Kolkata Court June 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.
Bhikari Charan Das Vs. Sudhir Chandra Jana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal702
Sen, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit upon a mortgage. The plaintiff's case is that defendant 1 executed a mortgage in His favour on 18th November 1921 for the sum of Rs. 600. Of the principal amount due Rs. 100 had been paid, the balance due for principal and interest is stated to be Rs. 1000. The plaintiff sued defendant 1 and certain other persons upon this mortgage. The other persons are the transferees of defendant 1. Defendants 2 to 9, 11, 12 and 15 contested the suit on the following grounds. Firstly they stated that defendant 1 was a minor at the time of the execution of the mortgage and that therefore the mortgage was void. Secondly, they asserted that no consideration was paid. Lastly they alleged that the mortgage bond was not duly executed and attested. The trial Court held that the mortgagor was a minor at the time of the mortgage bond and that no consideration had passed. On these grounds he dismissed the plaintiff's suit. As regards the th...
Radha Kissen Vs. Hira Lal Banjara and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal283
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This application to the Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, Civil P.C., raises a novel question. The applicant is defendant in a suit in the Small Cause Court in which the plaintiff has obtained a decree for Rs. 90-14-3 and costs. The applicant is also the patentee entitled to the benefit of Patent No. 14245 granted under the Patents and Designs Act 1911. On 14th July 1937, on the application of the plaintiff, the following notice was served upon the Controller of Patents:Sir,The plaintiff having applied, under Order 21, Rule 52, Civil P.C. 1908, for an attachment of certain property now in your hands, viz. defendant's patent right under patent No. 14245, I request that you will hold the said property subject to the further order of this Court, and that, if you have no notice of any claim to, or interest in the said property other than that of the abovenamed you will bring the same into this Court to the credit of the above suit; or if...
Mokshada Ranjan Dutta Vs. Surendra Bijoy Datta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal40
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's 8 annas share of the property in suit and for recovery of possession of the same. His case in the plaint is that he is the adopted son of one Jagatbandhu Dutta and he claims 8 annas of the property in that character. His further case is that Jagatbandhu executed a will, on 13th October 1882 and died, shortly thereafter. By the said will, the said testator gave absolutely to his widow Mahamaya Dutta 8 annas share of his property and a life interest to the said lady in respect of the other 8 annas share. Mahamaya died on 2nd August 1922; after haying executed a will on 7th September 1921. By the said will Mahamaya dedicated 16 annas interest in all the. immovable, properties to the family idol. The plaintiff says that Mahamaya had the right to dispose of the 8 annas share of the property in which she had absolute interest ,by her husband's will, but had no power to devise the remaining 8 annas share in which she h...
Sishu Mohan Koyal and ors. Vs. Rajendra Nath Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal707
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, by the defendants against whom a decree for Rs. 383 odd has been obtained by the opposite parties on the ground that the defendants are bargadars cultivating the lands from the plaintiffs on a contract that they would pay half the produce to the plaintiffs, but that they failed to pay the same. The suit was for bhag rent for three years, 1340 to 1342 B. S., corresponding to 1933 to 1935. Four issues were raised in the lower Court which decided all of them in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. In this Court the learned advocate has argued the point that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit inasmuch as the defendants though bargadars really had some interest in the land and, as such, they were tenants and this was a rent suit which the Court below had no jurisdiction to try.2. The facts of the ease are that the lands in suit, which are over 66 bigha...
Surendra Nath Sarkar and ors. Vs. Pyari Charan Law and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal740
Biswas, J. 1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Tribunal constituted under the Calcutta Improvement Act (Bengal Act 5 of 1911), in what is described as an apportionment case. That Act provides that for the purpose of acquiring land in connexion with the operations of the Calcutta Improvement Trust, the Tribunal shall perform the functions of the 'Court' under the Land Acquisition Act, and the provisions of this latter enactment are made subject to certain modifications set out therein. So far as appeals are concerned, Section 54, Land Acquisition Act, is excluded, and a separate Act has been enacted by the Indian Legislature being Act 18 of 1911 governing the right of appeal against the decisions of the Tribunal. The present appeal has been preferred under the provisions of this Act, and the only question is as to how a certain sum of money which has been awarded as the market value of the property acquired should be divided between the persons interested. The property under ...
Sun Life Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nilratan Mookherjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal693
Derbyshire, C.J.1. The appellants, the Sun Life Assurance Company, appeal from a judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, of Dacca, who in the suit made a declaration as follows:In the case of other forms of policies (e. g. whole life) the paid-up policy granted usually for the total amount of premium paid as contained in p. 14 of the China Mutual Insurance Company's prospectuses of 1919 and 1921 is operative, enforceable and binding on the defendant company with regard to the Policies Nos. 70944 and 73930 of the China Mutual.2. A prayer for a similar declaration with regard to Policy No. 51859 was rejected. The suit arose under the following circumstances : The plaintiff, Nilratan Mookherjee, who lived near Dacca, in 1915 took out a policy for the whole of his life of the face value of Rs. 2000 at a yearly premium of Rs. 82 with the China Mutual Life Insurance Company. This is Policy No. 51859. The plaintiff says that previous to taking out the said policy, he had read a prosp...
Prohlad Chandra Farical Vs. Paran Chandra Farical and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal757
Biswas, J. 1. The order made by the learned Subordinate Judge in this case cannot be supported. It is conceded on behalf of the respondent that the proper order to make in this appeal would be to give a direction, as was done in Raj Narain Mookerjee v. Ful Kumari Debi (1902) 29 Cal 68, that there should be an enquiry by the learned Subordinate Judge as to the allegations of maladministration made against the administratrix. We are not prepared to assent to the proposition that a surety to an administration bond has an absolute right to get a discharge from his bond for the asking. There are observations no doubt in the case of Raj Narain Mookerjee referred to above which may be supposed to support the view that such a surety bond is in the nature of a continuing guarantee, and, in that view, is subject to the provisions of Section 130, Contract Act. It was not necessary however for the purposes of that case to decide this point, and, speaking for myself, I am not prepared to accept tha...
Sarat Sundari Deby Vs. Ram Kinkar Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal244
1. This appeal is in a suit for partition which was instituted by the plaintiff in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Maldah on 13th August 1928. She claims 8 annas share in the properties, many in number described in three schedules annexed to the plaint, as heir of her deceased husband Tarun Ram Rai. Tarun Ram who was the eldest son of Bhaja Mohan died in November 1919, leaving him behind his widow, the plaintiff, and two married daughters, Ram Kumari and Ram Rupini. The defendant to the suit is Tarun Ram's younger brother Ram Kinkar. It is the common case of the parties that the properties in suit, except the Benares house, descended to Tarun Ram and Ram Kinkar on the death of their father Bhaja Mohan in 1897. Tarun Ram was a major then but Ram Kinkar who was younger to the former by about 13 years was at that time a minor. It is also the common case of the parties that Tarun Ram as karta managed the joint properties (called in these proceedings as the Harishchandrapur Estate, Ba...
Nirmal Chandra Banerjee Vs. Jyoti Prosad Bannerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal709
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in Suit No. 4 of 1937 and it raises a question with regard to the right of a shebait under an idol called Sridhar Jiu Thakur. The following genealogical table will show the position of the parties. HARISH CHANDRA BANERJEE | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | |Bidhu Bhusan. Priya Nath Karunamoy Bhagabati | | | Hari Mohan ------------------------ Kumud Nath (defendant 2) | | | | | Nirmal Ammal Bimal | | plaintiff (defendant 6) (defendant 5) Nihar Ranjan Transferred to Jyoti | Prosad, (defendant 1) ---------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | | Tushar (lunatic : defendant 3) Anil (defendant 4).2. The idol was the ancestral deity of the four sons of Harish Chandra Banerjee. In the year 1286 B. S. or 1890 A. D., a deed of partition (Ex, B) was drawn up amongst the three brothers, Bidhu, Priya and Karunamoy and Kumud, son of the deceased daughter of Harish Chandra. By that do...
Mt. Kulwanta Bewa and ors. Vs. Karam Chand Soni and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal714
Biswas, J. 1. This is an appeal in a suit to enforce a mortgage. The learned Subordinate Judge of Darjeeling who heard the suit made a preliminary decree for a sum of Rs. 53,275 with interest and costs, and defendants 1 to 3 who represent the interest of the mortgagors have preferred this appeal.2. The mortgage which is Ex. 1 in the case (Part II of the paper book, p. 27) is dated 16th January 1922, and was for a sum of Rupees 16,000 carrying compound interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum. It was executed by the widow and two sons of one Perganram, a Hindu resident of Darjeeling governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law, who had died intestate on or about 8th January 1897. The widow, Mt. Kulwant Bewa, is defendant 1 in the suit, and defendant 2 is the younger son, Ramdas Prasad Kanoo, while the other son, Ramchatti Ram Kanoo, having died, his son Rambiswas Prasad Kanoo has been made defendant 3. The subject-matter of the mortgage was a valuable leasehold in Darjeeling com...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »