Kolkata Court March 1947 Judgments
Ananta Kumar Shyam Roy Vs. Surendra Kumar Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal424
Das, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the judgment-debtor. The appellant borrowed money on a mortgage from the respondent and another person. In 1932 a mortgage suit was instituted, being Suit No. 42 of 1932 of the Second Court of the Munsif at Dacca by the respondent against the appellant, the co-mortgagee being added as a pro forma defendant in the suit. On 2-11-1932, the mortgage suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 868-8-0. The decree directed that the respondent will get a moiety share of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 868-8-0 plus the full costs of the suit which was, assessed at Rs. 183-13-9. The proforma defendant being entitled to the remaining moiety share of Rs. 868-8-0. This decree was executed in 1933 in title execution case No. 69 of 1933 of the Second Court of the Munsif at Dacca. The respondent decree-holder alone executed that decree. The application for execution is not on record and it is difficult to say what the terms of the said application were. The application, however, ...
Tag this Judgment!Byomkesh Mukherjee Vs. Bhupendra Narayan Sinha Bahadur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal179
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtor and it arises out of an objection under Section 47, Civil P.C., to the execution of a decree. The objection was overruled by the learned Subordinate Judge of Birbhum by his order dated 4th September 1946. The decree in question had been passed on 24th March 1945 in a rent suit by consent of parties. A petition of compromise was put in on that date which was made a part of the decree. The compromise decree as well as the petition of compromise shows that the claim in the suit was for a aum of Rs. 71,947-10-3 on account of rent of a Patni mehal for the period from 1346 B.S. to the month of Jaistha 1349 B.S. calculated at the rate of Rs. 23,705 as the annual rent and Rupees 3025-13-0 as the annual cess payable for the Patni. By the compromise the amount payable by the defendant was fixed at a sum of Rupees 72,986-9-6 including costs. The decretal amount was made payble in a number of instalments which were specified in the solenama and...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Ratan Mudhara and ors. Vs. Debendra Prosad Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal391
Gopendranath Das, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs brought this suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession on the allegation that the disputed lands appertained to a jama of Es, 7-8-0 which was held by one Keramatulla under Gouriprosad Roy and Hariprosad Roy; that Gouriprosad Roy and Hariprosad Roy owned this superior interest in tenancy right under the Maharaja of Cossimbazar at a rent of Rs. 198-8-0. The plaintiffs' allegation further was that the tenancy right of the Roys was sold in execution of a decree for rent obtained by the Maharaja of Cossimbazar and was purchased by one Haricharan Karanjai and Charubala Debya. The plaintiffs further alleged that Keramatulla's jote which was held in occupancy right, was brought to sale in execution of a decree for money and was purchased by the plaintiffs on 8-5-1930. The plaintiffs as auction purchasers obtained delivery of possession on 6-3-1931, and remained in possession for some year...
Tag this Judgment!Malaya Kumar Mazumdar Vs. Fakir Mohammad Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal393
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff, whose suit was dismissed by both the Courts below. The main question raised in the suit was as to the nature of the interest held by the plaintiff in certain lands in a mouza called Kaibartagram, whether it was a darmokorari interest, as alleged by the plaintiff, or a darpatni interest, as alleged by the contesting defendant. That again depended on the question whether a tenancy which had been created in the year 1253 B.S., by Ex. 9 was a patni taluk or a mourashi mokorari grant in respect of the disputed lands. The grantor of the lease, Ex. 9, was one Radha Nath Lahiri, and, on the face of the document, it purported to be a patni lease. It comprised the lessor's interest in respect of a 7 as undivided share in two toujis therein mentioned and of a similar share in certain Brahmottar lands. It is these Brahmottar lands with which we are concerned in this suit. The plaintiff's case is that though the lease purported to foe a patni grant e...
Tag this Judgment!Majeda Khatun D/O Abdul Khaleque Meajhi and ors. Vs. Nurul Huq and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal389a
ORDEREdgley, J.1. Having regard to the order dated 10th December 1946, under which Rule No. 922 was discharged against opposite parties 14, 15 and 17. This Rule (No. 922) has now become infructuous as against the other parties to the rule, namely, as against all the parties to that rule, which relates to title Suit No. 126 of 1945.2. With regard to Rule No. 921, the position is that a title suit instituted by the petitioners has I been stayed under the provisions of Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. In this suit the petitioners were seeking to obtain a declaration of : their title in respect of some property, which they had purchased at a revenue sale on 6th January 1928. Prom the terms of the plaint, it does not appear that this suit relates to any debt. It would therefore appear that Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, can have no application in a case of this sort and the principles laid down in Sachirani Biswas v. Nagendra Nath : AIR1942Cal552 , are applicable. ...
Tag this Judgment!Abu Isa Thakur and anr. Vs. Dinabandhu Banik and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal426
Das, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of defendants 1 and 2 and is directed against the decision of C.C. Basu Esqr., Additional District Judge, Tippera Chittagong.2. The disputed lands bear C.S. plots 6020, 6021, 6022 and comprise homestead, tank and garden. They belonged to Shib Chandra Banik and Balai Charan Banik. The plairitiff is the only son of Balai and has 8 annas share in the said three plots, Shib Chandra left an only son Jagabandhu. Jagabandhu died in 1338 B.s., leaving his daughter Brahmamayee, pro forma defendant 3, as his sole heiress. The principal defendants, who are Mahomedans purchased the 8 annas share o Brahmamayee; on the allegation that the principal defendants on the strength of their purchase erected certain huts on the disputed lands and cut down some trees the plaintiffs brought the present suit for purchase of the share of the defendants or in the alternative for partition of the disputed plots and for temporary injunction.3. The defences material for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chittagong Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Ahmedar Rahaman Mistri and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal398
Sharpe, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant and the appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of certain property which belonged originally to Osi Mean and Asamuzzama under the landlord Nazumud-din Ahmed. According to the plaintiff Bank the: interest of Osi Mean and Asamuzzama was purchased by the father of defendants 3, 4, 9 and 10 along with defendants 5-8, and thereafter Rama Charan, father of defendants 3 and 4 got-the raiyati in his exclusive share by amicable partition with his cosharers. On 22nd August 1928, Rama Charan and his cosharers mortgaged the disputed property and other property to the plaintiff. Thereafter the plaintiff sued the mortgagors and obtained a decree. They purchased the disputed property in execution of their mortgage decree on 8th February 1933.2. In 1935, the plaintiff sued the under-raiyats, defendants 1 and 2, for rent. Those defendants alleged that defendant 12 was their landlord, he having purchased the property in...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Ram Agarwalla Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal420
ORDERSen, J.1. This rule must be made absolute. The proceedings have been illegal from beginning to end. The petitioner has been charged with having refused to sell cloth thereby acting in contravention of the provisions of Section 12(6), Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order of 1943. This order was passed in the exercise of powers conferred upon the Central Government by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 81, Defence of India Rules. The disobedience of this order is made punishable by Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules.2. Now, Section 23, Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order provides as follows:No prosecution for the contravention of any of the provisions of this order shall be instituted without the previous sanction of the Provincial Government.3. In this case the petitioner was arrested by the police without any warrant being issued by any Court....4. The nest thing that happened is this. The officer in charge of the police station for some reason or other released the petitioner on bail. This did ...
Tag this Judgment!Timbrell (H. M. Inspector of Taxes) Vs. Lord Aldenhams Executors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1947
Reported in: [1948]16ITR67(Cal)
LORD GREENE, M. R. - The main question in this appeal is whether the appellants were properly assessed to income-tax in respect of shares of profits in an Australian firm in which they were partners, remittances from which are said by the Crown to have been payable to them in the United Kingdom. The rule under which the assessment was made was rule 2 of the Rules applicable to Case V which, at the relevant date reads in this way, so far as material : 'The tax in respect of income arising from possessions out of the United Kingdom, other than stocks, shares, or rents shall be computed on the full amount of the actual sums annually received in the United Kingdom from remittances payable in the United Kingdom, or from property imported or from money of value arising from property not imported, or from money or value so received on credit or on account in respect of any such remittances, property, money or value.'The transactions in respect of which the claim of the Revenue is based and re...
Tag this Judgment!Amir Sardar and anr. Vs. Ismail HossaIn Sardar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal405
ORDERMitter, Ag. C.J.1. One Golap Khan was the owner of an occupancy holding. Before such holdings were made transferable by law, that is, before the amendment of the Bengal Tenancy Act in 1928, he sold the said holding to one Korman Munshi. There was no custom which made occupancy holdings transferable in that locality. Korman was not recognised as a tenant by the landlord but continued to be in possession of the land paying rent on Marfatdari receipts. He died leaving his two sons, Ismail, the opposite party before me, and Aftabuddin, as his heirs. They possessed his properties including the holding in suit in equal shares. The holding in suit was not partitioned between them. In March 1944 Aftabuddin sold his undivided eight annas in the said holding to petitioner 1, Amir Sardar, for Rs. 200. The opposite party came to know of the said sale in Augrahan-1351 (November, December 1944) and shortly thereafter filed on 3rd January 1945 an application for preemption under Section 26P, Ben...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›