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.
Ramesh Chandra Talukdar and ors. Vs. Pramatha Nath Sanyal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal245
Nasim Ali, J.1. This appeal is by the defendants in a suit for declaration of plaintiff's title and possession to certain lands described in the Schedule of the plaint. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit on the finding that the plaintiff has title to and possession in the disputed land. On appeal by the defendants to the lower appellate Court the learned Judge has dismissed the plaintiff's claim so far the properties mentioned in Schedule Ka are concerned but has declared the plaintiff's title in respect of the other disputed properties and has passed a decree for recovery of possession after receiving additional Court-fees from the plaintiff. Hence this second appeal by the defendants. The first point urged by the learned Advocate for the appellants is that the lower appellate Court had no jurisdiction to extend the time for putting in additional Court-fees after he delivered his judgment on 5th September 1932. It appears that the learned Judge by his judgment delivered on 5...
Nanda Kumar Pande Vs. Sourendra Nath Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal129,166Ind.Cas.452
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. The petitioner before me is the auction-purchaser of a patni sold under the provisions of Regn. 8 of 1819. The only question involved in this rule is whether the learned Subordinate Judge, to whom a reference was made by the Collector under Section 14-A, Clause 5, of the Patni Regulation, was justified in setting aside the sale under the provisions of Section 14-A of the said regulation. The opposite party 1 who was the patnidar defaulted in paying the patni rent for the year 1341 B.S. The Mukherjees who are the zamindars, through their manager, their estate being under the charge of the Court of Wards, applied to the Collector for sale under the Regulation on 16th April 1935. In the said application the claim made on behalf of the zamindars was laid at Rs. 527-15-5 gds. On 15th May 1935 the Collector held the sale and at that sale the petitioner purchased the patni. On 13th June 1935 the defaulting patnidar deposited the sum of Rs. 560-15-5 gds. in the Collector...
Bhabataran Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Ramlal Das Mohunt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal815,166Ind.Cas.954
1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs from a decree dismissing their suit under Section 92, Civil P. C. The suit was instituted with the consent of the Collector under Section 93 of the Code on 22nd June 1928. It remained pending for several years when on 30th November 1931 the decision of the Judicial Committee in Prem Narain v. Ram Charan 1932 P C 51 wab delivered. On 15th February 1932, in view of the said decision, the suit was dismissed, it being held that the consent of the Collector under Section 93 of the Code with which the suit had been filed was not in order. This decree was signed by the Court on 17th February 1932. On 8th April 1932, the Public Suits Validation Act (Act No. 11 of 1932) received the assent of the Governor General and came into force. On 4th May 1932, the plaintiffs put in a petition under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act for restoration of the suit. This petition was objected to on behalf of the defendant but eventually on 20th June 1932 th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›