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.
Kanai Lal Saha and ors. Vs. Baijanath Khetri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal649
1. This is an appeal preferred by the judgment-debtors who had put in an objection under Section 47, Civil P.C., the said objection having been overruled by the Court below. The facts necessary to be stated are the following: The decree that was sought to be executed was a final decree for sale on a mortgage. It had been obtained on the death of the mortgagee, Bishandas Khetri, by his heirs No. 1 Baijanath Khetri, No. 2 Ramnath Khetri, minor, No. 3 Babulal Khetri, minor, and No. 4 Narayandas Khetri, minor, the said minors being represented by their guardian and elder brother Baijanath Khetri. That was the form of the title contained in the decree. The decree was passed on 4th February 1931. The application for execution which has given rise to this appeal was filed on 2nd February 1934. It was filed by the said Baijanath Khetri for himself and also as guardian and elder brother of Ramnath Khetri, minor, Babulal Khetri, minor, and Narayandas Khetri, minor. The objection that was taken o...
Manmatha Kumar Saha Vs. Exchange Loan Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal567,165Ind.Cas.363
Edgley, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiff Company sued the defendants on a promissory note alleged to have been executed by defendant 1 who alone contested the suit. It was said that defendant 1 had borrowed the sum of Rs. 300 from the plaintiff company and had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 3 per cent. per mensem. The total amount claimed was Rs. 624. The execution of the promissory note was admitted, but the main defence was to the effect that, at the time of the execution of this document, defendant 1 was a minor. The suit was decreed by both Courts. The findings of the lower appellate Court are to the effect that the appellant was a minor at the time when he executed the promissory note, that he knew that the period of his minority had been extended, that the plaintiff company did not know that defendant 1 was a minor and that this defendant obtained the loan from the plaintiff company by falsely and fraudulently representing that he was not a mi...
Manmatha Pal Choudhury Vs. Saroj Ranjan Singha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal639
M.N. Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 from a decree passed against him in a suit for khas possession, for rent and for mesne profits in respect of a durpatni tenure. One Mathura Mohan Pal Choudhury held a putni, which had its origin in 1818, of Mehal Taraf Mahatpur comprising 57 mauzahs and appertaining to Touzi No. 334 of the Nadia Collectorate, the said towzi belonging to the Nadia Raj. Prior to his acquisition of the putni, Mathura Mohan had a durpatni in some of the mauzahs. The appellant holds some mauzahs in durpatni and others in sepatni. Mathura. Mohan died leaving two daughters, Sarat. Kumari and Joydurga and the plaintiffs are the sons of the former. He also left a will by which he bequeathed all his properties to his two daughters in equal shares. The two daughters executed an agreement in 1316 (1909) and the plaintiffs have been in possession of a moiety share in the properties since their mother's death. In 1922, Joydurga, the surviving daughter, commenced a ...
Mt. Khairan Nissa Vs. Mahamad HussaIn Bara
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal627
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by a wife against her husband claiming deferred dower money of Rs. 1,000. The defendant husband is a clerk at Shillong on a salary of Rs. 110 per month. He had married the plaintiff, and apparently they lived together for a period of 14 to 15 years, at the end of which there was disagreement between the parties and she thereafter left his house and went to live with her parents at Sibsagar. Her case was that she was driven out of the house at Shillong. The defendant's case was that she became extremely insubordinate and of her own accord she left his protection after he had duly pronounced a divorce on 2nd May 1927. After the separation she instituted a maintenance case under Section 488, Criminal P. C., and apparently obtained an ex parte order, but when she proceeded to execute the order the defendant in 1930 produced the Talaknama and thereupon the Court dismissed the plaintiff's maintenance suit. The plaintiff's case was that she came to know of t...
Musammat Khairannissa Vs. Mahamad HussaIn Bara
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1936
Reported in: 167Ind.Cas.263
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by a wife against her husband claiming deferred dower money of Rs. 1,000. The defendant husband is a clerk at Shillong on a salary of Rs. 110 per month. He had married the plaintiff, and apparently they lived together for a period of 14 to 15 years, at the end of which there was disagreement between the parties and she thereafter left his house and went to live with her parents at Sibsagar. Her case was that she was driven out of the house at Shillong. The defendant's case was that she became extremely insubordinate and of her own accord she left his protection after he had duly pronounced a divorce on May 2, 1927. After the separation she instituted a maintenance case under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, and apparently obtained an ex parte order, but when she proceeded to execute the order, the defendant in 1930 produced the talaknama and thereupon the Court dismissed the plaintiff's maintenance suit. The plaintiffs case was that she came to k...
Shambhu Chandra Haldar Vs. Kanai Lal Goswami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal581
Edgley, J.1. In the suit out of which the present appeal arises the plaintiffs sued the defendant for ejectment from a certain plot of land. It was decided by both the Courts below that the defendant had been properly and legally ejected and it was decided that the plaintiffs should get khas possession of the land in suit subject to the payment to the defendant of the sum of Rs. 700 as compensation for the cost of the materials of the structures which had been erected by the defendant on the suit land.2. The first point urged by the learned advocate for the appellant in this case is that the defendant has not been validly ejected owing to the fact that, according to the terms of the notice, whatever the plaintiffs' rights may have been under the terms of the kabuliyat they had nevertheless undertaken not to eject the defendant until they had compensated the latter for the cost of the materials of the structures in the suit land. It was therefore contended that they had waived their rig...
Emperor Vs. J. a Pleader
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal658,166Ind.Cas.371
ORDER1. We are not prepared to take too severe a view of the conduct of the pleader concerned in this case. The pleader appears to have been a practitioner of about 25 years standing and, as far as can be gathered from the papers before us, he commands a considerable practice. For the purposes of the affidavits which he swore, and in which he went out of his way to make a statement that the facts deposed to by him were true tO his knowledge, he did, as a matter of fact, make such enquiry as was open to him to make. From the evidence that has been recorded in this case it appears that in the course of that enquiry the books of the office of the client himself were consulted and when it was found that the moneys were not entered therein and a list was prepared for his use stating the amounts which had not been withdrawn and for which applications for withdrawal had to be made, he bona fide put in the application and swore to the affidavits which had to be filed therewith. There was no di...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›