Kolkata Court April 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.
Atar Mian Patwari Vs. Indra Kumar De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal556
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. These two appeals are on behalf of defendant 1 and they arise out of two analogous suits for recovery of arrears of rent. The lands in each suit represent a half share of the plots covered by khatian No. 26 of mouza Ramapur, and two jamas of Rs. 6 and Rs. 7 respectively are recorded in respect of the two halves under two different sets of landlords. The defence of the tenant defendants was of a two-fold character. It was said, in the first place, that the tenants having been dispossessed from a portion of the demised premises, the entire rent should be suspended. The other point taken was that the frame of the suits was defective as some of the landlords were left out as parties plaintiffs. The trial Judge gave effect to the first plea and finding that there had been, in fact, a partial dispossession by the landlord, dismissed the entire claim for rents. On appeal the judgment was reversed and both the suits were decreed. It is against this decision that the two se...
N.N. Bose Vs. Manager, Kedar Nath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal550
Derbyshire C.J.1. On 16th December 1940, at the instance of Mr. N. N. Bose, the Survey Overseer of the Howrah Municipality, this Court granted a rule nisi upon the District Magistrate of Howrah and upon she Manager of the Kedar Nath Jute ., the opposite party, to show cause why an order made by the District Magistrate of Howrah should not be at aside or such other or further order or orders made as to this Court might seem fit and proper.2. The case arises under the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, as extended to the Municipality of Howrah with certain modifications and restrictions. The Act was applied as from 1st April 1933, by the Howrah Municipal (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1933. In the year 1917, a survey map of the Municipality of Howrah was published by the Government of Bengal and on that map is shown a longitudinal space marked Dhurrumtollah Road. From the map it will appear, though it is not conclusive, that Dhurrumtollah Road is a public road. Section 295 (1...
Chairman, District Board Vs. Jagatpat Singh Dugar, Principal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal676
Pal, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit under Section 106, Ben. Ten. Act. The plots of land in dispute are the O. S. plots Nos. 9 and 11 of Mouza Badarganja, P. S. Badarganja, District Rangpur. These plots were recorded in the khas khatian of she defendant as appertaining to his putni. The plaintiff's case is that these are borrow pits of the District Board Road No. 3 and have been wrongly recorded in the defendant's khatian. They should be recorded in the plaintiff's khatian No. 647. The defendant's ease is that the disputed plots recorded in his khas khatian really appertain to his putni and that he has been in possession of the same all along. Since the O. S. record, these plots have been settled with one Dwarika Prosad Saha, (pro forma de-fondant 3) and this Dwarika is now in possession. The character of the disputed land is not such as to admit of continuous occupation by either party. Both the parties claim title to it and both parties assert their respective posse...
Suresh Chandra Mukherjee Vs. Lal Mohun Chatterjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal121
ORDEREdgley, J.1. In this case the petitioner, Lal Mohun Chatterjee, has applied for certain relief under the provisions of Bengal Moneylenders Act, 1940. It appears from his petition that a preliminary decree was passed against him and certain other persons on 19th February 1937. An account was then taken by the learned Registrar who found that the sum of Rs. 26,076-11-9 was due to the mortgagee. The decree was made final for that amount on 14th November 1938 and the mortgaged properties were sold respectively on 30th August 1939 and 6th December 1939. The price realized for the first property was Rs. 6400 and, as regards the second property, the price realized was Rs. 17,000 or in all Rs. 23,400. The sale was confirmed on 16th August 1940. This application originally came before me in Chambers on 6th March 1941, on which occasion Mr. Das on behalf of the opposite party contended that it was not maintainable on the grounds (1) that no application for execution of the decree was pendin...
Kashi Nath Panday Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal214
Bartley, J.1. Appellant in this case has been convicted, in accordance with the majority verdict of the jury, of an offence under Section 376, Penal Code. The case involves an unusual and interesting point of law. The facts are briefly, that about noon on 30th August last, Bansori, a child of 3 1/2 years of age, complained to her mother of pain in her private parts. The same evening, the child's elder sister reported to her mother a statement, made by the child to her, suggesting the conclusion that the child had been raped by a man whose description she gave to her sister. The father who was present, overheard part of the story. Next morning when returning from a walk with Bansori, he found the appellant, a motor driver employed by the owner of the house, sitting on the stairs. He asked Bansori if the appellant was her assailant, and she nodded. He then informed the police. The child was medically examined and it was found that her hymen was ruptured, and the labia swollen and inflame...
Abdul Latif Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal533
Bartley, J. 1. The appellant in this case was placed upon his trial before the learned Sessions Judge of Murshidabad on the charge of having murdered his wife. The jury by a majority verdict of 7 to 2 found him guilty and the learned Judge convicted him and sentenced him to transportation for life. The case for the prosecution was briefly that the accused and his wife were not on good terms with each other because the former wanted his wife to reconvey certain property to him, which he had previously made over to her. On the night of 17th June last the husband and the wife went to bed together in the same room. Next morning his brother, who is prosecution witness Jamiruddin, looked into the room and found the wife lying dead with her throat cut and no sign of her husband. He reported this fact to other people. Information was lodged to the thana. The accused was arrested about a fortnight later, sent up and ultimately convicted.2. In our opinion, the majority verdict of the jury in thi...
Gopal Chandra Chanda Vs. Dwarika Nath Bepari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal446
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the plain-tiff. The dispute between the parties is whether the principal defendant held at a rent of Rs. 3 or whether no rent has been fixed. Proceeding on the latter view, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for assessment of fair rent. The decision of the dispute depends upon the interpretation of Ex. 1. This apparently simple dispute has led to most protracted proceedings. The Munsif decided in favour of the defendants. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there was a certain amount of confusion. At any rate, his judgment was anything but con-elusive. He summed up as follows:Be that as it may, to claim a fair and equitable rent the plaintiff should have prayed for local investigation to find out the prevailing rate of rent paid by the tenants in the locality in question. That has not been done. Hence, considering the circumstances the Court is unable to assess the fair and equitable rent for the rent-land in this suit.2. Now, that is a...
Hemanta Kumar Banerjee and ors. Vs. Satish Chandra Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal635
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The facts giving rise to this second appeal and the connected civil Revision Case No. 1815 of 1940 may be shortly stated as follows: The plaintiffs and the defendants in the suit, out of which this appeal arises, are cosharers in respect of certain joint properties which they inherited from their common ancestor, one Earn Ratan Banerjee. Ram Ratan died leaving behind him his three sons, namely Shib Narayan, Pitambar and Gopal. Defendants 1 to 3 are the heirs of Shibnarayan while the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants are the heirs of the other two brothers Pitambar and Gopal. Amongst the properties, which belonged to the descendants of Ram Ratan, there was a plot of land at Chetla in the district of 24-Parganas, being premises No. 3, Chetla Hat Road, a portion of which was acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act. This property which was owned by all the parties, stood in the name of Shib Narayan alone and consequently defendants 1 to 3, who a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›