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.
In Re: Goods of Mrs. Lilian Singh (Known as Mrs. Lila Singh)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal93
ORDERSen, J.1. The two questions involved in this application are (1) whether this Court has the power to restrain the respondent, Provabati Debi, who is a person not resident within the jurisdiction of this Court, from prosecuting an application for letters of administration to the estate of one Lila Singh which she has made in the District Court of Bhagalpore in the Province of Behar and (2) whether, if the Court has such power, it should exercise it in the particular circumstances of this case.2. Lila Singh, also known as Lilian Singh was the wife of Mr. S.K. Mullick, a barrister. By him she had a son, who is the petitioner Ajit Mullick, an officer in the Bengal & Assam Railway. S.K. Mullick divorced his wife many years ago, and thereafter, she married or went through a form of marriage with one Deep Narain Singh of Bhagalpore who then had another wife living. The respondent, Provabati Debi, is the only daughter of that wife and Deep Narain Singh. Deep Narain Singh died on 30th Nove...
Nagendra Nath Sarkar Vs. Krishnapada Sarkar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal425
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtor and is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Burdwan, dated 25th January 1941, dismissing the appellant's objection to attachment and sale of his residential house on the ground that it was exempted from attachment under Section 60(1), Clause (c), Civil P.C.2. The only point in dispute is as to whether or not the judgment-debtor was an agriculturist within the meaning of that clause. It appears to us from the evidence that the appellant has got about 20 or 25 bighas of cultarable land with regard to which he has been recorded as an occupancy raiyat. He admits in his deposition that he does not actually cultivate all these lands with his own hands, and gets them cultivated under the bhag system, by letting them out to bhag Chasis. The other income which he derives from his zemindary properties is only Rs. 25. From the facts, appearing on evidence, it seems to us that' the appellant is an agriculturist....
Saha SamsuddIn Alias Shah ShamsuddIn Ahamed Vs. Serajal Haq
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal567
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the decree holder. The question at issue between the parties is whether the Munsif had jurisdiction to execute the decree in question. The respondent brought a suit under Section 106, Bengal Tenancy Act. The appellant was defendant 3, The suit was dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer. The respondent appealed : but instead of prosecuting his appeal on the merits he applied to the Special Judge for leave to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action. This prayer was allowed: but a sum of Rs. 64 was awarded to the appellant as costs. The appellant prayed for execution to the Collector who was the ex-officio settlement officer and the Collector sent the case to the Munsif for execution.2. The contention of the respondent before the Munsif was that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to execute a decree for costs passed by the Special Judge. The Munsif overruled the objection and the respondent appealed. The Sub...
Nagendra Chandra Lahiri and ors. Vs. Probhat Chandra Deb and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal607
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Special Judge of Rangpur, modifying that of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Gaibandha, in a proceeding under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act. The plaintiff-appellants had applied for settlement of fair and equitable rent in respect of a tenure. The A.S.O's order shows that the matter had already once come up before the Special Judge, when he found that the rent was liable to enhancement, and he remanded the case in order that the enhancement might be determined under Section 7, Ben. Ten. Act. That gave rise to the further proceeding out of which the present appeal has arisen.2. In the record of rights the existing rent was recorded as Rs. 258 per year, which the A.S.O. considered too low. He found the gross assets were Rs. 921-9-7 and deducting 15% thereof as collection charges, and allowing 60% of the balance as profit to the tenure-holders, he settled the fair rent at 40% of the net assets. He further directed that the enhanceme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›