Kolkata Court June 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.
Prasanna Deb Raikat Vs. Bengal Duars Bank, Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal744
D.N. Mitter, J.1. These are five appeals by the plaintiffs against as many decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Jalpaiguri dated 23rd December 1932, by which he dismissed the plaintiff's suits in ejectment. The nature of the reliefs claimed in these five suits might be divided into two heads. The suits in which appeals Nos. 121, 122 and 125 arise were for the setting aside of permanent leases created by the previous shebaits of the deity Sree Sree Iswar Ram Chandra Bigraha, the appellant before us represented by Prasanna Deb Rakshit who claims to be the present shebait of the said deity. The other two appeals Nos. 123 and 124, arise out of suits in ejectment which have been brought on the ground that the defendants are temporary tenants of the deity on whom proper notices to quit have been served. All these suits having been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge the present appeals have been brought by the plaintiffs.2. In order to understand the controversy raised by these appeals it is n...
(Dewan) Emdad Ali Vs. Haran Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal590
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The facts of the case are as follows: One Najimuddin and two other persons owed a considerable amount of money to the respondent Haran Sheikh, who brought his suit to recover the same on 27th April 1931 and recovered a decree on 16th January 1932. In execution of his decree he purchased on 20th June 1932 half-share of the property which is the subject-matter of this appeal. Shortly after Najimuddin had incurred his liabilities to Haran Sheik, he executed in favour of the appellant, Dewan Emdad Ali, a mortgage bond on 12th Assin 1336, corresponding to a date in September 1929. The mortgage is an unusual one because it not only included all his immoveable properties but also all his moveables including his cooking vessels and all his earthly possessions. This mortgage followed a hibabil-ewaz which he had executed in favour of his wife in lieu of alleged dower which included also all his immoveable properties and all his moveables. This hibabil-ewaz was undoubtedly a fic...
Garib Shaw Vs. Sm. Patia Dassi W/O Narayan Chandra Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1938Cal290
1. This is an appeal by an objector from a decision of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Alipore, granting probate of a will alleged to have been left by one Narayan Shaw. The history of the life of the testator Narayan Shaw, which is given in the will itself and which has not been disputed before us, is that in his early boyhood he came out to Bengal for the purpose of earning money and after spending some time here and there he ultimately came to Titaghur where he was employed in one capacity or another for some time and eventually became the Sardar of coolies of some mills at that place; that by his honesty and perseverance he succeeded in enlisting the sympathy and indulgence of some of the European officials of the mills and began to obtain very pro-Stable contracts from them. He thereafter married and brought his father down to his native village, acquired some properties and settled down at Titaghur. At the time of his death, he had a fixed place of abode at Titaghur and some ...
Priyanath Ghosal Vs. Tarak Nath Datta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal727,173Ind.Cas.275
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for setting aside an election of the defendant-appellant as the president of the Hariharpur Union Board on the ground that he is not a resident of the said Union as contemplated by Section 7(2), Village Self-Government Act, 1919. Both the Courts below have found that the defendant's election as a member and president of the Union Board was illegal inasmuch as he was not qualified to be a member of the Union Board. According to Section 7, Clause 2 of the Act, one of the qualifications of a voter or a member of the Union Board is that he must be a resident within the Union and the explanation states that a person shall be deemed to be a resident within the Union within the meaning of Sub-section 2 if he ordinarily resides within its limits. Both the Courts below have found that inasmuch as the defendant did not ordinarily reside within the limits of the Union, he is not qualified as a voter. This is a finding of fact with which this Court i...
Radha Sundar Roy and anr. Vs. Saktipada Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal714,166Ind.Cas.55
Edgley, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiff sued the defendants for the cancellation of an Ekrarnama which, according to his case, had been forged by the principal defendants. This document is said to have been executed on 3rd August 1931 and was presented for registration on 9th September 1931. The land covered by the Ekrarnama originally belonged to the maternal grandfather of the plaintiff and subsequently it devolved upon Nagendrabala Dasi, his maternal grandmother from whom he inherited it. On 29th August 1931 he sold this property to Rajendrabala. The contention of the defendants was to the effect that the Ekrarnama was a genuine one and that, in any event, the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable having regard to the provisions of Section 39, Specific Relief Act. Both the Courts below found that the Ekrarnama was a forged document and, this being the case, they decreed the plaintiff's suit. It has been faintly argued by the learned advocate for the ap...
