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.
Bejoy Kumar Bhattacharjee and anr. Vs. (Firm) Satish Chandra Nandi, Jn ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal382,166Ind.Cas.900
D.N. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 1, 5 and 6 from the decision of the Subordinate Judge, Hooghly, dated 4th August 1932, by which he decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of a certain sum of money. Defendant 1 died during the pendency of the appeal and his five sons, who are defendants 2 to 6 to the suit, have been substituted in his place as the heirs and legal representatives under the law. The case stated in the plaint is that the defendants purchased from the plaintiff bricks and other materials for the construction of cooly lines of the Brahmanberia Jute Mills. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant took material of the value of Rs. 12,674-7-0 from the plaintiff between 24th February 1925 and 27th October 1928. The defendants made payments from time to time of the sum of Rs. 8,725-9-9 between 9th April 1925 and 27th February 1929. The plaintiff accordingly sued for the balance of Rs. 3,948-13-3 and to their claim they added the sum of Rs. 1,777-8.0...
Maharaja Sashi Kanta Acharjya Bahadur Vs. Nasirabad Loan Office Co. Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal786
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the landlord whose suit to recover the balance of the transfer fee due to him under the provisions of Section 26-E, Ben. Ten. Act, has been dismissed by the learned Munsiff at Mymensingh on the ground that no suit lay. The position is this: Opposite party No. 1, The Nasirabad Loan Office, Co., Ltd., obtained a mortgage decree against opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3. In execution of that decree the mortgaged property was sold, but the mortgage decree not being fully satisfied, opposite party No. 1 obtained a decree for the balance under the provisions of Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P. C. In execution of this decree they put up the holding which is the subject matter of controversy, to sale. In the sale proclamation the holding was described as an ordinary occupancy holding. At the sale held by the Court opposite party No. 1 purchased the holding for Rs. 325 and deposited a sum of Rs. 65 in the executing Court, the sum being 20 per cent. of...
Rash Behari Nandi and ors. Vs. Sm. Hafeza Khatun Chaudhurani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal784,166Ind.Cas.960
ORDER1. The petitioners in this rule brought a Suit No. 52 of 1933 for a declaration that a certain revenue sale is illegal and ultra vires and not binding on the petitioners. The opposite parties being the defendants raised a defence that the fixed court-fee of Rs. 20 paid on the basis that the suit is purely of a declaratory character was insufficient and that the plaintiffs could not maintain the suit without paying ad valorem court-fees. Thereupon the trial Court took up the question of court-fees as a preliminary issue and by its order dated 20th March 1934 decided that the amount of court-fees paid by the petitioners was sufficient. Against that order an appeal was taken by the opposite parties defendants to the District Judge and the latter by his judgment, dated 7th May 1934 disagreeing with the decision of the trial Court held that the plaintiffs were bound to pay ad valorem court-fees at ten times the revenue payable for the estate in question. This judgment was passed ex par...
Newaz Ahmad Khan Vs. HasamaddIn Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal262
1. The plaintiffs in the suit in which this appeal has arisen prayed for reliefs contemplated by Section 92, Civil P. C., and succeeded in obtaining a decree for the removal of the defendant, a Mutawalli of the Wakf property consisting of a mosque, tombs, trees, and outhouses, standing on about 3-1/2 bighas of land, premises Nos. 12 and 12/1 Mayerpore Road, Alipore, and granting other incidental and ancillary reliefs claimed in the suit.2. The questions raised in support of this appeal by defendant appellant, was mainly whether the learned District Judge in the Court below, was right in proceeding, almost entirely, on a previous decision of this Court in which it was held that the defendant in the suit had set up his own title to a part of Wakf property. The result of the decision was that the Mutawalli had set up his personal right to Wakf property which was not established on evidence. As has been held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, setting up a title to Wakf propert...
Ashutosh Sanyal and ors. Vs. Ram Sankar Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal198
Edgley, J.1. Defendant 1 is the appellant in this case and the appeal arises with reference to a suit brought by Kali Das Ghosh, the original plaintiff, for setting aside a revenue sale and for a declaration to the effect that the sale in question did not affect adversely his rights as reversioner in respect of certain property. The plaintiff alleged that his sister-in-law Rajanibala Dasi, in order to defeat his reversionary rights, had defaulted in the payment of Government revenue in respect of Tauzi No. 305/1 of the Hughli Collectorate and that in consequence this property was put up to auction and purchased by her Gomasta Ashutosh Sanyal who acted as her benamidar with reference to this matter. It was contended that the sale was fraudulent and collusive and was a benami transaction. The suit in the Court of first instance was contested by defendant 1 Ashutosh Sanyal, and his case was supported by defendant 2 Rajanibala Dasi. They maintained that the sale was a bona fide transaction...
Kalipada Bhandari Vs. Panchkari Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal197
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the learned District Judge of Birbhum dated 7th March 1935 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 141 of 1934. The appeal was directed against an order of the learned Munsiff dated 4th October 1934 made on an application filed under the provisions of Section 174 (3), Ben. Ten. Act. The following facts are material for the decision of this rule. Opposite party No. 1 was a tenant in respect of a holding held under opposite parties Nos. 2 to 7. On the same day three sets of the cosharer landlords filed three suits for rent for the same period, viz., suits Nos. 1608/32, 1616/32 and 1628/32. All these suits were filed under the procedure laid down in Section 148-A, Ben. Ten. Act, that is to say, the co-sharer landlords who had not joined as plaintiffs were made defendants. All the suits were taken up on the same day and decreed on 29th November 1932. It does not appear that any of the defendants appeared and the decrees were ex parte. The decr...
Bhola Nath Roy Chaudhury and ors. Vs. Haji Syed Muhammad Mashud and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1936
Reported in: 171Ind.Cas.479
ORDER1. The petitioners in this Rule are the judgment-debtors in a rent execution case. They made an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for having a sale set aside on the ground inter alia that the execution proceedings were without jurisdiction and that there was suppression of the sale processes, in consequence of which the tenancy in arrears was sold at an inadequate price. On February 16 1935, the learned Munsif passed the following order upon the application:Register. Inform Pleader. Put on March 30, 1935, for hearing. Petitioner to deposit the decretal amount before that date. In default, the case will stand rejected. Confirmation be stayed till that date.2. Subsequently the petitioners applied to the Court for a re-consideration of the order for deposit. But on March 30, the learned Judge decided that the application could not be entertained without such deposit. Against that decision the present Rule has been ob...
Khagendra Nath Chatterjee Vs. Kanti Bhushan Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal808
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by defendant 2 in a suit instituted against him by the plaintiff opposite party for recovery of the balance of wages said to be due to him for the period of his service which he said, began on 14th May 1931 and terminated on 15th September 1931. The learned Small Cause Court Judge has found, overruling the defence, on the, point, that the service terminated on 15th September 1931. The lower Court has also found that the plaintiff was employed under defendant 2 as a bus driver on daily wages. The suit was instituted on 12th September 1934 and a plea of limitation was taken but has been over-ruled. The question is whether the decision of the Court below on the point of limitation is a correct decision on point of law. Defendant 2 contends before me that Article 7, Lim. Act applies to this case, and inasmuch as the suit has been instituted more than a year after the termination of service, it is barred by limitation. The whole question is whet...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›