Kolkata Court January 1936 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.
Hrishikseh Law and anr. Vs. Satish Chandra Paul Srichandan Mari Sultan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal203
Nasim Ali, J.1. These six appeals arise out of three suits: Suits Nos. 66 and 67 of 1929 and Suit No. 7 of 1931 of the First Court of the Subordinate Judge of Midnapore. They were instituted for assessment of fair and equitable rent in respect of some lands which appertained to Touzi No. 1991 of the Midnapore Collectorate. Suits Nos. 66 and 67 were heard together. The trial Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to fair and equitable rent for the lands in question and fixed as fair rent Rs. 69-4-3 pies for the lands of Suit No. 66 and Rs. 74-3-10 pies for those of Suit No. 67. The defendants appealed to the lower appellate Court and the learned District Judge has reduced the rent to Rs. 39-14-2 pies in Suit No. 66 and Rs. 40-5-4 pies in Suit No. 67. In Suit No. 7 of 1931 the trial Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to fair and equitable rent settled and fixed Rs. 38-14-1 1/2 pies as fair rent. The plaintiff appealed to the lower appellate Court. The defendants also filed cr...
Rai Radhika Mohon Roy Br. Vs. Bhobani Prosanna Lahiri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1936
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.904
Cunliffe, J.1. This is a suit upon two promissory notes for Rs. 35,000 and Rs. 2,716, respectively, to which there appears to be very little defence either upon facts or upon law.2. No evidence was called before me. The onus, as far as producing evidence was concerned, was on the defendants as the execution of the notes was admitted. There was, however, evidence before the Court in the form of certain testimony taken on commission.3. Numerous defences were outlined in the written statement. But when it came to the question of argument, I was informed that the defence rested upon a single contention in relation to the jurisdiction of the Court having regard to the fact that the plaintiff here was not the original holder of the notes, but was an assignee for value. It was contended, on the authority of three decisions of my brother Panckridge, that the formal leave to sue under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this High Court should not have been given and ought to be revoked by me bec...
Hrishikesh Law and anr. Vs. Satish Chandra Paul Srichandan Mari Sultan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1936
Reported in: 170Ind.Cas.634
Nasim Ali, J.1. These six appeals arise out of three suits: Suits Nos. 66 and 67 of 1929 and Suit No. 7 of 1931 of the First Court of the Subordinate Judge of Midnapore. They were instituted for assessment of fair and equitable rent in respect of some lands which appertained to Touzi No. 1991 of the Midnapore Collectorate. Suits Nos. 66 and 67 were heard together. The trial Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to fair and equitable rent for the lands in question and fixed as fair rent Rs. 69-4-3 pies for the lands of Suit No. 66 and Rs. 74-3-10 pies for those of Suit No. 67. The defendants appealed to the lower Appellate Court and the learned District Judge has reduced the rent to Rs. 39-14-2 pies in Suit No. 66 and Rs. 40-5-4 pies in Suit No. 67. In Suit No. 7 of 1931 the trial Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to fair and equitable rent settled and fixed Re. 38-14-1 1/2 pies as fair rent. The plaintiff appealed to the lower Appellate Court. The defendants also filed cr...
Jadabendranath Panja Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal149
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case a Rule was issued to show cause why an order issuing a warrant under Section 386, Criminal P. C., to the Collector of Burdwan, authorising him to realise the unrealised part of a fine imposed on the petitioner in 1932 by a Special Magistrate under Section 17 (2), Criminal Law Amendment Act, should not be set aside.2. The petitioner was convicted on 27th January 1932, under Section 17 (2), Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908 for having promoted a meeting under the auspices of the Burdwan Congress Committee which had been declared unlawful. The case was tried by Mr. Section P. Ghose, special Magistrate, Burdwan, who sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more. On 8th March 1932, an order was made for the execution of the fine and subsequently, while the petitioner was serving his sentence, a sum of Rs. 44-8-0 was realised ...
Abdul Majid Mian Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal520,165Ind.Cas.720
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The petitioner before me has, been convicted under Section 408, Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 by the lower appellate Court, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six weeks. The petitioner was an employee of the Narail Babus. He got his employment in July 1933 and served the said zamindar for about a year till about July 1934 when he left the service. At the time when he entered the service, he furnished security in cash to the extent of Rs. 500. After he left service, a complaint was made against him by the said zamindars for criminal breach of trust in respect of four items, viz., an item of Rs. 500 and three small items making a total of Rs. 92-10-0. The lower Court has held that the charge in respect of the last three items had not been substantiated, but has convicted the petitioner of criminal breach of trust of the first item.2. At the time of leaving his service the petitioner handed over the account papers to his masters. One item of...
SharfuddIn Ahmed Vs. Jagadish Nath Ray Bahadur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal304
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. An occupancy holding belonged to one Abdul Kader, which he held under the opposite parties, who obtained a rent decree against him and in execution thereof in Rent Execution Case No. 226 of 1932 attached the holding on 2nd March 1932. While the attachment was subsisting the petitioner purchased the same from Abdul Kader by a registered conveyance dated 30th June 1932. In the conveyance the property was described as mukarrari mourashi holding and at the time of the registration the sum of Re. 1 only was deposited with the Sub-Registrar as the landlord's fee. The consideration recited in the conveyance is Rs. 849/-. Out of the consideration the purchaser undertook to discharge the rent decree and to discharge a mortgage on the holding. It is the case of the petitioner that no consideration passed as he did not accept the conveyance on finding that the property was under attachment at the time, but this part of the case has not been adjudicated upon as the learned M...
Akhil Kanta Lahiri and anr. Vs. Aswini Kanta Bhattacharji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal464,165Ind.Cas.631
1. This appeal has arisen out of an application for execution of decree. The application was made by three persons as executors to the estate of the late Manimukta Debya who had a life estate in certain properties. During the lifetime of Manimukta, rents due in respect of these properties which were leased out to Annada Kanta Lahiri by her, in Patni, fell in arrears, and a decree was obtained for realization of the same. A portion of the rents decreed in favour of Manimukta was realized during her lifetime, and the decretal amount which was still outstanding along with all the outstanding profits of the properties in which Manimukta had a life interest, were bequeathed to the three applicants for execution of decree with which we are concerned in this case, who were also appointed executors by the will executed by Manimukta before she died.2. The application for execution as made by the legatees under the will of Manimukta, who were also the executors appointed by her will, was resiste...
PulIn Chandra Daw and ors. Vs. Abu Bakkar Naskar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal565,163Ind.Cas.406
Nasim Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. Plaintiff's case is that the defendant held the disputed land as a tenant under them on the basis of a registered kabuliyat executed by him in favour of their predecessor on 27th July 1915, that a notice to quit was served on him in accordance with the term of the kabulyat calling upon him to vacate the land on the 1st of Baisakh 1336, B.S. but he has failed to comply with the notice. The defence of the defendant is that he is a settled raiyat.of the village in which the disputed land lies and that he has acquired an occupancy right in the disputed land under the provision of Section 182, Bengal Tenancy Act, as it is his homestead. The Courts below have held that the defendant has acquired occupancy right in the disputed land. They have accordingly dismissed the suit. Hence the second appeal by the plaintiffs.2. Now it appears that the defendant took settlement of the disputed homestead from the plaintiff's predecessor for...
SharfuddIn Ahmad Vs. Jagadish Nath Ray Bahadur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1936
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.426
R.C. Mitter, J.1. An occupancy holding belonged to one Abdul Kader, which he held under the opposite parties, who obtained a rent decree against him and in execution thereof in Rent Execution Case No. 226 of 1932 attached the holding on March 2, 1932. While the attachment was subsisting the petitioner purchased the same from Abdul Kader by a registered conveyance dated June 30, 1932. In the conveyance the property was described as mukarrari mourashi holding and at the time of the registration the sum of Re. 1 only was deposited with the Sub-Registrar as the landlord's fee. The consideration recited in the conveyance is Rs. 819. Out of the consideration the purchaser undertook to discharge the rent decree and to discharge a mortgage on the holding. It is the case of the petitioner that no consideration passed as he did not accept the conveyance on finding that the property was under attachment at the time, but this part of the case has not been adjudicated upon as the learned Munsif has...
Benoyendra Chandra Pandey and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal73
Lort-Williams, J.1. This case is probably unique in the annals'of crime. On 4th December 1933, Amarendra Chandra Pandey died in Calcutta. It is alleged that he died of plague, the germs of which had been injected into his arm by some person, who has not yet been discovered, on Howrah station on the 26th November. The two appellants Benoyendra Chandra Pande and Taranath Bhattacharjee along with Durga Ratan Dhar and Sivapada Bhattacharjee and others unknown were charged with conspiring to murder Amarendra in pursuance of which conspiracy Amarendra was murdered in the manner alleged. Benoyendra was charged also with abetment of murder and Sivapada was charged also with offences under Sub-section 201 and 202, I. P. C. Benoyendra and Taranath were found guilty by a unanimous verdict of the offences with which they were charged and were convicted and sentenced to death. Durga Ratan Dhar and Sivapada Bhattacharjee were found not guilty and acquitted. Benoyendra and Taranath have appealed on t...