Kolkata Court August 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.
Cooverji Manickji Bhesania Vs. Smt. Sukumari Dasi W/O Jnanendra Kumar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal326
ORDER1. This rule was issued upon the opposite parties to show cause why an order passed by the Munsif, First Court, Sealdah, in a suit to recover compensation paid by the Corporation of Calcutta under Section 304, Calcutta Municipal Act (Bengal Act 3 of 1923) should not be set aside. The material facts are these : The late Raj Kumar Roy of Narail was the owner of property which included premises No. 59-A, Satchasipara Road, Cossipore. In the year 1897 the said Raj Kumar Roy granted a mourasbi mokurari lease of this property to his two sons Hemanta Kumar Roy and Nirode Kumar Roy, and on the same day transferred his remaining interest in the property to his niece Srimati Sukumari Dassi. By the terms of the lease granted to Hemanta Kumar Roy and Nirode Kumar Roy, the latter were to pay an annual rent of Rs. 2400 and it was further provided that if any portion of the land covered by the lease should be acquired by Government or by any company, municipality, committee or board, the lessor ...
Dhirendra Nath Roy Vs. Sailaj Kumar Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal582
ORDER1. This was a rule issued on the opposite party to show cause why an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Alipore, refusing to entertain an application for stay of sale under Order 41, Rule 6(2) should not be set aside. The material facts are as follows : The opposite party obtained a decree on the original side of this Court. He took out execution proceedings in the court of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Alipore. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 47, Civil P.C. This objection was heard by the learned Subordinate Judge and disallowed on 29th July 1939. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal to this Court against the order disallowing his objection. When the appeal was admitted, a rule was issued to the opposite party to show cause why further proceedings in the execution case and the sale of the immovable property should not be stayed, pending the decision of the appeal. When the rule was heard, an order was passed staying further proceedings ...
Nilratan Mukhopadhya and ors. Vs. Cooch Behar Loan Office Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal64
1. On 7th January 1929 ten persons jointly borrowed Rs. 18,000 from the Cooch Behar Loan Company Limited hereafter called the company, on a promissory note carrying interest at nine per cent. per annum. Of these ten persons, five were and are residents and subjects of the Cooch Behar State but the remaining five persons were and are British subjects and residents of British India. On 6th January 1932 the company instituted a suit to recover its dues against the said ten persons in the Court of the civil Judge at Cooch Behar and on 1st April 1932 recovered an ex parte decree for Rs. 21,203 and costs. The five persons who are British subjects and residents of British India (defendants 1 to 5 of this suit) did not at any stage appear in the Cooch Behar Court, and so did not submit to the jurisdiction of that Court. After the said decree a sum of Rs. 12,236 was realised by the company from the five persons who were residents of Cooch Behar and subjects of that State. They are defendants 6 ...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Province of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal60
ORDER1. The principal question in this appeal relates to the method of assessment of No. 4, Theatre Road. It was assessed by the municipality under Section 127, Clause (b), Calcutta Municipal Act, but the Province of Bengal contends that it can only be assessed under Clause (a) of that section. This contention has been accepted by the Chief Judge of the Calcutta Small Cause Court in an appeal preferred by the assessee under Section 141 of the said Act. The annual value has been reduced from Rs. 16,887 to Rs. 9720. The Province of Bengal is the owner of the said premises. It is occupied by the Commissioner of the Presidency Division. He has to pay for his occupation ten per cent of his salary. The evidence is that that sum is deducted from his salary and credited by the Accountant General, Bengal, to the local Government under the denomination of rent. The evidence also establishes the fact that a Government officer occupies it and is entitled to occupy it so long as he is the Commissio...
Khodadat Bibi Wife of Late Muhammad Belayet Ali Vs. Kumar Kamala Ranja ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal584
Henderson, J.1. This appeal has arisen in connexion with a suit in ejectment. The plaintiff purchased a certain estate of which the disputed property forms part, at a sale held for arrears of revenue. His contention is that he has annulled the interest of the defendants. There were two defences : (1) that the defendants' interest is a tenure which has been held at the same rent from the time of the permanent settlement, and (2) that they are occupancy raiyats and therefore, not ejectable. Both these defences have been overruled in the Court of Appeal below and have been accordingly pressed again here. In the finally published record of rights the interest of the defendants was recorded as that of a permanent mokarari tenure. There is no evidence that it was w existence at the time of the permanent settlement. There is indeed no evidence as to its actual origin. The result is that on the record the defendants have failed to prove their case with regard to their first defence. It was how...
Atul Krishna Bose and ors. Vs. Zahed Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal102
Sen, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent, the plaintiffs being the appellants. Their case is that they purchased the superior interest at a rent sale and annulled all incumbrances by a notice under S.167, Bengal Tenancy Act. They then brought a suit being Title Suit No. 136 of 1923 for khas possession against the defendants. The suit was decreed on compromise. By the terms of the compromise, a lease was granted to the defendants at a rental of Rupees 16 per annum. The defendants have fallen into arrear and the plaintiffs accordingly sue for recovery of rent. The defence taken is that the original rent of the tenancy was Rs. 6-6-0 that the compromise decree was obtained by fraud and that the enhancement of rent from Rs. 6-6-0 to Rs. 16 was illegal by reason of the terms of Section 29, Bengal Tenancy Act. The Munsif negatived this defence and gave the plaintiffs a decree. The defendants appealed. The learned District Judge has found that no fraud was practised but he held that...
Anthony Francis Noronha Vs. Gladstone Wyllie and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal448
Bartley, J.1. This rule was issued on the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why an order made by him under Section 63, Merchant Shipping Act, should not be set aside. One A. F. Noronha signed on as a cook in the City Line S. S. City of Canberra. His case was that while in America he heard of the outbreak of war and when the ship reached Australia the entire crew made repeated representations to the Captain to replace them and repatriate them to India. The Captain refused to do this, so the crew refused to work while the ship was in Sydney and left the ship. After some time they were sent back to India in another ship and reached Calcutta on 31st December 1939. Neither the Shipping Office nor the Agents, Gladstone Wyllie would pay their wages. Hence, petitioner's application to the Magistrate under Section 63, Merchant Shipping Act. The defence of the Agents was in substance that the petitioner had forfeited all claim to wages by reason of his conduct in refusing to obey orders ...
Probodh Chandra Haldar and anr. Vs. Bani Charan Kundu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1942Cal289
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule has been obtained by the defendants and raises a difficult point of limitation which involves an interpretation of Section 52, Bengal Agricultural Debtors' Act. The suit is to recover money due on an admitted account (Mablakbandi). It is common ground that the last date for filing the suit was 27th February 1939. On 20th February 1939, when there were still six days to go, the plaintiffs applied to a Debt Settlement Board at Chatmohar. A similar application was made by the defendants to a Debt Settlement Board at Malgram on 4th April 1939. The two cases were consolidated in the office of the Board at Malgram on 8th August 1939., An order of dismissal was passed on 12th September 1939. On 19th September 1939, when the claim had become barred, the plaintiffs filed a review application. This application was allowed by the appellate officers and this case was dismissed (for the second time) on 18th June 1940. The present suit was filed on that day. The plaint...
Jugal Charan Mondal and ors. Vs. Rai Debendra Nath Ballav Bahadur and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal572
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is one under Section 15, Letters Patent and is directed against a judgment of Jack J., dated 7th July 1938 passed in appeal from appellate decree No. 1914 of 1936. The appellants before us are the defendants in a suit commenced by the plaintiffs-respondents for assessment of fair rent in respect of the lands described in the schedule to the plaint and for recovery of damages for use and occupation of the same for the years 1339 to 1341 B.S. The facts so far as they are material for our present purposes may be narrated as follows : The disputed lands in respect to which the plaintiffs seek assessment of rent are included in a chak known as Chak Sarmasta appertaining to two touzies, namely touzies Nos. 2 and 16 of the 24 - Parganas Collectorate. Touzi No. 2 has an undivided 13 annas 10 gandas and odd share in all the lands of the chak while touzi No. 16 has the balance of 2 annas 9 gandas and odd share. This chak, which is said to comprise an area of 200 ...
Mt. Masiha Khatun Vs. Ulatannessa Bibi Widow of Haji Mahummad Yusuf Mi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal222
ORDER1. The facts out of which this rule arises may be very shortly stated as follows: The opposite party instituted the suit against the husband of the petitioner for ejectment. During the pendency of that suit the petitioner's husband appeared and alleged that he had sold his interest to the petitioner. The petitioner was accordingly brought upon the record as a defendant. Issues were framed on 7th August 1939. Our attention has been invited to issues 3 and 4 which are in these terms:No. 3.-Did defendant 1 sell the property in suit to Haji Md. Yusuf as alleged by the plaintiff or was the property in suit kept under mortgage to Haji Yusuf as alleged by the defendant?No. 4-Does the amount mentioned in the kabuliyat represent monthly rent of the house and is the defendant a monthly tenant as alleged by the plaintiffs or is the amount interest on the loan as alleged by the defendant?2. At the instance of the petitioner, the Debt Settlement Board issued on 27th September 1939, a notice un...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »