Kolkata Court August 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.
Birendra Lal Das Choudhuri and ors. Vs. Abdul Hekim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal155
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the decree, holders. They obtained a decree for a declaration of their title for khas possession and costs. In the present execution case they are attempting to recover their costs. The respondent, who is one of the judgment-debtors, filed an objection under Section 47, Civil P.C., on the ground that the case must be stayed lunder Section 3 of Assam Act (Act 1 of 1941). The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the application, stayed the proceedings against the respondent and allowed them to go on against ( the other judgment-debtors. The decree, holders appealed. The District Judge held that the Subordinate Judge was wrong, but he dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was incompetent. As there was some doubt as to the competency of the present appeal, the appellants have also obtained a rule.2. The first point for consideration therefore is whether the appeals in this Court and in the lower appellate Court are competent. The learned District Judge t...
Amar Nath Misra and ors. Vs. Trilochandas Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal565
Khundkar, J.1. The original zamindars of a certain tauzi, who were known as the Singh Deos, on 5th September 1879 executed a usufructuary mortgage of certain lands of the tauzi in favour of Chintamoni Dutt and Brojogopal Dutt and subsequently they executed other mortgages of lands of the tauzi in favour of the Dutts.2. In 1912 the Dutts brought a suit to enforce all these mortgages and obtained a decree. Before the decree was executed, settlement operations took place in that district and the record of rights was finally published in 1922. In that record one Hemendra Lai Singh Deo who was a successor-in interest of the original mortgagor was shown as the zemindar. Prior to the mortgage suit a certain tenure under this tauzi, which is the property with which this suit is concerned, was purchased by the Dutts in 1895. In the record of rights this tenure is described as apermanent tenure, not mukarrari. The rent of this tenure was recorded as being Rs. 148-11-0 in cash, plus a rent in kin...
Royal Calcutta Turf Club Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal166
Nasim Ali, J.1. The Royal Calcutta Turf Club (hereinafter referred to as the 'club') is the owner of 6/1A, Bhowanipore Road. The premises is a two-storied masonry building having 37 stables for race horses and 5 godowns in the ground floor and 23 rooms for syces' quarters in the first floor. In 1940 the annual value of this building under Section 127(a), Calcutta Municipal Act, was determined by the Assessor of the Calcutta Corporation to be Rs. 8505. This figure was arrived at in the following manner:Rent Rs. 875 X 12 = 10,500 Less 10 p. c. 1050 ______ 9450 Less 10 p.c. 945 ______ Rs. 8505.2. The club being dissatisfied with the valuation gave a notice of objection to the valuation under Section 139 of the Act. The ground of this objection as stated in the notice in substance was this: The stalls were meant for letting to race' horseowners. The club charged Re. 1 per stall per day. The total collection of rent during 1939-1940 was rupees 2793. The fair rent for each stall is Rs. 10 or...
Jitendra Chandra Roy Chowdhury and anr. Vs. S.N. Banerjee, Barrister-a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal181
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendants and it arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff as receiver to the estate of Gopiballav Sen and others to recover from the defendants money due on a hand-note. The plaintiff's case was that the two defendants jointly took a loan of Rs. 3000 only from the late Kumar Jamini Ballav Sen of Dimla, upon executing in favour of the latter, a hand-note for the said amount on 25th Jaistha 1332 B.S. corresponding to 8th June 1925. On the death of Kumar Jamini Ballav, his estate devolved upon his four sons, named Gopi Ballav, Jyotish Chandra, Rukmini Ballav and Manmatha. Their estate is now under the management of Mr. S.N. Banerji, Barrister-at-Law, who was appointed a receiver, by the original side of this Court in Extraordinary suit No. 4 of 1935, and it was the receiver who under authority of the Court instituted the present suit. The defendants, according to the plaintiff, had paid in all Rs. 581 in different instalments to...
Brojendra Kumar Bandopadhyaya and ors. Vs. Mt. Bilquis Khanam W/O Moha ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal332
B.K. Mudherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of defendants 1 to 3 and it arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiffs for setting aside a patni sale under Section 14 of Regn. 8 of 1819. The patni was created by a document dated 20th March 1876, executed by one Nanda Kumar Banerji, the ancestor of the appellants in favour of Jamradannessa, who was the predecessor-in-interest of defendants 4 to 10 in the present suit. There was a previous sale of the patni, under the Patni Regulation, on 15th May 1933 and it was purchased by one Khirod Bashini Devi. The purchaser did not furnish any security nor got her name mutated in the sherista of the landlord and on 18th June 1935, she executed a kobala in respect of the patni in favour of plaintiff 2, Ahamad Ali Khan and defendant 11, Gadadhar Chanda, for a consideration of Rs. 4050 only. It was stated in the kobala that the shares of these two purchasers in the patni were 9 annas 1 ganda and 6 annas 19 gandas respectively. Defendant 11, who i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›