Kolkata Court December 1942 Judgments
Mahendra Nath Surul and anr. Vs. Netai Charan Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1942
Reported in: AIR1944Cal241
Rau, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgmen of the District Judge of Hooghly refusing to grant letters of administration to the appellants with a copy of the will said to have been executed by one Madhab Chandra Mondal. The will purports to have been executed as long ago as 1871 and was registered before the Sub-Registrar of Hooghly on 17th July 1871. The executors named in the will and the attesting witnesses are, as may be expected, all dead. The applicants for the grant are the sons of Jadu Nath Surul, who was a son of the testator's sister and was one of the legatees under the will. The objectors are the sons of Kali Charan Ghosh, who was the son of the testator's daughter and was the residuary legatee. The District Judge has found that the will was not properly attested as required by Section 63, Succession Act, 1925 and has therefore refused the grant. Hence this appeal by the proponents of the will.2. The only issue argued before us is whether there was proper attestation. Undo...
Tag this Judgment!Moulavi AsimuddIn Ahmed and ors. Vs. Md. MaizuddIn Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal189
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of certain proceedings connected with the reconstitution of a Union Board at village Itail in the Jamalpur Sub-division of the district of Mymensingh. The appellants are four out of nine defendants against whom the suit had been instituted. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 6, Bengal Village Self. Government Act (Bengal Act 5 of 1919) the number of members of this Union Board had been fixed at nine, and by an order in writing under Sub-section (3) of the section, the Provincial Government had directed that one-third of this number should be appointed by the District Magistrate, leaving the remaining six seats to be filled up by election. The last general election took place on 12th January 1940, and defendants 4 to 9 were the persons returned at this election. Thereafter, the District Magistrate proceeded to appoint the three members required to complete the constitution of the board, namely, the two plaintiffs and defendant 3. In due course, u...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Prasanna Ghosh S/O Late Tara Prasanna Ghose Vs. Satish Chandra G ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal152
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against an order made by the Subordinate Judge, Fourth Court, Allipore, dated 10th March 1942, rejecting an application made by the petitioner under Section 36 (6)(a)(i), Bengal Money-Lenders Act, The material facts are not in controversy and may be shortly 3tated as follows: On 3rd September 1980, the petitioner took a loan of RS. 12,500 from the opposite parties 1 and 2 as well as one Jyotish Chandra Ghose since deceased and executed in their favour a mortgage bond, stipulating to pay interest on the money advanced, at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum. Some interest was paid by the mortgagor from time to time aggregating to Hs. 4000 and in 1939 the mortgagee instituted a suit (being Title Suit No. 76 of 1939) for enforcement of the security. There was a preliminary decree passed on 29th July 1940, for a sum of Rs. 24,442 and annas odd and the decree was made final on 18th January 1941. On 1st September 1940, the Bengal < Money-Lenders Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Purna Chandra Adhicary Vs. Joy Chand Lall Babu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal179
Biwas, J.1. This rule arises out of an application by a borrower for relief under Section 36, Bengal Money-Lenders Act. The application has been refused by the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan on the ground that it is not maintainable, and it is the propriety of this order which is challenged before us by the petitioner. The petitioner admittedly owned the business of an aratdar which consisted primarily in selling and buying certain classes of goods. From the time of his father, he had had dealings with the plaintiff opposite party, from whom he used to borrow money from time to time for the purposes of the business. These borrowings were made on hatchittas and went on for a long series of years from 1331 B.S. onwards. Latterly, the petitioner was not in a position to make regular payments to the plaintiff on account of these loans, with the result that the plaintiff demanded security for the debt. There was an adjustment of accounts between the parties some time in the year 1338 ...
Tag this Judgment!Rohini Ranjan Das Vs. Umesh Chandra Datta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal211
Pal, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of the property described in the schedules to the plaint by ejecting the under-tenants on the avoidance and annulment of their under-tenures. The lands in dispute appertain : to Noabad Taluk Krishna Chandra Gokul Chandra Adhikari, which is touzi No. 34529 of the Chittagong collectorate. It is not disputed that this taluk comprises two mouzas, namely Mouza Kokdandi and Mouza Jungle Kokdandi. The plaintiff is the purchaser of the touzis at a sale held for arrears of revenue under the Bengal Council Act, 7 of 1868. The plaintiff purchased the touzis on 26th June 1936 and took possession on 29th May 1937. He instituted the present suit on 6th April 1938. His case is that under the touzi there was an etmam Lakhi Chandra Dutta bearing a rental of Rs. 26-4-0. This etmam so far as it related to Mouzah Kokdandi was recorded in Khatian No. 776 of the revisional survey and so far as Mouzah Jungle Kokdandi was concerned...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Chandra Basak Vs. Benode Lal Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal628
Nasim Ali, J.1. The respondents obtained against the appellants a final mortgage decree on 28th February 1939. In execution of this decree the mortgaged properties were sold on 6th July 1940. The sale has not yet been confirmed nor have the decree-holders, who were the purchasers, obtained possession. On 19th September 1940, the appellant made an application for relief under Section 36, Bengal Money-Lenders Act. The Subordinate Judge thereupon reopened the decree and has directed the amount which is legally recoverable in view of the provisions of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act to be paid by ten annual instalments. He has further directed that further proceedings in the execution case to be kept in abeyance. The judgment-debtor has appealed to this Court. The decree-holders have also filed cross-objections. The only contention of the appellant in this appeal is that the Subordinate Judge should have set aside the sale. The argument in support of this contention is that the final mortgage...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›