Kolkata Court March 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.
Maharaja Bahadur Sir Prodyot Coomar Tagore Vs. Mathura Kanta Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal533
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. These are two appeals arising out of two orders passed in certain proceedings in execution of a rent decree. Appeal No. 192 of 1937 is directed against an order dismissing the decree-holder's application for execution on the ground that it was time-barred, whereas Appeal No. 193 of 1937 is against an order rejecting the appellant's application for amendment of the execution petition. The material facts may be shortly stated as follows: Maharaja Tagore, who is the appellant before us, instituted a rent suit against the respondent for recovery of arrears of rent due in respect of two tenancies held by the defendant as a tenant under him. The two holdings were separately described in the schedules to the plaint and there were two separate decrees passed by the Munsif on 13th May 1932 in respect of them under the provisions of Section 144 (2), Ben. Ten. Act. There were two appeals taken against these two decrees by the tenant defendant. The appeal in respect of the hol...
Krishna Chandra Mukherjee Vs. Manik Lal Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal169
Costello, J.1. On 4th July 1933, in the Court of the First Munsif at Alipore, a proceeding which was described, as Miscellaneous Case No. 151 of 1932 was disposed of by Narain Chandra Basu, Rai Bahadur, one of the Munsifs at Alipore. That proceeding was an application made by one Krishna Chandra Mukherjee, a cosharer landlord, under the provisions of Section 26-J, Ben. Ten. Act, for the purpose of recovering from Manik Lal Mukherjee a 5/12th share of the landlord's fee of 20 per cent, of the purchase money said to be due from Manik Lal Mukherjee on the ground that he had purchased an occupancy holding from a lady named Nityabala Debi for the sum of Rs. 10,000. The application was upon the basis that in the kobala the holding was described as being of a permanent character, a mourashi mukarari holding, whereas in fact it was no more than an occupancy right. It is important to bear in mind for our present purpose that in the petition put forward by Krishna Chandra there was a distinct an...
Saila Bala Devi and ors. Vs. Sworna Moyee Devi W/O Parbati Charan Roy ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal275
1. These four appeals arise out of two suits. One was a suit instituted by Sailabala Debi and others after a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P.C., in respect of the lands. The Magistrate found that the possession of the char lands was with the first party, namely Swarnamoyi Debya and others. Thereafter in April 1932 the suit was instituted in the Court of the Munsif of Pabna. The Munsif by his judgment decreed the suit partly in favour of the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit in part. Against that decree both parties appealed to the District Judge and the learned District Judge has affirmed the decree of the trial Court. The second case arose out of a reference by the Collector under Section 5, Alluvion Lands Act of Bengal. The opposing parties to this Court were the opposing parties in that proceeding also. Besides, there were a large number of cultivating tenants who were made parties. It may be stated at once that the Courts below have found that the tenants are occupancy rai...
Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sm. Haridasi Debi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal8
Panckridge, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Lort-Williams J. who passed a decree for Rs. 18,000 and costs, being the amount claimed by the respond dent Sm. Haridasi Debi, in respect of a policy of insurance issued by the appellants on the life of her husband, Kali Prosad Chakravarti, who died on 3rd August 1934. The policy is dated 12th June 1934, and is a whole life policy, the sum insured being payable on receipt and approval of due proof of the death of the insured. The beneficiaries are the insured's wife, the respondent Haridasi Debi, if she survives the insured, otherwise the executors, administrators or assigns of the insured. The premium is a sum of Rs. 194-10-0, payable quarterly. The age of the insured is admitted to be 37 years.2. On 8th August 1934, the respondent. Haridasi Debi informed the appellants of the death of the insured and subsequently she completed and forwarded the usual claim papers. The cause of the insured's death is stated in these papers to hav...
Sreedhar Chandra Roy and ors. Vs. Sm. Kusum Kumari Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal478
Panckridge, J. 1. This is an appeal under the provisions of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Biswas J., affirming the decree in second appeal of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Alipur who allowed the plaintiff's appeal from the-decree of the third Munsif at Alipur dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff sued for declaration of her title to and for possession of a certain Jalkar tenancy, the defendants being the purchasers of that tenure at an auction sale. The sale was inexecution of a rent decree obtained by the landlord, the owner of the Jalkar. The plaintiff's husband was impleaded in the rent suit and it was suggested that that being so, the plaintiff could not institute the present suit as she was a mere benamidar of her husband. The learned Subordinate Judge found as a fact that the plaintiff was not her husband's benamidar and that finding cannot be questioned in second appeal. The plaintiff bases her title on a transfer in the year 1918 made...
Sm. Dhapubai Mini W/O Jnanmall Mini Vs. Chandra Nath Chakravorty and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal524
Nasim Ali, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for possession on declaration of the plaintiff's title. Plaintiff's case briefly stated is as follows : The land described in Schedule 1 to the plaint belonged to the predecessors of defendants 5 and 6. The land described in Schedule 2 is a part of the land described in Schedule 1. The entire land of Schedule 1 was mortgaged to the predecessors of the plaintiff by a registered' simple mortgage bond oh 14th January 1917 to secure a loan of Rs. 20,00. Plaintiff's predecessor instituted a suit on the basis of this mortgage against the mortgagors and obtained a decree, and in execution of the said decree they purchased the mortgaged lands on 26th August 1930. They obtained possession on 17th November 1931. Thereafter, the plaintiff continued to be in possession till September 1935. In-that month the defendants erected a building forcibly on the land mentioned in Schedule 2; of the plaint. There was a criminal case. Plaintiff was...
Allianz Und Stuttgarter Life Insurance Bank Ltd. Vs. Hemanta Kumar Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal641
Costello, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Lort-Williams J. whereby he gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff in a suit which was brought by one Hemanta Kumar Das against the Allianz Und Stuttgarter Life Insurance Bank Ltd. to recover a sum of Rs. 5000 on the basis that he was the assignee of a policy of insurance issued by the defendant company on the life of a man named Noot Behari Das. Hemanta Kumar Das, the plaintiff, is the third son of Noot Behary Das. The defendants are incorporated in Germany and have their head office in India at Delhi : they also have an office in Calcutta. The policy was issued on 16th February 1934, and in the same month it was assigned by Noot Behari Das to his son, the present plaintiff. A notice of the assignment was given to the defendant company and an appropriate endorsement was made on the policy itself stating that it had been assigned to Hemanta Kumar Das. The insured Noot Behari Das died in Calcutta on 22nd February 1936, that is to say...
Kanahya Lal Lohia Vs. Assicurazioni Generalli
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal105
Lort-Williams, J.1. The plaintiffs' claim arises under several policies of insurance issued in September, October and November 1936 by the defendants, in respect of a fire which occurred on 1st December 1936, and which caused loss and damage to premises and stock contained in a jute godown. In their plaint they claimed also a refund of premia, but this sum was brought into Court by the defendants with their written statement and has since been paid over to the plaintiffs. The defendants' case is that none of the policies were subsisting or effecting at the time when the fire occurred owing to breaches by the plaintiffs of certain terms, conditions and warranties which were of the essence of the contracts. It is not suggested that the fire or the resultant loss or damage was in any way due to or affected by any of such breaches. The plaintiffs deny the breaches, and alter, natively plead waiver. There are arbitration clauses in the policies, but the parties agreed to waive them, and to ...
Biraja Charan Nanda Vs. Sailaja Charan Nanda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal155
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This rule is directed against an order relating to payment of court-fees upon a plaint. The petitioner and the opposite party are brothers. The allegations in the plaint, in so far as they are material to the question before use, are that the petitioner's father created a trust in respect of some properties and that in respect of certain charitable institution he had intended to set apart certain other properties for their maintenance. But before he could make any definite arrangement he died. Subsequently the petitioner and his brother came to terms and executed two agreements, by the second of which it was stipulated that in order to give a legal form to the disposition of the properties as desired by their deceased father the parties should join in executing a deed of trust for the benefit of the charitable institutions and after the execution of the said deed they would divide the remainder of the estate into two equal shares. The opposite party failed to comply wi...
Gopal Chandra Chanda Vs. Gobardhan Chandra Chanda and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal523
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This appeal, in my opinion, fails. The debtor whose property has been sold has paid into Court in accordance with Order 21, Rule 89(1)(a) and (b), Civil P.C. the sum equal to five per cent. of the purchase money and also the amounts specified in the proclamation of sale for the recovery of which the sale was ordered, but he did not pay in the poundage fee. A poundage fee is a charge made by the Court under the Court-fees Act for the sale of property. The learned Judge has set aside the sale. The auction-purchaser appealed against that order because the poundage fee was not paid into Court as well as the other sums. There is nothing in Order 21, Rule 89 which makes it necessary for the judgment-debtor to pay in the poundage fee as a condition precedent to the sale being set aside. Order 21, Rule 92 provides that where an application is made to set aside a sale under Order 89 and the deposit required by that Rule is made within 30 days from the date of sale, the Court ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »