Kolkata Court May 1938 Judgments
Sital Chandra Bose Vs. Ramesh Chandra Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal615
Costello, J. 1. The petition on which this rule was granted stated that the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Parganas, being an order dated 4th May 1938, in the proceedings which are described as Money Execution Case No. 1 of 1938. The order complained of is in these terms:Decree-holders put in a petition praying that the execution case may be struck off on non-satisfaction for reasons stated therein, The petition is rejected, as the property advertised for sale has been knocked down and the bid is pending for Court's acceptance.2. The present proceedings before us are remarkable in that the petitioner was the judgment-debtor and he is complaining against an order made by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, an order which the decree-holder himself does not complain of, though it was made on a petition put in by the decree-holder. It has been argued before us that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in rejecting the application of the decree holde...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Afsaruddi Naseraddi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal32
Bartley, J.1. This is a reference under Section 374, Criminal P.C., made by the learned Sessions Judge of Tippera. The facts of the case are peculiar, and we may say at ones that we have no option, in view of the procedure which has been adopted in the Courts below, except to set aside the conviction and sentence and remand the case for a proper trial in accordance with law. The facts briefly stated are as follows : On the night of 28th November last, the accused Afsaruddi apparently, as the learned committing Magistrate puts it, ran amuck, and according to the prosecution evidence killed his wife Rosmatannessa by hitting her on the head with a grinding stone. He then appears to have gone to the house of one Altabali, a neighbour of his, and attacked him with the stone. Altabali was knocked unconscious but was not actually killed. Then the accused went to the house of his sister's husband and told the latter that the accused's mother was ill. There was some sort of altercation as the s...
Tag this Judgment!Jnanada Govinda Choudhury and anr. Vs. Birendra Nath Goswami and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal595
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Rajshahi granting letters of administration with copy of the will annexed. The substantial question in the appeal is whether the will is genuine or not. The will was propounded more than 33 years after the death of the testator. The testator was one Mayananda Goswami who died in or about the month of February 1903, and the will is said to have been executed five months before his death, namely on the 5th September 1902. He left two widows, Shama Sundari and Khemankari, and three sons, one by the first wife, named Bipin, and the other two by his second wife, named Sures and Murari, who were both minors at the time. He also left two unmarried daughters. The will makes no provision for the marriage of these daughters and the whole object of it appears to be to ensure the due perform, ance of the sheba of the family deity Sri Sri Iswar Lalji Deva Thakur and certain religious festivals. It recites that the properties of...
Tag this Judgment!Lagdir Nauji Vs. Surendra Mohun Nag and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal606
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff, and it arises out of a suit commenced by him under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C. for establishment of his title to a sum of money amounting to Rs. 925, which was attached before judgments by defendant 1 in a money suit brought by him against defendant 2. The facts so far as they are material for our present purposes may be shortly stated as follows : On 10th October 1933, Defendant 2 who is the proprietor of a firm carrying on business under the name and style of the Assam Produce and Timber Coentered into a contract with A. B. Railway Co. agreeing to supply 10,000 metre gauge sleepers and 125 tons of jungle wood logs within certain specified times. Defendant 2 had no funds of his own to carry on the timber supply business. He approached the plaintiff who is a rich man and a banker and the latter agreed to advance money to defendant 2 on certain terms and conditions which were embodied in an indenture of agreement which...
Tag this Judgment!Biraj Mohan Ghose and ors. Vs. Abani Kanta Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal610
Nasim Ali, J. 1. This is an appeal against a preliminary decree for accounts passed by the Fourth Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dacca in a suit for partition and accounts. In the suit, the plaintiff claimed accounts-from defendant 1, his share of the rent and profits of the properties mentioned in Schedule Ga of the plaint hereinafter referred to as Bogi, on the ground that the collection of the rent and profits of the said properties-was being made under the management and control of defendant 1. The relation ship of the parties to the suit is shown in the following genealogy:SAMBHU |___________________________________________________________| | | |Haris Banga Mohini Abhoy| |_______________________ || | |Akhoy Sashi || | |__________ _____________________ || | | | | |Bepin Benod Joges Dines Prithis |Deft. 1 Deft. 2 Deft. 7 Deft. 9 Deft. 8. || |____________________________ || | | |Deft. 1 Ka Deft. 1 Kha Deft. 1Ga ||________________________________________________________| | | | |Kumud...
Tag this Judgment!Guruprasad Sukul and anr. Vs. Tarini Charan Debnath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal634
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This is a second appeal by defendants 14 and 15 who are called the Sukul defendants. It appears that one Brshad Ali mortgaged the suit land and other lands to the plaintiffs in 1905. The plaintiffs brought a suit upon the mortgage on 20th April 1918 and got a decree on 5th February 1921 for Rs. 778. In execution of the mortgage, the plaintiffs purchased the property on 25th July 1921 and obtained delivery of possession on 13th January 1922. The land was then in occupation of certain bargadars of the present appellants. They brought suit against the plaintiffs under Section 9, Specific Belief Act, and obtained a decree and dispossessed the plaintiffs on 17th March 1923. The pre-sent appellants are subsequent mortgagees, having taken a mortgage from Ershad Ali in 1907. They were not made parties to the mortgage suit brought by the plaintiffs. It is not also disputed that one of the daughters of Ershad called Tunia's mother was not impleaded in the plaintiffs' mortgage su...
Tag this Judgment!Rani Harshamukhi Dasi Vs. Naba Krishna Roy Choudhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal609
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for the annulment of a decree obtained by the landlord defendants in a proceeding under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, for enhancement of rent of a permanent tenure and for an injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the certificate issued in execution of that decree. It is alleged that the tenure was purchased by the plaintiff some two years before these proceedings and that the plaintiff was fraudulently not made a party to the proceedings and, consequently the defendants obtained a decree for enhancement of rent and the subsequent certificate. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but was dismissed by the Court of Appeal below on the ground that the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 34, Public Demands Recovery Act, and secondly, was not maintainable because the heirs of defendant 3 were not made parties to the suit. The first point depends upon the interpretation of Section 34, Public Demands Recovery Act, whic...
Tag this Judgment!Amritalal Ojha Vs. Uttam Lal Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal216
1. This appeal is on behalf of two of the defendants and arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs against; them and another on 27th April 1934 to recover royalty for the period between 28th March 1928 and 27th March 1934. The only defence which is necessary for us to consider in some detail is the defence that rent for this period is not payable, because of their dispossession by persons having, title paramount to the title of the plaintiff, who is the lessor of the defendants. Two other points have been raised before us on behalf of the defendants-appellants, which, we would notice in their proper places. To decide the first point, namely whether the suit ought to have been dismissed on, the ground that the tenants have been dispossessed by title paramount, it is necessary to notice the following facts. Mouza Bau Bahal, also called jote Dhemu, is said to appertain to the zamindari of the Maharaja of Burdwan. Under the Burdwan zamindari, there is a patni and under the patni th...
Tag this Judgment!Morley (inspector of Taxes) Vs. Tattersall.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1938
Reported in: [1939]7ITR316(Cal)
Appeal from the decision of LAWRENCE, J.The following statement of facts is taken from the judgment of Greene M.R. :'This is an appeal by Messrs. Tattersall, the well-knowm firm of blood-stock autioneers, against a decision of LAWRENCE, J., who reversed a decision of the Special Comminssionents. The appeal before the Commissioners related to two assessments, one for the year ending April 5, 1930, and the other for the year ending April 5, 1936. The Special Commissioners decided againstthe Crown on both those assessments. The Crown did not contest the correctness of that decision with regard tothe earlier assessment and accordingly that matter does not fall for consideration, and the only asssessment with which we have to deal is an additional assessment for the year ending April 5, 1936. In that assessment there was included what has been described as a token sum which is inserted for the purpose of bringing into charge certain sums described as unclaimed balances. In order to understa...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra Das Vs. Chinta Haran Saha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal613
Khundkar, J.1. The two accused, opposite party Kala Chand Saha and Chinta Haran Saha, are brothers who were on 15th July 1937 convicted by a Magistrate under Section 323, Penal Code, for causing hurt to Harimati, the wife of the accused Kala Chand, and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each. The convictions and sentences were set aside on appeal, and it is against the appellate order of acquittal that this rule is directed. Harimati a girl of about 18 years of age had been married to the accused Kala Chand for two years. There is evidence to show that the husband and his family were dissatisfied over the dowry and ornaments which the girl had received from her relatives on the occasion of her marriage, and the mother and a brother of the girl have stated that they used to ill-treat her. On 15th January 1937, at about noon the accused Chinta Haran informed the girl's family that the girl had hanged herself on the previous day and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »