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.
Purna Lall Nandan Vs. Bhupendra Chandra Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal31
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the subordinate Judge should not be directed to proceed with a certain execution case filed by the petitioner against the opposite party. The case has a fairly long history behind it and there can be no doubt that the opposite party will go to any length in order to evade payment of his debts. He is a gentleman called Bhupendra Chandra Dutt and he is pretending to be an agriculturist. He applied before a Debt Settlement Board in the District of Twenty-four Parganas. He pretended that he was living in a farm house somewhere in the remoter parts of the district. The Board found that he had concocted a document to create evidence of his residence and they also found that he was not an agriculturist. They accordingly dismissed his application. He has now gone off to a Board somewhere in the district of Hooghly and persuaded them to issue a notice on the subordinate Judge under Section 34, Bengal Agricultu...
Raja Jagat Kishore Acharjya Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Kulakamini Dasya W/ ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal233
1. One Kamala Kanta Tarafdar was a wealthy man. He died leaving immovable properties of considerable value as also a money-lending business of an extensive character. His death occurred in August 1904. He left him surviving his widow Kulakamini and two minor sons Dharani and Tarini. Before his death he executed a will by which he appointed his widow Kulakamini executrix during the minority of his sons. By the will he gave his properties to his two sons Dharani and Tarini. Kulakamini applied for probate of the said will. The order for probate was made on 29th July 1905 and probate was actually issued to her on 7th September 1905. After taking out probate, she went into possession as executrix of the estate of her deceased husband and got her name registered as executrix in respect of the properties left by her deceased husband. Dharani, the eldest son, attained majority in the year 1908 or 1909 and Tarini, the youngest, in 1911. On 16th March 1913, Dharani along with two others Abedulla...
Smt. Bhadrabati Devi W/O Dinabandhu Tewari Vs. Jibanmal Babu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal163
1. These two appeals are in two suits, Nos. 222 of 1935 and 1 of 1937 of the Court of the subordinate Judge of Burdwan. The appeals were heard together by consent of the parties. The first suit was filed by Jiban Mull and Dhanraj against ten defendants. In the suit they claimed to recover Rs. 57,748-4-0 by the enforcement of a mortgage executed in their favour on 13th February 1929 by defendants 1 to 6 and by defendant 8 on behalf of her ward defendant 7. Defendant 9, Mr. Nilmoni Kumar Chatterjee is a receiver appointed by the Court in a suit (No. 142 of 1923 of the said Court) for partition between defendants 1 to 7, the sons of Rajendra Nath Dutt, and their co-sharers. Defendant 10 is Bhadrabati Devi, wife of Dinabandhu Tewari. The plaintiffs have impleaded her on the allegation that she was at best a puisne mortgagee in respect of some of the properties mortgaged to them. Defendants 1 to 7 of this suit will hereafter be designated as the heirs of Rajendra Nath Dutt. The second suit ...
Sm. Saibalini Devi W/O Abinash Chandra Banerjee Vs. Abinash Chandra Mo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal591
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff. She purchased a certain patni from a purchaser at a sale held under the provisions of the regulation. The disputed lands consist of certain choukidari chakran lands which were resumed as long ago as the year 1899. There is a finding of fact that the lands were in the possession of the patnidar from 1917 to 1930. In the year 1930 the patnidar executed the lease Ex. 4 for these lands. It is an independant patni on a certain rent and not a mere agreement to enhance the rent of the original patni. This patni was also sold under the provisions of the regulation and purchased by the father of defendant 4. Defendants 1 to 3 are the tenants in actual occupation and the appeal against them was abandoned at the hearing. The question for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled to these lands on the strength of her purchase. It is not disputed that the patnidar has a right to the settlement of choukidari chakran lands or that prior to the...
Horay Krishna Naskar Vs. Sashi Bhusan Purkait and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal18
Biswas, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for foreclosure. It has been decreed by both the Courts below, and defendant 6 who represents the equity of redemption is the appellant before me. He was, in fact, the main contesting defendant in the suit. The only ground on which the suit was resisted was that the mortgage security had been extinguished by reason of a deposit made under S.83, T. P. Act. That deposit was made on behalf of the original mortgagors from whom defendant 6 took an assignment of the equity of redemption. The Courts below have taken the view that the deposit was not a valid one under Section 83, T. P. Act, in so far as it was made at a particular season of the year when, under the terms of the bond, repayment had been expressly forbidden. It was said that the stipulation was that the mortgage could be discharged only by payment beyond the fruit season. The deposit however was made in Court while the fruit season was still on. I do not think however, assuming that ...
Midnapur Zemindari Co. Ltd. Vs. Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal465
Ameer Ali, J.1. The fact that I have not reserved judgment does not imply any failure to appreciate the importance of the points involved in this case or the manner in which the case has been conducted by the leading counsel on both sides and prepared both as to law and facts by the juniors. Delay is undesirable. I shall, therefore, follow my usual method. As usual, I have no objection to the parties having copies of the shorthand note of this judgment. Should I make any alteration of importance I shall do so in the presence of counsel. With materials as voluminous as those in this case it is desirable to adopt some plan. I propose, therefore, first, to state as shortly as possible the manner in which this dispute has arisen. I shall then deal with the nature of the suit, the pleadings, the amendments sought, the issues and what I consider to be the real problem involved. I shall then attempt to deal with the law, and after that discuss the evidence, and lastly, my findings.2. First th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›