Kolkata Court January 1941 Judgments
Panchanan Ghosh Vs. Kumar Sarat Kumar Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal512
Pal, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration that the principal defendants have no title to 'kha' schedule land in suit and that the plaintiff does not hold any tenancy of Rs. 17-1-0 in respect of that land under the principal defendants, but that the said land belongs to the pro forma defendants and appertains to plaintiff's tenancy of Rs. 20-6-6 under the said pro forma defendants. The principal defendants brought Bent Suit No. 750 of 1934 against the plaintiff claiming rent for the 'kha' schedule land as appertaining to a jama of Rs. 17-1-0 under them. The defence taken by the present plaintiff in that rent suit was that he was not the tenant under them but held the land under the present pro forma defendants as appertaining to a tenancy of Rs. 20-6-6. This defence was found against the present plaintiff and the suit was decreed on contest. In respect of this decree the plaintiff in the present suit seeks for a declaration that the same is base-(less and fr...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagat Singh Bugga Vs. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal670
ORDERLort-Williams, J.1. These are cross-applications, one by Dewan Jagbir Sawhney under Section 10, Civil P. C, to stay a suit filed in this Court by Bhagat Singh Bugga against Sawhney, and one by Bugga to restrain Sawhney from proceeding with a suit filed by him against Bugga in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Gujranwala. The Gujranwala suit was filed on 12th March 1940, and the Calcutta suit on 30th March 1940, but Bugga had filed a previous suit No. 1081 of 1937 in this Court on 26th June 1937, claiming the same reliefs. That suit was withdrawn by consent, with liberty to bring a fresh suit if necessary, because the parties had agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration which eventually proved infructuous. For the last 12 years Bugga has resided with his family, consisting of his mother and sisters, and carried on business in Calcutta as a broker and dealer in stocks and shares and is a member of the Calcutta Stock Exchange. Since 1936 Sawhney has employed him as his broker i...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Chandra Bayan Vs. Manindra Nath Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal401
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of defendant 1 and it arises out of a suit commenced by three minor plaintiffs through their maternal uncle as next friend to establish their title to the property in suit on setting aside an ex parte decree, which was obtained by defendant 1 in a suit, to which the plaintiffs along with other persons were impleaded as parties defendants. Defendant 1, Mahesh Chandra Bayan, and the pro forma defendant 4, Pitambar Das, are the two surviving brothers of Gopi Nath Das, the father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' case is that the three brothers lived separately and had independent sources of income and that the disputed property belonged exclusively to Gopi Nath being purchased by him with his own money and the other two brothers had no right to, or interest in the same. Gopi Nath died in 1930.2. In 1934, a creditor of Gopi Nath obtained a decree against him and attached the property in suit in execution of his decree. Mahesh, defendant 1, pre...
Tag this Judgment!Bahadurmull Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Nagarmull Madangopal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal534
Lort-Williams, J. 1. In this suit the plaintiffs alleged that on 30th April 1940, the Registrar of the Tribunal of Arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce informed them that the defendants had applied for arbitration, in accordance with the provisions of an alleged contract, regarding a claim for damages for failure to deliver a thousand maunds of jute under Messrs. Bri. dhichand Mulchand's contract No. 48 dated 9th November 1939. Thereupon, they inspected the contract or bought note which had been passed by the broker and dated 9th November 1939 and found that it had been materially altered without their consent, and this had been done fraudulently, and the contract was rendered void by such material alteration. The contract was for the purchase by the defendants from the plaintiffs of jute for delivery to the Presidency Jute Mills, 'shipment or rail despatch November 1939.' The defendants had inserted the word 'December' after the figures '1939.' The contract or bought note con...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Priombada Debi Vs. Johuri Lal Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal574
Sen, J.1. There is only one point of decision placed before me in this appeal and it is whether or not the defence taken in the suit out of which this appeal arises, to the effect that the land claimed by the plaintiffs does not appertain to a holding purchased by him is barred as being res judicata. The question arises in this way. The plaintiff got an ex parte rent decree in Bent suit No. 1131 of 1933 against the defendant with respect to a jama bearing a rental of Rs. 5-7-0 and in execution of that decree he put the holding to sale and purchased it. He went to take possession and the defendants prevented him from doing so with respect to two plots of land which the plaintiff asserts appertain to the holding purchased by him. On these allegations the suit is brought.2. The defendants' case is that these two plots do not appertain to the holding purchased and that they are the niskar land of the God Sridhar Jiu of whom they are the shebaits. The trial Court held that the land appertai...
Tag this Judgment!Hirendra Nath Datta Vs. Corporation of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal386
ORDEREdgley, J.1. In this ease an application has been made to this Court under Section 45, Specific Relief Act, for a mandatory order on the Corporation of Calcutta requiring the Corporation to rescind an illegal sanction given to Purnendu Nath Tagore and others to proceed with the building of certain structures which they propose to erect at premises No. 140, Cornwallis Street, Calcutta. The petitioner also asks that the Corporation of Calcutta may be directed to deal with the matter in accordance with law. Pending the hearing of this application, Purnendu Nath Tagore and others have been restrained from proceeding with the construction of the proposed additional buildings. The petitioner, Hirendra Nath Dutt, is the proprietor of premises Nos. 139B and 139/l, Cornwallis Street, while the Tagore opposite parties are the owners of the premises situated at No. 140, Cornwallis Street. The latter premises are separated from those of the petitioner by a strip of land which is about nine fe...
Tag this Judgment!Kanaklata Dasi and ors. Vs. Ram Gopal Das Naskar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal509
ORDER1. This is a rule directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Alipore by which he has called upon the plaintiffs to pay additional court-fees on a valuation of Rs. 36,975. The suit was instituted on 6th February 1939, by three family deities, collectively designated as plaintiff 1, and three other persons, plaintiffs 2 to 4, being the widow and two sons of one Heramba Gopal. These three persons claimed to be the shebaits of the idols and to represent them in the suit. The defendants were two brothers of Heramba. The plaintiffs' ease is that one Ganesh Das Naskar had a son Kshetra Mohan who had pre-deceased him, leaving the two defendants and Heramba as his only sons and heirs. Ganesh and these three grandsons jointly executed an arpanama in favour of the family idols, whereby the three grandsons were appointed shebaits and each of them as shebait was given a remuneration at the rate of Rs. 1000 per annum. After Heramba's death, according to the plaintiffs, the sh...
Tag this Judgment!Dolly Bathena Vs. Shaik Fazle Ellahi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal42
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. There are certain features in this otherwise unimportant case which I can only describe as disquieting. The facts are as follows : The petition is a wife's petition presented under the Divorce Act read with Section 17, Special Marriage Act of 1872, and it seeks for a declaration that the marriage of the petitioner to the respondent Shaik Fazle Ellahi, is null and void. The petitioner, as her birth certificate and her father's evidence prove, was born on 5th October 1921. Accordingly on 23rd May 1939, which is the date of the marriage I am asked to annul, her age was 17 years and 7 months. The respondent, whose age, as declared before the Registrar, is 24 years, was studying at an establishment, which teaches dentistry and is situated in Lower Circular Road near the house in which the petitioner's parents reside. It appears that the petitioner was attending school in 1939 and the respondent scraped an acquaintance with her on her way to or from the school she was a...
Tag this Judgment!Subodh Chandra Nag Vs. K.L. Bank, Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal659
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This rule was issued on the application of defendant 2 (Uma) for permission to file an appeal in this Court in forma pauperis. The plaintiff, opposite party 1, instituted a suit to enforce two mortgages said to have been executed in its favour by Mr. Charu Chandra Nag and his wife Priyabala Nag. During the pendency of this suit, Priyabala died leaving five sons as her heirs. Those five sons were duly substituted in her place. While the four elder sons did not take any part in the mortgage suit, it was the youngest only, namely defendant 2 (Uma) who filed a written statement and contested the suit along with his father, Mr. Charu Chandra Nag. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge has passed a mortgage decree and it is against this decree that defendant 2 (Uma), the petitioner, wants to file an appeal in forma pauperis. We issued the rule and directed the rule to be served on the learned Senior Government Pleader as the matter involved revenues of Government. The rule was serv...
Tag this Judgment!Srikanta Mridha and ors. Vs. Prafullya Chandra Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal133
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendants and it arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiffs for recovery of j arrears of rent in respect of a Darganti for the years 1341 to 1343 B.S. together with cesses and interest on the basis of a kabuliat executed by the defendants' predecessors in the year 1294 B.S. The lands are situated within a temporary settled estate and were originally jungle lands. The plaintiffs based their claim upon a kabuliat which was executed in 1294 and by which two persons, Chandra Mandal and Kamal Mandal, took lease of the disputed lands which were stated to cover an area of two hundred bighas. The kabuliat provided for progressive rents for successive years and mentioned a maximum which could never be increased, and it further provided that in case of default in the payment of any instalment of rent, the tenants would have to pay interest at the rate of 371/2 per cent. per annum. It appears that in the year 1932 there was a resettlemen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »