Kolkata Court February 1938 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.
Ramananda Paul and ors. Vs. Pankaj Kumar Ghosh, Receiver and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal417
Derbyshire C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Dacca made on 27th May 1935, wherein he declared a certain mortgage deed executed by the insolvent to be void as against the receiver, first, as a fraudulent or undue preference under Section 54, Provincial Insolvency Act and, secondly, under the provisions of Section 53 of the same Act. The insolvent, Brindaban Chandra Das Basak, resided and carried on business as a cloth dealer in Dacca. In addition to having his business, he had a certain quantity of private property in the form of land and houses. Prior to 1931, his affairs seemed to have become somewhat difficult and he was undoubtedly short of money. On 23rd February 1931, he executed a deed whereby he purported to transfer some of his property to debutter purposes. On 11th March 1931, he executed the mortgage deed which is now in question. This deed was registered on 23rd March 1931. On 16th June 1931, some creditors filed a petition in insolvency against...
Manickchand Agarwalla Vs. Pareshnathji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal23
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a judgment of Ameer Ali J. The plaintiffs were Pareshnathji, a Digambari Jain deity located at the Mandirji at No. 1, Bysack Lane, in the town of Calcutta, by its next friend Baldeodas Serowjee, and certain trustees. The claim was for a declaration that premises No. 35-B, Brojo Dulal Street, belonged to the plaintiff deity and for the other plain, tiffs as trustees for the plaintiff deity. The defendants were the heirs of the original founder of the alleged trust. The material facts are as follows : One Hulashilal, a wealthy Digambari Jain resident of Calcutta, by his will dated 20th December 1826 dedicated inter alia the premises No. 35, Brojo Dulal Street now known as Nos. 35-A and 35-B, Brojo Dulal Street, in favour of the plaintiff deity. In that will there are many references to religion or religious purposes and inter alia the following statements:To the Manderji at Sri Calcutta of the Tairopuntee Amnyo I have given ...
Secretary of State Vs. Girindra Nath Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal445
ORDEREdgley, J.1. This rule is directed against the order of the Munsif of Ranaghat dated 14th June 1937 by which he dismissed an application filed on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C. read with Section 151 of that Code. It appears that the Post Master General of Bengal and Assam was the custodian of certain Post Office Cash Certificates to the nominal value of Rs. 10,000 which he held on behalf of a man named Ramdas Nath. This man died on 26th July 1933 and his heirs apparently took no steps to obtain a valid transfer to them of the Cash Certificates in accordance with the provisions of Post Office Rules. In 1936 certain persons obtained a decree against the assets of Ramdas Nath, which were in the hands of his heirs, opposite parties 9 to 12. The Munsif of Ranaghat thereupon called upon the Post Master General to remit to him a sum of Rs. 211-15-0 which had been deposited in the Post Office in connexion with cash certificate No:...
Chandra Kumar Home and ors. Vs. Gopi Nath Kar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal463
Jack, J.1. This rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate of Mymensingh and also upon the opposite party to show cause why an order of the Subordinate Judge under Section 476, Criminal P.C. making a complaint against the petitioner to the Sub-divisional Magistrate under Section 192, Penal Code, and reversing the order of the Munsif should not be set aside on the grounds that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge was illegal and could not be sustained in that the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the order of the Munsif and make the complaint. The alleged offence arose in connexion with an application in a money execution ease in the Court of the 4th Munsif, Netrokona. There was an alteration made in this application filed before the Munsif and subsequently the opposite party suspected that the decree-holder and the clerk of the pleader, who is the present petitioner, and others had tampered with the application after it was filed. The...
Upendra Narayan Mukherjee Vs. BepIn Behary Mal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal429
Henderson, J.1. These appeals are by the plaintiff. He holds a lease under certain permanent ijaradars and he instituted three suits in order to eject the defendants from certain plots of land comprised within his holding. It is not disputed that the leases in favour of the defendants were granted for residential purposes. The contention of the appellant is that his own lease is governed not by the Bengal Tenancy Act but by the Transfer of Property Act. There were two alternative defences. In the first place, it was contended that the plaintiff himself is a raiyat with the result that the defendants are under raiyats. This point was found in favour of the defence by both the Courts below. Then in the alternative, it was contended that, even if the plaintiff's lease is governed by the Transfer of Property Act the defendants themselves are protected by Section 182, Bengal Tenancy Act.2. I will just say a word or two about the alternative defence first. Under the terms of the section, the...
Narendra Nath Acharjee and anr. Vs. Hirendra Nath Acharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal500
Khundkar, J.1. This appeal relates to the respondent's interest in a certain tenure recorded as a permanent tenure liable to enhancement of rent. The names of the recorded tenure-holders at a time which is material were : (1) Kedar Acharjee, (2) Chandi Charan, (3) Sashi, (4) Bejoy, (5) Khoka, and (6) Sailen. In the year 1920 the interest of Sashi, Bejoy, and one Kali, who was the father of Khoka and Sailen was purchased by one Manindra Kumar Basu at a sale held in execution of a mortgage decree. Manindra got himself recorded as a tenure-holder and then on 26th January 1931 sold his interest to the present respondent. On 14th April 1931, the landlords instituted a suit for rent and obtained a decree against Kedar, Chandi Charan, Sashi, Bejoy, Khoka and Sailen without impleading either Manindra or the respondent as defendants. In the petition for execution it would seem that only Kedar, Kedar's wife Giribala, and Chandi Charan were made parties. In execution of the decree obtained in tha...
PulIn Behary Mandal Vs. Rama Charan Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal790
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal by the defendant against the decision of my learned brother Henderson J. It arises out of a suit for possession of three plots of land, one being a homestead and the other two being paddy lands. The subject-matter of dispute in this Letters Patent Appeal is the paddy lands, as it has been found that the plaintiff's claim so far as it relates to the bastu land is barred by limitation. The only point for determination in this appeal is whether the plaintiff's claim in respect of these two plots is barred by limitation. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that in view of the facts of this case the provisions of Article 138, Limitation Act, are attracted to this case. I am unable to accept this contention. That Article applies to a case where the judgment-debtor was in possession at the date of the sale. Here admittedly the defendant was not in possession at the time when the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest purchased the property in e...
Ram Gobinda Ghose and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal364
Bartley, J.1. The appellants in this case,. Ram Gobinda Ghose, Dhokari Mistry, Dharani Rout and Kanti Mukherji were tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Birbhum and a jury, on the charge of murdering one Atul Singh. Another person, Phani Bhusan Roy, was charged at the same trial with conspiracy to murder Atul. No other charges were framed in the case. The charge of conspiracy against Phani Bhusan Roy was tried with the aid of the jury sitting as assessors, and the learned Judge acquitted him on that charge. On the murder charge, the jury, by a majority of 4 to 3, returned a verdict of guilty against the present appellants.2. The case for the prosecution was briefly that one Furi Domi was the mistress of all five men. Latterly she transferred her affections to the deceased Atul Singh, who was the owner of a small rice business situated beside the Suri Ahmedpur road. Because of this, the appellants and Phani Bhusan conspired to murder Atul. On the 18th Asarh at about 4 to 4-30 P. M. th...
Lala Lalung Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal176
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal on fbehalf of the appellant Lala Lalung who was tried by a jury in the Court o the Assistant Sessions Judge of the Assam Valley Districts. The jury unanimously convicted him under Section 304 (Part II), I.P.C., and the learned Judge accepting the verdict has sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case is that Surjat and Moharali had gone 'to a certain beel and cut two bundles of reeds and when they were bringing them away, they were met by the appellant who quarrelled with them for having cut the needs in that particular beel. After an altercation, the appellant dealt a blow on; the head of Surjat with a big stick where, upon the deceased fell down and in a short time he died, his skull being fractured. There was another man who was tried : along with the appellant but the jury acquitted him.2. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant urges that the learned Judge misdirected the jury by quoting inadmissible evidenc...
Nanda Kishore Lal Vs. KhetabuddIn Ahmed and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal449
Nasim Ali, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two applications by the appellant landlord for settlement of fair and equitable rent of two occupancy holdings under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act. The landlord claimed enhancement of rent on two grounds : (a) Increase in the price of the staple foodcrops under Section 30 (b), Ben. Ten. Act, and (b) increase in the area of the holding under Section 52, Ben. Ten. Act. The Settlement Officer allowed an increase on the first ground but dismissed the landlord's claim for enhancement under Section 52. The tenant accepted the increase under Section 30 (b). The landlord however appealed to the Special Judge for enhancement of rent under Section 52. The learned Special Judge dismissed the appeals. Two second appeals were taken by the landlord to this Court and my learned brother Biswas J. has affirmed the decision of the Special Judge. Hence these two appeals under Section 15 of the Letters Patent. The only question for determination in these two app...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »