Kolkata Court February 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.
Abdul Majid and ors. Vs. Altab Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal548
ORDEREdgley, J.1. This rule arises with reference to an application for pre-emption which was filed under the provisions of Section 26-F of the amended Bengal Tenancy Act, by a man named Altab Ali, opposite party No. 1. His contention, according to his petition under Section 26-F, Bengal Tenancy Act, was to the effect that he was a cosharer in respect of a certain holding, a share of which he had purchased from a man named Naib Ali on 7fch December 1928. He therefore made an application under Section 26-F of the Act on the ground that a portion of the holding in respect of which he was a cosharer had been transferred to Abdul Majid and others in October 1938. The application for preemption was contested by the petitioners in this case on the ground that Altab Ali had no locus standi to make the application. The trial Court decided that Altab Ali was a coaharer and therefore allowed his petition. Abdul Majid and his co. purchasers then appealed to the lower Appellate Court and the learn...
Gobinda Mohun Roy Vs. Magneram Bangur and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal331
ORDEREdgley, J.1. This rule arises with reference to two applications for discovery under Order 11, Rule 12, Civil P.C., which were filed by the plaintiff in connexion with Suit No. 402 of 1937. Both the applications were rejected by the learned Munsif. As regards the first application, the order of rejection is dated 11th September 1939, and is based on the ground that the list of documents upon which the parties relied had already been filed and that the application was of a vague and general character and should not be allowed at a late stage of the suit. The second order, dated 20th September 1939, is merely to the effect that it was too late to reconsider the matter. The application for discovery was therefore rejected. It appears that the plaintiff had filed two suits against the defendant namely Suits Nos. 402 of 1937 and 83 of 1938. These suits related to two separate plots of land, but the main contentions of the parties appear to have been the same in both the suits. The plai...
KalimaddIn Mea and ors. Vs. Eakutennesa Bibi W/O Amid Mia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal347
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows. There was a revenue paying estate bearing touzi No. 302 of the Tippera Collectorate consisting of a two-annas and 8 1/2 gds. share of certain zemindary properties which belonged to two persons Krishna Kishore and Surendra Narain Rai Choudhuri. Krishna Kiahore had a 15 gds. share in it which he inherited from his adoptive father Sambhu and the balance amounting to one-anna 13 1/2 gds. share belonged to Surendra. On 18th Magh 1289 B.S., Krishna Kishore granted a patni in respect of certain lands which included the lands in suit to one Rajjab, predecessor of the defendants first party. In 1293, a suit was threatened against Krishna Kishore by one Saroda who challenged the validity of the adoption of the former and claimed the entire estate as legal heir of Sambhu. To purchase peace the parties entered into a compromise and by an ekrarnama which is Ex. B in this case it was agreed by and between the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›