Kolkata Court July 1946 Judgments
Mafzalar Rahman Choudhury and ors. Vs. Sreejukta Karimannessa Begum an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal241
Sharpe, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit brought by them for a declaration that the certificate sale in respect of the taluk described in the schedule to the plaint was fraudulent, irregular and without jurisdiction, and for restraining defendant 1, who is a ward of Court represented by the General Manager, Court of Wards, Chittagong, from interfering with their right in the disputed land and from settling the land with any other persons. The ease for the plaintiffs was that defendants 2, 3, 5, 9, 12 and 13, in collusion with the officers of the Court of Wards, got certificate cases 719 of 1931-32 and 1732 of 1933-81 instituted and the taluk put up to certificate sale by suppression of the notices prescribed by Section 7, Public Demands Recovery Act, and the sale proclamation. Certain of the plaintiffs and other necessary parties were not, it was alleged, made parties in the certificate eases or served with any notices in connexion with the sale, and it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Brojadulal Dhar and ors. Vs. Khoiruma Khatun Choudhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal248
Chakravartti, J.1. The question of law arising in this appeal, which is one under Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act, is concluded by authority.2. It appears that on 19-4-1938, the appellants, who were the landlords of a patni held by the respondents, brought a suit for the putni rent for the years 1341-1343 B.S. When this suit, was pending, the appellants initiated proceedings under the Putni Regulation for the rent of the year 1344 B.S. and at the putni sale held in, consequence thereof, purchased the tenure themselves on 16-5-1938. The rent suit was subsequently decreed for Rs. 1714-14-6 on 4-11-1938 Thereafter, Section 168. A was introduced into the Bengal Tenancy Act and came into force on 9-1-1941. On 19-1-1942, the appellants applied, for execution of the decree against other properties of the judgment-debtors and this appears to have, been the first application.3. The inevitable objection under Section 168-A, Ben. Ten. Act was raised by the judgment-debtors who contended that, in view...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Kazim Ali and anr. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Sil
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal270
Sharpe, J.1. The appellants are the plaintiffs, judgment-debtors, and the facts are not disputed. On 12-4-1930 the plaintiffs executed a mortgage bond for Rs. 600 in favour of the respondent, interest being at 20 per cent, per annum. The mortgagee sued on the bond and obtained a preliminary decree for Rs. 1200 on 17-11-1936. The decree was made final on 21-12-1936. The mortgaged property which comprised the land of seven schedules was put up to sale and purchased by the decree, holder for Rs. 500. The sale was confirmed on 16-9-1937 and delivery of possession was taken through Court on 30-9-1937. The decree-holder did not however succeed in obtaining actual possession and in 1938 he instituted Title suit No. 116A/38 for a declaration of his title and for khas possession. He obtained a decree for the entire property in the trial Court. In appeal, the suit was withdrawn in respect of the property contained in Schedule 4, but the decree of the trial Court was confirmed on 15-9-1939 in res...
Tag this Judgment!Saibalini Gupta Vs. Uma Sundari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal275
Chakravartti, J.1. This appeal is by the decree-holder and arises out of an application made by her under Section 86(2)(e), Bengal Money-Lenders Act, and the objection raised thereto by the judgment debtor under Section 47. Civil P.C. Both the Courts below have dismissed the appellant's application on the same ground.2. The material facts are the following. It appears that the appellant obtained against the respondent a decree for Rs. 55-7-6 in Small cause Court Suit No. 288 of 1988 of the Court of the Sixth Munsif of Dacca. She put the decree into execution and brought certain properties of the judgment-debtor to sale at which she purchased the properties herself. Possession was delivered to her on 2-12-1941. Thereafter, on the Bengal Money-Lenders Act having come into force, the respondent commenced a suit under Section 86 of that Act which was other class Suit No. 155 of 1943. In that suit, the old decree was re-opened and a new decree passed for Rs. 85 on 511-1943. The amount of th...
Tag this Judgment!Sabitri Sundari Peshakar Vs. Jalekha Bai W/O Chandu Mea and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal244
Ellis, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of Moulvi A. Majid, Munsif, Second Court, Feni, dated 7-4-1945 which was modified by Mr. M. Ahmed, Additional Subordinate Judge of Noakhali on 21-11-1945 in respect of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for ejectment of a chandina tenant. Before the learned Munsif the plaintiffs were successful in part and the suit was decreed on contest; the plaintiffs were to recover a sum of Rs. 256-8-0 on account of rent for 3 years from Falgoon 1347 to Magh 1350 B.S. but the plaintiffs' prayer for the ejectment of the defendant was disallowed. The plaintiffs then carried the matter on appeal and were successful before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge who modified the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif and directed that the defendant be ejected from the basha in question. The defendant has now moved this Court on second appeal.2. The main point on which the parties joined issue in the Courts below concerned the validity o...
Tag this Judgment!Madholal Agarwalla Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal280
ORDERLodge, J.1. This rule was issued upon the District Magistrate of Dinajpur to sbow cause why conviction and sentence under Section 13 (2), Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance (Ordinance 35 [XXXV] of 1943) should not be set aside. The case for the prosecution was that the present petitioner Madholal Agarwalla was the proprietor of a shop known as the Adarsha Bastralaya at Maldapatti in Dinajpur town. On 14-12-1944 two persons Asita Ranjan Banerjee and Kedareswar Chakravarty went to the shop at about 9 30 A.M. to purchase warm coating. Asita Raujan asked the salesman Surja for warm coating, Surja produced a piece of blazer cloth and quoted Rs. 16-8-0 per yard as the price. Asita Ranjan asked for two yards and two giras of the cloth and a piece measuring two yards and two giras was cut and handed over to Asita Ranjan. A cash memo was drawn up in which the total price of Rs. 86-2-6 including sale tax was shown. But 2 annaa 6 pies was deducted and Rs. 36 was paid. A police of...
Tag this Judgment!Rahim Bux Talukdar and anr. Vs. Kanakalata Choudhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal255
Chakravartti, J.1. This appeal is by the judgment, debtors and raises a question of some importance under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act.2. The material facts are the following : The respondent Kanaklata Choudhurani obtained OH 18-7-1933, an instalment decree for Rs. 1002 against the appellants in Money suit No. 26a of 1933 of the Court of the Second Munsif of Serajganj. She put the decree into execution, but was met by the appellants with an application made to the Kazipur Debt Settlement Board under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. That Board, in due course, served the executing Court with a notice under Section 34, as a result whereof the proceedings were stayed. The Board subsequently gave its decision on the application and decided that nothing was due to the respondent under the decree.3. An appeal from the decision of the Board, an application in revision to the District Judge and a further application to this Court, all failed, the last one having been disposed of by H...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Sing Vs. Saibalini Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal183
Ellis, J.1. In this case, a Rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Burdwan and on the opposite party Saibalini Ghose to show cause why an order passed by Mr. P.C. Gope, Magistrate of the First Class at Asansol on 27-11-1945 requiring the petitioner, Shyam Sing to pay ten rupees per month for the maintenance of the child which the opposite party Saibalini Ghose bore him should not be set aside. The opposite party Saibalini Ghose was married to one John William who appeared in the proceedings as the petitioner's witness No. 2 in 1935. According to her own case she was deserted by John William in 1936 since which date she has never seen him. In 1943 she went to live with the petitioner Shyam Sing who is a mistry in the employ of the Indian Iron and Steel Company and is a widower. When she announced to the petitioner Shyam Sing that she had conceived he requested her to take some medicine in order to procure abortion. Saibalini Ghose refused to do so and accordingly Shyam Sing turne...
Tag this Judgment!O.C. Ganguly Vs. Kamalpat Sing Dugar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal236
Chakravartti, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant who, on being sued for ejectment from the premises where he was living, pleaded the Calcutta House Rent Control Order in bar. The Courts below have refused this plea on two grounds : (1) that he is not a tenant at all but a mere licensee and (2) that assuming he is a tenant, he is a defaulter and therefore not entitled to the benefit of the Calcutta House Rent Control Order. A decree for ejectment has accordingly been passed and the defendant has appealed.2. In opening the appeal, Mr. Gupta at first stated that in view of the second finding which was a finding of fact, his client could not claim, the protection of the House Rent Control Order and could not expect a reversal of the decree for ejectment. He would, therefore, confine himself to the first finding and if he succeeded in getting it reversed and establishing a tenancy, that might be useful to his client in pursuing his remedy under the Calcutta House Rent Control Order in som...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioners of Pabna Municipality Vs. Naba Gobinda Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal245
Sharpe, J.1. The appellants are the Municipal Commissioners of Pabna and the appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff for a declaration that the assessment of rates in respect of holdings 408 and 409 of the Pabna Municipality is illegal and ultra vires, for recovery of a sum of us. 307, the amount, with interest, realised on the basis of the disput. ed assessment, and for a permanent injunction restraining the Municipality from realising any further amounts on that basis, The trial Court gave the plaintiff a decree for the first two reliefs but refused his prayer for a permanent injunction. His decision was affirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge of Pabna.2. The facts are not disputed and are as follows. There was anv assessment by the Pabna Municipality in 1935 which came into force in the year 1936-1937. The assessment list then prepared showed the annual Evaluation of the holdings 408 and 409 as Rs. 1320 and Rs. 720 respectively but that these valuations had been altered to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »