Kolkata Court August 1939 Judgments
K. Hoshide and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal97
Sen, J.1. The point involved in this rule relates to the propriety of an order of the-Chief Presidency Magistrate issuing a search warrant under Section 96, Criminal P.C. The facts briefly are these. On 4th April 1939, Mr. P.K. Mukherjee, Assistant Commissioner of the Calcutta Police in the Detective Department, addressed a letter to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. As the decision of this matter will depend largely on the effect and interpretation of this letter I reproduce it in full below:(A)1. Messrs. Toyo Menka Kaisha Ltd., 4, Clive Ghat Street.2. Pannalal Sagarmal, 112, Cross Street.3. Meghraj Kanaiya Lal, 2nd floor, 113, Monohar Das Katra.4. B.M. Kharwar, 1st floor, 161, Harrison Road.5. Khanna and Co., 35, Cross Street.6. Jewan Ram Ganga Ram, 35, Cross Street.7. Bisweswar Lal Chiman Lal, Groundfloor, 174, Harrison Road.8. Hazarimal Hiralal, 60, Cross Street, and 148, Cotton Street.9. Jewanram Periwal, 1st floor, 113, Monohar Das Katra.(B)1. Bholaram Mussuddi, P. 22, N...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Chandra Sen and anr. Vs. Jadav Chandra Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal372
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the mortgagor to show cause why an order of the Munsif restoring him to possession under Section 26(G), Ben. Ten. Act, should not be set aside. The ground upon which the rule was issued is that the document in question is not a usufructuary mortgage. The main provision of the document is that on receipt of a loan of Rs. 700, the possession of the property was made over to the mortgagee. It was then stipulated that after a period of 28 years the debt would be extinguished both as regards the principal and interest. The difficulty arises in the other clauses. On behalf of the opposite parties, it is contended by their learned advocate that these clauses are nothing more than a rather clumsy expression of the rights of the mortgagee under the law. If that were so, I should have no hesitation in discharging the rule. There is however a stipulation by which the mortgagor agreed that in the event of the mortgagee being dispossessed of the prop...
Tag this Judgment!Province of Bengal Vs. Mritunjoy Roy Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal455
1. This appeal is by the defendant, the Province of Bengal, from the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Rangpur dated 2nd March 1938, by which the judgment and decree of the Munsif, Second Court, Rangpur, dated 31st July 1937 has been affirmed. The subject-matter of the suit is 199.23 acres of land in Mouzas Ganeshpore and Pirabad held without payment of revenue from at least 1805. No attempt had been made on the part of the Government to assess it with revenue before 1935. The plaintiff-respondent is the owner of a permanently settled estate, being touzi No. 161 of the Rangpur Collectorate. The lands in suit lie within the geographical limits of that estate. When settlement proceeding under Chapter 10, Ben. Ten. Act, was in progress resumption proceedings were started by the Settlement Officer which culminated in a resolution passed by the Board of Revenue on 31st July 1935 declaring that the said lands were liable to be assessed with revenue. In pursuance of the said resolu...
Tag this Judgment!Benoy Krishna Ghose Chaudhuri Vs. Atul Krishna Ghose Chaudhuri and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal51
1. This appeal is by the defendant in a suit for partition and accounts. The suit was instituted on 8th March 1935 by four plaintiffs, three being brothers of defendant and the fourth his brother's widow. The properties in respect of which the claim was made consists of five items a dwelling house described in schedule Ka, and items 4 of property described in sch. Kha. The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge is that items 2 to 4 of sch. Kha had been sold long before the suit with the concurrence of the parties to the suit or their predecessors-in-interest, and in item 1 of sch. Kha there are other cosharers not parties to the suit. He has accordingly excluded from partition the items four of sch. Kha and has only directed partition of the house described in sch. Ka on a declaration that the plaintiffs have four-fifths share (each of them a fifth share) and the defendant the remaining fifth share. He has also declared that the parties have shares in the same proportion in item 1 of...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Sekhar Mukherjee Vs. Corporation of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal67
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows: The plaintiff is a lessee in possession of premises No. 51, Bondel Road, situated in the Ballygunj quarter of the town. He carries on the business of an hotel keeper and maintains an eating house in one part of the premises, while he resides with his family in the other part. Opposite this building and on the other side of the road is a tank belonging to defendants 1, 2 and 3 which constitutes premises No. 62, Bondel Road. The owners of the tank approached the Calcutta Corporation with a proposal for haying this tank filled up with street refuse by the method known as controlled dumping and to this, the latter agreed on condition of the owners' paying a sum of Rs. 1215 as costs. The Corporation commenced its work of filling up the tank on 19th February 1936, and after the work was continued for two days only, the plaintiff started this suit on 21st February praying for a permanent injunction res...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Ganeshdas BadrinaraIn Vs. Amuluk Chand Oswal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal161
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge, Assam Valley Districts, dated 21st June 1939, reversing an order of the Special Subordinate Judge of the same district made on 23rd March 1989. The appellant obtained a money decree against the respondent in the Court of the Special Subordinate Judge on 19th March 1927. He applied for transfer of this decree for execution to the Presidency Small Cause Court, Calcutta, on 9th February 1939. On 10th February 1939, the Subordinate Judge issued the necessary certificate of non-satisfaction of decree to the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, for execution and transferred the decree to that Court without giving any notice to the judgment-debtor. Thereafter the Small Cause Court arrested the judgment-debtor in execution of the decree. On 23rd March 1939, the judgment-debtor made an application before the Subordinate Judge, Assam Valley Districts, who made the order for transfer for recalling the said order. The learned S...
Tag this Judgment!Jnanendra Nath Roy and anr. Vs. Sashi Mukhi Debya W/O Purna Chandra Ro ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal60
Edgley, J.1. Defendants 22 and 23, Jnanendra Nath Roy and Madhu Sudan Bagchi, are the appellants in this case. They purchased the property which is the subject-matter of this appeal at a sale held on 10th July 1935, and the appeal arises with reference to a suit instituted by the plaintiff, Sashi Mukhi Debya, for the purpose of recovering arrears of maintenance for the period from Sravan 1339 to Bhadra 1342 B.S. at the rate of Rs. 18 (rupees eighteen only) per mensem. Her case is to the effect that her maintenance at the amount claimed is charged on certain properties under an ekrarnama, dated 11th March 1296, corresponding to 23rd January 1890. It appears that the property which was the subject-matter of this ekrarnama originally belonged to three brothers, Jadav Chandra Roy, Satish Chandra Roy and Purna Chandra Roy, The latter died in 1289 B.S. corresponding to 1882 and the plaintiff, Sashi Mukhi, is his widow. Defendants 1 to 8 are the successors-in-interest of Jadav and Satish and ...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Province of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal47
1. This appeal is by the Corporation of Calcutta and is directed against the order of the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta dated 8th April 1938 in an appeal filed before him by the assessee, the respondent, under the provisions of Section 141, Calcutta Municipal Act (Bengal Act 3 of 1923). The case relates to the assessment of Premises No. 16, Dalhousie Square, north, commonly known as the Writers Buildings, made by the Corporation of Calcutta in 1934 under Section 127(b) of the said Act. The immediately previous assessment was in force from 1928 to 1934. At that assessment the annual value was taken at Rs. 3,13,480. That figure was arrived at thus:Land 240 cottas at Rs. 21,000per cotta ... ... Rs. 50,40,000Building, less depreciation ... Rs. 12,29,615--------------Rs. 62,69,6155 per cent of do Rs. 3,13,480At the revaluation in 1934 the assessor made the calculations thus:Land, 240 cottas at Rs. 23,000 per cotta ... ... Rs. 55,20,000Building less depreciation ... Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Krishna Mandal Vs. Hemendra Krishna Singha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal39
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows : There is a revenue paying estate bearing touzi No. 395 of the Alipore Collectorate which is owned jointly by several cosharers. A number of separate accounts were opened in respect of the shares under the provisions of the Revenue Sale Laws, and we are concerned only with one of these separate accounts which is S.A. 395/3. The owners of this separate account having made default in the payment of revenue, due in respect of the same, this share was put up to sale under Section 13, Act 11 of 1859 on 23rd September 1935. No bids were received on that date, and the Collector in exercise of his powers under Section 14 of the Act stopped the sale, and made a declaration that the entire estate would be sold, unless the other recorded sharer or sharers of the touzi would purchase the separate account, by paying the entire arrears due in respect of the same, within ten days from that date. Several coshar...
Tag this Judgment!Bhola Nath Banerji and ors. Vs. Sarbamangala Debi W/O Kumar Debendra N ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal93
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants and arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of a maintenance allowance payable to her under the will of her grandfather, whose estate is now in the hands of the defendants. The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff's grandfather, one Kali Das Mukherji died leaving behind him a will which provided inter alia that a maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 25 per month should be paid to the plaintiff out of the estate left by the testator. Whoever was in possession of the estate for the time being was enjoined to pay this allowance. Under the terms of the will, the properties of the testator were to vest in the first place in his daughter-in-law Bindurekha, the mother of the plaintiff, who was to enjoy the same in the limited rights of a Hindu widow during her lifetime. After her death, the testator's daughter Sarat Kamini was to possess the estate in similar rights, and when she died, it...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »