Kolkata Court November 1946 Judgments
Anukul Chandra Chakravarty Vs. Province of Bengal, Pabna Collectorate ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal374
Clough, J.1. This rule has been obtained by the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 36 of 1944 in the 2nd Court of Subordinate Judge, Pabna, against an order made in that suit on 4-10-1915. Issues of misjoinder of defendants and causes of action which had been framed, had been set down for hearing. The learned trial Judge held that there was misjoinder and he directed plaintiff to elect by 10th November 1945, as to the defendants against whom he would proceed. The terms of the order are:The plaintiff do elect by the 10th November 1945, whether he should proceed against defendant 155(ka) and defendant 140 and the defendants that claim under them in respect of the lands they claim and possess or ?whether he should proceed against the other defendants in respect of the land they claim and possess. For this issue defendant 155(ka) and defendant 140 are allowed costs specifically incurred and pleader's fees Rs. 32 each. The plaintiff is to pay the same.2. The matter arises in this way. In about 193...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Chandra Chakrabarty Vs. Jyotsna Nath Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Cal112
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtor, and the only point is whether the application for execution was barred by limitation. The judgment-debtor's case was that the application was governed by the special law of limitation laid down in Article 6 of Schedule 3, Goalpara Tenancy Act, read with Section 177 of that Act which makes the provisions of the Act applicable to suits and proceedings in respect of claims arising out of fishery rights. The decree under execution in this case was in respect of the rent of a fishery. The decreeolder repelled the plea of the judgment-debtor on the ground that at the date of the suit the relationship of landlord and tenant did not subsist between the parties. There are numerous decisions of this Court which lay down that the special law of limitation under the Bengal Tenancy Act would not apply, if the relationship of landlord and tenant ceased to exist at the date of the suit and also at the date of the execution case. The sam...
Tag this Judgment!Sanat Kumar Mukerjee and ors. Vs. Tarapada Dutta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Cal36
Chakravartti, J.1. Two decisions, one of the Lahore High Court and another of the Allahabad High Court, have encouraged the appellants to raise a question of procedure which, in our view, is devoid of substance.2. The relevant facts are the following: One Kumar Sarat Kumar Roy was one of the appellants in the Court of appeal below. He died between the conclusion of the hearing and the delivery of the judgment. Apparently, the fact of the death was fact brought to the notice of the Court with the result that the decree came to be drawn up in the name of Sarat Kumar Roy who was dead at the time. Thereafter, the present second appeal was preferred to this Court by the legal representatives of the said Kumar Sarat Kumar Roy along with certain other persons. In the memorandum of appeal, the legal representatives of Kumar Sarat Kumar Roy named themselves, and along with the memorandum of appeal they filed an affidavit, stating the fact of Kumar Sarat Kumar Roy's death and its date. The Regis...
Tag this Judgment!Ahamad Mea Vs. Gunu Mea
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Cal105
Edgley, J.1. This rule relates to an applicatoin filed by the debtor under Section 37A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. It appears that the decree-holder obtained a decree against the petitioner in mortgage suit No. 2136 of 1934 as a result of which the mortgaged property was put up for sale in one lot and was purchased on 28-3-1936 by the decree-holder who obtained possession through the Court on 28-10-1936 Thereafter the decree-holder leased a portion (.15 acre) of the property purchased by him to the petitioner and retained the remaining portion of the property (1. 19 acres) in his own possession.2. The case for the petitioner is to the effect that he is entitled under Section 37A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act to apply for relief and to recover possession of the whole of the property amounting to 1.34 acres. He claims that in the alternative he should in any event be put into possession of that portion of the property which is still in the possession of the decree-holder.3. With...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Chandra Vs. Radha Kanta Saha Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Cal111
Clough, J.1. The appellant, Krishna Chandra Dutta Chowdhury filed a Suit No. 888 of 1929 in the Munsif's Court at Bogra for rent; the suit was contested but the appellant obtained a decree. Some of the lands in respect of which the rent suit was brought was in the district of Bogra and was darpatni; the remainder was a patni situated in Serajganj in the district of Pabna. In due course, the appellant put the lands at Bogra to sale in execution of his decree: that was in Excution Case No. 959 of 1937. The sale proceeds were not sufficient to satisfy the decree in full and thereafter the decree was transferred for execution to the Munsif's Court at Serajganj. To that execution objection was taken by the respondents judgment-debtors on two grounds namely, (a) that the decree was a nullity and void inasmuch as the Court of the Munsif at Bogra which had passed the decree had no jurisdiction to do so in respect of the rent due in respect of the land which was situated in the district of Pabn...
Tag this Judgment!V. Appalnarsiah Vs. P. Venkata Rao
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal350
ORDER1. The petitioner in this case is the decree-holder and the rule arises in connection with a petition filed by the judgment-debtor under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C. The petitioners instituted mortgage suit No. 39 of 1939 on 16-11-1939 and obtained decree on 22-2-1940. We are not concerned with the proceedings which were taken immediately after the decree for the purpose of executing it but we find that on 30-9-1942 the judgment-debtor instituted proceedings under Section 8, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, for the settlement of his mortgage debts. On 17-11-1942, a notice under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, waa issued by the Satkui Debt Settlement Board but on the following day, namely on 18-11-1942, the Board dismissed the judgment-debtor's application on the ground that he had filed a previous petition for the settlement of his debts before the Dhitpur Debt Settlement Board. On 19-11-1942 the execution sale took place. It appears that at about t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›