Kolkata Court August 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.
Bibhuti Bhusan Das Vs. Shebait of Sri Sri Radha Ballav Jiu Thakur Maha ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal481
Roxburgh, J.1. This rule has been issued at the instance of the judgment-debtor in connexion with a proceeding in execution of a rent decree relating to a tenure. On 28th May 1941, the tenure was put up in auction for sale subject to encumbrances as it failed to fetch a price sufficient to liquidate the amount of the decree and costs, the sale was adjourned at the instance of the decree-holder, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 165(1), Bengal Tenancy Act, and fresh proclamation was ordered fixing 17th June following for auction and sale with power to avoid all encumbrances. In the meantime the judgment-debtor had approached a debt settlement board and a notice was issued under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, (7 of 1936) staying further proceedings. Accordingly the sale was not held. The order of stay was vacated subsequently and the Court, on 18th July, then ordered issue of a fresh proclamation fixing 8th August for auction and sale of the tenure again...
Promode Nath Sinha Roy and ors. Vs. Smt. Raseshwari Dassi W/O Deb Nara ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal128
1. On 16th April 1934, the appellants took a loan of Rs. 12,000 from the respondents on a mortgage by which they hypothecated their zemindary interest in some properties and patni interest in others. The interest payable was 12 per cent. per annum with half yearly rests. Before suit they paid a sum of Rs. 300 only. In 1938 the respondents sued to recover the loan. On 22nd December 1939, an ex parte preliminary decree was passed in their favour. The Court reduced the rate of interest to 10 per cent. per annum (simple), allowed pendente lite interest at that rate on the principal of the loan up to the date of the decree and fixed the period of grace at three months from that date. No payment having been made by the judgment-debtors within the period of grace the final decree for sale was passed on 17th May 1940. Shortly thereafter the decree-holders applied for execution of their decree in the Court which had passed the final decree. While the application for execution was pending the Be...
Nabakumar Singh Dhudhuria and anr. Vs. Maharaja Jogindra Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal324
ORDERSen, J.1. This is an application by the judgment-debtor for relief under the Bengal Moneylenders Act. On 13th July 1928, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,000 from the respondents. Interest on the loan was 15 per cent. per annum with yearly rests. On 28th July 1928, he borrowed another sum of Rs. 20,000 from the same respondents at the same rate of interest. Thereafter the amounts due on these two loans were consolidated and a hatchitta was executed for Rs. 57,375 on 24th June 1930. Interest on the hatchitta was 15 per cent. per annum. From time to time, the hatchitta was renewed for progressively larger sums which represented the principal and accrued interest. On 2nd January 1935, the respondents instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,05,530-8-0 against the petitioner and on 16th August 1935 a consent decree was passed for the aforesaid sum, the decree bearing interest at 9 per cent. per annum. It was provided that the decretal amount would be paid in instalments and ...
In Re: Tilak Chand Koyal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal342a
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. In my opinion, it cannot be said that there was any consideration for the transfer in the present case. Therefore, the deed of 13th July 1938, prima facie falls within the scope of Section 55, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. At the same time, I think it follows from the decision of the Privy Council in Satyanarin v. Behari Lal that the section, does not apply to property over which an insolvent in his capacity as karta or trustee has a disposing power, at any rate with regard to the shares of other persons interested in it. In these circumstances I think that all that the Official Assignee is entitled to is a declaration that the deed is void in so far as it purports to affect the share of the insolvent in the property transferred by the deed. I do not think that he is entitled to an immediate order for possession, and he must, if he sees fit, assert his right against the trustees and the other beneficiaries under the deed in other proceedings. The Official Assig...
Bibi Sakina Khatoon W/O Dr. Muhammad Ali Vs. Kshirode Chandra Manna an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal173
Biswas, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for setting aside the sale of a khas mahal estate in the Sunderbans for default in payment of arrears of revenue, and the appellant is the defendant purchaser at such sale. The learned Munsif of Diamond Harbour who tried the suit in the first instance dismissed it, but that judgment was reversed on appeal by the learned Additional District Judge of 24-Perganas. Hence the present appeal. The property sold is described as P. plot, 4th part of lot Sunderban, Mouza Gobindapur, P.S. Mathurapur, and it was held by a number of cosharer lessees. At the instance of the cosharers, twelve separate accounts were opened in respect of the mahal under Section 10 of Act 11 of 1859 according to their respective shares one of which was numbered 2960/7, the residuary share being recorded as No. 2960. The former represented a five gandas share and the latter a two annas share. The plaintiffs are interested in the residuary mahal. Both these separate accounts f...
Umakanta Bhattacherjee Vs. Bedbati Debi W/O Rajani Kanta Choudhury and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal265
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting point of law relating to the succession of a married daughter to the property of her father under the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law. The properties in suit belonged admittedly to one Ganga Gobinda Bhattacherjee who died in 1286 B.S., leaving behind him his widow Nritya Kali and three daughters, to wit, Bedbati, Ramrangini and Girijabala. Nrityakali succeeded to the estate of her husband and enjoyed it in the limited interest of a Hindu widow till her death on 21st Baisakh, 1342 B. S. At the time of her death, two of her daughters Ramrangini and Girijabala were childless widows, and the only surviving married daughter was Bedbati, though she had no male issue. The only child of Bedbati was a daughter named Binapani who had a son named Sudhir, and Sudhir's son, Tarun Kumar was adopted as a son by Bedbati and her husband sometime after Nritykali's death. Umakanta, the plaintiff, is a son of a brother of Ganga Gobinda, and he commenced...
Radha Charan Saha Vs. Sree Sree Iswar Joykali Bigraha Represented by S ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal295
Edgley, J. 1. Defendant 1, Kadba Charan Saha, is the appellant in this case in the suit out of which this appeal arises. The plaintiffs who are some of the shebaits of a deity known as Sree Sree Iswar Joykali Bigraha, sought to evict the principal defendant after having served him with a notice to quit. They also claimed arrears of rent. Two of the shebaits did not associate themselves with the service of the notice to quit although it was alleged that they had been requested to do so. These persons were, therefore, impleaded as pro forma defendants. Further, it may be mentioned that three of the other shebaits who originally consented to the notice subsequently retracted their consent after the institution of the suit and were transferred from the category of plaintiffs to that of the pro forma defendants. The defence of the principal defendant was to the effect that the suit was not maintainable because it had been instituted by some of the shebaits, and that the notice was invalid a...
Masrab Khan Vs. Debnath Mali Alias Abhu Mali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal321
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the decree-holder and it is directed against an appellate order of the Subordinate Judge, third Court, Mymensingh, dated 5th August 1939, reversing the order of the Munsif, First Court, Kishoreganj, made in a proceeding under Section 47, Civil P.C. The material facts lie within a narrow compass and are not disputed. The appellant obtained a mortgage decree against the defendants-respondents in the Court of the First Munsif at Kishoreganj and the decree was made final on 7th December 1932. The first application for execution was made on 3rd December 1935 and it was filed in the Court of the Second Munsif at Kishoreganj and not in that of the First Munsif which passed the decree, the ground alleged being that subsequent to the passing of the decree the particular area where the mortgaged property was situated was assigned to the Munsif, Second Court, under Section 13(2), Bengal Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act. This application was dismisse...
Raj Mohan Saha Vs. Jogendra Nath Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal353
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the decree-holder and it raises an interesting point. The appellant instituted the suit for enhancement of rent under the provisions of Section 48D, Ben. Ten. Act. The Munsif found that a fair rent would be Rs. 25 per annum. Instead of asking the defendants whether they would agree to pay, he passed forthwith a sort of conditional decree, to the effect that, if the defendants did not intimate their consent within 15 days, they would be ejected. The defendants took no action. The decree-holder applied for execution and took delivery of possession, on 23rd December 1939. The case of the defendants is that they knew nothing of this conditional order. Indeed they appeared and filed a petition to the effect that they were willing to pay the enhanced rent and they endeavoured to have the decree put right.2. Both parties were willing that the case should be settled on these terms. The appellant however felt nervous as to the effect of the new Section 75A, Ben...
Probodh Mohan Goswami Vs. Lalit Mohan Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal65
Roxburgh, J.1. This rule arises out of an order by the Additional Subordinate Judge, 24 Perganas, refusing an application under Section 36, Bengal Money Lenders Act, for reopening a decree passed against the petitioner. The petitioner took a loan of Rs. 8000 from the opposite party on a mortgage bond dated 5th June 1931, interest being stipulated for at 9 per cent. per annum compound with half-yearly rests. An amount of Rs. 98 was paid on account of interest, and the opposite party instituted a suit on his bond on 7th September 1934 claiming Rs. 10,554-6-9. A preliminary decree was passed on 22nd July 1935 for the amount of the claim together with interest of Rs. 644-4-0 at the bond rate from the date of institution of the suit up to the date of the preliminary decree, and for Rs. 990-9-0 for costs of the suit totalling Rs. 12,189-3-9 in all. Interest was further allowed at the bond rate of 9 per cent. per annum up to the due date of payment and thereafter apparently at 6 per cent. tho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »