation is saved, first, by various payments on account, the last of which was made on 11th May 1929. The defendants do not dispute that a fresh period of limitation began to run on that date, but inasmuch as the suit was not filed until 13th November 1933, it would still be barred by limitation unless a fresh starting point can be found before 11th May 1932, and subsequent to 13th November 1930. The plaintiff submits that a fresh period of limitation is to be computed from 12th March 1931 on which date the de...
Nanu Ram Pokharmal Agarwala Vs. Hedayet Ali Ahammad and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal769,159Ind.Cas.662
R.C. Mitter, J.1. Defendant 2 is a Deputy Magistrate. He was under orders of transfer from Dinajpur to Barisal. At the time he left for Barisal he left his wife's ornaments with his brother, defendant 1, for safe custody. His brother was then living in joint-mess with him. On 28th Chaitra 1335 B.S. corresponding 11th April 1929, defendant 1 took a loan of Rs. 600 from the plaintiff and delivered to the latter the said ornaments as security. The loan was taken by the defendant for his own needs. Subsequently defendant 2 instituted criminal proceedings against his brother, defendant 1. In the course of the said proceedings the ornaments were taken away from the plaintiff by the police and deposited with the Sadar Sub-divisional Magistrate of Jalpaiguri.2. The plaintiff has instituted this suit to recover his dues from defendant 1. He has also prayed for recovery of his dues by sale of the said ornaments. He made defendant 2 a pro forma defendant, in order that the decree may be passed in...
Bama Pada Bandopadhyay and anr. Vs. Rama Nath Mandal (Ronamath Mandal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1935
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.84
Nasim Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration of plaintiff's title to certain lands. The plaintiffs' case shortly stated is as follows:2. One Tincori Mandal acquired maurashi mokarari right in the disputed land on the basis of a potta, dated July 18, 1917. After his death his sons that is, the pro forma defendants, sold the disputed land to the plaintiffs by a registered kobala on July 7, 1921. The defendant, No. 1 in execution of a decree against the pro forma defendants attached this property. The plaintiff No. 1 thereupon preferred a claim. This claim was dismissed for default. Thereafter the plaintiffs paid the decretal amount through the judgment-debtors. The defendant No. 1 subsequently obtained another decree against the pro forma defendants. In collusion with the judgment-debtors he purchased the disputed property in execution of the said decree in the benami of his daughter-in-law the defendant No. 2, and subsequently took symbolical possession. The defend...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›