Kolkata Court December 1941 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.
Mozam Shaikh Vs. Annada Prasad Bhadra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal341
Pal, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant in a suit for ejectment after notice. The disputed property is a small plot of land in the bazar at Narail. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendant was a tenant-at-will in respect of the land from before the date when he executed the kabuliat, Ex. 1 on 26th Falgoon 130S, corresponding to 9th March 1899; that; though not necessary, a notice to quit was served on him on 30th Aswin 1343 B.S. corresponding to 16th October 1936, asking him to quit by 30th Chaitra 1343 B.S. The defence, inter alia, was that the tenancy was a permanent one and that, at any rate, the notice served was insufficient and defective, inasmuch as it did not expire with the end of either the year of the tenancy or the month of the tenancy. Both the Courts decreed the plaintiffs' suit; hence this second appeal by the defendant.2. As has been stated above, the notice asked the defendant to quit by 30th Chaitra, 1343 B.S. The exact vernacular words used in the notice were 'Tr...
Monohar Kaibarta and ors. Vs. Jagadish Chandra Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal357
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit commenced by him to recover khas possession of the lands in suit on establishment of his title to the same. The case of the plaintiff in substance was that three plots of land situated in village Kanehan, which were recorded as Order Section Plots Nos. 2897, 2898 and 5045 belonged to the plaintiff in raiyati right. Plot Nos. 2898 and 5045 appertain to touzi No. 379 of the Dacca Collectorate of which Babu Kishori Mohan Poddar was the sole proprietor. Kishori Mohan having been declared an insolvent his estate was in the hands of Receivers who were defendants 19 and 20 in the suit. As regards plot No. 2897 Kishori Babu was the proprietor to the extent of three annas and odd gandas share and the balance appertained to another touzi which belonged to defendants 1 and 2. At the time of the settlement, operations the river Lakhya flowed by the west of the suit lands. The river gradually receded and the ...
Prafulla Kumar Khara and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1941
Reported in: AIR1943Cal40
Bartley, J.1. This rule was issued upon the District Magistrate of 24 Parganas to stow cause why the convictions of the petitioners and the sentences passed upon them should not be set aside. The facts of the case were that one Bhusan Chandra Khara who was petitioner 2 in the case was an accused before a Magistrate summoned to appear on a certain date. On that date, he was absent and a petition was filed in Court supported by a medical certificate granted by petitioner 1, Prafulla Kumar Khara who is a nephew of petitioner 2 to the effect that the accuasd person was suffering from renal colic since the previous day and was under his treatment and unable to appear. The complainant in the case challenged the fact of the illness of the accused and as a result both the uncle and the nephew were placed on their trial. The nephew was charged under Section 197, Penal Code, and the uncle under Section 198 on the 'allegation that the one issued or signed a false medical certificate and the other...
Annada Prasad Mitra Vs. Sushil Kumar Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal390
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. These two appeals tire on behalf of the judgment-debtor and they arise out of two analogous proceedings under Section 47, Civil P.C., which were heard together and were disposed of by one and the same judgment in both the Courts below. The material facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows : There were two rent decrees obtained by one Naba Kishore Mandal as the managing shebait of certain deities against the appellant, Annada Prosad Mitra, one on 31st May 1928, and the other on 23rd June 1934. After certain proceedings with which we are not concerned at present both these decrees were put into execution in the year 1935 and the two execution oases were registered as Cases Nos. 109 and 110 of 1935. In course of these proceedings, sale proclamations were duly issued directing the sales to be held on 10th January 1936. Before the sales were held, Naba Kishore died on 12th November 1935. The matter was reported to the Court and the Court granted...
KhateruddIn and ors. Vs. Tripura Sundari Debi W/O Shyama Prasanna Bhat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal375
Biswas, J.1. This appeal is on behalf &t; defendant 1, who, it is conceded, is the principal contesting party, the other defendants deriving their title from him. The plaintiff brought this suit for recovery of khas possession on declaration of her title as purchaser at a sale in execution of a rent decree. The trial Court decreed the suit, holding that defendant 1 was an under-raiyat, and that his interest, being an incumbrance within the meaning of Section 161, Bengal Tenancy Act, had been annulled by service of notice under Section 167. On appeal by the defendants, the lower appellate Court reversed that judgment. The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that defendant 1 had acquired the status of an occupancy raiyat and as such, his interest was not liable to be annulled. A second appeal was preferred to this Court by the plaintiff (S.A. No. 1969 of 1936), and Mukherjea J., held that defendant 1 was an under-raiyat; and not a raiyat as claimed by him. He accordingly remanded th...
Sheikh Jaru Bepari Vs. A.G. Peters and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal493
1. This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 3500 from defendant 1 under a receipt dated 7th March 1932 or in the alternative from defendant 2 as damages. The plaintiff's case shortly stated was : That defendants 1 and 2 were partners in a jute business, that for constructing some structures in connexion with the business they purchased timber from defendant 3 and for the price thereof amounting to Rs. 3700, defendant 1 alone executed a receipt in favour of defendant 3. That defendants 1 and 2 then fell out with each other and in order to harass defendant 1 and teach him a lesson on 21st November 1932, defendant 2 purchased for Rs. 3000 the reoeipt in the benami of the plaintiff (Ex. 1) and took from him on the same day a promissory note for Rs. 3000 by way of security : That subsequently defendants 1 and 2 made up their differences and defendant 2-then assigned the promissory note to defendant 1 and defendant 1 on the strength of it instituted Money Sui...
Sm. Annapurna Dasi W/O Upendra Nath Basu and ors. Vs. Sarat Chandra Bh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal394
Pal, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the same suit. The Appeal No. 1192 of 1938 is by the plaintiffs and the other one is by defendant 1. The suit is for a declaration that a certain mortgage by an alleged receiver and the decree obtained in enforcement of that mortgage against that receiver are not binding on the parties. The relevant facts giving rise to this litigation are the following : Plaintiff 1, Annapurna Dasi, instituted suit in 1916 which has been characterised as an administration suit by the Courts below but which the plaintiffs-appellants characterise as a partition suit. This was title Suit No. 10 of 1916. In this suit the present plaintiff 1, Annapurna Dassi, was the sole plaintiff and plaintiffs 2, 3, 4 and 5 were defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. In this suit defendant 2 of the present suit was appointed receiver on 14th July 1917 under Order 40, Rule 1, Civil P.C. That suit was ultimately referred to arbitration on 17th July 1917. The arbitrator based his aw...
Girish Chandra Das Vs. Siba Prasad Jana and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal472
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal from an order dismissing an application under Section 35, Bengal Money-Lenders Act, for default. The application was made by the judgment-debtor. On 19th April 1941, the parties were ready. On that date, however, there seems to have been some sort of understanding between the parties and the judgment-debtor undertook to pay Bs. 2000 within week. Upon this undertaking being given, the matter was adjourned to 26th April 1941 for further orders, and the case was directed to be taken off from the peremptory list. On 26th April 1941 the judgment-debtor filed a petition stating that he was unable to deposit the sum owing to the fact that a boat containing merchandise belonging to him had sunk. He prayed for further time to deposit this amount. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the prayer Of the judgment, debtor and by the same order dismissed his petition under Section 35, Bengal Money-Lenders Act, for default.2. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that ...
Madan theatres Ltd. Vs. Ramkissen Kapoor and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1943Cal172
Gentle, J.1. The plaintiff is a limited company and it claims in this suit : (1) A declaration that a decree in suit No. 1-498 of 1935 in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Lahore in favour of a joint family firm of the name of Prohladdas Bhagj wandas against the plaintiff company and defendant 3 is a nullity and unenforcible, (2) A declaration that the decree has been fully satisfied; (3) That an assignment of the balance due under the decree in favour of defendant 1 is void and should be set aside, and (4) An injunction restraining defendant 1 from proceeding with a winding-up petition against the plaintiff company on the basis of any claim under the decree. Defendant 3 has neither filed a written statement nor appeared. Defendants 1 and 2 have severally filed written statements and appeared by counsel. In substance, the defences of these f two defendants admit the allegations regarding the decree being obtained in the Lahore Court and its assignment in favour of defen...
Ramani Mohan Bhattacharjee Vs. Surjya Kumar Dhar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1941
Reported in: AIR1943Cal22
Pal, J.1. These two appeals are by the plaintiffs in two suits based on two pronotes. Second Appeal No. 497 of 1939 arises out of Suit No. 93 of 1936, which is based on the pronote for Rs. 2400 executed by defendant 1 on 7th November 1933 in favour of the plaintiff in that suit, Ramani Mohan Bhattacharyya. The other appeal, namely, second Appeal No. 498 of 1939, arises out of suit No. 94 of 1936 based on another pronote for Rs. 2000 executed by the same defendant 1 Surjya Kumar Dhar in favour of the plaintiff in this suit, Ramesh Chandra Bhattacharyya. The plaintiffs' case as made in the plaint in each of these suits is that defendant 1 Surjya Kumar Dhar borrowed the amount named in the pronotes from the pro forma defendant 2 Lokenath Sarma and executed the pronotes on 7th November 1933 in favour of the plaintiff in each suit. As the defendant did not make any payment in spite of repeated demands the suits were instituted for the realization of the amounts due on these pronotes.2. Defe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »