Kolkata Court April 1947 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.
Governor-general of India in Council Vs. Dedraj Bajuria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal168
ORDERLodge, J.1. This rule arises on of a suit decided by the Subordinate Judge of Bankura in Small Cause Court jurisdiction. The material facts were as follows:2. On 10-7-1944, one Sioprasad booked 250 bags of rape seeds from Sahadal Railway Station to Bankura. On 18th July, the Railway receipt was endorsed by the consignor to Dedraj Bajuria alias. Thetraj Bajoria The consignment arrived at the Bankura station and was anloded on 17-7-1944. The consignes went to take delivery on 21-7-1944. It was then found that 22 bags were damaged and some of the contents at least were missing. According the consignee took delivery of the undamaged bags and the damaged 22 bags were left with the Railway authorities for assessment of shortage. The assistant Commercial Inspector subsequently assessed the loss to be 26 maunds 17 seers. The Plaintiff claimed the value of 26 maunds 17 seers of rape seeds at Rs. 20 per maund and he also claimed 8 annas per bag as the price of the bags which had been damage...
Emperor Vs. Gouranga Chandra Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal418
ORDERSen, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Dacca recommending that the conviction and sentence passed on one Gouranga Chandra Pal be set aside. The facts which need be stated for the purpose of this reference briefly are as follows : Gouranga Chandra Pal is a dealer in mustard oil at Mirkadim within the jurisdiction of Police-station Munshiganj. The case against him is that he did not submit certain fortnightly returns and did not maintain a register or any accounts showing receipts, sale and the daily stock position with respect to mustard oil, thereby committing an offence made punishable under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules.2. Under Rule 81 of the Defence of India Eules, the Central or Provincial Government may make certain orders of thenature mentioned in the rule. If any person contravenes an order made under the rule he is punishable under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 81. The case for the prosecution is that the District Magistrate, on 5th April 1946, made...
Rajendra Nath Manna and ors. Vs. Jogjiban Hansda and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal440
ORDERHarries, C.J.1. The only question in this case is whether a lease under which a rent was payable annually is a lease for valuable consideration. The point arises under Section 37A(1)(c)(iii), Bengal Agricultural Debtors (Amendment) Act of 1942.2. It is common ground that there was a lease in this case and the Courts have held that it was a bona fide one. Learned advocate for the opposite party has attempted to challenge that finding, but it appears to me that at this stage in revision I cannot possibly go into a question which is purely one of fact.3. Learned advocate for the opposite party also urged that the view of the Courts below that a lease where no selami was paid is a lease without valuable consideration is the correct one. According to the Courts below, the rent payable every year could not be regarded as consideration for the lease.4. In this country a lease can exist where no rent is payable and it may be that such a lease would be a lease not for valuable consideratio...
Kalidas Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Sm. Sushila Bala Devi W/O Bibhuti Bhu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal461
1. One Jugal Keot was the owner of two-annas undivided share in a ferry ghat. On 17-5-1896, he borrowed money from one Jatadhari Thakur and mortgaged in usufructuary form his two annas undivided share in the ferry ghat to secure the said loan. It is the plaintiff's case that Jugal later on redeemed the mortgage and then sold his undivided two-annas share to the plaintiff on 8-7-1935. Thereafter she went to take possession but was resisted by defendants 1 to 7 with the result that she instituted this suit, which is a suit for declaration of her two annas share and for recovery of possession. The suit was filed on 20-7-1938. The finding of the last Court of fact is that the story that Jugal redeemed the mortgage which he had executed in favour of Jatadhari, was not a true story. The position, therefore, is that the plaintiff has purchased the equity of redemption which Jugal had in the property. The Court of appeal below on the finding that Jugal had not redeemed the mortgage in favour o...
Bhola Nath Dutta Vs. Laya Majhi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal451
Chakravartti, J.1. This rule is directed against an order dated 10-8-1945, passed by the learned District Judge of Midnapur by which he rejected an application in revision made to him under the proviso to Section 10, Bengal Alienation of Agricultural Land (Temporary Provisions) Act (Bengal Act 5 [V] of 1944). The order against which the said application in revision was directed was an order dated 3-5-1945, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Jhargram under Section 8(1) of the Special Act, already referred to. It is complained by the petitioner that the Sub-Divisional Officer made an order not warranted by the Act and that the District Judge, in refusing to interfere with his order, proceeded on assumptions of fact which were erroneous.2. A preliminary objection has been taken to the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the application on which the present rule was issued. In our opinion, on the facts of the present case that objection must prevail.3. The material facts are t...
Partim Mandalani Vs. Ramnath Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal408
1. One Partim Mandalani was the owner of an occupancy jote. On 10-6-1925, that is to say, before the amendment of the Bengal Tenancy Act in the year 1928, she borrowed money and executed a mortgage in favour of the respondent Ramnath Das. It is an anomalous mortgage, that is to say, a simple mortgage and an usufructuary mortgage combined. The mortgage bond recites that the property was in the possession of bargadars and the mortgagee was to receive the barga produce in lieu of interest. On 29-10-1941, she made an application under Section 26G, Ben. Ten. Act, for recovery of possession from the mortgagee on the ground that the mortgage was to be deemed to be a complete usufructuary mortgage and as 15 years had elapsed from the date of the registration of the mortgage instrument she was entitled to get back possession. The case of the mortgagee was that the mortgage was not to be deemed a complete usufructuary mortgage inasmuch as the mortgagor did not deliver possession of the property ...
Kamini Mohan Vs. Mohan Lal Bayeed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal422
Chakravartti, J.1. This rule raises a somewhat interesting question of law under Section 153, Bengal Tenancy Act. The material facts are simple and may be briefly summarised as follows: The opposite party brought a suit, being suit No. 130 of 1942, in the Court of the Second Munsif of Dinajpur Sadar under Section 144, Bengal Tenancy Act and claimed to recover from the petitioner a sum of Rs. 46-2-3 as rent due on account of one tenancy and a further sum of Rs. 23-8-3 as rent on account of another tenancy. Decrees in accordance with Section 144, Bengal Tenancy Act were in due course passed and the opposite party put the decree which he obtained in respect of the first tenancy into execution, and purchased the tenancy himself. Thereupon, the petitioner made an application under Section 174(3), Bengal Tenancy Act for having the sale set aside on the usual grounds, viz., suppression of notices and sale at an abnormal low price. This application succeeded and by an order passed on 15-1-1945...
Balai Chand Mondal Vs. Nibaran Chandra Dass and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal410
Chakravartti, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is one of some difficulty and the decided eases brought to our notice certainly do not make its decision easier.2. The material facts are the following : The plaintiff, Nibaran Chandra Das, was the owner of a one-third share in a certain occupancy holding and the remaining two-thirds share belonged to defendant 1. On 24-6-1910, the plaintiff executed a deed of sale in favour of his nephews, pro forma defendants 2 and 3, by which he purported to sell to them his share in the holding for a consideration of Rs. 50 and the deed was in due course registered. Thereafter defendant 1 made an application for preemption before the third Munsif at Alipore. The plaintiff and the pro forma defendants were all made parties to the proceeding which was contested by the plaintiff, with pro forma defendant 2 supporting him by his evidence on behalf of both himself and his brother. The ground taken by the plaintiff was that there could be no questio...
Najerali and ors. Vs. Baitulla Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal174
Gopendra Nath Das, J.1. S.A. Nos. 1402 and 1403 of 1942. These two appeals arise out of two suits for rent. The plaintiffs are the appellants in these two appeals. The facts are that the plaintiffs were the proprietors of Touzi No. 208 of the Nadia Collectorate in regard to 3 annas and 16 gandas 2 krants 2 til share. They had a putni and darputni right in the remaining 12 annas and 3 gaudas 1 kara 2 krants 18 til share. In the year 1931, a suit for partition (being Suit No. 1502 of 1931) was instituted on the Original Side of this Court, to which the plaintiffs were parties either as plaintiffs or as defendants. In that suit a Receiver was appointed to the estate of the plaintiffs. The Receiver took possession on 16th December 1937. The Government revenue payable in regard to Touzi No. 208, fell into arrears. The arrears not being paid before the latest date of payment which was 28th March 1938, the touzi was brought to sale on 25th June 1938, and Baitulla and Jan Mohammad purchased th...
Purusottam Lal Sarogi Vs. Mt. Hawi Bai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal401
ORDERLodge, J.1. The material facts giving rise to this rule are these: The present petitioner was a tenant under the opposite party in respect of five rooms on the first floor of No. 13, Halwasiya Eoad, Calcutta. In November 1944, the opposite party applied under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act (15 [XV] of 1882) for a summons against the petitioner calling on him to show cause why he should not be compelled to deliver up the property asserting that the present petitioner was a defaulter within the meaning of the Calcutta Rent Control Order, 1943. The application was registered as a suit and a consent decree was passed by which possession was to be delivered by the present petitioner by 30-3-1946.2. The Calcutta Rent Control Order was amended. The Court thereupon set aside the consent decree and directed the opposite party to obtain the consent of the Rent Controller to prosecute his suit. Thereafter the Rent Control Order ceased to have effect, and the Calcutta Rent Ordi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »