Kolkata Court April 1938 Judgments
Jaharlal Mukherjee Vs. Jyoti Prosad Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal547
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This rule has arisen in the following circumstances: The opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 as shebaits of an idol Sri Sri Iswar Sridhar Jew brought Money Suit No. 31 of 1928 in the Third Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hooghly against the petitioner as defendant 1 and others. The suit was first dismissed by the Court below on 2nd July 1930, but on appeal it was remanded for re-hearing. Ultimately on 12th August 1935 on which date the suit was fixed for hearing, Babu Biman Chandra Chatterjee, a pleader for the plaintiffs, intimated to the Court that his clients had informed him through their agent that they would not proceed with the case. Thereupon, the Court dismissed the suit by recording the following order:Babu B.C. Chatterjee, pleader, says that his clients' agent came to me (him) yesterday that he won't proceed with the case. The pleader for the plaintiffs has got no instructions. Defendants are absent. Their pleader not found though sent for. No steps taken by the...
Tag this Judgment!Sitanath Saha and ors. Vs. Monoranjan Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal148
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the First Court of the Sub. ordinate Judge of Faridpur, dated 20th March 1934. A plot of char land measuring 1058.24 acres was formed in the bed of the river Padma in Mouza Biswanathpur, Khalpur, Bharasimul in P.S. Sadarpur and char Bhadrashin. This char land was attached by the Sadar S.D.C. of Faridpur under Section 3(1), Bengal Alluvial Land Act (Act 5 of 1920), on 10th January 1929. This attached area included some lands which were previously attached on 8th November 1926 under the same Act, but were subsequently released from attachment under the order of the Board of Eeve-nue. The Collector thereupon excluded this released land from the attached area. The remaining land was then surveyed and a map was prepared under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Collector then made a reference under Section 5(1) of the Act, to the District Judge of Faridpur for a decision as to what persons had title to the lands attached. The District Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Kishori Mohan Shadhu and ors. Vs. Kumar Brahma Niranjan Chakravarty Ba ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal554
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Asansol on 6th December 1935 in the matter of an application under Section 144 and Section 47, Civil P. O. made by the judgment-debtors Kishori Mohan Sadhu and others for refund of Rs. 19,760-15-0 which the decree-holder, Raja Satya Niranjan, had realized from them by executing a decree obtained by him in Title Suit No. 2 of 1915 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Jamtara on 9th September 1927. The learned Subordinate Judge refused the application and from his order of refusal this appeal has been brought.2. The facts shortly are these : The decree-holder, Raja Satya Niranjan, brought a suit against the judgment-debtors for trespass to property and was awarded against the defendants, the present judgment-debtors, a sum of Rs. 18,602 as damages with costs. Those proceedings were brought in the Jamtara Court. The decree was put to execution in the Jamtara Court and the property of the judgment-debto...
Tag this Judgment!Hrishikesh Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Nil Madhab Chattopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal543
ORDERPatterson, J.1. This rule has been issued in connexion with a suit for rent. The suit was valued at Rupees 19.5-3. The Munsif before whom it was tried had final powers under Section 153, Ben. Ten. Act. The learned Munsif decreed the suit, but the learned District Judge on appeal reversed the decision of the Munsif and dismissed the suit. This rule is directed against the order of the District Judge and has been granted on. the ground that the latter had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the opposite parties on the ground that an appeal lay to this Court against the order of the learned District Judge and that the rule is therefore not maintainable. In these circumstances two questions arise for-consideration, namely whether in view of the provisions of Section 153, Bengal Tenancy Act an appeal lay to the District Judge from the decree of the learned Munsif and: whether in view of the provisions of that section an appeal li...
Tag this Judgment!Sukumar Banerji Vs. Rajeswari Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal237
Costello, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of the 24-Par-ganas, dated 5th October 1936, whereby he dismissed an application made by one Sukuma'r Banerji, for grant of letters of administration in respect of the will made by a lady named Uma Sashi Debi. The application was on the basis of a petition which was filed on 19th May 1936. In that petition it is set forth that Uma Sashi died at a place called Barasat within the French territory at Chandernagore on 4th February 1936, leaving a will directing distribution of her properties. The will is dated 31st January 1936, from which it would appear that her chief, if not her only, assets consisted of some moneys due to her on the basis of a hatehita from two persons named respectively, Sree Nath Adhya, living at Hari Sabha Lane, Kidderpore, and Pran Krishna Mukherji, of Singur, Apurbapur. No executor was named in the will, but the distribution of the property was left to Sukumar Banerji, who was the younger broth...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Chandra Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal479
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal by one Haripada Dalai against his conviction and sentence in respect of an offence under Section 366, I. PC., that is to say, abduction. The trial was before the Additional Sessions Judge of Khulna with a jury. The facts alleged by the prosecution are these: Abala Dasi is a married girl. She did not live with her husband at her father-in-law's house but lived with her own mother where it is said her husband visited her from time to time. She is described as a beautiful girl. On the evening of 23rd April 1937, it is said that she went out on to the verandah of the house where she was living with her mother for the purpose of relieving nature. Whilst she was there she was seized by three men Haripada the appellant, Sashi and Kangla. She was taken into a jungle not far away and kept there a matter of two days where she was ravished by Kangla and also by Naren and Panchu who came from time to time. After two or three days she was taken by Panchu and Nar...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarika Nath Nath Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal545
ORDERPatterson, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 174, I.P.C. on the allegation that he intentionally omitted to appear before Sub-Inspector Probhakar Mukherji of the Detective Department at Lalbazar Police Station, though legally bound to do so in obedience to an order purporting to have been issued by the Commissioner of Police under the provisions of Section 78-A, Calcutta Police Act (Act 4 of 1866). It is not disputed that the notice referred to above was duly issued and duly served, and that the petitioner intentionally omitted to comply with it, tout it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was not legally bound to attend at Lalbazar in obedience to the notice, inasmuch as the notice was without jurisdiction, not having been issued in the course of the investigation into the case in connexion with which the petitioner's statement was sought to be obtained.2. It is clear from the opening words of Section 78-A that a notice under that section can only ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Subodhbala Ghose W/O Gopal Chandra Ghose and ors. Vs. Harendra Nat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal584
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the revenue sale of Tauzi No. 932 of the 24 Parganas Collectorate, held on 17th March 1932, was a nullity and in the alternative for setting aside the same on the ground that it was held contrary to the provisions of Act 11 of 1859 and the plaintiffs suffered substantial injury thereby. The sale was held for arrears of revenue due upto the January kist of 1932. The principal defendant purchased at the said sale. The arrears of revenue for this tauzi were payable in the two kists and not four, namely on 12th January and 28th Marck of every year.2. Six separate accounts had been opened by some of the proprietors of the said estate being Nos. 932/1 to 932/6 and the rest of the proprietors were recorded in the residuary. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 were recorded as proprietors of separate account No. 1, Nos. 3 to 5 of separate account No. 2, Nos. 6 to 8 of separate account No. 3 and Nos. 9 and 10 rep...
Tag this Judgment!Profulla Chandra Sinha and ors. Vs. Bisseswar Sinha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal778
Lort-Wllliams, J.1. This is a claim on behalf of Profulla Chandra Sinha and Madhusudan Singh, two minor members of a Mitakshara joint Hindu family for a declaration that a mortgage of the joint estate by the other members of the family, including the fathers of the plaintiffs is not binding on them, and for other reliefs. The following pedigree will help to elucidate the facts:Abhoy Charan Sinha|----------------------------------------------------------------| | |Purna Chandra (d. 11-3-01) Raj Chandra Haris Chandra=1st wife, 2nd wife: (d. 18-11-05)=Sm. Maguni (d. 8-7-79)=Sm. Sulochona| | | |----------- | --------------- Probodh=Sm. Mayabati| | | | | |Chundey Bisseswar | Radhamohan Khetter Mohan Prafulla(d. 17-11-04) | |--------------------------------------| | |Brojeswar Sidheswar Jogeswar=Sm. Sailabala(d. 19-6-19) |Madhusudan2. The defendants, other than the mortgagee, Surendra Nath Mitra, have not filed any written statements, or contested the suit or appeared at the hearing. The est...
Tag this Judgment!Harendra Nath Mukherji and ors. Vs. Hari Pada Mukherji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal387
Nasim Ali, J.1. One Khagendra Nath Mukherjee, a Hindu, governed by the Dabhayaga School of Hindu law, was the owner of premises Nos. 3 and 12 Mal Road, Dum-Dum, which are the subject-matter of dispute in these two appeals. He was also the owner of certain other properties. He died leaving him surviving a widow Bidhu Mukhi Debi, who will be referred to as 'the widow' and a daughter Hem Lata Debi. Hem Lata died during the lifetime of her mother leaving three daughters Nantu Bala, Abir Bala and Amiya Bala. Nantu Bala was married to one Haripada Mukherjee (herein called 'defendant'). Harendra Nath Mukherjee, Harihar Mukherjee, and Amarendra Nath Mukherjee are the three grandsons (son's sons) of the brother of Khagendra. They are the reversionary heirs of Khagendra and will be hereafter referred to as the reversioners. On 16th April 1921, the widow executed a Kobala (Ex. 1) in favour of Haripada purporting to sell premises No. 3 Mal Road to him for a consideration of Rs. 7000. On 25th April...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »