Kolkata Court June 1937 Judgments
Sarashijaksha Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Karpur Kamini Deby and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal745,173Ind.Cas.945
M.C. Ghose, J.1. These two appeals have been argued together. Appeal No. 124 of 1936 is from Suit No. 835 of 1934. In this case the plaintiffs claimed that they have the right to take water from defendant's tank (Dag No. 1534) for the purpose of irrigating certain plots of the plaintiffs. The trial Court decreed the suit in part. In appeal the suit has been dismissed. Upon hearing the learned advocate on both sides it appears that the learned District Judge misdirected himself on two points: (1) On the point of limitation he thought that the plaintiff's suit for correction of the Record of Rights was barred by limitation. The Record of Rights was finally published on 11th November 1927. The certificate of final publication was signed on 29th February 1935. The suit was instituted on 16th January 1934. The learned Judge thought that as the suit was instituted more than six years from the final publication, the suit was out of time. In this he was in error. Under Section 111-B, Bengal Te...
Tag this Judgment!Sonamaddi and anr. Vs. Pramada Sundari Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal746,173Ind.Cas.481
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application under S, 115, Civil P.C., by the transferee in a case under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act. The facts of the case are peculiar. The petitioners are 12 annas co-sharers of a certain tenure and the opposite party are the 4 annas co-sharers of the same tenure. Within that tenure, there was a raiyati holding which the petitioners purchased at a price of Rs. 200 on 7th February 1936. Notice of the purchase together with the transfer-fee was sent to the opposite party on 16th June 1936. Thereupon the opposite party on 14th August 1936 made an application for pre-emption under Section 26-F and deposited the sum of Rs. 200 together with compensation of Rs. 20 at 10 per cent. Notice of this application was served on the petitioners on 11th September 1936. They made an application on 28th November 1936 objecting to the pre-emption by the petitioners and claiming pre-emption for themselves and urging that in any case the petitioners could only pre-empt 4 ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Renula Bose in Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga Vs. Anath Nath Bos ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Cal93,175Ind.Cas.908
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This is an application by Srimati Renula Bose, wife of defendant Anath Nath Bose, asking that a receiver be appointed of the rents, issues and profits of the properties comprised in an indenture of mortgage dated 25th May 1914. The mortgage was created in favour of the Maharajadhiraj Bahadur Sir Kameswar Singh of Darbhanga and the amount advanced by him was Rs. 6,00,000. Although the liability was expressed to be the joint and several liability of the defendant Anath Nath Bose and the other mortgagors, that is to say his brothers Amar Nath Bose and Amulya Nath Bose, there was a provision that if the property of which they were the joint owners was partitioned,' Anath Nath Bose would be entitled to redeem the share allotted to him by payment of Rs. 40,000 with interest. There was a clause in the mortgage deed which provided that in the event of any suit being brought for the recovery of the mortgage money, the mortgagee should be at liberty to apply for the appoint...
Tag this Judgment!Satyendra Chandra Bhattacharjee Vs. Abdul MamIn Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1939Cal267
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff. He instituted the suit to recover damages for malicious prosecution in the following circumstances : There were strained feelings between the two families over a bamboo clump and the plaintiff's family had to go to Court about that. They were successful and obtained delivery of possession through the Civil Court. On 20th October 1932, the plaintiff and some of his men went to cut bamboos in the clump. While they were actually doing so they were set upon by the defendant and his lathials who gave him a beating. The defendant's version of the admitted occurrence is not the same. According to him, the plaintiff and some lathials were lying in wait for him and when he was returning home, they fell upon him and gave him a beating for no reason whatever. He lodged an information to this effect with the police and it is that case which is the basis of the present claim. Both the criminal cases were tried. In the case brought by the plaintiff th...
Tag this Judgment!Santa Prosad Saha Vs. Sm. Mrinalini Saha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal748
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., in the matter of a title suit in the Court of the Munsiff at Dacca. The facts are that the plaintiff opposite party No. 1 filed a suit in the Court of the Munsiff at Dacca against the petitioner and another person opposite party No. 2 for a declaration that three documents, namely a registered deed of sale of certain immovable property for Rs. 15,000, a registered mortgage bond for Rs. 10,000, and a promissory note for Rs 4,000 which purported to be executed by the plaintiff and opposite party No. 2, were fraudulent, without consideration, vitiated by coercion and undue influence and inoperative against them, and for setting aside and cancellation of the same. She stated that her suit was one for a declaration with consequential relief under Section 7, Clause (iv)(c) and valued it at Rs. 150. The defence of the petitioner was that the documents in question were genuine, that the consideration for the same was a prev...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Gupta Vs. Sailendra Kumar Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal735
Costello, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal against certain orders made by the District Judge of Faridpur in a matter which a is described as Lunacy Act Case No. 23 of 1937. The present proceedings were started on 3rd May 1937 by the presentation of a petition by one Sailendra Kumar Gupta who is the son of Rajendra Kumar Gupta, in which it was alleged that Rajendra Kumar Gupta had become of unsound mind and had been in that condition for some nine or ten months previously. It was stated that the petition had been made 'for being appointed guardian of the person and the property of the lunatic.' The word used in the translation is 'idiot.' Certain facts are set forth in the petition and in para. 10 thereof it was prayed that notice should be served on 'the idiot,' that the records of the case should be perused, there should be an order for an inquisition recorded and the case heard after serving notices upon the near relatives of 'the idiot' and the applicant appointed as the guardian of the...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Sarat Kumar Roy Vs. Dharamdas Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal738
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant and arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff for setting aside an ex parte decree in a rent suit, namely, Rent Suit No. 24 of 1931 of the Court of the second Munsif of Krishnagar, in which the present defendant was the plaintiff, on the ground of fraud and also on the ground that the Court which decided the rent suit had no jurisdiction to try the suit under the provision of Section 144, Ben. Ten. Act. The facts really are not disputed. The present defendant as plaintiff had instituted a title suit against the present plaintiff in the Court of the Munsif at Krishnagar in which he claimed recovery of possession of certain properties and mesne profits. The suit was decreed ex parte in favour of the present defendant and it was executed by being transferred to Kalna Court where a miscellaneous case was started on the objection of the present plaintiff who was the judgment-debtor. Ultimately a compromise was effected ...
Tag this Judgment!Ebrahim Hazi Ismail (Since Deceased, Represented by Bai Fatma Bai) and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal741
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the heirs of defendant 1. The facts which have given rise to this litigation may be shortly stated as follows: P.S. Mehenti, who is defendant 2, took lease of Khandra Colliery which is the mortgaged property in suit on 2nd September 1919. On 16th March 1920 he gave an equitable mortgage for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000 to one Nursinsahay Madan Gopal. On 22nd September 1921 Mehenti executed a deed of mortgage for a sum of Rs. 65,000 in favour of Kharsedji Lirnji, defendant 3. The latter executed a deed of conveyance in favour of the plaintiff Rustomji Pestonji on 22nd January 1932: vide Ex. 1. Mehenti executed another mortgage for a sum of Rs. 29,250 in favour of Ebrahim Haji Ismail, defendant 1, on 20th March 1922. It appears that Madan Gopal instituted a suit, being Title Suit No. 69 of 1923, to enforce his mortgage against Mehenti impleading the present defendant 3 and defendant 1. Defendant 3 filed a written statement pleading that Madan Gopal's equita...
Tag this Judgment!Choudhury Mahendra Nath Das and ors. Vs. Radhashyam Mandal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal577,173Ind.Cas.686
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. These are two petitions under Section 115, Civil P.C., against two decisions in analogous cases under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act. The facts are that opposite party No. 1 purchased two holdings from two different raiyats and in the deeds of sale as well as notices served under Section 26-C, Ben. Ten. Act, the three petitioners were described as the landlords of the holdings. On notices being served upon them, the three petitioners applied under Section 26-F claiming to pre-empt the two holdings. Opposite party No. 1 opposed the application for pre-emption on the grounds: (1) that the petitioners were not the landlords of the holdings, but that a certain idol was the landlord, the petitioners being merely shebaits of that idol and the idol not having been made a party to the applications, the applications were not maintainable; and (2) that the petitioners were governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law and their petitions were not maintainable inasmuch as they...
Tag this Judgment!Prince Syed Fateh Ali Mirza Vs. Sajjad HossaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Cal740,173Ind.Cas.921
Costello, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by the District Judge of the 24-Parganas on 26th August 1936, whereby after having heard the parties 'at great length' he came to the conclusion that the appointment of an interim receiver should be maintained. The suit was originally brought by a lady named Sahebzadi Meherunessa Begum and certain other persons against Prince Syed Fateh Ali Mirza in his capacity as the mutawalli of a certain wakf properties. The suit in its nature was one which prior to the Bengal Wakf Act 1934 would certainly have come within the purview of the provisions of Section 92, Civil P.C., and so it could only have been brought either by the Advocate-General of Bengal himself or by persons who had obtained the consent of the Advocate-General for the institution of the suit. In the present instance the plaintiffs as it appears from an endorsement on the plaint obtained the consent to the institution of the suit of the Commissioner of Wakfs in accordance...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »