Kolkata Court January 1936 Judgments
Sreemati Dayamoyee Dassya Vs. Jatindra Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal23
1. The plaintiff in the suit in which the appeal has arisen, a minor represented by his mother and guardian as his next friend, prayed for administration of the estate of his grandfather Ganga Charan Das, claiming through his deceased father, Harendra Chandra Das, a legatee under the will of Ganga Charan Das, upon construction of the said will. The will of Ganga Charan Das was proved after contest, and the defendant Dayamoyi Dassya had taken out probate of the same; the suit was mainly directed against Dayamoyi Dassya, as executrix and prayer was made for rendition of accounts by Dayamoyi Dassya and for partition after she has made over the estate to the legatees under the will. It would appear that probate of the will of Ganga Charan Das was granted to Dayamoyi Dassya on 14th May 1929, and the suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted on 17th September 1930. The claim in suit was resisted by the defendant Dayamoyi Dassya against whom it was directed; and on the pleadings of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Chintaharan De Vs. Sm. Kadambini Raj W/O Har Kumar Raj and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1936
Reported in: AIR1938Cal171,173Ind.Cas.812
M.C. Ghose, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for partition of plot No. 622 which is a homestead of the defendants. After passing through various Courts, the High Court directed that a preliminary decree should be passed and that thereafter the claim of defendant 1 to purchase the share of the plaintiff according to the provisions of Section 4, Partition Act, should be considered and decided by the Court. Thereupon the case was sent back to the trial Court and the trial Court held that defendant 1 was entitled to purchase the share of the plaintiff at Rs. 75. That decree was affirmed in appeal.2. Many points were taken in the Court of Appeal below. In this Court the learned advocate takes only one point, namely that Section 4, Partition Act of 1893, does not apply to a case where a share has been acquired in execution of a decree. Under Section 2 (d), T.P. Act, it is stated that nothing contained in the Act shall be deemed to affect a transfer by operation of law or in...
Tag this Judgment!Hemendra Nath Roy Chowdhury Vs. East Bengal Commercial Bank, Mymen-sin ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal210
Nasim Ali, J.1. The petitioner and opposite parties 6 and 7 obtained certain money decrees against opposite parties 2 to 5 personally. Opposite party 1 sued them for a debt incurred by their father Prosanna Krishna Saba and obtained a decree against them on 13th February 1935. In execution of the decree certain properties belonging to Prosanna Kumar have been sold. The petitioner and opposite parties 6 and 7 applied for rateable distribution of the same proceeds under Section 73, Civil P. C. The learned Subordinate Judge has rejected these applications. This rule was thereupon obtained by the petitioner. Opposite party 1 opposed this rule, while opposite parties 6 and 7 supported the rule. The learned Subordinate Judge has rejected the application under Section 73 on the ground that the judgment-debtors in the decree obtained by opposite party 1 are not the same as in the decree obtained by the petitioner and opposite parties 6 and 7.2. Now judgment-debtor means any person against whom...
Tag this Judgment!Panchi Cowri Sadhu Khan Vs. Satya Dhenu Ghosal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal489,166Ind.Cas.747
Cunliffe, J.1. This is a simple case upon a promissory note, in which I have the advantage of having a considerable argument on an earlier occasion from Mr. Das who appeared for the defendant. On the last occasion I expressed a wish that the case should be definitely disposed of to-day, but on being called on Mr. Das asked for a further adjournment on the ground that one of his witnesses was not available, or rather his client was not here. But I refused his application to adjourn. This suit is on a promissory note and there appears to be very little defence upon the pleadings. The execution is admitted, and it is also admitted, that payments upon the contract had been made from time to time in the past.. At the last hearing an exceedingly interesting argument was developed, however of a technical nature, which amounted to a plea in bar by way of demurrer. It was contended that this note was never presented, as it should have been within the language of the note at Calcutta the place i...
Tag this Judgment!Mohitosh Ghose Vs. MolIn Behari Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal163
Costello, J.1. This matter concerns an application for probate of the will of a man named Hari Pada Mitra, which is dated 26th June 1927. It is said that will was deposited with the Registrar of Assurances on 28th June 1927 and deposited, so it is said, by Hari Pada Mitra in person, and he was identified by a man named Rajendra Nath Bose. One of the attesting witnesses to the will was a man named Tulsi Charan Mitra, and the other witness was Dr. K.B. Mukherji, who was dead at the time when these proceedings were instituted. The position therefore was that the proving of the will was wholly dependent upon the testimony of Tulsi Charan Mitra. The executor of the will was a man named Molin Behari Dutt, and he filed a petition in the ordinary course asking for probate of the will. Sometime before that petition was filed, however one Mohitosh Ghose, who is a nephew of the testator Hari Pada Mitra, entered a caveat and on 27th May 1933 a notice was served upon him requiring him to file an af...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Mohan Das Vs. Sarada Charan Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal200
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. This rule has been obtained by the defendant in a suit instituted in the Court of Small Causes at Patiya for recovery of mesne profits from November 1931 to November 1934. This suit was filed on 5th December 1934. The question involved in this Rule is whether this claim is maintainable in law. On 15th April 1917 Nobin Chandra Chowdhury and three other persons, who may be called the Chowdhurys, executed a mortgage for a sum of Rs. 100 in favour of Tarini Charan Dass (since deceased), the father of the petitioner. The mortgagee was given possession, the stipulation in the bond being that the usufruct of the property mortgaged would be taken in lieu of and in complete satisfaction of the claim for interest. Tarini accordingly went into possession and remained in possession of the mortgaged lands till November 1934. The opposite party, Sarada Charan Chowdhury, purchased in execution of money decree the interest of the Chowdhurys in the mortgaged land, and deposited i...
Tag this Judgment!Hare Krishna Nayak Vs. Fakir Chandra Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal260
1. The facts relating to this appeal lie within a narrow compass. They may be shortly stated as follows: Three persons, Atal Behari Mahala, ogendra Nath Mahala and Basanta Kumar Mahala, by the terms of a solenama, undertook to pay maintenance to a Hindu widow, by name Haramani Dasi. This undertaking was in exchange for her interest in lands formerly belonging to her deceased husband. The maintenance was not properly paid and Haramani Dasi assigned the arrears to one Harey Krishna Nayok. Subsequently, the three Mahalas sold the land to one Fakir Chandra Pal, who undertook by the terms of the sale deed to continue the maintenance to the widow. In the Court of the Munsif at Jhargram Harey Krishna Nayek sued the three Mahalas and Fakir Chandra Pal for the arrears of maintenance. He also added Haramani Dasi as a pro forma defendant. The three Mahalas did not appear, nor did Haramani Dasi. Fakir Chandra Pal, however, did, and strenuously contested the suit. In the result the Munsif decided t...
Tag this Judgment!Gopesh Chandra Aditya Vs. Benode Lal Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal424,165Ind.Cas.606
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of defendant 3 in a suit for a declaration, by the plaintiff that his nomination paper has been illegally rejected and for a further declaration that defendants 2 to 4 have not been elected as members of the Municipal Board of Sylhet.2. The plaintiff stood as a candidate for election from Ward No. 11 of the Sylhet Municipality, as also defendants 2 to 4. The 18th April 1934 was fixed for the election. The plaintiff filed two nomination papers: one on 28th March and one on 29th March 1934. These nomination papers are admittedly not in order. On 3rd April 1934 he, however, sent a nomination paper, otherwise in order, to the Election Magistrate. As under the rules framed by the Local Government under the Assam Municipal Act, nomination papers have to be sent to the Chairman of the Municipality and not to the Magistrate, the latter sent the said nomination paper to the Municipal Office, and it is admitted that it reached the Chairman of the Munici...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Kumar Basu Vs. Surendra Nath Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal430,165Ind.Cas.385
Cunliffe, J.1. In this matter the petitioner obtained a Rule against an order of the Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, 24-Parganas, in which the Judge refused to entertain an application on the part of the petitioner judgment-debtor for rent on the ground that he had not made the preliminary deposit under Section 174, Sub-section 3, proviso (b), Ben. Ten. Act. The view taken apparently by the learned Subordinate Judge was an extremely commonsense one, but I am inclined to think although I had considerable doubts at first that the construction that he put upon the proviso was erroneous. He seems to have thought that the expression used in the proviso 'shall be allowed' ought to mean and did mean 'shall be entertained' and in taking that view he certainly had the support of a very experienced Judge of this Court, M.N. Mukerji, in Kuloda Prasad Majumdar v. Prativa Nath Roy 1935 Cal 91. I have no doubt whatever that Mukerji, J.'s view that the word 'allowed' should be construed as meaning 'ent...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Das Mohanta Maharaj and anr. Vs. Jitendra Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal781
Edgley, J.1. The defendants are the appellants in this case. The plaintiff in the suit, out of which this appeal arises, sought to recover cesses under Section 58, Cess Act, in respect of certain rent-free lands for the years 1333 to 1336 inclusive. The defendants were the holders as shebaits of certain rent free lands within the plaintiff's touzi No. 132. The plaintiff's case was that there had been a cess revaluation and after due publication of the requisite notices, he had called upon the defendants to pay the cesses due from them but they had failed to do so. The defendants contended that their holding fell within touzi No. 203 and that they had already paid the cesses due from them to the patnidar under the touzi. It was further contended on their behalf that the plaintiff was not entitled to collect cesses from them as he had not observed the mandatory requirements of the Cess Act.2. The learned Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit. In doing so he found that there was nothing t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »