Kolkata Court June 1946 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.
Radhika Mohan Nandy Vs. Amrita Lal Nandy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal301
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The facts giving rise to these two connected appeals which arise out of one and the same suit may be shortly stated as follows : One Peari Mohan Nandi, a resident of Kantal in the district of Dacca, installed two Idols in his house, and by a deed of arpannama, dated 21-4-1920, dedicated a number of properties in favour of these Deities. Under the terms of the arpannama, Peari was to be the shebait during his life time, and after his death the shebaitship would devolve upon his sons, grand, sons, great grandsons and other male descendants. There is a clause in the arpannama which clearly indicates that no female heir could become a shebait till the line of male descendants was extinguished. Peari had two sons by his first wife who predeceased him, namely, Radhika and Brindaban. Radhika is defendant 1 in the suit, while Brindaban is dead, and his three sons and heirs who are all minors figure as defendants 2 to 4 in the suit. After the death of his first wife, Peari ...
Braja Nath Bhakat Vs. Bimalendu Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal21
Hindley, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, at the annual rate of Rs. 103-6-0, for the years 1344-1347 B.S. in respect of certain dags recorded in khatians 2, 3, 4, 5, 26, 27 and 34, the allegation being that this consolidated joma had come into existence, with the consent of the tenant, in the year 1336. There was a previous rent suit for the years 1338 and 1339, in respect of these khatians and dags and it was decreed ex parte, the amount having, according to plaintiff, been recovered in execution. The defence was that there was one joma for the dags of khatian 27 and another for those of khatian 34; that the suit lands in khatians 26 and khatians 2-5 (being khas khatians of the original landlords) were in the occupation of the appellant who admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of all the suit lands, but made a case that the land held by him in these latter khatians (2-5 and 26) remained unassessed to rent; the story o...
Ananga Mohan Roy Chowdhury Vs. Kalidas Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal283
K.C. Chunder, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff who was the original proprietor of touzi No. 372 of the Tipperah Collectorate to set aside a revenue sale held on 24-8-1938, for non-payment of arrears of land revenue due up to Agrahayan of the corresponding Bengali year. The Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Tipperah, held that the sale was not to be set aside and this appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in this Court.2. Three points have been urged in the appeal. The first is that the revenue sale was null and void as there were no arrears of revenue, the kist dates for which the sale was held being wrongly calculated. The second point is that 30 clear days did not elapse between the affixing of the Section 6 notice and the holding of the sale. The third point urged is that there has been substantial injury by reason of this illegality or irregularity.3. We take up the question of the kist dates first. A short history will make things clearer. The first docu...
Saila Bala Dasi Vs. Atul Krishna Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Cal63
ORDERLodge, J.1. This rule was issued to show cause why an order passed Under Section 174 (3), Ben. Ten. Act, should not be set aside.2. The material facts are as follows. The landlord instituted a suit for assessment of rent; and for recovery of rent and obtained a decree. In execution of that decree, the holding was put to sale on 21st May 1942. The sale was confirmed in the ordinary way on 22nd June 1942. On 3rd July 1942, the auction-purchaser took out the sale certificate and, according to the record, obtained delivery of possession through Court on 2nd March 1943. On 12th June 1943 one of the tenant judgment-debtors filed two applications before the Court. One was an application under Order 9, Rule 13 and the other was an application Under Section 174(3), Ben. Ten. Act. In these applications he asserted that he had been kept out of knowledge both of the decree and the sale and he had come to know of both of them on 3rd June 1943, The application under Order 9, Rule 13 was dismiss...
Shibram Kairi Vs. Md. Masadar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal17
Hindley, J.1. The plaintiff here was one of the defendants in a suit brought by the present defendants who as plaintiffs had instituted Title Suit No. 50 of 1939 in the second Court of the Munsif of Maulvi Bazar. The parties reached a compromise in that suit and on 30th April 1940 (17th Baisakh 1347), it was agreed between the parties that if the defendant there (present plaintiff) paid Rs. 75 into Court within three months of the date which the conditional solehnama bore, the suit in which it was filed would stand dismissed and that if there was failure to pay in that amount within the time allowed, the suit would stand decreed. Under some procedure with which I am not familiar, a so-called 'preliminary decree' was drawn up that day, and it is important to notice that in that decree, the date for application for a final decree was shown as 31st July 1940, which can only mean that the last date for payment was the 30th July 1940.2. The money was admittedly not deposited by that date wi...
Tarak Chandra De Vs. Asoke Prosanna Bal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal185
Chakravartti, J.1. The appellant, who is a tenant of a shop room in the town of Mymensingh, was required by a notice dated 6-8-1943 to quit the premises by 31st day of the month. He did not comply and thereupon a suit was brought for his ejectment on 3-9-1943, which was decreed on 26-4-1944. An appeal against this decree was dismissed on 10-11-1944. Execution of the decree was commenced on 23-4-1945, but was met by the appellant with an objection under Section 47, Civil P.C., which was based on para. 10A(2), Bengal House Rent Control Order. It was contended that in view of the provisions of Para. 10A(2), the decree could not be executed without the permission of the Rent Controller which, admittedly had not been obtained.2. The executing Court gave effect to this contention and directed that the proceedings must be stayed till the decree-holder produced proof of the Rent Controller's permission. On appeal, the lower appellate Court held that para. 10A(2), House Rent Control Order, had ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›