Kolkata Court March 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.
Ananda Lal Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Girindra Nath Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal483
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The lands which are the subject matter of these appeals are in two touzies, namely Touzi No. 51 and Touzi No. 47 of the Alipore Collectorate. The appellants before us are the owners of Touzi No. 51 and the plaintiffs-respondents in these appeals are the owners of Touzi No. 47 having purchased the said Touzi at a revenue sale within 12 years of the suit. In the year 1911, there was a petty settlement and all the lands except the lands of Khatian No. 959 and plot No. 1050 of Khatian No. 1024 were recorded in the possession of the defendants as not paying rent but liable to pay rent. The lands of Khatian No. 959 and plot No. 1050 of Khatian No. 1024 however were recorded in the petty settlement as Niskar lands in the possession of the defendants. The finding of the Asistant Settlement Officer in these cases is that the proprietors of Touzi Nos. 51 and 47 knew of the entries made in the petty settlement of 1911. After the petty settlement there was a regular settlement un...
Monmohini Das Purkayastha and ors. Vs. Behari Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal421,166Ind.Cas.415
1. This is an appeal from the decision of our learned brother R.C. Mitter, J. The plaintiff appellant instituted a suit, Title Suit No. 2149 of 1909, in the Court of the Munsif at Sunamgunj in the District of Sylhet, for possession, on declaration of his title, and there were other incidental and consequential reliefs prayed in the suit, which was filed in Court on 16th July 1909, against nineteen persons impleaded as defendants; to meet the objection on the score of defect of parties, raised by the defendants, 52 more persons were added as defendants. Of these defendants subsequently made parties to the suit, defendants 41 to 43 were minors at the time when they were made defendants to the suit; the mother of these three defendants was proposed as their guardian and the order of the Court relating to the matter of appointment of guardian of defendants 41 to 43, passed on 11th June 1910 was this:Service of notice pressed on 16th April 1910. No objection petition filed yet. The proposed...
Lalit Mohan Saha and ors. Vs. Debendra Nath Thakur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal444,165Ind.Cas.281
1. The plaintiffs in the suit in which this appeal has arisen, suing as representatives of the public under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. C., prayed for possession of what was mentioned as a public Halot, on removal of obstruction therefrom and for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs was that the Halot described in the plaint and which was the subject of the litigation was a public pathway in dry season and a public boat passage in the rainy season, that the defendants had in collusion with one another totally obstructed the boat passage and made the same unfit for use as a pathway in dry season, and that the public had been inconvenienced by the obstruction thus caused. Defendant 1 was the President of the Bhagyakul Union Board, and represented the Board as such, and he supported defendants 2, 3 and 4, who filed written statements and pleaded that earth was raised on the part of the Halot mentioned in the plaint, in accordance with the resolution of the Union Board passed on ...
Bengal Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. Sri Sri Janaradan Kishore Lal Singh Deo and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal459,165Ind.Cas.615
Nasim Ali, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit for recovery of road cess, mine cess and income-tax charged on the royalty payable for a certain colliery under the terms of a registered indenture of lease. The trial Judge decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendants to the lower appellate Court the learned District Judge has affirmed the decree of the trial Judge for road cess and mine cess, but has dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for income-tax. Hence these two second appeals, one (S. A. 856) by the defendants and the other (S. A. 1003) is by the plaintiffs. The point for determination in the two appeals is whether under the terms of the lease the plaintiffs are entitled to recover: (a) road cess, (b) mine cess (c) income-tax, paid by them on the royalties reserved in the lease. The relevant clauses in the lease are these:(a) All the aforesaid royalties shall be paid free from any deduction (Clause 1 of Part 6 of the indenture).(b) The lessee shall pay the royalty and royalties...
Bengal Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. Janardan Kishore Lal Singh Deo.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1936
Reported in: [1936]4ITR392(Cal)
NASIM ALI, J. - These two appeals arise out of a suit for recovery of road cess, mine cess and income-tax charged on the royalty payable for a certain colliery under the terms of a registered indenture of lease. The trial Judge decreed the suit. On appeal by the Defendants to the lower Appellate Court the learned District Judge has affirmed the decree of the trial Judge for road cess and mine cess but has dismissed the Plaintiffs claim for income tax. Hence these two second appeals one (S. A. No. 856) by the defendants, and the other (S. A. No. 1003) by the Plaintiffs.The point for determination in the two appeals is whether under the terms of the lease the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover (a) Road cess, (b) Mine cess, (c) Income tax, paid by them on the royalties reserved in the lease.The relevant clauses in the lease are these :-'(a).............. The lessee shall pay the royalties reserved in the lease at the time and manner appointed in that behalf and shall also pay and discharg...
Musammat Khairunnessa Bibi Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1936
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.130
Jack, J.1. In this case, a Rule was issued on the Municipal Magistrate and also on the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, Calcutta, to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner Musammat Khairunnessa Bibi under Section 271 of the Calcutta Municipal Act and a fine of Rs. 25 under that section passed on her should not be set aside on the ground that the petitioner being owner of the land and receiving ground rent only and not being the owner of the structures thereon could not be convicted for failure to provide connected privies for the use of the occupiers of those structures and that, even if it be held that the owner of the land as well as the owner of the building thereon are both owners of the premises, the owner of the building should be held to be the person primarily iable for the provision of privies necessary for the buildings.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was ordered to provide connected privies at premises No. 11-7, Hazi Zakaria Road, by a no...
Annada Prosad Chatterji Vs. Phanindra Bhusan Ghatak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal381,166Ind.Cas.740
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for possession on declaration of title, and is directed against the decision of our learned brother R.C. Mitter, J., affirming that by the Subordinate Judge, Bankura. The plaintiff prayed relief in the suit instituted by him on the basis of rent sale at which he was the purchaser of the property in litigation, on 22nd November 1923. The defendants who resisted the claim of the plaintiff in the suit, were the mortgagee purchasers at a sale in execution of their mortgage decree; the purchase of the defendants was on 20th May 1924. The case of the defendants was that the plaintiffs not having annulled the mortgage were not entitled to get possession as prayed by them in the suit without redeeming the mortgage. The learned Subordinate Judge in the Court of appeal below gave effect to the defence of the defendants, and the decree passed by him directed payment of the decretal amount of the defendants' mortgage, before he could get Khan possess...
Sripati Chandra De and ors. Vs. Kailash Chandra Jana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal386,166Ind.Cas.464
1. The plaintiffs in the suit in which this appeal under Section 15, Letters Patent, directed against a decision of our learned brother R.C. Mitter, J., has arisen, claimed enhancement of rent, under Section 30 (b), Ben. Ten. Act, in addition to the claim for rent with cesses, and the question for consideration now before us relates to the right of the plaintiffs to claim enhancement in the manner mentioned in their plaint. The tenancy in question comprised 13 parcels of land and fraction of three other parcels; and it was not therefore a holding under the Bengal Tenancy Act, before the definition of holding was amended by the Bengal Tenancy Amendment Act 4 of 1928. The defence of the tenant defendant in the suit was that the definition of holding as amended in the year 1928 had no retrospective effect, and as such the plaintiffs as landlords had no right to apply for enhancement of rent under Section 30 (b), Ben. Ten. Act.2. The Court of first instance came to the conclusion that no v...
Abdul Sattar Choudhury and ors. Vs. Abdul Rusan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal400,165Ind.Cas.756
1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Letters Patent from a decision of our learned brother R.C. Mitter, J., dismissing an appeal to this Court preferred by the plaintiffs in a suit in which the main relief claimed was for rectification of a petition of adjustment of a decree filed in Court on 22nd August 1925 in a proceeding in execution. The Court of first instance, as also the Court of appeal below, on the evidence in the case, came to the finding, in favour of the plaintiffs, that a mistake had crept into the petition of adjustment. The learned Judge in this Court in second appeal held that the suit was maintainable, overruling the decision of the Court of appeal below, which held otherwise. There can be no question that the decision of Mitter, J., holding that the plaintiffs' suit was maintainable, and that Section 47, Civil P. C., was no bar to the same, is unassailable, as the question of rectification of the petition of adjustment could not be decided by the successor-in...
Jogendra Nath Mukherjee Vs. Rabindra Nath Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1936
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.150
Jack, J.1. This Rule has been issued on the District Magistrate of 24-Parganas to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under Section 501 and the sentence of fine of Rs. 20 passed on him under that section should not be set aside.2. The two grounds urged before me are first that statement of the accused under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, was not read over to him and his signature taken immediately after the close of the prosecution and that therefore, the trial was illegal. The other point is that there was manifestly no reliable evidence on which the Court could have based its conviction.3. As regards the first point, I find that when it was brought to the notice of the Magistrate that the statement was not read over to the accused the latter was given an opportunity of making a further statement although it has never been asserted that the original statement was not correct. In the circumstances, this is not a ground for interference with the order which has been p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »