Kolkata Court April 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.
Khurshed Ahmed and ors. Vs. Amanulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal405
Derbyshire, C.J.1. The two petitioners have been prosecuted under Section 161 and Sections 161/109, I.P.C., that is to say, for receiving or agreeing to receive bribes or illegal gratifications as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person, or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person. The petitioners have obtained a rule nisi to have these proceedings quashed on the ground that the previous sanction of the Local Government alleged to be necessary under Section 197, Criminal P.C., had not been obtained. The applicants are members of a Debt Settlement Board under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, and as such, it is their duty to adjust or assist in adjusting the debts between agricultural debtors and their creditors as to the amount to be paid. It is alleged that they have received bribes in order that they might...
Srimatya Gayamani Bewa Vs. Dharanidhar Jana Panchanan Jana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal544
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This Rule in our opinion must be made absolute. The petitioner before us is the mortgagor and the Rule is directed against an order passed by the Munsif, First Court, Diamond Harbour, in a proceeding under Section 26-G, Ben. Ten. Act. The application for restoration of possession of the mortgaged property was rejected by the Munsif on the ground that the mortgage in question was not an usufructuary mortgage as contemplated by Section 3, Claulse (3), Ben. Ten. Act, and nor could it take effect as such under Section 26-G, Clause 1(a) of the Act. The document has been placed before us. The mortgagor purports to mortgage 51 bighas of land to the mortgagee to secure an advance of Rs. 1400. Possession of the property was delivered to the mortgagee and there was an express covenant that the mortgagee would remain in possession till the mortgage money was paid. There was a stipulation to the effect that in case the mortgagee was dispossessed from any portion of the mortgag...
iswar Chandra Saha and anr. Vs. Chulo Garo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal375
Mohamad Akram, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the third Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh affirming on appeal the order of the second Munsif of Mymensingh (sadar) returning the plaint of 4he petitioners under Order 7, Rule 10, Civil P.C., on the ground that the Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain it. The suit was for declaration of title and recovery of possession of certain lands and for mesne profits. The plaint stated inter alia that the net profit from the land was Rs. 350-14-6 per year but that the market value of the land was only about Es, 1200; the claim for mesne profits was made at Rs. 1000 and the total valuation of the suit was thus laid at Rs. 2200. The defendants filed a written statement contesting the suit and took the plea inter alia that the lands were much under-valued and that the court-fee paid was also insufficient. Issue No. 1 framed in the suit was as follows:Has the suit been properly valued and stamped? Has the Court pecuniary jurisd...
Sashi Bhusan De Sarkar and anr. Vs. Ful Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal454
Derbyshire, C.J.1. The applicants who have obtained this Rule Nisi desire their prosecution for forgery and cheating to be quashed on the ground that it is in contravention of the provisions of Section 195, Criminal P.C., and also Section 54, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. A prosecution for forgery where a document has been used in Court can only be started on the complaint of that Court or one to which it is subordinate by reason of Section 195, Criminal P.C. Is the tribunal in this case a Court? He is the Appellate Officer set up under Section 40, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act who has functions similar to those of Debt Settlement Boards from which appeals are brought. The purpose of these tribunals is to adjust debts between agricultural debtors and their creditors either by agreement or compulsorily, and then after adjustment to make an award in favour of the creditor, which award shall be enforced in certain specified ways. These tribunals are not intended to do justice accordi...
Prafulla Chandra Gope Vs. Soaru Mahammad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal499
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the Munsif at Jalpaiguri dated 10th June 1939 allowing an application of the opposite parties, mortgagors under Section 26G(5), Ben. Ten. Act. There was an appeal taken against the order to the Court of the District Judge at Jalpaiguri, but the Subordinate Judge, who heard the appeal, held, and in our opinion rightly, that the appeal was incompetent. Mr. Chatterjee who appears in support of the rule has raised three points for our consideration. It has been contended in the first place that the mortgage was not an usufructuary mortgage but an anomalous one, and as such did not come within the purview of Section 26G(5), Ben. Ten. Act. The second point taken is that the mortgage bond not being in respect of occupancy holdings merely but having included permanent tenures as well, it could not be split up and restoration of possession allowed so far as it related to occupancy jotes. It is urged in the third place that the mortg...
Rani Basanta Kumari Dasi W/O Kumar Sarat Chandra Singha and ors. Vs. J ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal539
Mohamad Akram, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decision of the District Judge of Jessore confirming the decision of the Munsif of Magura in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent from 1340 to 1343 B.S. at a jama of Rs. 20-6-0 per year and for cesses and damages. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were the zemindars, that under them were the putnidars and that under the putnidars were the darputnidars, the immediate landlords of the holding bearing the jama of Rs. 20-6-0 aforesaid. That the patnidars auction-purchased the darputni interest in November 1927 and the zamindars auction-purchased the patni interest in May 1933; that the zamindars thus became the direct landlords of the aforesaid holding; that the holding comprised the lands of khatian No. 228 only of mouza Bhawanipur for which the rent claimed had fallen into arrears as aforesaid. Defendants 8, 15, 16 and 17 alone contested the suit and their plea inter alia was that there was only one holding bear...
Bhutnath Janan and anr. Vs. Gopal Prosad Sahu (Minor) Through Sm. Kami ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal436
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the Munsif, Third Court, Tamluk, dated 29th July 1939, made in a proceeding under Section 26G(5), Ben. Ten. Act. The father of the opposite party executed a mortgage bond in favour of the petitioner's father some time in the year 1920, by which possession of the mortgaged property was delivered over to the mortgagee. More than 15 years having elapsed from the date of the registration of the deed, the opposite party presented this application under Section 26G(5), Ben. Ten. Act, for restoration of possession of the mortgaged property. The Munsif allowed this prayer and it is against this order that the present rule has been obtained. Two points have been taken by Mr. Janah, who appears in support of the rule. It has been argued in the first place that the mortgage bond having expressly recited that the mortgaged property was held at a fixed rate of rent and was not an occupancy holding the mortgagor was estopped from saying ...
Khoaj Jamadar Vs. Abdul Sobhan Khan Jalkadar Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal426
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against an order passed by the Munsif, 3rd Court, Munshiganj, in a proceeding under Section 26(G), Clause (5), Bengal Tenancy Act. The order was affirmed in appeal by the District Judge of Dacca. The predecessor-in-interest of the opposite party in the rule executed a usufructuary mortgage bond in favour of the petitioner's vendor on 12th April 1920, in respect of a certain occupancy holding to secure an advance of Us. 300 only. The opposite party applied to the Munsif under Section 26(G), Clause 5, Bengal Tenancy Act, for restoration of possession of the mortgaged property on the allegation that more than 15 years elapsed from the date of the registration of the instrument and consequently the consideration of the mortgage was extinguished. The application was allowed by the Munsif by his order dated 19th January 1939. There was an appeal taken by the mortgagee to the Court of the District Judge of Dacca which was dismissed after hearing on 2...
Abhoy Charan Malo and anr. Vs. Harendra Chandra Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal437
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule was obtained by the mortgagees petitioners, against an order made by the Munsif, Third Court, Munshiganj, in a proceeding under Section 26-G(5), Ben. Ten. Act. The opposite, parties were mortgagors under an allege usufructuary mortgage bond executed in, the year 1914. They presented an application for restoration of possession of the mortgaged property under Section 26-G(5), Ben. Ten. Act, on the ground that more than 15 years had elapsed from the date of the registration of the instrument and consequently the consideration of the mortgage was extinguished. The trial Court granted the prayer and allowed the application. The mortgagee preferred an appeal before the District Judge of Dacca which was dismissed. It is not disputed before us that the appeal was incompetent and we have been asked to revise the order of the Munsif in exercise of our revisional powers. Mr. Guha who appears in support of the rule has contended before us that the mortgage in this e...
Babu Dhirendra Nath Roy Vs. Ijjetali Miah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal423
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the Munsif, Second Court, Jhenidah made in a proceeding under Section 26.J, Ben. Ten. Act. The petitioner before us is the landlord and there was an occupancy holding owned by opposite parties 2 to 7 who held the same as tenants under the petitioner. A two-thirds share of this holding was put up to sale in execution of a money decree obtained by a creditor against the tenants and it was purchased by opposite party 1. In the sale certificate the holding was incorrectly described as mokarari and on that footing the purchaser deposited only Re. 1 as landlord's fee. Notice of the sale was served upon the petitioner under Section 26(E), Ben. Ten. Act, on 12th January 1937. On 24th August 1938 the petitioner applied to the Munsif, Second Court, Jhenidah for recovery of the balance of landlord's fees together with compensation under Section 26(J), Ben. Ten. Act, as it stood prior to its being repealed by the amending Act in 1938. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »