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.
Meah Kha and anr. Vs. SerajuddIn Sardar Naib Motwalli
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal65
Sen, J.1. This appeal is by the defendants. The plaintiff sued defendant 1 in ejectment. Defendant 1 is the father of defendant 2. The suit being really against defendant 1, I shall refer to him hereafter as the defendant. The plaintiff's case briefly is that the defendant was his tenant. He sued the defendant for rent in the year 1926 in Bent Suit No. 458 of 1926. In that suit the defendant denied that the relation, ship of landlord and tenant existed between him and the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed on 31st August 1927. The plaintiff contended that the defendant forfeited his tenancy right by his repudiation of the tenancy and on that footing the plaintiff sued for the ejectment of the defendant.2. The defendant's case was that he held the land in his own right and that he was never the tenant of the plaintiff. He claimed alternatively that he acquired title by adverse possession for a period of over 40 years. The trial Court has found that the defendant has been in possession...
Jinatulla Sarkar Vs. TamijuddIn Munshi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal194
Khundkar, J.1. The suit which has given, rise to this appeal was for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to and for recovery of possession of 6.38 acres of land which originally formed part of a tenancy under a tenure held by certain Roys of Pathrail. The tenure, had been purchased by the plaintiff in a. certificate sale, and his case was that he had obtained khas possession of the lands, thereof, but had been subsequently ousted-by the defendants from the disputed plot. The learned Munsiff decreed the plaintiff's claim for a declaration of title, but dismissed his claim for khas possession. Upon an appeal by the plaintiff the learned Subordinate Judge granted him a decree for khas possession, and it is against that order that the defendants have appealed. For a proper appreciation of the questions involved, it is necessary to set out certain admitted incidents in relation to the tenure and the plot comprised therein which is the subject of dispute.2. The plaintiff acquired the tenu...
SreenaraIn Kayan Vs. Bhagwandas Churiwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal210
ORDERAmeer Ali, J.1. I am much indebted to Mr. Sett for his argument but my view is otherwise. The decree in this case is dated 9th March 1927. The application for execution is dated 15th May 1939. Hence, in the absence of any extension, the application is barred. The fact relied upon for such extension is an entry of this debt in the list of creditors signed by the defendants who applied to the Official Assignee on 18th August 1927. If Section 19 applies and that is to be treated as an admission, the application would be within time. In my view, this is an admission within the meaning of Section 19, Limitation Act. The only question is whether Section 19 applies. Mr. Sett's contention is that by reason of the special language of the proviso in the third column to the schedule against item 183, Section 19 must be excluded. I do not so read the Act. It is clear from Expl. 3, Section 19 that the Section as a whole does not cease to operate on decree. It applies to execution proceedings. ...
Haran Chandra Mukhopadhya and ors. Vs. Shyama Charan Chakravarty and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal447
Sen, J.1. The following facts are now undisputed, Surja Kanta Chattopadhya has a 12 annas share in certain land. The other 4 annas cosharer is defendant 7. Surja Kanta purporting to be the 16 annas owner of this land accepted a kabuliat from the plaintiffs which was drafted as if it were a lease. By this kabuliat the plaintiffs were given the right of passage over a narrow strip of land forming part of the larger part of land in respect of which. Surja Kanta had a 12 annas share and' defendant 7 a 4 annas share. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that their right of way has been obstructed by defendants 1 to 7. The plaintiffs therefore brought this suit for a declaration of their right of passage over the land and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with this right. Both the Courts-below have decreed the plaintiff's suit. Defendants 1, 4 and 7 have appealed. It is necessary to consider only one ground of appeal and it is this:The defendants contend that ...
In Re: Happy India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal164
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. Sushil Krishna Pal, the applicant in this case, seeks to avoid an allotment of 100 ordinary shares in the company, notice of which was given him by letter dated 6th May 1939. The authorized share capital of the company is Rs. 10,00,000 divided into 10,000 shares of Rs. 100 each, out of which Rs. 25 is payable on application and Rs. 25 on allotment. The company was incorporated in 1936. The prospectus states that the minimum subscription upon which the Directors may proceed to allotment is Rs. 25,000 and that applications already received by the company for shares far exceed that amount. The preliminary expenses are estimated not to exceed Rs. 5000 (exclusive of commission on the sale of shares), which will be borne by the company. The first meeting of the Board of Directors was held on 13th January 1937, and at it 688 shares were allotted to various applicants. The Registrar's certificate entitling the company to commence under Section 103 of the Act, was obtained...
Khirode C. Ghose and ors. Vs. Narendra N. Sanyal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal599
Derbyshire, C.J.1. In Narsing Das Tansukdas v. Chogemull and Anr. : AIR1939Cal435 , which was heard before a Special Bench consisting of myself, Lort Williams, Bartley, Nasim Ali and Mitter JJ., in December and January last, judgment was given on 31st March of this year. The view of my self, Bartley and Nasim Ali JJ. was that the words 'Civil Court' in the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935, did not include the High Court. That was the' basis of the decisions that we gave. Lort. Williams and Mitter JJ. differed on that, but were of opinion that if the words' 'Civil Court' did include the High Court then the Act was ultra vires of the local Legislature. In my opinion we are bound by the majority decision in that case that the words 'Civil Court' in the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935, do not include the High Court. The consequence is that the notices whioh have been received in the cases brought before us are no reason for making any stay in the appeals or in the revision case....
Niharendu Dutt Majumdar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal703
Henderson, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 188, Penal Code, for disobeying an order made by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Barrackpore under Section 144, Criminal P.C. The facts which give rise to the prosecution are briefly as follows: It is said that communal tension had been aroused in the locality in connexion with a strike. After setting out the matters which gave him jurisdiction, the Sub-divisional Magistrate passed an order under Section 144. Altogether that order contained three directions and the petitioners are alleged to have dis. obeyed the third which was in these terms:That no public meeting shall be held in any area in the sub-division so long as this order is in force except on special permission from me which must be applied for at least 24 hours before the. said meetings are held.2. On 9th December last, the officer-in-charge of the thana at Titagarh was informed that petitioner 1 and others had come to Titagarh and w...
Monindra Mohan Banerjee and ors. Vs. Shamnagar Jute Factory Co. Ltd. a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal699
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs who instituted a suit on behalf of themselves as well as the Hindu public of Garulia in the Court of the 2nd Munsif at Sealdah for certain declarations as well as consequential reliefs. There were two defendants to the suit, the first being the commissioners of the Garulia Municipality and the second the Shamnagar Jute Factory Ltd. The plaintiffs' case in substance is, that on a small plot of land which constitutes dag No. 12/34, in Khatian No. 85 of Mouza Garulia there exists three Shiva Lingas which are worshipped by the Hindu public of the locality from time immemorial. The said idols have no pucca temples and as birds from overhead electric wires drop bones and other unclean objects on the idols and thereby defile their sanctity the Hindu public decided to build a pucca temple over the deities and having raised money by public subscriptions applied to defendant 1 for sanction. The Municipality refused sanction on the ground t...
Narendra Nath Dutta Vs. Alanga Sundari Dasya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Cal754
Edgley, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this case and in the suit out of which this appeal arises he sought to recover possession on declaration of his title of certain land which was claimed by the defendant to appertain to her under-raiyati holding in which she had acquired occupancy rights. It appears that this under-raiyati holding was held under a man named Bepin Chandra Paramanik against whom the landlord, Sobha Dutt, instituted rent Suit No. 402 of 1932 for the recovery of arrears of rent. The suit in question was in respect of the years 1335 to 1338 B. Section As regards the years 1335 to 1337 B.S. Sobha Dutt was admittedly an eight anna landlord of Bepin Chandra Paramanik's holding. She acquired the remaining eight annas interest on 13th January 1931 so that she became a sixteen annas landlord for the year 1338 B.S. She obtained a decree in rent Suit No. 402 of 1932 and in execution of this decree she put the tenant's holding to sale. The plaintiff purchased this holdin...
Jaikarandas Agarwalla and anr. Vs. Protapsing Agarwalla and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal189
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of defendants 2 and 3 and it arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff for enforcement of a mortgage bond. The facts lie within a short compass and are, for the most part, undisputed. The defendant 1 executed a mortgage bond in favour of the plaintiff on 15th January 1935 to secure a loan of Rs. 2500. Shortly after this defendants 2 and 3 obtained a money decree against defendant 1 for a sum of about Rs. 1299 in the Court of the Munsif at Jalpaiguri. The date of the decree is 7th February 1935. The decree was executed in money execution Case No. 58 of 1935 and the properties included in the mortgage bond were attached on 22nd February 1935. The plaintiff mortgagee preferred a claim but it was dismissed for default as he did not appear at the date of hearing. In the result the attached properties were sold and they were purchased by defendants 2 and 3 for a sum of about Rs. 300 only. The plaintiff has now instituted the present suit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »