Kolkata Court January 1940 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.
Mahesh Chandra Dhupi and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal449
Khundkar, J.1. The petitioners have 'been convicted of an offence under Section 193, Penal Code, upon the allegation that they fabricated a document purporting to be a kabuliat executed by them in favour of the complainant. The ground upon which this rule was issued is thus expressed : For that the prosecution case being that the kabuliat was not accepted by the landlords and Was not acted upon, Section 193, Penal Code, is not attracted. The argument by which Mr. Mukherjee who appears in support of this rule has endeavoured to substantiate this ground falls into the following three branches. He contends in the first place that the kabuliat was inadmissible in evidence. Secondly, that it could not be said that it was the intention of the petitioners to use it in a judicial proceeding. Thirdly, that in any event, this document does not satisfy the definition of fabrication of false evidence contained in Section 192, Penal Code. With regard to the first branch of his argument we are of op...
Panchanan Ganguly Vs. Kalipado Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal494
ORDERSen, J.1. This is an application by the defendant for discharging a report made by a Special Referee. The plaintiff is a building contractor. The defendant engaged the plaintiff to build a house for him. According to the plaintiff, the building cost Rs. 44,433-6-6 and out of this sum the defendant paid him Rs. 30,500 leaving a balance of Rs. 13,936-6-6. For this sum he made out a bill, being bill No. 429 and presented it to the defendant on 21st June 1931. In addition to this the plaintiff claims to have done plumbing work for the defendant the cost of which amounted to Rs. 2284-9-3. For this sum a bill, being No. 430, was presented to the defendant on the same date. Thereafter the defendant made two several payments of Rs. 2000 each. The plaintiff claimed the sum of Rs. 12,217-15-9 as being the balance due on the abovementioned bills and the sum of Rs. 3820-2-7 as being due for interest at 12 per cent. Various defences were taken, among which the following only need be noticed. T...
Gopendra NaraIn Dhar Vs. Radha Krishna Dhar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal224
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by a surety. The respondent became liable for a certain amount of money to the principal debtor by a decree. He paid it into Court. The principal debtor was allowed to withdraw it on the appellant's standing surety for him. The respondent was successful in the appeal with the result that the principal debtor has become liable to refund the money. Thus the respondent is not trying to recover money which he himself advanced to the principal debtor but to recover his own money which the principal debtor improperly realized. Strange though it may appear, it would seem to be a debt within the meaning of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The appellant's bond is to the effect that he will be liable if the respondent is unable to realize the amount from the principal debtor. The principal debtor did not pay. The respondent took out execution proceedings, but was unsuccessful. Eventually he attached certain property. In the meantime the principal debtor applied...
Hari Pada Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Elokeshi Devi for Self and Shebait Sr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal254
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of defendants 1 to 4 and 6 and arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff for establishment of her title to a one-third share of the properties described in the schedules to the plaint and for recovery of possession of the same jointly with the defendants. The plaintiff's case was that the properties in suit originally belonged to three brothers, namely Bhabataran, Nimai and Rakhal, in equal shares. Of these three brothers Rakhal died first leaving as his heiress, a childless widow named Kiran Bala, who was defendant 5 in the suit. After that Bhabataran died; he had no wife or son living at the time of his death and was survived by a widowed daughter who is defendant 6 in the suit and who could not inherit his property according to the rules of the Hindu law. Nimai, the surviving brother, inherited the one-third share of Bhabataran and this together with his own one-third gave him a two-thirds shares in all the scheduled properties.2. ...
Nalini Nath Mallik Thakur Vs. Radhashyam Marwari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal482
Edgley, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiffs sued the defendants for a declaration to the effect that a certain decree obtained against them was void by reason of collusion and fraud and they also asked for an injunction restraining defendant 1, Nalini Nath Mallik Thakur, from executing this decree. The value of the decree in question is Rs. 2354, but in the Courts below the relief claimed by the plaintiffs was valued at Rs. 49 only under Section 7(iv)(c) and (d), Court-fees Act. On this point the trial Court held that, in the absence of rules under Section 9, Suits Valuation Act, at the time of the institution of a suit of this nature, even although the Court finds that the relief claimed is under-valued, there is no standard according to which the relief claimed can be properly valued, so the Court's power of correction cannot be exercised. Having regard to the facts of the case out of which this appeal arises it would appear prima facie that the relief cla...
Daragali Miah Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal328
Khundkar, J.1. This is a rule to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under Section 6 of Act 1 of 1920 should not be set aside on the ground that the learned Magistrate erred in law in making a new case and convicting the petitioner of being the owner of the animal although there was no such allegation and the trial had not proceeded on any such footing. The case for the prosecution was that the petitioner and another person had performed the illegal operation known as phooka upon a milch buffalo. The Section in question, Section 6, Bengal Cruelty to Animals Act (being Bengal Act 1 of 1920) is in these terms:If any person performs upon any cow or other milch animal the operation called phuka he (shall be deemed to have committed a cognizable offence and) shall be punished with fine which may extend to (five) hundred rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to (two years), or with both, and the owner of the cow or other milch animal and any person in possession...
Abual Kasim Vs. Smt. Jamila Khatun Bibi W/O Abual Kasim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal251
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff husband and is directed against a decree of dismissal in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The plaintiff's case is that he was married to defendant 1 in due form as prescribed by Mahomedan law on 14th February 1926. He lived with her as husband and wife in the house of the wife's mother for a period of ten years after marriage. Subsequently he set up a house of his own and when he went to bring his wife to his place some time in Chaitra, 1342 B.S., he was obstructed in so doing by defendant 2 and also by other defendants who are her relations. The plaintiff thereupon commenced his present suit and he prayed for restitution of conjugal rights as well as for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants other than the wife from interfering with the wife's discharge of her marital duties. The suit was resisted by the wife alone whose defence was that he was never married to the wife and if there was any marriag...
Sukumar Chandra Mukherjee and anr. Vs. Nagendrabala Dasi W/O Nanilal K ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal393
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by defendant 2. The substantial point in dispute between the parties is whether the tenancy held by defendant 1 under the plaintiffs is permanent or not. The suit was instituted for ejectment after service of a notice to quit. The Munsif made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs on 30th May 1932. Both the defendants appealed. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit on the sole ground that the notice to quit was invalid. There was then a second appeal to this Court. The decree dismissing the suit was set aside and the appeal was ordered to be reheard on the merits. At the rehearing the Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the tenancy of defendant 1 is permanent and not temporary. He held however that the matter was res judicata between the plaintiffs and defendant 1. He accordingly dismissed the appeal of defendant 1 and allowed the appeal of defendant 2. The plaintiffs have now appealed to this Court. Two points have been urged in support of...
Maharaja Srish Chandra Nandy and anr. Vs. Supravat Chandra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal337
1. Three persons, Paramsuk Chandra, Ashutosh Chandra and Harihar Chandra were heavily involved in debts in the year 1904. On 28th April 1904, they executed a trust deed by which they conveyed all their properties to Maharaja Manindra Chandra Nundi as trustee for payment of their debts (Ex; B, C 115). We have marked Part I, Vol. I as A; Part II Vol. I as B; Part II Vol. II as C; supplementary paper book Part I as D and supplementary paper book Part II as E. The trustee accepted the trust and was in possession of the trust estate up to his death in November 1929. He did not however render account of trust estate. While he was trustee some of the immovable properties of the trust estate, Sribati and others, were sold at the instance of creditors and were purchased by him. He also redeemed the ornaments which had been pledged by the Chandras to others and kept them in his possession as trustee. There is now no controversy regarding the title to mehals Sribati and others which he had purcha...
Hajee Adam Abdul Shakoor Vs. Ali Mahomed Ebrahim Shakoor and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal236
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Sen J., given on 6th April 1939 whereby he refused to revoke the leave which had been granted for the institution of this suit under Clause 12, Letters Patent, and further refused to stay the suit. The suit was brought by the plaintiff, Ali Mahomed Ebrahim Shakoor against the six defendants: (1) Adam Hajee Peermahomed Essack, himself, (2) Adam Hajee Peermahomed Essack, as Manager of Peer Mahomedi Fund, (3) Ahmed Hajee Peermahomed, (4) Abdul Karim Adam, (5) Talyub Ali Mohamed and (6) Hajee Adam Abdul Shakoor. The application for revocation of the leave and for stay of the suit was made by Hajee Adam Abdul Shakoor, defendant 6. Previously there had been an application for stay of the proceedings made by Adam Hajee Peermahomed Essack, defendant 1, but by a consent order made in that application (to which the present defendant was not a party) the suit was allowed to proceed on the plaintiff giving security for costs to the extent of ...