Kolkata Court February 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.
Maharaj Bahadur Singh Vs. Binode Behary Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal263
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the learned Munsiff, Additional Court, Balurghat, dated 27th May 1935, by which he has stayed an application made by the petitioner before me, under Section 26-J, under the provisions of Section 111, Ben. Ten Act. In my judgment, Section 111 does not apply to this case. The opposite party according to the case of the petitioner, took a transfer on the footing that the holding was not an occupancy holding, but a holding at a fixed rent. On that the petitioner before me filed an application under Section 26-J, and in answer to that application the opposite party has stated that the holding in question is a holding held at a fixed rate of rent. He also made an application for stay of the hearing of this application on the ground that an order has been made under Section 101, Ben. Ten. Act, directing the preparation of the record of rights. In my judgment simply because a defendant raises a question of status it cannot be urged th...
Jogendra Narayan Dhar Vs. Askarulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal27
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit instituted by him to eject the defendants, who are his tenants, after serving on them on the 22nd Assin 1333 a notice to quit requiring them to vacate the lands with the expiry of the Bengalee year 1333. The defendants took two pleas. They stated that they were occupancy ryots and that the notice to quit had not been served on them. The Court of first instance overruled both these pleas and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The defendant preferred an appeal which was heard by the Subordinate Judge who by his judgment dated the 10th June 1930 dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the finding that the notice to quit had not been served. The plaintiff preferred an appeal to this Court, being Second Appeal No. 619 of 1931. My learned brother Mitter, J. who decided the said appeal, held that the finding of the Subordinate Judge on that point was vitiated by the fact that the principles laid down in Harihar Banerjee v. Ram Soshi R...
Gadadhar Sarkhel Vs. Gopal Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal343,166Ind.Cas.641
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The petitioner and opposite parties 2 to 12 are the owners of a certain patni taluk. There is an occupancy holding under the said patni taluk held directly under the patnidars at a rent of Rs. 7-12-0. Opposite party 1 purchased 3/4th share of the same for Rs. 150. In the document of transfer pposite parties 2 to 11 and petitioner were named as the immediate superior landlords and the notice of the transfer was served on them on 16th December 1934. No such notice was served on oppesito party 12.2. On 11th February 1935 the petitioner, who had a very small share in the patni feld his application for pre-emption. To the Said application he made opposite parties 2 to 12 parties on the footing they were the remaining co-sharer landlords of the said holding. The said application which was accompanied by the requisite deposits was registered as a miscellaneous case on 25th February 1935. Process fees for the service of notice of the application on all the opposite parties to...
Kalijiban Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal316,163Ind.Cas.41
Cunliffe, J.1. In the month of December 1934, 15 persons consisting of young men and boys were put upon their trial for the crime of being engaged in a conspiracy to commit various offences under the Arms Act. The Government had ordered that these 15 persons should be tried by a Magistrate with special powers. The Magistrate convicted 13 of the accused and acquitted the other two. Of the 13 convicted men, two were given light sentences and did not appeal. The remainder are before us now in this group appeal.2. Two points of law were taken both before the learned Magistrate and before this Court which I think it is convenient I should deal with at once. The first point was a plea of the jurisdiction of the Court. It was argued that Ex. 1 in the case, Government's order for the prosecution, had not been properly proved; and as it was an order of such a kind that under Section 25, Bengal Terrorists Act, it deprived the accused persons of the right of trial before a Judge and a jury, this ...
Rai Harendra Nath Choudhury Vs. Amal Kumar Roy Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal755
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arose out of a suit for assessment of fair rent in respect of a tenure of 195 acres held by the defendant within the putni tenure of the plaintiff. The Record of Right which was finally published in 1927 recorded the lands in suit as in the possession of the defendants within the revenue paying putni tenure of the plaintiff, and though not paying any rent the defendant was recorded as liable to pay rent. Thereafter the plaintiff instituted the suit for assessment of fair rent. The defence was that it was a rent free holding of the defendants. The trial Court repelled the defence contention and assessed fair rent at Rs. 9 per annum. The defendants appealed and the learned Subordinate Judge has held that the defendants established that their holding was a rent-free holding and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Against that decree, the plaintiff appeals to this Court.2. On the side of the plaintiff there is only the settlement record which shows that the land is...
Raghumani Roy and anr. Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal256
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for possession, damages and for mesne profits. The plaintiff's case, briefly stated, is as follows: The disputed land measuring about 1 bigha 15 cottas in area is the Debuttar property of Sri Sri Sridhar Jiu Thakur of the Boys of Tajpur in the District of Howrah. The members of the Roy family are many and four elderly members of the four main branches of the family jointly look after the Debuttar estate, and carry out litigations in respect of the same. If any property appertaining to the Debuttar estate is to be leased out the managing shebaits obtain the consent of all the shebaits residing at Tajpur, and after publication of notice and announcement by beat of drum settle the same. One Golok Moira and his descendants were Chakran tenants of the disputed land under the Debuttar estate. The family of the Moiras gradually became extinct and the last holder surrendered the land and left the village. The land thereafter remained...
Rajani Nath Sil Vs. Ennatali Howladar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal313,166Ind.Cas.783
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 3 in a suit for sale by enforcing a simple mortgage bond executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff in April 1923. The facts which are necessary to discuss the issue raised in this Court are that defendants 1 and 2, who may be called the mortgagors, mortgaged the property in dispute in March 1923 to Moslem Khan. About a month thereafter, in April 1923, they again mortgaged the same property to the plaintiff. Four years later, in April 1927, they mortgaged the same property to defendant 3. In that mortgage bond they stated that the properties were previously mortgaged to Moslem Khan, that about Rs. 700 was due on that mortgage and the mortgagors agreed that defendant 3 should keep the required amount in deposit to pay off the said mortgage, and that on redemption thereof, defendant 3 would keep the bond. They also stated that except that mortgage in favour of Moslem Khan, the properties were not otherwise encumbered. Thereaf...
Light of Asia Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Karatoya Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal437,166Ind.Cas.707
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of money due on a policy dated 29th December 1928 assuring Rs. 1,000 to be paid by the defendant-company to the representative of one Parbati Charan Chakravarty on the expiry of 20 years from the date of the policy or on his prior death. He died on 11th August 1929 in his house at Mahmudpur, P.S. Habiganj, in the district of Sylhet. Before his death he paid premium in accordance with the terms of the policy. The plaintiff, who is the sole heiress of the insured, instituted the present suit in the first Court of the Munsif at Habiganj on 31st August 1932 against the defendant-company for recovery of Rs. 1,000. The defence of the defendant, so far as it is relevant for the purposes of the present appeal, is that the risk under the policy does not attach inasmuch as some of the answers to the questions put by the defendant's medical examiner which formed the basis of the contract were false. The Courts below have ov...
Calico Printers Association, Ltd. Vs. D.N. Mukerjea
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal493,166Ind.Cas.535
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is a suit asking for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his servants and agent from importing, printing, offering and exposing for sale and selling, or in any way dealing with cotton materials not being those of the plaintiffs, with any or all the designs printed thereon, and from otherwise infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs' designs, and for an order for inspection of the books of account and stock of the defendant, and ordering him to deliver up to the plaintiffs for destruction all the stocks in his possession of the infringing cotton materials, and for damages and costs.2. The plaintiffs in their plaint stated, inter alia, that they were the proprietors of three new and original designs relating to cotton goods which were duly registered and the copyright in them duly extended by the Controller of Patents, which copyright is still in existence. Further they alleged that on 27th August 1935 it came to their knowledge that the defendant...
Surendra Nath Nandi Vs. Sreemati Sushilabala Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal47
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. This rule has been directed against an order for pre-emption made by the Munsiff, First Court, Basirhat under the provisions Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act. The facts are not in controversy at all.2. There is putni taluk in which the petitioner before me had two anna share, opposite party No. 1 four anna share, and opposite parties Nos. 2 to 22 the remaining ten anna share. Under this taluk is the occupancy holding which is the subject-matter of the application for pre-emption. In June 1929 the putni was sold for arrears of rent and was purchased at the rent sale by the petitioner. Ostensibly by the rent sale he became the six-teen anna owner of the putni. Then on 12th January 1933 the petitioner himself purchased the occupancy holding. Opposite party No. 1 who is a lady instituted a title Suit No. 653 of 1933 for a declaration of her title to four anna share in the putni and for reconveyance of her share. It seems that her case was that the putni sale was brought a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »