Kolkata Court May 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.
Sarifa Khatun Widow of Muslim Bafta Vs. Asimannessa Bibi W/O Aminaddi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal734
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of one of the judgment-debtors and is directed against an order of remand passed by the District Judge of Bakergunj in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 120 of 1937. The facts so far as they are material for purposes of this appeal stand as follows: A rent decree was obtained by Mazubali Chaudhury as well as by his wife and son on 25th May 1933. On 21st July following the wife and the son who were co-decree-holders of Mazubali assigned their interest in the decree to Mazubali together with their landlord's interest in the holding. The decree was put into execution on 17th November 1933 and on 9th July 1934 the holding in arrears was put up to sale and purchased by one Asimannessa Bibi, one of the respondents before me. On 8th September 1936 proceedings were commenced by the present appellant, who was one of the judgment-debtors for setting aside the sale under the provisions of Section 47 and Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. Various allegations were...
Srish Chandra Mandal Vs. Bishnu Pada Mandal, Auction-purchaser and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal550
S.K. Ghose, J. 1. The circumstances which have given rise to this rule may shortly be stated thus : An occupancy holding was brought to sale in execution of a rent decree and auction, purchased by opposite party No. 1 who is not the decree-holder. The petitioner sought to have the sale set aside by making an application under Section 173 and Section 174, Ben. Ten. Act. That application has been rejected by the learned Munsif and an application for revision taken to the District Judge was also rejected. Hence this petition.2. The petitioner's case is that he has purchased privately one of the plots comprised within the tenancy from one Rakhal Chandra Mandal, son of Manik Mandal. It is said that this Rakhal Chandra Mandal was an under raiyat under one Jasoda who had purchased the raiyati interest from the present judgment- debtor. This purchase by Jasoda is admitted by the judgment-debtor who has been examined by the opposite party. However, the case, so far as the present petitioner is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›