Kolkata Court June 1946 Judgments
Santosh Das Gupta Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal179
ORDERLodge, J.1. This rule was issued on the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why convictions and sentences under Section 13 of Ordinance (35 [XXXV] of 1943) should not be set aside. The material facts are not disputed. On 13-6-1945, Mohammad Shirajuddin, and N.C. Kabir, Assistant Inspectors of Civil Supplies accompanied by U.K. Pal went to the shop where the three accused, Santosh Das Gupta, Bistodas Mukherjee and Ram Krishna Ghosh were working. They asked for gramophone needles of H.M.V. or any other make, for gramophone springs and for H.M.V. sound boxes. Accused Santosh Das Gupta and accused Bistodas Mukherjee were at the same counter. They replied that they had nothing but gramophone records for sale. The Assistant Inspectors went to another counter and asked whether there was a battery radio set of any make for sale. Accused Earn Krishna Ghosh replied that there were no radio Bets for sale. The Assistant Inspectors produced their identity cards and then searc...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Prova Debi W/O Abani Bhusan Chatterjee Vs. Sarat Chandra Basu and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal269
Edgley, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiff sued for a declaration of her title and for khas possession in respect of some land appertaining to a tenancy which she purchased at a civil Court sale in 1932. Defendants 2 to 7 claimed to be under-raiyats while; defendant 1 is a sub-tenant holding under defendants 2 to 7. Their contention was that their interest in the disputed land constituted a protected interest under Section 160, Clause (c), Ben. Ten. Act, which could not be annulled under Section 159 of the Act. They maintained that they had erected permanent dwelling houses on this land and had also planted gardens thereon of a permanent character.2. The trial Court held that defendants 2 to 7 had permanent dwelling houses on the land and that their interest was therefore protected as regards these houses. The learned Munsif held, however, that there was no permanent garden and as the lease could not be split up for the purpose of eviction he dismissed the p...
Tag this Judgment!Bisweswar Ray Choudhuri Vs. Abdul Dewan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal328
Hindley, J.1. In this appeal by the plaintiff, the sole question which remains for consideration here is whether the Subordinate Judge of Paridpur, reversing the Munsif of Chikandi who had decreed the suit, was right in holding that the appellant had failed to prove that he was the beneficial owner of the suit property under a document of transfer which stands in the name of the landlord defendants 1-15 who are his agnates.2. But before the appellant can even begin to discharge the more than usually heavy onus which he has taken on himself to prove the benami it was necessary for the Courts below to consider and decide whether the aforesaid document in fact achieved what it purports to achieve, namely a conveyance of the property from the original owners to the persons in whose favour it was executed, whether as benamdars or as actual beneficial owners under the document which has been marked Ex 1(a). The defence of the respondent here (I am treating defendant 24 as the hole contesting...
Tag this Judgment!Phani Bhusan Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Rajendra Nandan Goswami and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal11
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff, and it arises out of a suit commenced by him in the Court of the Third Munsif at Burdwan for recovery of arrears of durputni rents from the defendants, for the years 1343 and 1344 B.S. Of the two defendants, defendant 2 did not contest the suit, and the claim of the plaintiff was resisted by defendant 1 alone whose contentions were of a twofold character. The first contention was that there was a payment by this defendant of a sum of Rs. 49-7-0 every year on behalf of the plaintiff by way of contribution to the choukidari funds, and he was entitled to deduct this amount from the annual rents payable. The second defence was that the plaintiff's suit was barred under the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P.C. It was averred that in the year 1939, the plaintiff's predecessor brought a suit against defendant 1 claiming rent due in respect of the same durputni, and in this suit, rent was claimed only for the year 1342 B.S. a...
Tag this Judgment!Gobinda Chandra Saha and ors. Vs. Sasadhar Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal73
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit commenced by them in the Court of the Sadar Munsif at Faridpur for recovery of khas possession of the land in suit on establishment of their title to the same as purchasers at a mortgage sale.2. The disputed property appertains to C.S. Dag No. 501 of Mouza Faridpur and it admittedly belonged to one Monoranjan Chowdhury whose interest was recorded in Khatian No. 149 as kayemi mokarari jote bearing a rental of Rs. 16 a year. Under this mokarari interest of Monoranjan there was a non-transferable tenancy held by one Patal bearing a rental of Rs. 10 and under Patal's tenancy again there was an under-raiyati held by one Umesh Sen.3. On 27-9-1926, Monoranjan executed a mortgage bond in favour of some of the plaintiff's and the predecessor of the rest to secure an advance of Rs. 20,000 advanced by the latter and his mokarary right in G. Section Plot No. 501 was one of the properties included in the mor...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Sankar Sukul and ors. Vs. Prafulla Chandra Nag and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal294
K.C. Chunder, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs against a decree of the Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Mymensingh, in a suit for recovery of money due from the defendants on a promissory note, Ex. 1, dated 8th January 1927, for Rs. 8225 as principal and simple interest at 6 per cent, per annum. The suit was filed on 27th October 1941, that is, after the Bengal Money-lenders Act had come into operation. The promissory note in suit was the final result of a series of monetary transactions which began as early as 1915.2. On 1st November 1915, one Kailash Chandra Nag borrowed Rs. 800 with interest at 12 per cent, per annum by Ex. D. Again on 31st January 1916 he borrowed Rs. 500 with interest at 12 per cent, per annum by a promissory note Ex. D-1. Kailash on 21st October 1920, borrowed Rupees 400 at 12 per cent, by Ex. D-2 and again on 3rd July 1921, he took a loan of Rs. 100 at 12 per cent, interest by Ex. D3. It appears that he then retired to Benares. He had four sons, Profulla, Sure...
Tag this Judgment!Gahar Sheikh and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal345
Ellis, J.1. This is an appeal by two persons Gahar Sheikh and Jabed Ali who have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge of the Assam Valley Districts.2. There was one charge only against the two appellants Gahar Sheikh and Jabed Ali alias Saharer Bap that on 28-9-1944 at Bhatiakhali under police station Rupalihat they committed murder by killing one Hussain Prodhani having caused injuries on his person in furtherance of the common intention of both of them and thereby they committed an offence under Section 302/34, Penal Code. The prosecution case was: there was a quarrel between the deceased Hussain Prodhani and his co-villagers on the one hand who had set up a fishing bund in a water channel in Bhatiakhali and the accused persons Jabed Ali, Gahar Sheikh and others of their side who had been erecting another fishing bund above that erected by the complainants on the other hand. One day Hussain Prodhani broke the bund erected by the accused persons and carried it aw...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeshi Lal Sharma Vs. Sm. Snehalata Dassi W/O Profulla Krishna Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal68
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendant, and it arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff for recovery of khas possession of the land in suit on the allegation that the defendant was a tenant in respect of the same for a period of 4 years and that the term of the tenancy expired on 31-5-1943.2. The disputed property is a plot of land measuring 12 cottas and 1 chittak which is the southern portion of a 18 cotta plot situated at Ramesh Mitter Road, Bhowanipore, and belonged admittedly to one. Jibon Krishna Ghosh. After the death of Jiban, it devolved upon his two sons, - Prafulla and Jnanendra - and Jnanendra having subsequently transferred his share to Prafulla, the latter became the sole owner of the property. There was originally one Kshetra Nath Banerjee in possession of the land as a tenant, under the proprietors, but he having vacated the land, the present defendant took lease of the property from Prafulla at a rental of Rs. 80 per month for a period of...
Tag this Judgment!Mahim Chandra Ghatak and ors. Vs. Dingamanik Union Board and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal41
Chakravartti, J.1. In the year 1864, the Bengal Legislature commenced a course of legislation on the pattern of English statutes under which public roads and certain other means of communication were placed under the control and management of local authorities. A beginning was made with municipal areas and, as in England, it was thought that in order that the local authorities might effectively discharge the obligation laid upon them, it was necessary to vest in them some property in the material objects to which the public right was attached. What was thus vested in the local authorities was not the same under all the successive statutes, but was enlarged or varied from time to time. Under Act 3[III] of 1864, it was 'all public highways, not being the property of and repaired by and kept under the control of the Government and not being private property.' Under Act 5[v] of 1876, it was 'all roads, bridges, embankments, banks, ghats, wharves, jetties, wells, channels and drains, not be...
Tag this Judgment!Abani Bhusan Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Hem Chandra Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal93
Sharpe, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision in appeal of the Additional District Judge, Barisal. In the trial Court the plaintiffs asked for a declaration of a right of way over a certain path and for an order directing the removal therefrom of certain obstructions caused by the defendants. Their suit was decreed with costs. On appeal by the defendants, and on the joint petition of the appellants and the respondents, the entire subject-matter of the dispute between them was referred to the arbitration of 3 local pleaders on 19-12-1940. The arbitrators filed their award on 21-3-1941, and after hearing objections to the award, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal in terms of the award, which modified to some extent the decree made by the trial Court.2. The plaintiffs have now appealed to this Court and the only point which has been urged by Mr. Guha for the appellants is that the lower appellate Court had no authority to refer the dispute to arbitratio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »