Kolkata Court November 1939 Judgments
Baroda Kanta Deba Sarma Deka Bardeori and ors. Vs. Bangshi Nath Deba S ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal269
1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit instituted by them for a declaration that defendant 1, Bangshi Nath Deba Sarma Bidhipathak Bardeori, has not been validly appointed joint Daloi of the Kamakhya temple in Assam, and that plaintiff 1, Barada Khata Deba Sarma Deka Bardeori has been validly appointed. The claim of the plaintiffs rests on the following material allegations. They say that only a member of the Deka or Bura family of Bardeoris of the temple is eligible for the appointment as Daloi. The case of the contesting defendants is that any adult male member belonging to any of the four Bardeori families of the temple is eligible for the appointment as Daloi and that Bangshi Nath was duly appointed by a majority of the electors who were entitled to vote at a meeting of which due notice had been given to all the electors.2. The evidence establishes, although that evidence rests on tradition, the fact that the Kamakhya temple was under the direct supervision of the H...
Tag this Judgment!Manindra Chandra Pal Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Baramdi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal400
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the plain, tiffs. The suit was instituted for the assessment of fair and equitable rent and for the recovery of compensation for the use and occupation of the land for a period of three years and nine months. The learned Subordinate Judge in appeal has fixed a rate of Rs. 2-4-0 per acre as fair and equitable. The appellants are dissatisfied with this and they want the rate fixed by the first Court to be restored. There is no ground whatsoever for interference with this finding in second appeal.2. The other question raised is one of limitation. As the sum at stake is only eight annas it was argued chiefly as a matter of interest. The contention of the appellants is that Article 120, Limitation Act, applies to the claim. I may note that this point was not taken at the trial and it appears to have been raised by the learned Judge in appeal himself.3. On behalf of the respondents Mr. N.C. Das relied upon the decision of the Patna High Court in Bisheshar Si...
Tag this Judgment!Sarat Chandra Chakraburty Vs. Sashi Bhusan Manna and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal111
Nasim Ali, J.1. The orders complained of in these two rules are the orders of a Revenue Officer under Section 26-G, Ben. Ten. Act. That Section empowers a Court as well as a Revenue Officer to entertain applications. A Revenue Officer on the plain language of the statute is not therefore a Court. A Revenue Officer is not subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. The mere fact that his order might have the effect of a decree of Civil Court does not make him a Court, far less a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115, Civil P.C. Further I am not satisfied that the decision of the Revenue Officer in these two cases is wrong on the merits. I therefore discharge both the rules. There will be no order as to costs in these two rules.Narsing Rau, J.2. The main question arising in these rules is whether an order made by a Revenue Officer under Section 26-G(6), Ben. Ten. Act, can be revised by the High Court under Section 115, Civil P.C. This depends upon...
Tag this Judgment!Bhabagobinda Choudhuri Vs. Bholanath Basak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal112
ORDER1. The learned Advocate for the petitioner does not want to proceed against minor opposite parties Nos. 4 and 6. The Rule therefore stands discharged against the said minor opposite parties and proceeds against the remaining opposite parties at the petitioners' risk. The question as to what is the amount of a debt of a particular debtor is to be decided by the Board under Rule 145, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Rules. The Civil Court therefore has no jurisdiction to go into this question. We accordingly modify the order of the learned Subordinate Judge to this extent that the execution proceedings will be stayed against the petitioner only. There will be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Gadadhar Mandal and ors. Vs. Chintamoni Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal210a
ORDER1. This Rule is directed against the order of the Munsif, 2nd Court, Contai, in a proceeding under Section 26-G, Bengal Tenancy. Act, rejecting the petitioner's application for being restored to possession of an occupancy holding under the provisions of that Section. The learned Munsif has rejected the petitioners' application as he was of the opinion that the mortgage in question is not an usufructuary mortgage. The mortgage bond however has been placed before us. From the terms of the bond it is clear that the mortgagees are in possession of the occupancy holding in lieu of the interest due on the money advanced by them on the mortgage. It is true that there is a covenant that if the mortgagees be dispossessed the mortgagees will have the right to bring a suit for recovery of the mortgage money. It is also true that the mortgagor has got a right to redeem a part of the mortgaged property on payment of a proportionate amount of the total mortgage money. But this covenant do not i...
Tag this Judgment!Sachi Nandan Piri Vs. Chairman Midnapore District Board
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal213
ORDEREdgley, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order dated 11th July 1939 under which Mr. H.C. Sen, Deputy Magistrate of Midnapore, found the petitioner guilty under Section 6 read with Section 21, Bengal Food Adulteration Act, (Act 6 of 1919) and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100 or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. By the same order the learned Magistrate directed that 25 tins of mustard oil which had been seized by the Sanitary Inspector and. produced before the Court should be declared forfeited under Section 13(2) of the Act. The case for the prosecution was to the effect that a consignment of 25 tins of mustard oil was received at the Garbeta station and then loaded in a cart in order that the tins might be transmitted to the petitioner's shop at Kharkusum situated some 10 miles from the Garbeta Railway Station. Delivery was taken of these goods at Garbeta on 27th February 1939. When the cart had proceeded a short distance from the station it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Srilal Singhania Vs. Anant Lal Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal443
Lort-Williams, J.1. The plaintiff sues to recover the sum of Rs. 2019-6-0 due in respect of a promissory note executed in favour of one Sbamalram Jhoonjhoonwala on 15th September 1935 and endorsed by him in favour of the plaintiff on 2nd November 1938. On 27th September 1935 the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 50 in respect of the moneys due under the note and this payment was endorsed on the back of the note and signed by the defendant. In his written statement the defendant denied that the promissory note referred to any bona fide transaction or that he had received any money on the basis of the note or that he paid Rs. 50 or any other amount. Further, he pleaded the law of limitation and that the Court had no jurisdiction. This defence seems to me quite hopeless and I do not believe a word of his evidence in the witness box. He said nothing about the case set up in his written statement. He advanced a new and ridiculous story that he had repaid Jhoonjhoonwalla some three years ago out o...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kishore Basu Roy and ors. Vs. Kumar Promotha Nath Roy and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1941Cal80
1. Appeal No. 203 has been preferred by the decree-holders and No. 5 by the judgment-debtors. They relate to the execution of a decree passed in Suit No. 85 of 1911 which was subsequently numbered as 40 of 1912. The question involved in these appeals relates to the extent of land to which the decree-holders are entitled to get joint possession. There were many proceedings between the parties since the decree had been passed; some of these have bearing on the contentions raised before us by the learned advocates of the parties. It is there-lore necessary to recite some facts. The Behar zamindars are many in number. In 1911 they instituted five suits in respect of the self-same land. All the Behar zamindars were not plaintiffs in the same suit, but some of them were plaintiffs and the rest pro forma defendants. The principal defendants were many in number. We are concerned in this appeal only with defendants 112 to 114 and with the decree passed in Suit No. 40 of 1912. For brevity's sake...
Tag this Judgment!Asad Ali Vs. Wahed Ali Hazi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal145
Roxburgh, J.1. This appeal is brought by defendant 1 who is a brother of the plain, tiff. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for confirmation of possession after declaration of title to 13 annas, 12 gandas share in the disputed plot No. 895 in under-raiyati interest. The plot along with other lands appertained formerly to a raiyati holding under a zamindari of which 12 annas share was owned by one Krishna Kishore Roy Choudhury, and 4 annas share was owned by one Sarada Kumar Roy Choudhury. The former the 12 annas zamindari sharer, purchased 2 annas, 8 gandas share of the raiyati in the benami of Josoda Kumar, while the latter, the 4 annas zamindari sharer, acquired by various purchases the remaining 13 annas 12 gandas share of the raiyati interest in the name of his wife Jashoda Kumari. The plaintiff alleged that he executed a kabuliyat in Chaitra 1331 in favour of Jashoda Kumari for an under raiyati in the 13 annas, 12 gandas share held in her name, and that defendant 1 took an und...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Jagadish Chandra Sinha Vs. Ishan Kumari Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal212
Nasim Ali, J.1. The point for determination in this case is whether the Civil Court has power under Section 88, Clause (2), Ben. Ten. Act, to apportion the rent of a putni tenure amongst the cosharer putnidars according to their share. The Courts below have come to the conclusion that Section 88, Clause (2) applies to putni tenures. Section 88, Clause (2) is in these terms:The Civil Court may, on an application made on that behalf by the tenant within six months from the date of notice to the landlord hereinafter provided, by an order in writing direct such division of the tenancy or distribution of rent as it considers fair and equitable or annul or modify the division or distribution made by the landlord, if considered unfair and inequitable.2. Then follow certain provisions which are not material for the purpose of the present case. Section 195, Clause (e), Ben. Ten. Act, so far as is material for the purpose of the present case runs as follows : 'Nothing in this Act shall affect an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »