Kolkata Court May 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.
Mati Lal Daga and ors. Vs. (Sri Sri) Iswar Radha Damodar Chandra Jew T ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal727
D.N. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 5 to 9 against a preliminary judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Asansol dated 28th September 1932 by which he directed certain enquiry as to damages as also against the final decree passed by another Subordinate Judge on 5th October 1934, by which he directed the payment by the said defendants to the plaintiff of the sum of Rs. 1,80,747 for damages and for rents and royalties. The Hazra respondents describing themselves as Shebaits of a deity Sri Sri Radha Damodar Chandra Jiu Thakur brought the suit in which this appeal arises: (1) to recover khas possession of a colliery known as Kajora Colliery, which belongs to the deity in Putni right, (2) to recover one lakh twenty thousand from the defendants on account of the commission and royalties in arrears and for damages, and (3) for other reliefs. The suit was directed against (1) defendant 1 Narendra Chaudhury, in whose name a lease of the underground rights was taken from the plaintiff...
Kurani Debya Vs. Jogamaya Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal518
1. This appeal has arisen out of a proceeding in execution of a decree. The decree-holder, appellant in this Court, applied for execution of the decree passed in the year 1924, which provided for satisfaction of the decretal debt by instalments; the execution was applied for in the year 1928, on default in the payment of two instalments as provided in the decree. In the course of the proceeding in execution, started in the year 1928, there was a compromise arrived at between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor, providing for satisfaction of the decree passed in the year 1924. The order recorded in the order sheet on 8th April 1929 was to this effect:Both parties filed a joint petition of compromise, let the terms of compromise be recorded in the register of suits and the execution case be dismissed on part satisfaction crediting Rs. 100 in the decree.2. Subsequent to that, there were two payments made by the judgment-debtor on 12th February 1930, and on 12th February 1931, accord...
Nirode Chandra Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Chairman of Commissioners of Kam ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal506
M.N. Mukerji, J.1. The suit in connection with which this reference has been made was in respect of a strip of land, said to be about 616 sq. ft. in area. The strip is in continuation of a public road known as the Pithuri Ghat Road, and is bounded on the east by an admittedly public road and on the west, by a pucca bathing ghat. In the plaint it is stated that there is a burning ghat adjoining the bathing ghat. On the north and south of the strip of land are admittedly lands belonging to the plaintiffs. It is also stated in the plaint that the said strip of land and the two ghats are private properties of the plaintiffs, belonging solely to them in rent-free right. The cause of action for the suit was described in the plaint as follows:'...... The defendant Municipality has of late been trying to convert the plaintiffs' land into a Municipal road, and with that fraudulent object in view, is about to open up the disputed land so that 'solings' (i.e., bricks) and khoa (i.e., brick-bats) ...
Bejoy Kumar Addya and ors. Vs. Nagendra Nath Palit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal497
M.N. Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff instituted this suit to recover arrears of rent with damages in respect of a piece of homestead land. The claim was for a period of four years. The suit was tried and decreed by Mr. Sharuddin Ahammed, Munsif, 3rd Court, at Alipore, District 24-Parganas, exercising the powers of a Court of Small Causes. The defendants moved this Court for revision of the decision, and on their application a rule was issued to show cause why it should not be set aside. One of the contentions urged on behalf of the defendants at the hearing of the rule before the Division Bench was that Mr. Ahammed had no jurisdiction to try the suit. In having to deal with this contention, the Division Bench came to be of opinion that there was a conflict of judicial opinion bearing upon the question. Hence this reference. The relevant facts are the following: The second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (9 of 1887), in its different clauses, enumerates the classes of suit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›