Kolkata Court July 1939 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.
Sk. Ahamed Chhobahan Chaudhury and ors. Vs. Maulvi Sultan Ahammed Mia ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal322
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit for arrears of rent due in respect of taluk which is alleged to be held by the defendants as tenants under the plaintiffs. The rent is claimed for the years 1335-38 B.S. at the rate of Rs. 281-15-6 per year. The whole controversy centres round a very short point as to whether the plaintiffs represent the 16 annas interest in Touji No. 194 under which the taluk is admittedly held. The trial Court decided this point in favour of the plaintiffs and decided the suit. On appeal the lower Appellate Court held that some of the cosharers were left out and consequently the suit was not maintainable. To understand the point in controversy it is necessary to state the material, facts briefly. Touji No. 194 admittedly belonged to three persons, viz. Basirulla, Asanulla and Fazlur Rahman in equal shares. Plaintiff 1 who is the son of Basirulla claims to represent his 1/3rd share in the touji. Asanulla's i...
Digambar Ponda and anr. Vs. Satish Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal717
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Midnapore dated 17th December 1938, confirming the order of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court of Midnapore, dated 3rd December 1938, in a proceeding under Section 26-G, Bengal Tenancy Act. The learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal on the ground that no appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge lay to him. The question for determination in this appeal therefore is whether an appeal to the lower Appellate Court from the order of the Subordinate Judge was competent. Section 26-G(6) is in these terms:An application under Sub-section (5) shall be accompanied by a process fee of the prescribed amount for service of notice on the mortgagee, and the Court or Revenue Officer to whom such an application is made, may, after service of such notice, award to the mortgagor such compensation as appears equitable in respect of the period during which the mortgagee retained possession after the date on which...
Shamsunnessa Khatun W/O Mir Abdul Mannaf Vs. Mir Abdul Mannaf
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal95
Mohamad Akram, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by one Shamsunnessa Khatun against her husband for dissolution of marriage. It was alleged in the plaint that the husband used to ill-treat his wife, and when she left for her paternal house, he brought successively three criminal cases Hinder Section 498, I.P.C., falsely stating in the petitions of complaint that his wife was of loose character and was enticed away by some of her relatives (accused in the case) who were committing adultery with her. It was further averred that out of these three criminal cases, two were dismissed by the Court and one was withdrawn by the husband. The defendant contested the suit and filed a written statement. He denied the allegation of ill-treatment and pleaded in paras. 3 and 4 of the written statement that the accusations in the petitions of complaint were made in good faith but in case they were found to be false he was willing to withdraw and express heart-felt regret for the same. T...
imperial Bank of India in Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. J.C. Galst ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal429
ORDERSen, J.1. The facts giving rise to this application by the Imperial Bank of India Ltd., briefly are as follows : On 3rd April 1925, J.C. Galstaun transferred certain property by way of 'English mortgage' to the Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd., to secure a loan of 500,000. Thereafter there were two other mortgages and a sub-mortgage affecting the same property with which I shall deal presently. On 7th June 1928 the Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd., brought a suit for foreclosure being Suit No. 1178 of 1928 and on 18th December 1928 certain persons were appointed receivers in this suit. On 16th April 1929 a preliminary decree was passed directing that the mortgaged properties or portions thereof be sold and that the proceeds of the sale be applied towards the liquidation of the mortgage dues from time to time by the receivers and that if on 31st March 1931 the mortgage dues were still unpaid and any portion of the mortgaged properties were left unsold, the defendants would be absolutely ...
Suraj Chandra Mondal Vs. Beharilal Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal692
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant and the suit was one commenced by the plaintiff for recovery of khas possession of the land in suit on establishment of his title by purchase at a sale in execution of his mortgage decree. The facts lie within a short compass and are, for the most part, undisputed. The land in suit which measures one bigha odd, is a part of a bigger parcel which admittedly belonged to one Hyder Mollah in tenancy right. Hyder Mollah mortgaged the entire plot to the plaintiff in 1915. The defendant claims to have a tenancy right in the land in suit under the predecessor of Hyder Molla and then under Hyder Molla himself long before the date of the mortgage. In July 1917 the defendant purchased from Hyder Molla the equity of redemption in respect of the disputed plot which he already held as a tenant. In 1924 the plaintiff's mortgagee instituted a suit to enforce the mortgage bond, and having recovered a decree, put that decree into executio...
Umesh Chandra Banikya and ors. Vs. Bharat Kumar Shabasundar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal5
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by an executing creditor. He attached certain properties consisting of two plots of land, one of them being the homestead of the judgment-debtors. The judgment-debtors filed an application under Section 47, Civil P.C., on the ground that they were agriculturists and the property was exempt under Section 60, Civil P.C.The Munsif held that with some doubt the main occupation of the judgment-debtors was agriculture. In reaching that conclusion he said thus:It is difficult to say on the evidence before me whether the applicant primarily lives on agriculture. In any case there is no doubt that the judgment-debtors' main occupation is agriculture even now as the decree-holders have also described them as agriculturists in their execution petition, although the judgment-debtors have now no other land besides the two attached plots.2. Having found this point in favour of the judgment-debtors, he released plot No. 1, which in his opinion, was the homestead. The cr...
Bhusan Chandra Das Vs. Manujendra Dutt Chowdury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal148
Roxburgh, J.1. The plaintiff in T.S. No. 89 sued for declaration of title to and joint khas possession in a 7 annas, 17 gandas share of a tank alleging purchase by him from Ardha and Pasupati Chandra Eay Choudhury by a kobala on 18th November 1929. He claimed to have been in possession of the tank through a tenant, and alleged that the defendant 1 Manujendra had set up title and had had his name recorded in the settlement records. Defendant 1 contested the suit and claimed title by virtue of a kobala dated 13th March 1930 from the same vendors, Ardha and Pasupati. One Gosto, a tenant of the plaintiff, also sued the same defendants for his tenancy right in title Suit No. 88. The suits were decided by the same judgment. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was the benamidar of his vendors Ardha and Pasupati, but that he was entitled to maintain a suit as such a benamidar; it found against the title of defendant 1 and decreed Suit No. 89 accordingly. It dismissed the tenants's Suit No....
Bharat Bandhu Chattopadhya Vs. Ranendra Kumar Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal752
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of defendant 1, and the shit was one for setting aside a Bale of residuary Taluk No. 4335 standing in the name of Ram Narayan Chatterjee in the Faridpur Collectorate, held on 30th November 1934 for non-payment of arrears of ceases, under the Public Demands Recovery Act. There were prayers also for confirmation of plaintiffs possession to the said taluk, and in the alternative for recovery of possession if defendant 1 be found to have taken possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit, on appeal the judgment was reversed and the plaintiff's suit decreed. It is against this decision that the present second appeal has been preferred. On hearing the learned advocates on both sides it seems to me the this appeal cannot succeed. It appears from the records that the certificate that was filed on 22nd July 1933 originally contained the names of four persons, to wit (1) Kula Chandra Chatterji, (2) Ashutosh Chatterji, (3) Mohima Charan Chatterji an...
Chaudhury Bejoy Krishna Deb Vs. Thakur Shyam NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal30
McNair, J.1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal P.C. by the District and Sessions Judge of Midnapur. The facts are simple. One Mahadeo Singh, an employee of Thakur Shyam Narain Singh, had started on pilgrimage to Puri on one of his master's elephants. They stopped near a village named Kushmai to cook their food. The elephant which was chained nearby somehow escaped into the jungle and was subsequently captured by choudhury Bijoy Krishna Deb. The captor informed the District Magistrate of the circumstances by a petition filed in his Court. The petitioner alleged that the elephant was causing damage to property and interfering with traffic and that the petitioner after much effort 'bagged the said elephant in his own house at a cost of about Rs. 700.' The petitioner further stated that nobody claimed the elephant and he asked leave to keep it. The learned District Magistrate granted leave pending an inquiry, and the fact that the elephant was found was advertised, and the Di...
In Re: Trust for Zebunnessa Khatoon
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal169
ORDERAmeer Ali, J.1. This is an application by the Official Trustee for directions, the practical question asked being, how he should dispose of the sum of Rs. 4588 in his hands. The short facts are as follows: One Mohamed Ghyasuddin effected a policy of insurance with the Sun Life Insurance Co. of Canada, expressed to be payable to his own wife, Zebunnessa Khatoon. On 12th November 1938, the company paid the amount mentioned to the Official Trustee of Bengal, purporting to do so under Section 6, Married Women's Property Act (Act 3 of 1874). There was some other claim to this fund by another member of this family but that claim has now been withdrawn and there is no dispute among the members of the family. On 15th December 1938 the solicitors of the Insurance Company demanded from the Official Trustee repayment of the amount by reason of a certain decision of this Court in Haridassi Dassi v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. : AIR1937Cal379 .2. The provision of law with which we are con...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »