Kolkata Court April 1947 Judgments
Anukul Chandra Manna Vs. Debendra Nath Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal386
ORDERHarries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Munsif refusing to stay an application under Section 83, T.P. Act.2. On 7th November 1941, opposite parties 2-and 3 executed an anomalous mortgage in favour of the petitioner under which the petitioner obtained possession of the property. On 1st June 1945, opposite parties 2 and 3 executed an agreement for sale of their interest in the, mortgaged property to the petitioner, that is, they agreed to sell the equity of redemption. On 27th June 1945, the opposite parties executed a sale deed of the equity of redemption in favour of opposite party 1. On 2nd October 1945 the petitioner instituted a suit against opposite parties 2 and 3 for specific performance of the agreement of sale of the equity of redemption dated 1st June 1945. On 27th November 1945, opposite party 1 made an application under Section 83, T.P. Act, for redemption of the mortgage of 7th November 1941.3. The petitioner who, as I have said, had al...
Tag this Judgment!Satkari Ghose Vs. Ram Lakshman Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal439
ORDERSen, J.1. After hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the Crown I am of opinion that this rule must be made absolute. The facts briefly are as follows : On 15-9-1946, the petitioner lodged an information at the Memari Police Station in the District of Burdwan charging one Ram Lakshman Dutt with the theft of a goat from his house. It is alleged that the goat was being taken away by Ram Lakshman Dutt at about 12-30 A.M. The police investigated the case and made a final report stating that the case was false and praying that the petitioner may be prosecuted for lodging a false case and thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 211, Penal Code. Upon this the petitioner filed what is known as a 'naraji' petition impugning the correctness of the police report and stating that his case was true. The learned Magistrate had previous to this issued a notice on the petitioner to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for having committe...
Tag this Judgment!Rohini Kumar Roy and ors. Vs. Uday Chand Mahatab
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal437
Chakravartti, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the judgment-debtors and is directed against an order dated 27-11-1945, passed by the learned Second Subordinate Judge of Hoogly by which an objection preferred by the appellants under Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act, was rejected.2. The material facts are the following. On 9-6-1942, the respondent brought a suit, being Title Suit No. 2 of 1943, in the Court of the Second Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, asking for specific performance of a contract as also the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1829-12-10. The case upon which these claims were made was of a somewhat complicated character. Shortly stated, the plaintiff's case was that a certain patni, namely lot Santoshpur was sold, for the arrears of the Bengalee year 1342 and purchased by the appellants. The defaulting patnidar brought a suit for having that sale set aside but during the pendency of that suit the patni wa3 sold again and purchased by a third party named Bata Krishna Mandal. This Bata Kri...
Tag this Judgment!Aswini Kumar Das Gupta and ors. Vs. Karamat Ali Kha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal165
Gopendra Nath Das, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the decree-holder. The appellant obtained a final decree in a mortgage suit on 6th September 1938. On an allegation that the judgment-debtor had paid a sum of Rs. 7 towards the decree the appellant started execution proceedings on 7th September 1942. Notice under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P.C., was directed to be issued and it appears from order No. 11 dated 7th January 1943, that the notice under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P.C., had been served prior to that date. The Court directed the decree-holder to file the costs and necessary processes by 14th January 1943. The judgment-debtor did not appear on that date in pursuance of the notice under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P.C. On 14th January 1943 the judgment-debtor appeared and prayed for time to file objections to the execution of the decree. On his prayer time was allowed till 21st January 1943. On that date neither the decree-holder nor the judgment-debtor appeared. The judgment-debtor ...
Tag this Judgment!Gostha Behari De Vs. Purna Chandra De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal219
R.C. Mitter, J.1. The subject-matter of the suit in which the appeal arises is a tank belonging to a deity Sri Sri Bishalakshi Thakurani. In 1907 one Abhoy Charan De purporting to act as a managing shebait granted a mourasi mokorari lease of the said tank to four persons, Annada Prosad De and others at a rental of Rs. 15 per year. Abhoy Charan De died in 1910 when another person became the managing shebait. In 1916 the original lessees, Annada and others, or their heirs as the case may be, sold their leasehold interest to Gostha Behari De, the plaintiff in the suit. In 1932 the villagers of the village claimed the deity to be a village deity and appointed a committee to look after the affairs of the said deity. Two members of the committee let out the said tank to defendant 34.2. It is the plaintiff's case that in 1934 he was dispossessed by defendant 34 aided by the members of the said committee. In 1936 he instituted the suit for declaration of his title as a mokorari mourashi tenant...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Parul Bala Ghosh Vs. Saroj Kumar Goswami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal147
Gopendranath Das, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises, for specific performance of a contract of sale of the disputed land or, in the alternative, for a refund of the sum paid by the plaintiff to defendant 1.2. The plaintiff's case, briefly stated, was that defendant 1 entered into a contract to sell the disputed land towards the end of Jaisth 1345 B.S. the agreed price being Rs. 199 which was to be paid by the middle of Sraban 1345. The plaintiff paid Rs. 3 as cost of stamp and a sum of Rs. 55 towards the price on 26-3-1345. Defendant 1 executed a deed of sale on 6th Sraban 1345, the date and the nature of the rayati contracted to be sold being left blank. The title deeds were made over to the plaintiff who paid, at the time, a further sum of Rs. 95; a sum of Rs. 49 remained due. Out of this a sum of Rs. 5 was paid during Durgapuja and Rs. 26 during the X'mas vacation in Pous 1345. The remaining sum of Rs. 18 was paid...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Safura Bibi Vs. Isob Bepari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal403
Chakravartti, J.1. This rule is directed against an order, dated 10th November 1945, passed by the learned District Judge of Dacca whereby he allowed an application in revision made to him under the proviso to Section 10, Bengal Alienation of Agricultural Land (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1914, and dismissed an application made by the petitioner under Section 4 of the said Act.2. We have already had occasion to hold in civil Revision case No. 2156 of 1945, decided on 16th April last, that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in any matter which the Collector is empowered to dispose of under the Bengal Alienation of Agricultural Land (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1944. It is unnecessary that the reasons in our judgment in that case should be repeated here. It will be sufficient to deal with the arguments which learned advocate for the petitioner advanced in the present case.3. The material facts are the following : The petitioner made an application on 1st February 1945, before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Amulya Chandra Bhaduri Vs. Krishnabondhu Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal463
Chakravartti, J.1. It is difficult to conceive of a more unmeritorious proceeding than was started by the appellant in the present appeal. It is a satisfaction to find that the relief asked for is not warnted by law.2. The material facts are the following: on 23-11-1937, the -appellant obtained a decree for Rs. 2007-6-0- inclusive of costs against the respondent from the Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta. Subsequently, this decree was transferred to the Court of the subordinate Judge at Patna for execution and there an execution case was registered on the 28-8-1939. An attachment of some properties of respondent in due course followed, but on the 8-10-1939, the respondent made an application before the Debt Settlement Board. Three days later, on the 11-10-1939, the executing Court received a notice under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act whereupon it directed' further proceedings to be stayed. The appellant took part in the proceedings before the Debt Settlement Board...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Nath Sardar Vs. Mahendra Nath Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal141
1. The respondent, Mahendra Kumar Haldar and one Harey Krishna Haldar. are the owners of an occupancy holding. On 21st Chaitra 1329 corresponding to 4th April 1923 they mortgaged it by way of conditional sale to the appellants describing the property as mukurari mourasi and the mortgagees were put in possession. According to the terms of the mortgage instrument, the usufruct of the property was to be taken by the mortgagees in satisfaction of interest only. On 26th April 1926 the mortgagees granted a sub-tenancy in respect of a portion of the mortgaged premises to one of the mortgagors, namely Mahendra Kumar Haldar, at an annual rent of Rs. 126 which was later on settled at Rs. 117 per year under Section 104, Ben. Ten. Act. The mortgagees as landlords brought a suit for arrears of rent and cesses for the years 1343 to 1346 B.S. against Mahendra Kumar Haldar. The defendant pleaded inter alia payment of a sum of Rs. 168-4-0 and that he was not liable to pay rent and cesses for the years ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdas Pandey and anr. Vs. Nagendra Nath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal197
ORDERSharpe, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted under Section 430, and Section 430 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, respectively, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-each, in default two months' rigorous imprisonment. The facts, which have not been fully set out in the judgment of the learned Magistrate, appear to be that the landlord had agreed with the tenants of Ms flats to pump water from a reservoir, in which filtered water supplied by the corporation was collected, and for this purpose a separate charge was imposed and paid by the tenants. One of the tenants alleged that on certain dates in the month of June 1946, the water was not pumped as per agreement, and on his making enquiries the pumpman, petitioner No. 1, informed him that the landlord, petitioner No. 2, has stopped the water supply, in other words had cancelled the order for pumping water into the flats.2. On these facts the learned Magistrate held that the offence of mischief as defined under S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »