Kolkata Court May 1947 Judgments
Goas Ali Bhuiya and ors. Vs. Lal Mia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal27
Chakravartti, J.1. The question involved in this Rule is whether an heir of a person who purchased a share of an occupancy holding before 1928 but was not recognized by the landlord, is protected from pre-emption Under Section 26F(1)(a), Bengal Tenancy Act, in case he purchases a further share of the holding. The Court below has answered the question in the negative for reasons which, the petitioners contend, are erroneous.2. The relevent facts are as follows. One Shafi was the original holder of an occupancy holding' consisting of a little over 8 kanis of land. In June 1900, he sold an is gandas share of the holding to one Maharam Ali, who was the father of' petitioners 1 and 2 and great grandfather of petitioner 3. Maharam Ali was not recognised by the landlord as a tenant. In 1907, Shafi made a second, sale and thereby transferred 2 kanis 8 gandas and 1 kara of land; out of the same holding to one Mahammad Waif. Shafi died in 1920 and on 9-4-1925 some of his heirs who a re opposite ...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. D.E. Wilsone
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal429
1. This is an appeal under the provisions of Section 417, Criminal P.C. An anonymous letter was received by the Calcutta Police as a result of which Sergeant F. Watt arranged with the telephone company to tap the line of D.E. Wilsone of Suit Nos. 19, 23 Central Avenue, Calcutta and to listen into his conversations. On 29th December 1945 Sergeant Watt listened in and heard bets being made on the races. He made a note of the bets made and submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner. A warrant to search the premises was issued under the provisions of Section 46, Calcutta Police Act, by H.N. Sircar, Deputy Commissioner of Police and the premises were duly searched between 12-30 P.M. and 1-45 P. M. on 29th December 1945 by Inspector M.A. Rahman and Sergeant Watt in the presence of two search witnesses. The police officers found among other articles a typewriter with a piece of paper in it, bearing name of horses and amounts of money; khata books with names of horses and amounts of money w...
Tag this Judgment!Sailendra Kumar Roy and ors. Vs. Bank of Calcutta, Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal131
Chakravartti, J.1. The question of law raised by these appeals appears to be one of first impression. The two appeals are directed against a common order passed in two different execution cases which were started against different judgment-debtors with respect to two different decrees. But both were started by the respondent who claimed to be an assignee from the common decree-holder.2. The material facts are as follows. It appears that on 22-9-1945, the Jessore Loan Company obtained two final mortgage decrees, one against the appellants in each of these appeals. The preliminary decrees which were made final were new decrees passed under the Bengal Money-lenders Act, but nothing turns on that circumstance.3. On 4-2-1946, this Court, on its Original Side, made an order under Section 153A, Companies Act, sanctioning a scheme of amalgamation of the Jessore Loan Company with the Bank of Calcutta Ltd., and by the same order provided for the transfer to the latter company of all the assets a...
Tag this Judgment!Bijoy Singh Chopra Vs. Pyari Mohan Kundoo and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal161
1. The whole of village Khankhanapore originally appertained to Touzi No. 897 of the Faridpore Collectorate. The zemindar was Mahim Chandra Roy. Ultimately at devolved upon his two grandsons Upendra Narayan Roy and Suprasonna Roy being the sons of Bepin Behary Roy. At a partition between them the said zemindary was allotted to the share of Upendra. It was sold in execution of a mortgage decree obtained against him to the Roys of Bhaggyakul. Admittedly a portion of the said village was acquired in 1897, by Government under the Land Acquisition Act and is now in the possession of the Bengal and Assam Railway as being part of the Railway track, of the station and its yard. There was another acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act in 1887 for the use of the said railway but the location of that piece of land is one of the questions raised before the lower Courts and has also been mooted before us.2. At one time the river Padma was to the immediate east of the said village. It has now mo...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Kaloo Khan and an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal68
1. This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, on behalf of the Provincial Government against an acquittal of two accused Kaloo Khan and Jaisar Khan who were tried on a charge under Section 353, Penal Code by a Magitrate of Suri. The prosecution case was that a watcher constable of the district enforcement branch saw three carts driven by the two accused and another man Salu Khan each carrying six tins of kerosene oil. He asked them if they had permits and as they could produce none he directed them to proceed to Dubrajpur thana, showing his warrant of appointment. The cartmen attempted to bribe him but he refused to be tempted whereupon they in turn threatened to assault him. He then went on his bicycle and brought two chowkidar Nanda Lal and Patal and took the carts to the neighbouring village. Thereafter they proceeded towards the thana. As they reached the junction where the road branched off towards Adampore, the carters ignoring the constabl...
Tag this Judgment!Sadek Mahammad Ahmad Hasan Vs. Jyotish Chandra Pandit and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal83
Chunder, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Rangpur recommending that the order passed by the Magistrate of Rangpur on 14-11-1946 reviving a case should be set aside. It appears that the complainant in that case, Sadek Mahammed Hasan filed a petition of complaint under Section 504, Penal Code, against Jyotish Chandra Pandit and another and on 5-8-1946 a charge was framed under Section 504, Penal Code. The case has been adjourned to 20-10-1946 and 30-10-1946 for cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. The Magistrate as well as the complainant were both absent on 29-10-1946 and the complainant was again absent on SO 10-1946 and when the Muktear for the complainant was sent for, he intimated that he had received no instructions from his client in the case. No witnesses were present either on 29-10-1946 or 30-10-1946 and no hazira had been filed on either of these two days. The Magistrate passed an order 'The accused persons are discharged under Section 253, Crimina...
Tag this Judgment!Johuran Bibi and ors. Vs. Howrah Jute Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal134
Gopendra Nath Das, J.1. These appeals are on behalf of the judgment-debtors. The respondent, the Howrah Jute Mills Company Limited, obtained decrees for rent against different judgment-debtors and put those decrees into execution. The different judgment-debtors filed objections to the execution of the decrees under Section 47, Civil P.C. On an application filed by the judgment-debtors on 25-5-1946, the judgment-debtors limited their objections to the following grounds: (1) that the judgment-debtors had made certain payments which were not credited in the execution petition; (2) that the decrees for mesne profits were without jurisdiction; (3) that the application for execution was barred by time.2. On the application of the judgment-debtors dated 29-5-1946, which was not opposed by the decree-holders, the Court directed that all the objections should be heard together. These petitions of objections were accordingly treated analogously. By an order of the Court dated 21-9-1946, except i...
Tag this Judgment!Halima Khatun and ors. Vs. Sashi Kumar Banik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Cal453
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell certain lands described in the schedule to the plaint.2. The material facts as found by both the Court of first instance and the Court of first appeal are as follows : In Aswin 1343 B.S. Arsadali defendant approached Sashi Kuma Banik, plaintiff with a proposal to sell the suit lands. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the lands for Rs. 1800 out of which Rs. 450 only should be paid to the defendant in cash, and the balance should be retained by the plaintiff in full satisfaction of his dues under five bonds. After this agreement was arrived at, the parties came to learn that 20 per cent, of the consideration for the sale would have to be paid as landlord's fee. The plaintiff was not willing to pay more than Rs. 1800; the defendant was unwilling to accept less.3. The defendant thereupon enquired whether it was possible to avoid payment of the landlord's fee; and, in the course of his enquiries) learned that ...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Bedial Alam Vs. Shah ShamsuddIn Ahmad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal139
Gopendra Nath Das, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 3. The plaintiff brought the suit on the allegation that the disputed land and other lands were dedicated by the Emperor Aurangzeb for the upkeep of a Darga, a mosque and a Takia of Darbesh Shah Jahed. The Sanad which is marked Ex. 1 was signed on behalf of the Emperor by Maha Singh, the then Subedar of the Province of Bengal. The grantee was Nurulla Shah. In 1842 proceedings were taken by the East India Company for the resumption of the lands covered by the Sanad and after enquiry they were released from assessment of revenue. In 1881 a suit was instituted in the Court of the Munsif at Sitakund by Ahmadulla, predecessor-in-interest of defendants 3 to 13 against Abdul Jabbar. That suit ended in a compromise. Abdul Jabbar died thereafter and was succeeded by his two sons, Ismail and Kobed. Kobed is defendant 2 in this' suit, Ismail, died on 4-2-1936. Kobed thereafter acted as mutwalli for some time. It appears that Najumal, defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Umapada Pramanik and anr. Vs. Khitish Chandra Pramanik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal35
ORDERHarries C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of a decree of a Small Cause Court for Rs. 469 odd passed in favour of the plaintiff.2. It appears that the plaintiff and the defendants and certain others were co-sharers of land which was protected by a bundh. The bundh was breached and it became necessary to repair the damage. The work of repair was done under the supervision of the office staff of the Maharaja of Cossimbazar. That was a matter of convenience as the Maharaja had a staff that could be used to supervise it. The contractor's account came up to Rs. 2000 which the co-sharers bad to discharge in proportion to their shares. It appears that the defendants paid a certain amount but were unable to pay the full amount due from them and at their request the plaintiff paid on their behalf and this suit was brought to recover that payment.3. The only point argued before me is that this is a suit for contribution and therefore falls within Article 41, Provincial Small Cause Court...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »