Kolkata Court May 1942 Judgments
Surendra Nath Dutt Vs. Malati and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal546
Edgley, J.1. In this case the learned District Judge of the 24-Parganas by his order, dated 17th September 1911, has directed that the marriage of the petitioner, Surendra Nath Dutt, with his wife, Malati alias Baby Dutt, be dissolved subject to confirmation by the High Court. The matter has accordingly come before us under Section 17, Divorce Act, for confirmation of the order passed by the learned Judge. The admitted facts of the case are as follows : Surendra Nath Dutt went through a form of marriage in 1919 with a lady named Indubala Das. This marriage appears to have been solemnized according to Hindu rites but, in spite of this fact, the petitioner and Indubala went through a further form of marriage on 3rd August 1920, under the provisions of Act 3 of 1872. On 2nd September 1938, Indubala Das, on the allegation that she had become a convert to Islam, filed a Plaint in the Court of the third Munsif of Alipore in which she asked for a declaration to the effect that her marriage wi...
Tag this Judgment!Hirendra Lal Sarkar Vs. Smt. Kanaklata Choudhurani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal510
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. These are four connected revision eases which arise out of certain proceedings under Section 26 F, Ben. Ten. Act, as it stands after the amendment of 1938, commenced by one Hirendra Lal Sarkar who is the petitioner in Civil Revn. Cases Nos. 1131 and 1132 of 1941, for pre-emption of certain shares in eleven occupancy holdings, which were sold by some of the cosharers to one Kanaklata Chowdhurani who is opposite party No. 1 in these two revision cases. These raiyati holdings are situated at Bausdroni in the district of 24 Parganas and two of the cosharer tenants, viz., Golam Rab Jamadar and Khatijan Bibi sold their 2 as. 15 gds. and odd share to Kanaklata Chowdhurani by a conveyance which was executed on 10th July 1939. On 4th November 1939, there was another conveyance executed by Abdul Khalek Munshi and others who had 4 as. 6 gds. and odd share in all these eleven holdings in favour of the same Kanaklata Chawdhurani. Hirendra Lal Sarkar who claimed to be a cosharer...
Tag this Judgment!Haridas Saha Vs. Dulal Chandra Sadhukhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal103
Lodge, J.1. This rule was issued upon the District Magistrate of 24 Parganas and upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the District Judge which purports to have been passed under Section 476B, Criminal P.C., and which directs that a complaint be made of offences under Sections 465, 465/109 and 471, Penal Code, should not be set aside. The material facts are as follows : The present petitioner Haridas Saha instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Alipore in the year 1934 to set aside a certain revenue sale. That suit was heard by Mr. S.C. Chakravarty, an Additional Subordinate Judge of Alipore, and was : dismissed on 31st March 1936. On 25th May 1936, the present petitioner applied under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C., for review of the decree dated 31st March 1936 on the ground of discovery of a new and important matter. Notice was issued under Order 47, Rule 4 by Mr. Chakravarty while still an Additional Subordinate Judge. Thereafter on some date betwe...
Tag this Judgment!Nirendra Nath Banerjee Vs. Birendra Nath Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal480
Sen, J.1. The petitioner and another person were judgment-debtors. The decree passed against them was put into execution and some property was sold. The other judgment-debtor put in an application for setting aside the sale and also an application for relief under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. These matters were the subject-matters of Miscellaneous Case No. 19 and Miscellaneous Case No. 42 of 1941 before the learned second Subordinate Judge at Howrah. The petitioner also filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., praying that the sale be set aside on the usual grounds. The applications of the other judgment-debtors were withdrawn and thereupon the Subordinate Judge passed an order confirming the sale and dismissing the execution case on full satisfaction without dealing with the petitioner's application under Order 21, Rule 90. The petitioner moved the Subordinate Judge and asked that his application may be dealt with and that the order confirming the same may be set asi...
Tag this Judgment!Purna Chandra Pal and ors. Vs. Rai Mohan Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal45
1. This appeal is by the defendants in a suit to enforce a promissory note for Rs. 14,121-14-6 said to have been executed by Purna Chandra Pal on 13th April 1934 (=30th chaitra 1340 B.S.) in favour of his second son, Rai Mohan Pal. The plaintiffs are the six sons of Rai Mohan who died in August 1935. Purna Chandra died eleven months later, in July 1936. The contesting defendants are the surviving sons of Purna and the sons of his predeceased sons. The family pedigree is as follows:(See pedigree on next page)_________________________________________| |Brindaban Purna Chandra(died 1920) (died July 1936)| |Joy Chandra ____________________________________________________________(died 1929) | | | | | || Lalit Rai Mohan Krishori Mukunda Debendra Gosta___________________ (D-1) (died Aug. Mohan (died 1915) (died 1925) D-3| | | 1935) D-2 | |Krishna Satish Narendra | | |Chandra | ________________ || | | || Krishna Haripada || Pada D-6 D-7 || || ________________________________| | || Ramendra Sai...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarkadas Marwari and ors. Vs. Sm. Parbati Dassi W/O Nepal Chandra Nag ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal486
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of defendants 1 to 4, and arises out of a suit for recovery of possession on declaration of the plaintiff's title. The subject-matter of the suit is a strip of land described in Schedule kha of the plaint and forms the western half of a portion of the southern bank of a tank called Jinasini tank in the town of Bankura. The tank with its bank is dag No. 2804 of Khatian No. 1781, and has been described in schedule ka to the plaint. The plaintiff's case, shortly stated, is this. The whole of the land in Sohedule ka is said to have been held by one Dulal Keot in mokurari tenancy right from before the commencement of the Transfer of Property Act. On 7th February 1933, Dulal granted a dar mokurari settlement of this land to pro forma defendant 5, Bibhuti Bhusan Das, by a registered lease, Ex. 3. Then on 17th March 1933, Bibhuti transferred a portion of the land on the southern bank of the tank to the plaintiff by a kobala, Ex. 1, retaining the remaini...
Tag this Judgment!Saradindu Mukherjee Vs. Sm. Kunja Kamini Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal514
1. This appeal is on behalf of defendant 1 and it arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. Defendant 1 and three other persons took a mokarari lease of a large quantity of land in the Sundarbans from the predecessors of the plaintiffs, under a registered potta, dated 16th July 1928. The rent reserved was Rs. 5600 a year, payable in four instalments, in the months of Poush, Magh, Falgoon and Chait, every year. Besides this yearly rent, the lessees undertook to pay revenues and cesses payable in respect of the property and also rents due by the lessors to their superior landlords. Defendant 1 subsequently acquired the interest of his other three cosharers in the tenure and became the sole owner thereof. In 1932 there were certain litigations between the lessors and defendant 1 and as a result of these the rent was reduced from rupees 5600 to Rs. 5100 a year, all the other terms of the potta being kept intact. On 27th January 1936, corresponding to 13th Magh 1342 B.S., defend...
Tag this Judgment!Manasha Charan Chatterjee of Village Gasdia Vs. Jalkadar Dewan of Vill ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal102
ORDERBiswas, J.1. In this case, a landlord and his agent were both proceeded against under Section 74A, Bengal Tenancy Act, and fined separately for realizing an illegal imposition from a tenant. The landlord was fined Rs. 50, that being the maximum amount of fine which may be imposed under this section, and the agent a sum of rupee one only. The agent did not prefer any appeal against the order, but the landlord did. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal, and under Sub-section (2) of Section 74A, his order is final. The land-lord has, however, obtained the present rule on the ground that the order passed was without jurisdiction, and the main ground on which he relies is that the section does not contemplate a joint proceeding against both the landlord and his agent in respect of a single imposition. The question turns on the construction of the terms of Section 74A(1) which reads as follows:If a landlord or his agent realises from a tenant any imposition declared under Sub-...
Tag this Judgment!Panchanon Ray and ors. Vs. Fazlur Rahman Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal505
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a representative suit instituted under O. I, Rule 8, Civil P.C. The plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of the inhabitants of four villages, and ask for a declaration of a right of boat passage and certain consequential reliefs. The right is claimed over a stretch of water which is described in the plaint as a baor, and which they say appertains to a zemindary mahal bearing touzi No. 399 of the Nadia Collectorate. There is a rough sketch given in the plaint, which shows that the baor is a semicircular channel, and skirts the plaintiffs' villages on one side, and the defendants' lands on the other. It has an outlet at two ends towards the south into a river called the Kapotakshi, which flows east to west, forming as it were a chord to the semi-circle. It is said that the western outlet has been silted up, so that the only communication with the river now is by the other opening at the eastern end.2. The plaintiffs' case is that this ea...
Tag this Judgment!Bejoy Kumar Saha Represented by His Next Friend and Guardian Mother, K ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal533
1. The facts giving rise to these connected appeals may be shortly stated as follows: There were five insolvency proceedings started by certain creditors against five debtors, to wit, Doman Chandra Saha, Sibadas Saha, Bholadas Saha, Damini Sundari Dasi and Lilabati Dasi, who together with Bijoy Saha an infant who is the appellant before us, constituted a joint Hindu family carrying on business at Sainthia under the names of Doman Chandra Saha, Kunja Lal Saha, and Kunja Lal Saha and Sons. The District Judge of Birbhum by his order dated 14th September 1935 while holding that the debts due by each of the debtors exceeded. Rs. 500 in amount, and that there were acts of insolvency committed by all of them, dismissed the applications for insolvency on the technical ground that they were not properly signed and verified by the petitioning creditors. Against this order, there were five appeals taken to this Court, and this Court by its order dated 13th June 1939 set aside the judgment of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »