Kolkata Court March 1942 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.
Kshitish Chandra Maitra and ors. Vs. Satish Chandra Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal75
ORDER1. The petitioners before us are the judgment-debtors who presented an application to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Pabna for re-opening of a decree under Section 36(6)(a)(i), Bengal Money-Lenders Act. The Court re-opened the decree and made a new one in conformity with the provisions of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. As the new decree did not go far enough and the judgment-debtors wanted other reliefs, they preferred an appeal to the Court of the District Judge of Pabna. The District Judge directed that the appeal be registered as an appeal from an original decree and further ordered the appellants to pay ad valorem court-fees. It is against this part of the order that the present rule has been obtained.2. Mr. Das Gupta, who appears in support of the rule has contended before us that under item 8, Appx. B of the Rules framed by the Local Government under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, a court-fee of Re. 1 only is payable on a suit by a borrower for relief under Section 36(1...
Faizaddi Taluqdar Vs. Rezia Begum W/O Chowdhury ShamsuddIn Ahmmed Alia ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal436
Edgley, J.1. This matter was referred to a Division Bench by Biswas J. on account of the fact that there appears to be a conflict of judicial opinion with regard to the main point which requires our decision. One of the defendants is the appellant in this case and the appeal is directed against the decision of the learned District Judge of Faridpur, dated 24th March 1939. It appears that in Suit No. 521 of 1928 the Maharaja of Cossimbazar obtained a rent decree against Jainuddin Talukdar, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant. In the rent suit the Maharaja had also impleaded the other cosharer landlords. Subsequently, the rent decree was as-signed to the father of the plaintiff who, on 19th September 1931, initiated execution proceedings with reference thereto after serving the judgment-debtor with the notice required under Order 21, Rule 16, Civil P.C. On 13th October 1931 Jainuddin Talukdar died. The fact of his death apparently was not brought to the notice of the decree-hold...
Ramkumar De S/O Anantlal De Vs. Abhayapada Bhattacharji S/O Bhairab Ch ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal441
ORDER1. This is a rule directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Bankura dated 30th June 1941, refusing the petitioner's application for certain reliefs under section 36, Bengal Money-lenders Act. The material facts are not in controversy and may be briefly stated as follows : The opposite party before us advanced moneys on four different mortgages to the present petitioner at different times. There was a suit commenced on the four mortgage bonds on 16th April 1934, and a preliminary decree was passed on 6th June 1933, for a sum of about Rs. 11,212 annas odd. The decree was made final on 15th November 1935 and in execution of the final decree the mortgaged properties were put up to sale and they were purchased by the decree-holder on 25th April 1936. The decree, holder took possession of the properties sometime in July 1936. As the entire decretal amount was not satisfied by the sale of the mortgaged properties, the decree-holder started a proceeding under Order 34, Rule 6,...
Prafulla Kumar Roy and ors. Vs. Sm. Bibhabati Roy Widow of Jatindra Na ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal369
1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtors Nos. 3 to 6 in an execution proceeding. The objections of the appellants to the execution of the decree are these : (i) that the present execution petition is not at all maintainable in view of the fact that the deoree-holder is also one of the judgment-debtors; (ii) that in any view of the case the appellants are liable to pay only their share of the judgment-debt in view of the fact that the decree-holder who was liable for 1/12th share of the judgment-debt has deducted the amount for which she is liable under the decree out of the total decretal amount; (iii) that the provisions of Section 168A which were introduced in the Bengal Tenancy Act by Bengal Act 18 of 1940 prohibits the sale of the properties of the appellants which have been sold by the decree-holder in execution of the decree.2. As regards the first two objections, it appears that the present decree-holder in the previous execution cases realised portions of the decretal amoun...
Smt. Mahamaya Debi W/O Shyam Sundar Roy and anr. Vs. Indra Narayan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal532
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by two persons who are not judgment-debtors in the execution case. I may just as well say at once that they are the daughter-in-law and the minor son of the judgment-debtors. The fact that they filed this appeal is due to the refusal of the Munsif to obey a notice under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, in connexion with an application filed by them under the provisions of the Act. The relevant facts are these : The respondent obtained a decree in a rent suit against one Jagadish Chandra Roy, His attempt to execute the decree was successfully baffled by Jagadish who made two applications to boards under the provisions of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. Those applications have been dismissed and there is no longer anything to prevent the respondent from executing the decree which he obtained against Jagadish. On 6th November 1940, however, Jagadish transferred 12 annas share in the putni to the present appellants. The appellants made an app...
Ashutosh Dey Vs. Foolchand Keshabdeo and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal530
ORDERSen, J.1. One Ashutosh Dey instituted a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Calcutta against five persons : (1) Foolchand Keshabdeo, (2) Jotindra Mohun Nundy, (3) Jagat Mohun Nundy, (4) Sudhangshu Mohun Nundy and (5) Sm. Badharani Dasi. The plaintiff's case was that he and defendants 2 to 5 were cosharers with respect to premises 8, Ram Kumar Rakhit Lane. He claimed that he had a 29/125th share therein, and the other co-sharers had 96/125th share. He alleged that defendant 1 (Foolchand Keshabdeo) was a tenant of these premises under himself and his cosharers, and he claimed his share of the rent from Keshabdeo. In the alternative he claimed that if Keshabdeo had paid all the rent to defendants 2 to 5 those defendants should pay the plaintiff his share of the rent. The defendant, Keshabdeo, took up the position that he was a tenant under defendants 2 to 5, and that he had nothing to do with the plaintiff. Defendants 2 to 5 claimed that they were the sole owners of the premises, an...
Shyam Kishore De and ors. Vs. Joy Chandra Datta Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal62
Edgley, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this case and, in the suit out of which this appeal arises, they sought to set aside a revenue sale which was held on 26th March 1936 or, in the alternative, they asked that they might obtain a conveyance from the auction purchasers in respect of the estate which was sold. The plaintiffs' case is to the effect that their predeeessor-in-interest executed a kabuliat in favour of Government in respect of this estate on 1st December 1862. According to the terms of that kabuliat the total amount of revenue payable to Government was Rs. 38-1-0 of which ES. 19-1-0 was the amount payable on 28th June each year, the balance of Es. 19 being payable on 12th January. Subsequently, separate accounts were opened in respect of the revenue payable namely, separate Account No. 1 representing the revenue amounting to Es. 19-1-0 separate Account No. 2 with Es. 3-3-0 as its revenue and another account for the residuary share in respect of which the revenue...
Bejoy Govinda Basu Vs. Noakhali Loan Office Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal119
Mohamad Akram, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for a declaration that all proceedings in Execution Case No. 57 of 1936 of the Second Munsiff's Court, Noakhali, after the receipt of a notice under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtor's Act, from Durgapur Rasulpur Debt Settlement Board on 18th December 1937, were void, illegal and ultra vires. The trial Court decreed the suit in part but the lower appellate Court dismissed it; the plaintiff thereupon preferred the present appeal. It appears that defendant 1 in execution of a mortgage decree against the plaintiff and the pro forma defendants (Execution Case No. 57 of 1936) had the mortgaged properties sold on 24th September 1936; some of the properties were purchased by the decree-holder and some by others, defendants 2, 3 and 4; on 17th November 1936, the plaintiff and the pro forma defendants filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., for setting aside the sale; the sale was set aside ex parte on ...
Mt. Shamsunnessa Khatun Choudhurani W/O HosseIn Jan Choudhury Vs. Romj ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal428
Henderson, J.1. The question raised in this; a appeal is whether the appeal in the District Court was competent. The Munsif made an order under Section 4, Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. The decree-holder appealed and his appeal has been dismissed as incompetent. The learned Subordinate Judge rightly held that the competency of the appeal would depend upon whether the matter was one within Section 47, Civil P.C. He came to the conclusion that it was not. I do not propose to set out the terms of Section 4 in full. Suffice it to say that it gives relief to persons who have been ejected between 30th January 1940 and the dates of the commencement of the Act. The respondents were ejected by the appellant between those two dates in execution of a decree. There is no question that the present dispute is between the parties to the suit. By the decree the appellant is entitled to eject the respondents. The result of this application is that the decree remains unexecuted. I should have thou...
Ananda Mohan Poddar and ors. Vs. Durga Charan Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal527
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca, modifying that of the Additional Munsif of Narayanganj. The plaintiffs were purchasers of a taluk named Taluk Rajaram Roy, being estate No. 4015 of the Dacca Collectorate, from one Prasanna Chandra Saha by a kobala dated 10th December 1934. Prasanna, in his turn, had acquired the taluk by purchase at a sale for arrears of revenue held on 20th June 1934, and for the purposes of the suit, the plaintiffs have been held to be entitled to all the rights of the purchaser at the revenue sale. After their purchase, the plaintiffs through Prasanna applied, for delivery of possession, and possession was delivered, to them on 11th April 1935. Thereafter they got their names recorded in the collectorate register, but when they went to take actual possession, they were resisted by the defendants. That led them to commence the pre-sent action. There were a large number of defendants, but ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »