Kolkata Court May 1940 Judgments
Kiran Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Mati Lal Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal450
ORDERSen, J.1. The petitioners purchased a holding with power to annul encumbrances on 21st March 1932. On 2nd February 1933, they applied under. Section 167, Ben. Ten. Act, before the Munsif for the issue of two notices on the opposite parties declaring that the encumbrance had been annulled. The notices were issued and an order was recorded by the Munsif 'Notices served. Service proved. No objection raised; let the case be disposed.' They went to take possession but were resisted. On 1st October 1937, the petitioners instituted a suit for possession of the holding. Objection was taken that the encumbrance had not been> annulled as the notices under Section 167 had not been properly served. The objection was upheld by the trial Court and the suit was dismissed. An appeal was taken by the petitioners to the District Judge and it is still pending. On 14th February 1939 the petitioners applied to the Munsif to issue fresh notices on some of the opposite parties. The learned Munsif has re...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjabehari Chakrabarty Vs. Krishnadhone Majumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal489
1. This appeal is in a suit instituted by the appellant, Kunja, on 19th March 1938 in the First Court of the Subordinate Judge at Howrah to set aside on the ground of fraud a decree passed by this Court in its ordinary original jurisdiction. The question in this appeal is whether the suit is maintainable on the allegations made in the plaint and on the facts either admitted or conclusively proved. The respondent, Krishnadhan, brought Suit No. 1209 of 1930 against the appellant in the original side of this Court for recovery of the sum of Rs. 7068-9-6 due on a promissory note said to have been executed at Calcutta on 30th June 1927 by the latter in his favour. The promissory note was filed with the plaint but was taken back by his Solicitors, Messrs. O.C. Ganguly & Co., after keeping on the record an authenticated copy. At the time of the hearing of the suit the original promissory note was not before the Court. After entering appearance in that suit the appellant asked the respondents'...
Tag this Judgment!Syed MohiuddIn Ahmed and anr. Vs. Sofia Khatun W/O Abdul Aziz and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal501
1. Obedul Gani and Mohamed Abul Fazel purported to create a wakfalal-aulad by an instrument, Ex. A (II. 10). The properties included in the said deed are the properties described in sch. ka and 11 annas odd gundas share of the properties described in sch. kha of the plaint. On 20th June 1918 another wakf-alal-aulad was created by the instrument Ex. A-1 (II. 28) by five persons Sofia Khatun, Syed Mohamed Hossein Ali, Mohamed Obedul Gani, Hosseini Khatum and Ojihannessa Khatun. It comprised the remaining share of the properties of sch. kha of the plaint. The relationship of the parties who created the aforesaid two wakfs and of the parties to this litigation would appear from the following genealogical tree: Akhilenessa = MOHAMED FAZEL alias MUCHI MIA = Rahatannessa | |--------------------------------------------------| Ali Nazir (dead) Hosseni Khatun = Abdul Samad (deft. 4) | |----------------|---------------|------------|----------|---------| Rokeya Khatun Deft. 5 = Obedul Md. Abul Faz...
Tag this Judgment!Mamraj Maniram Vs. Sk. Muhammad Hashim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal245
McNair, J.1. In this ease the plaintiff firm has sued the defendants according to the concise statement in the plaint to recover the sum of Rs. 4736-10-6 found due on adjustment of accounts, or alternatively for an account and decree for the amount found due. The plaintiff firm in March 1933 entered into business dealings with Muhammad Raffique in his firm of Muhammad Raffique and Muhammad Hashim. Those terms have been set out in the plaint, and evidence was also given in support of the statements in the plaint. It is quite clear that the agreement that was entered into between the plaintiff firm and Muhammad Raffique in March 1933 was an agreement by which the plaintiff firm was to act as commission agent on behalf of Muhammad Raffique. There are several clauses in which details as to the discount, commission and brokerage payable are set out. The business continued until 1935 when there was a considerable amount due to the plaintiff firm. The last dealings were on 10th February 1935....
Tag this Judgment!Sona Mia and anr. Vs. Prokash Chandra Bhattacharjya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal464
ORDERSen, J.1. These two Rules have been heard together. The facts, so far as Rule 1929 is concerned, briefly are as follows:The plaintiffs opposite parties were the ijaradars of the property in suit. They possessed the property in the following manner. On one portion of the property the plaintiffs had a hut of which they were in actual occupation. Another portion of the property was settled with one Krishna Chandra Bank at a salaami of Rs. 200. The remaining portion of the land was used by the plaintiffs as a hat. Persons came there on Mondays and Fridays and sold articles and the plaintiffs realized tolls from them. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants had dispossessed them by realizing tolls from the shopkeepers on the market days. On these allegations the plaintiffs brought Suit No. 209/38 under Section 9, Specific Relief Act. The learned Munsif has given the plaintiffs a decree and the defendants have moved this Court.2. The point argued by the learned advocate for ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Narayan Kolley Vs. Lalit Mohan Bhattacharjee, Secretary, Chatr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal152
Edgley, J.1. The judgment-debtor is the appellant in this ease and the decree-holder is the Chatra-Serampore Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. It appears that in 1932 a dispute arose between the judgment-debtor and the Co-operative Credit Society, which was referred to the Registrar under the provisions of Rule 22 of the statutory rules framed under Section 43, Co-operative Societies Act (2 of 1912). The Registrar referred the matter to the Assistant Registrar who on 31st May 1932 recorded an order in favour of the Society which entitled the latter to realize the sum of Rs. 114-12-0 from the judgment-debtor together with interest at the rate of 9 3/8 per cent. per annum. No steps appear to have been taken to communicate this award officially to any of the persons affected thereby until 13th October 1935, when it was forwarded to the Society with the Assistant Registrar's letter No. 13449B of that date.. Admittedly, awards under Rule 22, Co-operative Societies Rules, are executable as de...
Tag this Judgment!Moulvi Bazlar Rahman Choudhury Vs. Commissioner of Wakfs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal438
1. The question in this appeal is whether a legal demand has been made upon the plaintiff to pay the sum of Rupees 2175 as additional Court-fees. If the demand is a legal one the order for rejection of the plaint passed by the Court below cannot be re-opened. If however the said demand was not a legal one the order cannot stand. Two jotes held under the Government fell into arrears. A sale was held by the Government under the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act. There being no bidders the Government purchased each of the jotes at one pice. Thereafter the Government settled the said jotes with Obaidul Huq Chowdhury. The plaintiff's case is that the original settlement-holder under the Government, one Fateh Ali Chowdhury, had created a wakf of those two jotes long time ago, that the sale by the Government had not affected the wakf because Jariman Bibi, the widow of Fateb. Ali Chowdhury against whom certificate proceedings had been taken had not been made party therein as mutwal...
Tag this Judgment!Murari Mohan Bandury Vs. Krishnapada Bandury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal543
ORDER1. This Rule was issued on the basis of statements made by the petitioner which are now found to be untrue. It was represented to us at the time when the Rule was issued that some property of the judgment-debtor had, in fact, been attached in execution of a decree for costs passed by the Court below and that on an application for stay made by the judgment debtor the Court below granted only a limited stay after accepting security from him. It now appears that the judgment-debtor's property has not been attached. In these circumstances, we discharge the rule, but at the same time we must draw the attention of the Court below to the provisions of Order 41, Rule 6(2), Civil P.C. That Court |under that sub-rule has full powers to stay a sale on taking security from the judgment-debtor. It need not, and ought not to, grant a limited stay order and ask the judgment-debtor to obtain a further order of stay from this Court. The procedure, which has been adopted by the Court below leads to...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Nandalal Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal602
Lort-Williams, J.1. The plaintiff Corporation claims Rs. 2092-14-3 on account of consolidated rates due in respect of premises No. 24, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta, and a declaration of first charge on the premises and a decree according to form No. 5-A of Appex. D to Schedule 1, Civil P.C. The premises consist of a two-storeyed house and a number of outhouses. The house was at one time let out on lease, with its outhouses at Rs. 500 a month, but the tenant left the premises so far back as the year 1928, after giving notice to the Corporation, and since then no part of the house has been occupied; but it appears that from time to time two of the outhouses used as garages have been occupied. This tenant, after waiting for over a year in the hope of getting a sub-tenant for the main building, gave up his tenancy in March 1929 and obtained a considerable remission of rent from the defendant. In spite of this state of affairs, demands for the full owner's and occupier's rates were made by Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Naran Chandra Dalpati and anr. Vs. Sidh Nath Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal445
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants, and it arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiffs for establishment of their title to certain residential structures and privies described in Schedule Kha of the plaint. There were further prayers in the plaint for setting aside a decree for rent, obtained by the defendants in a Small Cause Court suit against the plaintiffs in respect of the said structures and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from executing the rent decree. The facts lie within a rather narrow compass. The plaintiffs' case is that they took lease of a plot of land measuring about 3 cottahs from the defendants about 20 or 21 years ago at a rental of Re. 1-3-0 per annum and built upon it a house consisting of ten rooms with pucca walls and thatched roof. They were paying rent all along to the defendants for the land only at the rate of Re. 1-3-0 per year. But the latter instituted a rent suit in the Small Cause Court against t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »