Kolkata Court August 1940 Judgments
Nokar Dibyaswari Debi Vs. Narayan LIn Kumari Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal291
Lort-Williams, Ag. C.J.1. The plaintiff sues for money paid at the request of the defendant. At the time when the suit was instituted the defendant was living at Dhankuta in the Kingdom of Nepal. The money was paid in Calcutta within the jurisdiction by means of cheques drawn upon the plaintiff's account with the Imperial Bank of India. Particulars are given in the plaint. The defendant contends that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit because the defendant is a non-resident foreigner and was not residing within the jurisdiction when the suit was instituted. Further she alleges that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction, that no money was paid to her and no request was made by her as alleged or at all, that; the money in the said account and Bank was and is the defendant's money, that the account was opened in the name of the plaintiff with a sum of Rs. 25,000 belonging to the defendant, and that the moneys drawn by the plaintiff were drawn under the d...
Tag this Judgment!Manindra Chandra Roy Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Gopi Ballav Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal353
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the tenants-defendants in a suit for recovery of arrears of rents. The material facts lie within a short compass and are for the most part undisputed. One Chandra Mohan Roy Chowdhary had certain shares in four revenue-paying estates to wit touzies Nos. 162, 46, 207-1 and 338E of the Rangpur Collectorate. After the death of Chandra Mohan, his executor Raja Janaki Ballav Sen, granted a putni in respect of these interests in favour of defendants 1 and 2 on 27th May 1896, at an annual rental of Rs. 11,290. In the kabuliyat which was executed by the putnidars, they agreed to pay the revenues and cesses payable by the zemindars out of the rent reserved and pay over the balance as munafa to the landlords. Defendants 3 to 7 are the heirs of Chandra Mohan of whom defendants 3 to 5 have got a moiety share in the properties left by the latter and the other 8 annas share belong to defendants 6 and 7. Defendants 3 to 5 executed a usufructuary mort...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sekendar Ali Shah Raham Ali Shah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal406
Roxburgh, J. 1. In this case the accused Sekendar Ali Shah, has been convicted by the unanimous verdict of the jury under Section 302, Penal Code, of the murder of his wife. The learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bakarganj accepting the verdict has convicted the accused and sentenced him to death, and has submitted the case to this Court for confirmation. There is also an appeal by the accused. The appeal and the reference have been heard together. The story is that on the night of 17/18th March last the deceased woman with two stepdaughters, aged eight and nine years and two other small babies were asleep in the family hut. The girls awoke and saw someone going out of the hut and the mother was found to have had her throat cut. The villagers came to the spot and information was given at the thana on the following morning by the father of the deceased woman. The Assistant Sub-Inspector came on investigation and the accused was arrested on the third day by a dafadar in a grove of tree...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnath Banerjee Vs. Girish Chandra Sinha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal515
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The subject-matter of this suit is an area of two cottas of land in the town of Rampurhat. The said plot was originally held by one Krishna Dhone Dutt as a tenant. In 1895 Krishna Dhone sold the same to Rasik who in his turn sold the same in 1306 to one Kunja Ghose. Kunja Ghose thereafter sold the same to one Purna Ghose, the sister's husband of the plaintiff and defendant 2 who are brothers. It is the common Case of the parties that Purna Ghose was not the beneficial owner but was the benamidar, the case of the plaintiff being that he was his benamidar as well as the benamidar of his brother defendant 2. The case of defendant 1, however, is that he was the benamidar of defendant 2 alone. Both the Courts below however have found that Purna Ghose was the benamidar of the plaintiff and his brother, defendant 2, with the result that the beneficial interest in the property vested both in the plaintiff and defendant 2 in equal shares. In the year 1323 B.S. defendant 2's na...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Janaki Nath Roy and ors. Vs. Jyotish Chandra Acharya Chowdhury an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal41
Nasim Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a declaratory suit by a Hindu reversioner. The property in dispute belonged to Baboo Mohini Mohan Roy who was vakil of this Court. The following genealogy will show the relationship of the plaintiff to the defendants other than defendants 5, 6 and 7. Gour Sunder Roy Mohini Mohan Roy, = Tripura Sundari | died Sep. 1898 | died in July 1905. ------------------------- ----------------------------- | | | | | | Ananda Nripendu Sindu Bala = Dakshina (son) Peary Radhika (son) (son) (daughter) | died June 1901 deft. 10 deft. 11 deft. 1. | | |Dhirendra ----------------------- | | Mohini Mohan = Tarangini alias Sikher Bashini = Ramesh Chandra Mazumdar | Jyotirmoyee (deft. 3) | Acharya (deft. 8) (deft. 9) |(deft. 2) (daughter) | | -------------------- Hari Das (son) | | defendant 12. Khitish (son) Jyotish (son) defendant 4. plaintiff.2. Defendant 2, defendant 14 and defendant 8 died after the institution of the suit. Defendant 2 is represented by her husba...
Tag this Judgment!Benoy Krishna Roy Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal32
ORDEREdgley, J.1. In this case the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 3 and 4, Public Gambling Act (Act 2 of 1867). It is said that he was the owner of a common gaming house. The expression 'common gaming house' has been defined in Section 1 of the Act in the following terms:'Common gaming house' means any house .... in which any instruments of gaming are kept or used for the profit or gain of the person owning, occupying, using or keeping such house .... whether by way of charge for the use of such house.... or otherwise howsoever.2. Obviously therefore in this case the onus lay heavily on the prosecution to show that the instruments of gaming were kept in the house for the profit or gain of the petitioner.3. It is said that certain instruments of gaming, such as a race-book, were found in the house, and in this connexion reliance is placed on Section 6 of the Act. Under this section the fact that certain race-books and betting slips were found in the house might be treated ...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman, Dhubri Municipality Vs. Kumudini Ganika (Sm. Kumudini Dasi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal445
ORDEREdgley, J.1. The petitioner in this ease has been convicted of an offence under Section 254, Assam Municipal Act. I have perused the judgment of the learned Magistrate in this case and the entire evidence has been placed before me. It appears that the main grounds upon which the learned Magistrate based his decision were three : (1) it was proved that the petitioner resided in the prostitutes quarter of the town of Dhubri; (2) her name appeared on the register of prostitutes and (3) she was in the keeping of a man named Rajen who was a resident of the town. In my view, evidence of this nature is totally sufficient to warrant a conviction under Section 254, Assam Municipal Act. Obviously, in such a case a heavy onus lies on the prosecution to prove that the accused person is actually a prostitute. It would be quite unreasonable to draw any such inference from the fact that she is residing in a quarter of the town ordinarily inhabited by prostitutes or that her name appeared in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Purnendu Nath Tagore and ors. Vs. Narendra Nath Samanta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal302
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. It is rather unfortunate that the opposite party is not represented at the hearing, for this rule raises a question of first impression, and I am told that it is a first ease falling under Bengal Act 9 of 1940, The Bengal Non-agricultural Tenancy, (Temporary Provisions) Act. The facts are as follows:The opposite party was a monthly tenant under the petitioners holding four cottas of land at a rent of Rs. 3, a month in the suburbs of Calcutta. The plaintiffs' ease is that he has not paid any rent since Baisakh 1348 B.S. Before the Bengal Non-agricultural Tenancy (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1940, was passed the petitioners served a notice to quit on the opposite party requiring him to vacate with the expiry of the month of Ashar 1346. The opposite party not having vacated, this suit was filed on the 10th of February 1940. The prayers in the suit were (1) for recovery of rent for the three years which had not been barred by limitation, (2) for ejectment, and (3) mes...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Kumar Das Chaudhury and ors. Vs. Nogendra Lal Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal589
Henderson, J.1. This appeal has arisen in connexion with a dispute to four annas share in a certain tank. Eight annas of this tank originally belonged to one Durga Charan which was inherited by his sons Khagendra and Jogendra, pro forma defendants 6 and 7. Khagendra sold it to the plaintiffs' father during the minority of Jogendra. Subsequently, Jogendra sold it to &he; appellants after attaining his majority. The question in dispute therefore is which of these sales is to prevail. The Munsif dismissed the plaintiffs' claim on the ground that Khagendra was not the guardian of Jogendra. The Subordinate Judge reversed this finding holding that Khagendra was the do facto guardian. He allowed the plaintiffs' claim on two grounds : (1) that Jogendra's title was extinguished by adverse possession and (2) that the sale was for legal necessity.2. These findings have been challenged here, firstly, because no such cause was made in fine pleadings and secondly because there is DO evidence upon wh...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Annapurna Dasi Vs. Bazley Karim Fazley Moula and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal85
Lodge, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title to certain lands and for recovery of possession of the same. The material facts briefly are as follows: The plaintiff in the suit and defendant 1 jointly obtained a decree for rent against one Khatun Bibi in the presence of other pro forma defendants in the year 1931. Defendant 1 was found entitled to Rs. 8 odd and the plaintiff to Rs. 15 in that decree. In the year 1933 defendant 1 took out execution of that decree, had the property of the judgment-debtor put to sale and purchased it on 27th November 1933. At the time of the sale, defendant 1 applied to set off his decretal amount against the purchase money. This was allowed. Thereafter apparently through over-sight, the balance of the purchase money was not deposited by defendant 1. But in spite of his failure, the sale was confirmed. The bid made by defendant 1 at which the sale was confirmed was for Rs. 35-8-6 and his claim under the decree was only about Rs. 16....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »