Kolkata Court July 1940 Judgments
Rajnandini W/O Mahendra Nath Purkayestha Vs. Aswini Kumar Chowdhury an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal20
Nasim Ali, J. 1. Prasanna Kumar Das of village Ilashpur in the district of Sylhet was a Kayestha by caste. He married Swarnamoyee the sister of Sashi Mohan Das of village Rabidas (Lalkailash) in the said district, a Baidya by caste. He had no son. His only daughter Rajnandini (plaintiff in the present suit) was married to one Mohendra Nath Das. The latter was a griha jamata (resident son-in-law). His daughter had no male issue during his life-time. Prasanna Kumar was owner of considerable moveable and immovable properties. He made his last will on 1st September 1919. The material terms of this will are these:Clause 1,-My son-in-law Sriman Mohendra Nath Perkayestha shall become the owner in absolute right, of 4 annas share of the 16 annas of my moveable and immovable properties.Clause 2. - My only daughter Srimati Raj Nandini shall become the owner in possession, in absolute right of 4 annas share of the 16 annas of my moveable and immovable properties.Clause 3. - Having had no male iss...
Tag this Judgment!Bhuban Mohan Guha and anr. Vs. Brojendra Chandra Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal311
Lodge, J. 1. This appeal arises out of an application under Section 1, Partition Act (IV of 1893). The property in suit consists of a dwelling house and of certain other immovable properties. This property formerly belonged to one Ram Kamal Guha, who sold the same to his cousin Golak Nath Guha. On the death of Golak the property was inherited in equal shares by Golak's two sons Kashi and Harish. In the year 1309 B.S. Harish sold his share of the property to plaintiff Brajendra Chandra Ghose and the plaintiff's brother Upendra Chandra Ghose who was the husband of Sarala Sundari, defendant 1. The plaintiff and his brother apparently obtained possession of a portion at least of the property purchased. In the year 1935, the plaintiff instituted a suit for partition impleading his sister-in-law Sarala Sundari as defendant 1 and Chandra Mohan Guha, son of Kashi Chandra Guha, as defendant 2. A preliminary decree was passed sometime in the year 1935. Thereafter, on 6th April 1936, defendant 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Biraja Sundari Baisnabi Vs. Sm. Mahamaya Sen W/O Harendra Chandra Sen ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal399
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendant and it arises out of an action in ejectment. The plaintiff's case was that the land in suit which is a piece of Chandina land was held previously by one Kusum Kumari Vaishnabi in tenancy right. Kusum Kumari sold her interest by a kobala dated Falgoon 7, 1324 B.S. to Harendra Chandra Sen Poddar, the kobala being taken in the name of Durga Mohan Das. Thereafter Harendra made a gift of this property to his wife, Mahamaya, by a registered deed of gift dated Pous 4, 1341 B.S. and Mahamaya granted an ijara lease of this property in favour of the present plaintiff for a period of three years commencing from Pous 21,1342 B.S. The plaintiff's case in the plaint was that the defendant Biraja Sundari Vaishnabi was a tenant under Kusum Kumari prior to the sale, and that after the sale she became a tenant under Harendra and then under Mahamaya and the plaintiff. As this was a tenancy at will, the plaintiff sought to eject the defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Haran Charan Mandal and anr. Vs. Hiralal Naskar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal88
Biswas, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit in effect claim a statutory lien on an occupancy holding by virtue of a payment made under Section 171, Ben. Ten. Act, to prevent a sale of that holding under chap. 14 of that Act. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, but on appeal the learned Additional District Judge of 24-Parganas, has given the plaintiffs a decree virtually declaring their lien. The facts which it is necessary to state for the disposal of the appeal may be briefly set out : The holding is said to have been a non-transferable occupancy holding, and admittedly it was held at one time by one Ramanath Mandal. Ramanath died, leaving three sons and heirs, Kshetra, Haran and Paran. Paran died unmarried leaving his surviving brothers as his only heirs and legal representatives. After Ramanath's death therefore the holding came in course of time to be represented by Kshetra and Haran. It is said that in the year 1902 while Paran was still living, Kshetra, purporting to act for ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Bhabasundari Dassi Vs. Gopeswar Auddy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal159
ORDERMcNair, J.1. Defendants 2 and 3 have applied to set aside a sale by the Registrar in execution of a mortgage decree. The mortgaged property is No. 12, Blackburn Lane in Calcutta and belonged to the Auddy family. Hari Charan who represented one branch of the family mortgaged his undivided half share in the property in 1931. The property was then the subject-matter of a partition suit in which in 1935 the southern portion of the property was valued at Rs. 11,438 and was allotted to Hari Charan. The northern portion valued at Rs. 11,025 was allotted to the other branch of the family. The final decree in the partition suit was passed in June 1935 and the mortgagee sued two months later to enforce his security. The present applicants are two of Hari Charan's sons and represent the mortgagor. The mortgagee obtained a final decree for sale of the mortgaged property on 27th February 1939. After two adjournments, Bhagabati Dassi, the wife of one of the owners of the northern portion, bough...
Tag this Judgment!Sonaram Dutta Vs. Sitaram Chamaria and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal28
Sen, J.1. The plaintiff's case is as follows: Defendants 2 and 3 are contractors who had obtained a contract to do certain work for the Doomdooma Town Union. They were short of funds and approached the plaintiffs who are bankers for financial help. An agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and these two defendants whereby the plaintiffs agreed to advance them money up to a sum of Rs. 1000 charging interest thereon at 12 per cent. per annum. The defendants agreed to endorse to the plaintiffs all cheques paid to them by the union for the work done in connexion with the contract in payment of the advances made. The plaintiffs allege that they also hypothecated to the plaintiffs as security for the advances made all the amount that may become due to them from the aforesaid union for the work done by them. There was a sum of Rs. 861 due from the union to defendants 2 and 3 on a bill for work done by them pursuant to this contract. The plaintiffs claim that this sum is hypothecate...
Tag this Judgment!Tikendrajit Ghosh and anr. Vs. Mritunjoy Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal554
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows : There was a certificate filed against the plaintiff Mritunjoy Mondal by the Certificate Officer of Khulna in respect of a public demand under Section 4, Public Demands Recovery Act. The demand not being paid the certificate was executed and an order was passed for attachment and sale of certain property belonging to the certificate-debtor fixing 3rd January 1935 as the data of sale. In the sale proclamation however which was issued under Rule 46, Schedule 2, Public Demands Recovery Act, the date of sale was stated to be 1st March 1935. The property was actually sold on 3rd January 1935, and purchased by defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff made an application for setting aside the sale under Section 23, Public Demands Recovery Act, but that was dismissed. He thereupon instituted the present suit in the Court of the First Munsif at Khulna and prayed to have the sale set aside on the ground of its b...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhir Chandra Chakravarty Vs. Sudhangshu Kumar Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal556
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Additional District Judge of Faridpur confirming the decision of the First Munsif of Madaripur. Both Courts have dismissed the suit, and the plaintiff is the appellant before me. The main question which has been argued in the appeal is whether or not the plaintiff's interest in the disputed property may be said to have passed at a certificate sale held under the Public Demands Recovery Act (Bengal Act 3 of 1913). The sale is impugned chiefly on the ground that the certificate which was the basis of the proceedings culminating in the sale was not in compliance with the requirements of the statute. In particular, it is alleged that the certificate, which purported to be one under Section 4, did not contain a proper certification at all, inasmuch as all the items which the certificate officer is required to certify under his hand were left blank. The form of the certificate is prescribed by rules framed under the Act, and it will be ...
Tag this Judgment!Debi Prosanna Ghose Vs. Indra NaraIn Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal27
Edgley, J.1. The appellant in this case is a man named Debi Prosanna Ghose who is the legatee of the deceased Akshay Kumar Ghose. It appears that the administratrix of the estate, Charusila Dasi, instituted a suit against the respondents in 1934 and in due course her suit was dismissed and there was a decree for costs against Charusila Dasi in her capacity as administratrix of the estate. Thereafter, on 25th November 1935 Charusila made over the estate to Debi Prosanna Ghose who is the adopted son of the testator. The Courts below held that the decree-holders might execute their decree against Debi Prosanna Ghose as the decree in question was passed against the estate of Akshay Kumar Ghose. In several respects the case with which we are now dealing is similar to the case in Joychandra Ray v. Satis Chandra Ray : AIR1930Cal762 in which Sir George Rankin C.J., pointed out that the right of a creditor to follow the assets in the hands of a legatee is a right which has to be exercised by a ...
Tag this Judgment!Abani Nath Mukhopadhaya and anr. Vs. Amar Nath Mukhopadhaya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal92
Nasim Ali, J.1. The subject-matter of dispute in the suit out of which this second appeal arises is that portion of the 3 bighas 2 cottas of land with the structures and buildings thereon mentioned in para. 12 of the last will (dated 11th July 1879) in Bengali language of Babu Joy Kissen Mukherjee, a wealthy zamindar of Uttarpara which does not appertain to the Uttarpara Public Library. The following geneaology shows the relationship of the parties in this suit to Babu Joy Kissen: JOY KISSEN MUKHERJEE died in 1888. | ---------------------------------------------- | | | Hara Mohan (son) Raja Peary Mohan (son) Raj Mohan (son) died in 1870 died in 1871 died in 1923 | | | ----------------- ----------------- ------------------------- | | | | | |Rashbehari (son) Shibnarain (son) Rajendra (son) Bhupendra (son) | died in 1921 died in 1923 born before 1869 defendant 2 | | | died in 1911 born in 1869 |Pramila Devi Abani (son) | | (daughter) defendant 1 -------------------------------- | | born ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »