Kolkata Court November 1941 Judgments
Chairman, Tollygunj Municipality Vs. M. Masiah Ahmed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal288
Lodge, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal P.C., by the Sessions Judge of 24-Parganas. The material facts are as follows : An application was made at the instance of the Chairman of the Tollygunj Municipality for an order under Section 330, Bengal Municipal Act of 1932. The application was made to the Sub-Divisional Officer of Alipore and was by him transferred to Mr. H.C. Barori, a Magistrate of the First Class, for disposal. Mr. Barori after hearing the parties passed an order for demolition under Section 330, Bengal Municipal Act, on 29th May 1941. The learned Sessions Judge has recommended that this order be set aside for the reason that the Magistrate, who passed the order, had no jurisdiction to do so. Section 3 (54), Bengal Municipal Act, reads as follows:'Magistrate' includes the District Magistrate, the Magistrate in charge of a division of the district, in which division a municipality is constituted, and every Magistrate of the First Class subordinate to th...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirathmal Kanodia and anr. Vs. Jamini Ghose, Shebait of Lahshmi Jan ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal309
Biswas, J. 1. These three appeals arise out of three suits which were tried together at the instance of the parties. The plaintiffs who are the appellants before me sued for assessment of rent of certain lands and for recovery of arrears of rent for four years as compensation for use and occupation of the lands by the defendants. The plaintiffs are purchasers at a mortgage sale of the interest of the zemindar in whose estate, according to them, the disputed lands are situated. They based their case mainly on the record of rights in which the defendants were recorded as tenure holders in respect of these lands and the lands were described as liable to assessment of rent. The suits were resisted by the defendants. The written statements show that their ease was that the lands were the lakheraj lands of a deity Sri Sri Lakshmi Narayan Jew Thakur, and that the plaintiffs or their predecessors were consequently not entitled to rent. They pleaded that they had held these lands for a long ser...
Tag this Judgment!J.N. Sharma and Sons (Firm) Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal529
Lodge, J.1. This is a rule issued upon the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation of Calcutta and upon the Honorary Municipal Magistrate of Cossipore to show cause why an order passed under Section 388, Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, should not be set aside. The material facts are as follows : The petitioner was twice prosecuted and fined under Section 488, Calcutta Municipal Act, for contravention of the provisions of Section 386 (1) of that Act. The second of these two fines was imposed on 24th May 1941. Thereafter an application was made on behalf of the Corporation before a Magistrate other than the Magistrate, who convicted the petitioner under Section 488, for an order under Section 388, Calcutta Municipal Act. The Magistrate to whom the application was made, after an elaborate enquiry, came to the conclusion that the premises were kept in such a state as to be a nuisance and he directed under Section 388, Calcutta Municipal Act, 'that No. 74,Barrackpore Trunk Road should no l...
Tag this Judgment!Suratan Bibi W/O KhabiruddIn Biswas and ors. Vs. Lutu Gopal Bhattachar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1941
Reported in: AIR1943Cal51
Biswas, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants before me. They lost in both the Courts below and must also lose here. The suit was one for declaration of their title to a certain fractional share in a raiyati holding and fop recovery of possession. Their case was that the holding originally belonged to their father one Azizullah Mandal, and that on his death, they inherited it as his daughters jointly with their brothers. In suing for rent of the holding, the landlord, defendant 1, however, left out the plaintiffs and impleaded only the two sons of Aziznlla, defendants 4 and 5, as parties. In due course the landlord obtained a decree and purchased the holding himself at the execution sale which followed. He thereafter settled the holding with defendants 2 and 3. On these facts, the main question is whether the decree obtained by the landlord was a rent decree under the Bengal Tenancy Act, or a mere decree for money. Both Courts have answered the question in favour of the landlord, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdur Rahim Alias Manghu Mia Vs. Abdur Rauf and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal342
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the Munsif rejecting an application made by the petitioner in a certain proceeding taken in execution of a mortgage decree. The petitioner is a purchaser of a part of the equity of redemption. The Munsif started by saying that the application was one to re-open the decree. He held that a purchaser of a part of an equity of redemption is not a successor-in-interest of a mortgagor. This point has been dealt with in the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sailendra Nath v. Amarendra Nath : AIR1941Cal484 . The petitioner treating the matter as one under Section 47, Civil P.C., filed an appeal. It was dismissed as incompetent and the learned Judge followed the decision of this Court in Promode Nath Saha Roy v. Sm. Rasheshwari Dassi : AIR1941Cal530 . The decision of the lower Court was correct on the footing that the petitioner was attempting to re-open the decree by a review application under Section 36, Bengal Money-l...
Tag this Judgment!Nimbar Alias Limbar Khan and ors. Vs. Turab Ulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal356
Mohammad Akram, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for recovery of khas possession of certain lands on declaration of their maliki right thereto. The plaintiffs obtained a decree in full in the trial Court, but on appeal by the defendant the decree was modified by disallowing the claim for khas possession. Against this decree the plaintiffs have preferred the present second appeal. The plaintiff's case briefly stated was that the lands in suit were let out to the defendant in 1331 B.S., corresponding to 1924, for one year only at paddy rent; that a suit for rent (Suit No. 1,088 of 1926) was instituted by the plaintiffs in which the defendant filed a written statement on 27th February 1927, repudiating the title of the plaintiffs; that the suit was consequently withdrawn on 15th September 1927, with liberty to institute a fresh suit; that Act 8 of 1869 which was then in force came to be repealed by the Sylhet Tenancy Act, 1936 (Assam Act 11 of 1936), which came into...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Srish Chandra Nandi by Manager Kasimbazar Raj Wards Estate Vs ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal445
Pal, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. Defendant 11 appears and contests the suit alleging that the tenancy is a niskar one. The learned Munsif who heard the suit at first instance raised inter alia issue 2 in the following terms : 'Is the plaintiff entitled to recover any rent for the holding?' While deciding this issue, the learned Munsif observes:It appears from khatian (Ex. 2) that the holding was assessed with rent. The assessment was under the provisions of Section 105A, Ben. Ten. Act. This assessment has the effect of a decree. I do not think the defendant is competent to agitate the matter in this Court. So I find that the plaintiff is entitled to recover rents as claimed.2. He, therefore, decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendant, the learned District Judge, being of opinion that an ex parte decision under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, settling a fair and equitable rent does not bar a tenant from claiming niskar title in a subs...
Tag this Judgment!Benoy Kumar Acharjee Choudhury and ors. Vs. Ahammad Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal467
Sen, J.1. This appeal arises out of a representative suit instituted by certain Mahomedans of the District of Mymensingh for a declaration that a certain property was wakf property. The suit was instituted in the District of Dacca. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on two preliminary grounds. He held, first, that the plaintiffs had no cause of action and, secondly, that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 42, Specific Belief Act, inasmuch as the plaintiffs had not prayed for consequential reliefs. Against this decision an appeal was taken to the District Judge. The learned Judge remanded the case holding that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge on the preliminary issues was erroneous. The defendants have now appealed to this Court. In course of the argument it came to light that no notice was issued to the Commissioner of Wakfs. Section 70, Wakf Act, states that in every suit or proceeding in respect of wakf property the Court shall issue a notice ...
Tag this Judgment!Brijraj Marwari and ors. Vs. Anant Prosad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal509
ORDEREdgley, J.1. The petitioner in this case is applying for certain reliefs under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940, in respect of a promissory note which was executed by him on 10th July 1932. It appears that a suit was instituted in this Court on this promissory note on 9th July 1935 and a consent decree was passed against the petitioner on 21st June 1937. The decree-holder now seeks to put the consent decree into execution but the petitioner maintains that it should be re-opened as it falls within the scope of the provisions of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. Mr. Das on behalf of the respondent in this case contends that the Bengal Money-Lenders Act cannot be applicable as the loan was made in Bihar and the law applicable to the loan must be that of Bihar. He maintains that, having regard to the terms of Preamble to the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, all that the Legislature purported to do in passing this Act was to regulate money-lending business in Bengal and the terms of the Act can...
Tag this Judgment!Naimuddi and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1943Cal47
Bartley, J.1. The appellants in this case were placed upon their trial on charges framed under Sections 304, 304/109 and 323, Penal Code. The jury unanimously convicted the appellant Naimuddi under Section 326, Penal Code, and the learned Judge sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment The jury also convicted the appellant Bhasani under Section 326/109, Penal Code, and the Judge sentenced him also to three years' rigorous miprisonment. The appellants Kokai and Yusuf Ah were convicted under Section 323, Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for BIX months. The case is the usual type of dispute between the two parties over pos session of certain land and the ownership of paddy grown thereon. As a result of this dispute, there was a collision between the two parties on the day of the occurrence, 6th April 1940, and two persons at least were injured on each side. One of the complainant's party a man called Shamuddi received a head injury said to have been caused by a ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »