Kolkata Court April 1939 Judgments
Jyotish Chandra Chaudhuri and anr. Vs. Profulla Chandra Sanyal and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal157
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of defendants 2 and 3 and it arises out of a suit commenced by three plaintiffs for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1763 odd annas alleged to be due as two-thirds share of certain annuities payable for the years 1336 to 1342 B.S. under the terms of a deed executed by the predecessor of defendants 1 to 3. There was also a prayer for declaration of a charge in respect of the amounts decreed upon the estate left by the grantor.2. Now, the facts are not disputed. Defendants 1 to 3 represent the estate of one Bhairab Chandra Chowdhury, who created an annuity in favour of his daughter Shiba Sundari and her lineal descendants by a document executed on 7th February 1856. The material portion of the document stands as follows:You are my daughter and I being pleased very much with you, I wanted to give you some immovable property for defraying the expenses, of your food and clothing hut (hat not being possible now I am creating this mashohara in your favour...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Kamala Ranjan Ray Vs. Abhoy Charan Paul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal84
1. The question before us is whether one application stamped with a court-fee stamp of Rs. 2 or thirteen applications each stamped with a court-fee stamp of Rs. 2 is necessary. In cases similar to the case before us different views have been taken by this Court. In First Appeal No. 97 of 1937, Guha and Bartley JJ. held that one application is sufficient but in Civil Rule No. 5 of 1937 M.C. Ghosh J. held otherwise. In the orders passed by the said learned Judges however no reasons have been given. As the matter is important we directed notice to be served on the learned Senior Government Pleader, and the matter has now been fully argued by him and by Mr. Banerjee who appears for the petitioner.2. The petitioner, Raja Kamala Ranjan, was a part proprietor of Estate No. 31 of the Tipperah Collectorate. That estate was under partition under the procedure of the Estates' Partition Act. The Collector made a partition but on appeal the Commissioner of the Division reversed the Collector's orde...
Tag this Judgment!Anwarali Bepari and ors. Vs. Jamini Lal Roy Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal89
Nasim Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment after service of notice to quit. The subject-matter of the litigation is C.S. plot 531 bearing khatian No. 575 of Mouza Narayangunj No. 188 in the district of Dacca. Plaintiffs' case is that the defendants are mere tenants-at-will and that their tenancy has been determined by a notice to quit. The defences of the defendants are (1) that they are not tenants-at-will, but are permanent tenants, (2) that the suit is bad for defect of parties as some of their co-sharers have not been impleaded as defendants in the suit, (3) that the notices to quit were never served on them and (4) that even if they were served, they were not legally valid and sufficient as they were not served on the entire body of tenants.2. The learned Munsif arrived at the following conclusions : (1) that the defendants or their predecessors had no permanent tenancy right in the disputed land, (2) that the defendants were not licensees but tenants, (3) that...
Tag this Judgment!Ankulal Saha Vs. Sadhan Chandra Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal484
Henderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why an order made against the petitioner under Section 106, Criminal P. CM should not be set aside. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 504, I.P.C. The facts are as follows: The complainant accompanied the police as a search witness when they went to search a gambling den. The petitioner was in the street apparently standing by the door of the den. I suppose his duty was to examine the would-be entrants. At any rate the next morning he came to the complainant's house armed with a knife, abused him in filthy language and threatened to kill him. The question that arises for decision in this rule is whether on such a conviction the Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 106, Criminal P.C.2. The authorities are not consistent. Broadly speaking, there are what may be described as two interpretations: the wide interpretation and the na...
Tag this Judgment!Jadunath Banerjee Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal617
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff, and the suit was one for a declaration that the embankment described in the schedule to the plaint, was a 'D' schedule embankment for which the Government was not entitled to realize costs from private proprietors, under the Bengal Embankment Act. It was also alleged that the order of apportionment passed by the Collector under Section 68, Bengal Embankment Act was illegal and ultra vires, and that as there was no notice served on the plaintiff in compliance with the provisions of the Act no liability attached to him under law The plaintiff further claimed a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from realizing the embankment costs from the plaintiff. The defence was really of a twofold character. The first defence was that the embankment in dispute was not a 'D' schedule embankment; and it was con tended in the second place that notices were duly served on the plaintiff and other parties interested, and that the C...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rashid Sheikh and ors. Vs. Sachidananda Raj and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal523
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit commenced by them to recover khas pos. session of the lands in suit on establishment of their title to the same as tenants under defendants 1 to 3. The facts lie within a small compass. The disputed lands which measure 5 bighas 3 cottas admittedly belong to defendants 1 to 3 as being within their putni and darputni tenures and they were originally held by them in khas. In April 1925, they granted a mokarari lease of 6 bighas and 3 cottas of land including the lands in suit to defendant 6, reserving a yearly rental of Rs. 13-7-0. Defendant 6 sold 1 bigha out of these lands to one Rustum and by three separate kobalas executed between 1925 to 1929, sold the balance of 5 bighas 3 cottas which is the subject-matter of the present dispute to the plaintiffs. Rustum had a separate jama created in respect of his 1 bigha plot in the sherista of the landlord for which an annual rent of Rs. 2 annas odd was ...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Nath Karon Vs. Nistarini Dasi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal486
Nasim Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment after service of notice to quit under Section 106, T.P. Act. Various defences were taken by the defendant. They were all overruled by the trial Court and the suit was decreed. The defendant appealed to the lower Appellate Court. A new point was raised by the defendant before the learned Judge. It was argued before him by the defendant that the suit was bad for partial ejectment as the disputed land formed part of a bigger tenancy. This defence was accepted by the Judge with the result that he dismissed the suit as bad for partial ejectment. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff. The only point raised by the learned advocate for the appellant is that the lower Appellate Court erred in law in making a new case for the defendant in appeal. This contention is well founded. The story that the disputed land was part of a bigger tenancy at the date of the service of notice to quit was never pleaded by the defendant in his writ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ashamoyi Basu W/O Late Charu Chandra Basu Vs. Sarbatosh Sen and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal526
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for establishment of the plaintiff's title to the extent of 7i annas share of the land in suit and for recovery of possession of the same jointly with defendants 2 to 7. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass, and are for the most part undisputed. The land in suit which is described as a garden land is situated within Mouza Dakhineswar and appertains to three touzis, viz. touzi Nos. 63, 163 and 166 of the 24. Parganas collectorate. It is admitted that the lands of these three touzis are not demarcated and that the proprietors of touzi No. 166 have a proprietary right to an undivided 7i annas share of the land in suit. This touzi No. 166 was put up to sale for non-payment of arrears of revenue and it was purchased by one Kazi Rashid Zaman on 27th March 1922 and he took possession on 9th June 1923. The legal representatives of Kazi Rashid sold the touzi to the present plaintiffs by a reg...
Tag this Judgment!Biraj Krishna Mukherjee, Managing Director to Kundala Prabhuram Sampad ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal645
Henderson, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1. The suit was one for contribution. There were two patnis which were held in the following manner: plaintiff one-third; defendants 2 to 10-one-third; defendants 11 to 16-one-third. Defendant 1 had a darpatni under defendants 2 to 10. Defendants 2 to 10 had a darpatni under defendants 11 to 16 and defendant 1 had a sepatni under them. There were the usual terms in the leases to the effect that the darpatnidar and the sepatnidar would pay one-third of the patni rent to the zamindar. Ex. 7 is one of the leases. In order to save the patnis from being brought to sale the plaintiff paid the whole of the amount due and then instituted the present suit for contribution. The plaintiff obtained a decree against all the defendants but it was rather stultified by a direction that he could realize the decretal amount from defendant 1 alone. Defendant 1 appealed without success and he has now appealed to this Court. There is no appeal or cross objecti...
Tag this Judgment!Kistur Chand Tewari and ors. Vs. Babu Rajani Kanta Mukherjea and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal137
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is in a suit which was filed by the plaintiff-respondent on 15th April 1936, to recover Rs. 9500 on two promissory notes, both dated 17th August 1932 (Ex. 5 and Ex. 6). The first note was for Rs. 7101 and the second for Rs. 505/4. There is no dispute about the consideration, it being admitted before us that the plaintiff did really advance Rupees 7101 on 5th August 1928, on a promissory note (Ex. 3) and the two promissory notes, Ex. 5 and Ex. 6 are renewals.2. To follow the points in controversy tha following genealogical tree is necessary. SHAMALEAM TEWABI | ------------------------ | | | Ramlall Jalooram Joy Kissen | | | Gopiram Harsukh | | | | | -------- | Jaharnull | | | | Srilal Damodar | | (deft.21)(deft.22) | -------------| | ------------------------------------------------ | | | | | Ramprosad Ram Chandra Kistur Chand Jaskaran | | (deft. 1) (deft. 8) (deft. 12) | ------------- | | | | | | | | Harnarayan Sewbaratab | | | (deft. 13) (deft. 14) | -----...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »