Kolkata Court May 1941 Judgments
Sudhindra Chandra Singha Sarma and ors. Vs. Jadav Marak and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal717
Henderson, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the respondents are tenants. There were some proceedings before the revenue officers which went up to the Board of Revenue under the provisions of chap. 7A, Ben. Ten. Act. The respondents were successful and the plaintiffs then instituted the present suit for ejectment. The allegation of the plaintiffs is that the defendants have no right to hold the land. Now, I entirely agree with Mr. Mukherjea that the proceedings before the revenue officers were entirely misconceived. They have no real legal effect at all. According to the plaintiffs the respondents are mere labourers. In such a case this chapter would not apply. According to the respondents themselves they are tenants who have been wrongfully and forcibly ejected by the plaintiffs. In this case also this chapter would not apply. The ordinary law gives protection to tenants who are improperly and forcibly ejected from their land, and no special provisions are necessary. ...
Tag this Judgment!Hafiz Mohammad Fateh Nasib Vs. Sir Swarup Chand Hukum Chand, Firm and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal1
Edgley, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision of Mr. Basanta Kumar Roy, Subordinate Judge, first Court, 24-Par-ganas, dated 3lst May 1934. The plaintiff firm, Swarup Chand Hukum Chand, had instituted a suit for the recovery of khas possession of the plaint land and for the recovery of mesne profits in respect thereof on the basis of their purchase of the suit land at a sale held at the instance of the Official Assignee on 22nd January 1931. The property in suit comprises premises Nos. 2, 2/1, 2/2 and 8 Rowland Road, Ballygunge, and this property had been mortgaged to the plaintiffs by Mahananda Nandy on 28th January 1927 as security for the sum of Rs. 1,30,000. Mahananda Nandy subsequently became insolvent and his property vested in the Official Assignee on 14th June 1928. The property in suit has a long and somewhat complicated history. Therefore, it is necessary for the purpose of this appeal to set forth the salient facts. Admittedly, the suit land originally belonged to...
Tag this Judgment!Biraja Mohan Bhattacharjee Vs. Abaninath Pandit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal227
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the judgment-debtor. He is a pleader. Some how Or other he has managed to go before a Debt Settlement Board on the plea of being an agriculturist. The debt is for a sum of Rs. 287-14-6 which was awarded to the respondent as costs in a suit brought by the appellant. This was the only debt in the application and at any rate there is this to be said in favour of the appellant that he did not try to minimise it in his application to the Board. That being the position, the Board, because there was apparently some confusion in filling up a form, reached the astounding decision that the debt was nil. This is supposed to have been an order passed under Section 13(2) of the Act. Having got this decision for what it was worth, the appellant then returned to the executing Court and made an application under Section 47, Civil P.C. His contention was that the civil Court was debarred from questioning this decision and the delightful result was that there was nothin...
Tag this Judgment!Naraindas Bhaduri Vs. SatyanaraIn Bhaduri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal300
Ameer Ali, J.1. For convenience I propose to divide my judgment as follows : (A) Preliminary observations ; (B) Bhaduri v. Bhaduri No. 174 of 1931, Mr. S.K. Basu's partition, specimen accounts and final return; (C) Costs and payments on account; (D) Preliminary decree.(A) Preliminary observations : On 20th July 1939 there were in the list three cases of partition of the aggregate age of 66 years. One of these cases, Mt. Mahmuda Bibi v. Mt. Nainoo Bibi and Ors., Suit No. 1221 of 1916, afforded an interesting study. The original Commissioner Mr. Mitter who died pending the partition was one of the ablest officers of this Court and an expert in partition. Yet such was the condition of this partition in 1939, mainly by reason of orders obtained from the Court and advances made to parties and to their attorneys on account of costs that it was found absolutely impossible to bring it to an end in a regular manner. The eight or ten attorneys acting fully realised the impossibility to which I h...
Tag this Judgment!Promode Nath Sinha Roy and ors. Vs. Sm. Raseshwari Dassi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal530
1. This appeal is on behalf of the judgment-debtors and it is directed against an order made by the Subordinate Judge, first Court, Hooghly, on an application presented by the appellants under Section 36, Bengal Money-lenders Act, in connection with the execution of a mortgage decree. The material facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows : The respondents who were mortgagees instituted a suit against the appellants to enforce their mortgage bond, and a preliminary decree was passed in their favour on 22nd December 1939. The rate of interest stipulated in the mortgage bond was 12 per cent. (compound) with half-yearly rests. The Court considered this to be excessive and reduced it to 10 per cent. (simple) in exercise of its powers under the Usurious Loans Act of 1918 and the Bengal Money-lenders Act of 1933. The decree was made final on 17th May 1940. The decree-holders applied for execution of the decree by sale of the mortgaged properties in Title Execution Cas...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Indumati Debi, W/O Thakur Shiw Sundar Singh Vs. Tulsi Thahurani an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal53
ORDER1. This rule is directed against an order made by the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal rejecting the petitioner's application to be added as a party to an apportionment case pending before the tribunal. The material facts lie within a brief compass and are for the most part undisputed. Premises No. S3, Cockier Lane was acquired by the first Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, in connexion with scheme No. 47 of the Calcutta Improvement Trust and a sum of Rs. 9573 and annas odd was settled as compensation, in respect of which a joint award was made in favour of three persons who are the three opposite parties in the rule. There was a dispute between these three persons as regards their right to the compensation money. Opposite party No. 1 claimed the entire compensation as the sole surviving daughter and heiress of one Yasoda Debi to whom the premises admittedly belonged. Opposite parties, Nos. 2 and 3, on the other hand, contended that they were entitled to a half s...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Sir G. Russel and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal51
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This is an application under Section 45, Specific Relief Act, and is made by one S.N. Mukherjee, who carries on business at 22, Canning Street, under the name and style of Messrs. S.N. Mukherjee. The respondents are Sir Guthrie Russel, Steel Controller, and Mr. S.M.K. Alvi, Deputy Steel Controller, whose office is at No. 7, Wellesley Place, Calcutta. The application asks that the respondents should grant an import license for the import of 15 tons of mild steel plates 1/8' American make, covered by a certain order dated 13th December 1940. On 31st December 1940, a notification was published in the Gazette of India whereby it was notified that in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 84 of the Defence of India Rules the Central Government prohibited the bringing into British India by Sea from any place outside India of any iron or steel of the description specified in the schedule with certain exceptions. Exception 4 is:Any iron or steel covered by a special lice...
Tag this Judgment!Malati Dutt Vs. Surendra Nath Dutt and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal32
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against an order dated 10th February 1941, passed by the District Judge of 24-Perganas in a divorce suit which was originally started in the Court of District Judge of Mymensingh, but was later on transferred to the Alipur Court under an order of Sen J. in exercise of matrimonial jurisdiction of this Court. The material facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows : The petitioner, one Malati Sudha, was married to the plaintiff-opposite party, Surendra Nath, on 18th January 1940, and the marriage was solemnized under Act 3 of 1872. On 1st August 1940, the husband instituted a divorce proceeding in the Court of the District Judge of Mymensingh and prayed for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of alleged misconduct of the wife with opposite party No. 2, Jyoti Prokash. The wife thereupon moved an application to this Court in its extraordinary original civil jurisdiction under Clause 13, Letters Patent, as well as under...
Tag this Judgment!Sakkal Sardar Vs. Issurdas Thirani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal230
Henderson, J.1. This appeal and the rule are concerned with a matter which in itself is extremely simple but which raises highly technical questions. This will be apparent from the mere fact that Mr. Sen felt compelled to file both an appeal and an application in revision. The plaintiffs obtained a rent decree against the petitioner defendant under the provisions of the Rent Act (Act 10 of 1859) before the Deputy Collector in Siliguri. Execution proceedings followed. By agreement, the parties went to arbitration before a certain gentleman, Mr. Sen, who made an award in favour of the plaintiffs. The judgment-debtor contended subsequently that the submission to arbitration was without jurisdiction and that he was not bound by the award. The Deputy Collector overruled this objection. There was then an appeal to the District Judge who held that, although the objection was well founded, he had no jurisdiction in appeal. He accordingly dismissed the appeal. It is now not disputed that the ju...
Tag this Judgment!Manmatha Nath Mukherjee Vs. Ananga Kumar Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal702
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The subject-matter of these two appeals is a permanently settled estate, touzi No. 2562 on the register of the Collector of 24.pergannas bearing an annual revenue of Rs. 358 odd. It was formerly registered in the Nuddea Collectorate and bore the No. 5S0. The whole estate was let out in patni at an annual rent of Rs. 1250. At the material time Surendranath and Narendra Nath Basu (appellants in First Appeal No. 18 of 1938) were the patnidars. The said estate belonged to three sets of proprietors, namely (1) to the Ghoses, Surendra and Narendra Nath Ghose (2) to Monmotha Nath Mukherjee (appellant in First Appeal No. 170 of 1937) and (3) to a group of Mohamedans, Masuda Khatun Bibi and others. On 17th November 1925 the Ghoses, opened a separate account No. 1 under the provisions of Section 10 of Act 11 of 1859. The revenue allotted to that account was Rs. 105 odd. From 18th November 1925, to 1st August 1934, Monmotha's predecessors, Monmotha and the Mahomedan group contin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »