Kolkata Court June 1944 Judgments
Haji HafizuddIn Ahmed on Death FayezuddIn Ahmed and ors. Vs. Natabar C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal445
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The material facts giving rise to this appeal are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows: A revenue paying estate bearing touzi no. 138/3 of the Jessore Colleetorate and belonging to one Sukesh Chandra Deb Roy was attached by the Collector for arrears of cesses under the provisions of Section 99, Bengal Cess Act. The notification under that section was published on 27th and 28th January 1935 and the Manager, Naldanga Estate was appointed receiver by the Collector, with powers to collect rents from different classes of tenants who held lands in that touzi. There was a raiyati holding carrying an annual rental of Rs. 15-ll-3p. recorded in R. S. Khatian 181 of Mouza Kapashati within touzi 138/3 in the name of one Baul Mandal. On a certificate issued on the requisition of the receiver appointed by the Collector as mentioned above, this holding was put up to sale on 30th Sep. tember 1936 and purchased by the plaintiff Hazi Mafizaddin Ahmad. The plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Jadu Nath Roy and ors. Vs. Kshitish Chandra Acharji Choudhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal177
1. To secure two loans, one for Rs. 1,60,000 and the other for Rs. 73,000 the respondents executed in favour of the appellants predecessors-in-interest two mortgages on 16th August 1918. Interest payable was at 8 per cent. per annum with yearly rests. On 10th March 1926 a suit was filed to enforce both the mortgages. A preliminary mortgage decree for Rs. 4,21,851-1-6 was passed in April 1929 and the final mortgage decree in September of that year. In Execution Case No. 38 of 1930 all the mortgaged properties were sold in lots. They were purchased by the decree-holders for the total sum of Rs. 2,35,200. Those sales were duly confirmed, some in 1932 and the rest in 1935 and the decree-holder purchasers took delivery of possession of the different items of property on different dates ranging from 25th June 1933 to 9th March 1936. On 13th December 1937 they obtained a decree under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C., for the balance due to them, namely for Rs. 3,30,903. That decree was put into e...
Tag this Judgment!A.N.M. Ashraf and ors. Vs. Surendra Nath Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1944
Reported in: 1949CriLJ487
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Hooghly and the complainant to Bhow cause why certain proceedings against the petitioners should not be quashed. They were summoned under Section 426, Penal Code on the complaint of one Karali Chaian Sen. He died and the petitioners were eventually acquitted under B. 247, Criminal P. C. His son, the present opposite party', then moved the Magistrate and they have now been summoned under Section 427 Penal Code, They have obtained this rule. I also issued a rule upon them to show cause why the order acquitting them under Section 247, Criminal P. C., should not be set aside.2. Of course, Section 403 would be a bar to a re-trial of the petitioners under S. 426, This explains why they have been summoned under Section 427. The criminal allegation against them is that in ploughing a certain plot of land they damaged a crop which had already been sown by the complainant. In oases of this kind the allegation generally i...
Tag this Judgment!ichab Sheikh Vs. Khirode Kumar Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1944
Reported in: 1949CriLJ491
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule has been obtained by one of the accused and is directed against an order calling on him to pay costs of Be. 15 to the complainant on aocount of an order of adjournment made on 3rd December 1943, The petitioner did not attend on that day. His case is that he was ill and his lawyer filed an application for adjournment accompanied by a medical certificate. The Magistrate adjourned the case but in so doing made the order against which the present rule is directed.2. There is ample autherity for the proposition that the words 'on such terms as it thinks fit' in Section 344, Criminal P. C., are wide enough to include an order for costs. The question raised in the present rule, however, is whether such an order can be made when the Magistrate has no discretion to the refuse an adjourunament Here the Petitioner was absent and the Magistrate was bound to adjourn the case .3. In my judgment to put a party on terms implies that the party is asking for an order which...
Tag this Judgment!insane Nil Govinda Misra, Represented by Guardian Wife Khanta Mayi Deb ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal421
1. Bama Charan Misra, the common ancestor of the parties to this litigation died leaving five sons, Rarn Gobinda, Radha Gobinda, Broja Govinda, Nil Govinda and Dole Gobinda. The family is admittedly governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. Those five sons lived as members of a joint family. Dole Gobinda had no male issue. He died in September 1928 leaving a widow. Dole Gobinda's interest in the joint ancestral properties accordingly passed by survivorship to his four brothers. At the date of the in stitution of the suit of the sons of Bama Charan only Nil Gobinda was alive. He was, however, then a lunatic, having become insane at a comparatively early age. He died after the decree of the lower Court leaving a daughter and daughter's sons and his sonless widow, Khanta Mayi. Khanta Mayi has been substituted in his place. She is one of the respondents in First Appeal No. 140 and the sole appellant in First Appeal No. 152.2. Radha Gobinda died without leaving direct male descendants...
Tag this Judgment!Gobinda Chandra Banik Vs. Swarnamayi Rudrapal W/O Nadi Rudrapal and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal378
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit commenced by him to recover khas possession of a 5-anna share of the lands described in the schedule to the plaint on establishment of his patni rights to the same. The material facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows: The plaintiff's case is that the lands in dispute which are situated in mauzas Rajiura and Barabari appertain to a revenue paying estate known as Taluk Haidar Hasan bearing No. 56507/2 of the Sylhet Collectorate. There was a separate account (being separate account No. 1) opened in respect of a 5-anna share of the taluk in the name of Ram Kumar Deb sometime in the year 1880. This separate account was sold for non-payment of revenue as well as of local rates on 24th September 1923 and it was purchased by one Abdul Sattar, who is pro forma defendant 118 in this suit. In September 1927, Abdul Sattar sold his share in the lands of eight mauzas comprised in Tal...
Tag this Judgment!Nani Bala Saha W/O Narayan Chandra Saha Vs. Ram Gopal Saha and anr., M ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal19
1. Two persons Patit Paban Saha and Narayan Chandra Saha, were co-owners of extensive properties. The former died leaving him surviving his widow, Mon Mohini and two minor sons, Ram Gopal and Gour Gopal, and the latter died leaving a widow, Nani Bala, as his heiress. The heirs of Patit Paban and Narayan Chandra did not pull on well. Their differences, or it may be the differences between their supporters and advisers, became very acute with the result that towards the end of 1940 proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P. C, were started in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Magura. The parties to the criminal proceedings were Becharam Saha and Mon Mohan Saha, Kiran Chandra Bandopadhya, Chhodau Sardar, Surendra Kumar Saha and Bhupati Ch. Saha, officers, relations and partisans of the aforesaid heirs of Patit Paban and Narayan Chandra. The Sub-divisional Magistrate having formed the opinion, and we think rightly, that the continuance of those proceedings would not be conduciv...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›