Sadhiram Atoi Vs. Kunja Behari Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal715
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. The facts of the case, shortly stated, are the following: One Sarat Chandra Chowdhury was appointed Sarbarakar in respect of a mouza Bara Khetri in the month of September 1928. The plaintiff stood surety on behalf of the said Sarat Chandra Chowdhury in respect of the said appointment by executing a security bond whereby he hypothecated certain immoveable properties. The revenue payable for the said mouza was Rs. 26,500 and the plaintiff's properties were taken as being valued at Rs. 28,000 which was the valuation which the plaintiff had put upon the properties.2. Thereafter, there was a proposal to split up mouza Bara Khetri into two parts, one of which was to go by the name of Uttar Bara Khetri and the other Dakhin Bara Khetri. This proposal of the Commissioner was accepted by the Government on 9th November 1928. Thereafter sureties were called for an aggregate amount of Rs. 13,000 for an appointment which was to be made of ...
Messrs G. I. M. Gregory and Co. Vs. Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1936
Reported in: [1937]5ITR12(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - This is a case stated under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal, for the opinion of this Court. The facts are set out in the case and in the annexures thereto. The short history of the matter is set out in a paragraph 3 of the case which says : 'From the assessment year 1919-20 to 1923-24 Gregory worked in this business with one Gosto Behary Roy as partner. In 1924-25 S. B. Roy, the son, came in as a partner in place of his father and this constitution carried on till the year of assessment 1927-28. In 1928-29 Jaidayal Kasera & Co., a Marwari firm, came in as Gregory;s partner and this constitution subsisted up till and including, the year of assessment 1931-32. Apparently the partnership agreement in each case was in force for only one year and every year a fresh agreement was executed. At any rate, I find in the file a partnership deed, dated the July 9, 1930, between Gregory and Jaidayal Kasera, copy appended...
Sudhansu Sekhor Banerjee Vs. Rai Kiron Chandra Roy Bahadur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal695,166Ind.Cas.144
Edgley, J.1. These appeals arise with reference to certain suits brought by the plaintiffs for the recovery of cess from the defendant. Both the Courts below held that the defendant was liable in respect of the major part of the cess which had been claimed. The facts of the case appear to be briefly as follows: The lands in respect of which cess has been claimed by the plaintiffs are admittedly nishkar or rent free lands. Notices were issued in due course under Sub-section 14 and 16, Cess Act (Bengal Act 9 of 1880). After the issue of the notices under Section 16 of the Act, the landlords did not submit returns in the form prescribed in Schedule A to the Act, but, instead of doing so, sent some petitions to the Collector, in which they referred to the entries contained in the record of rights and suggested that the valuation for the purposes of the Cess Act should be made in accordance with those entries. The Collector thereupon proceeded to make a summary valuation of the rent free la...
Kshirode Chandra Pal Choudhury and ors. Vs. Brahmanath Pal Choudhury a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal571,166Ind.Cas.374
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the judgment-debtors against whom the respondents had recovered a decree for money in the Court of the Munsiff at Ranaghat in the year 1930. The question involved in this appeal is a question of limitation, namely, whether the application for execution made on 5th February 1935 is barred by time. In 1931, the decree-holders, two in number, namely Brahma Nath Pal Choudhury and Pratap Chandra Pal Choudhury, applied for execution of the decree in the Court of the Munsiff at Ranaghat in the District of Nadia and some immoveable properties of the judgment debtors were attached. Two claims were preferred by two persons and were registered by the said Munsiff on 6th May and 23rd May 1931 respectively. Another set of persons had obtained a decree against the same judgment debtors and they applied for execution in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Nadia. Some of the immoveable properties attached were common in these two execution cases, w...
Munish Chandra Dutta and ors. Vs. Ajit Sankar De and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1936
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.1007
Edgley, J.1. In the suit oat of which this appeal arises, the plaintiff sued the defendants for a declaration of his title and confirmation of possession in respect of a certain plot of land. He contended that it was included within his holding No. 67 of Touzi No. 1068 and that in the Record of Rights it had been shown wrongly as appertaining to defendants holding. The plaintiff had instituted a suit under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act but this suit had been dismissed. The case for the defendants was to the effect that the Record of Rights was correct and that the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable haying regard to the provisions of Section 109 of tile Bengal Tenancy Act. They also maintained that they were in adverse possession of the disputed land.2. The first Court held that the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable, as it was barred, by the principles of res judicata but as regards limitation and title, the findings were in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »