Kolkata Court April 1948 Judgments
Mahammad Eshaque Vs. Mahammad AmIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1948
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit, commenced by him, in the Court of the Sub-Judge at Burdwan for declaration of his title, as mutwalli, to certain wakf properties and for recovery of possession of the same. The question for consideration in this appeal hinges primarily upon the interpretation to be put upon certain words used in a Persian document by which the wakf was created in the year 1849. The wakif was one Munshi Mahammad Muzaffar, a man of fairly large means, who was an inhabitant of Kusumgram in the district of Burdwan. Muzaffar married three wives, and had a son by each one of them. Modessar was the eldest of his sons, born of his first wife Osimannessa. The son by 'his second wife, was Mahammad Ismail and Abdul Ohid was the son by his third wife. On 30th July 1849, Mujaffar executed'a wakfnama in Persian language by which he created a public wakf in respect of certain properties included in Mouza No. 5297 of the Burdwa...
Tag this Judgment!Bhusan Chandra Mondal Vs. Chhabimoni Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1948
R.C. Mitter, J.1. In the year 1927, the plaintiff opposite party instituted a suit for partition and accounts against a number of persons. The preliminary decree for partition and accounts was passed in favour of the plaintiff on 19-2-1929. Since then the plaintiff took no steps to prosecute the suit further till the year 1945. As the preliminary decree had already been passed the suit could not be dismissed for the failure on the part of the plaintiff to take further steps in the matter. See the case in Lachmi Narain v. Balmukund 11 A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 198. On 4-12-1945, the plaintiff asked the Court to appoint a commissioner for the purpose of preparing allotments and to take accounts in accordance with the directions made in the preliminary decree which had been passed as long back as 19-2-1929. Defendant 1 in the suit, however, died in December 1912. The plaintiff made an application to the Court on 17-12-1945, to bring on the records of the suit the legal representative of defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Rakhalraj Mondal and anr. Vs. Debendra Nath Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1948
Majumdar, J.1. These two appeals are from the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Murshidabad dated 13th June 1942 affirming the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampore dated 25th July 1941 in two Suits Nos. 28 of 1940 and 34 of 1940. These two suits are between the same parties and the plaintiffs in Suit No. 28 of 1940 who lost in both the Courts below are now the appellants. The questions involved in both the suits are substantially identical. In the first mentioned suit the plaintiffs who are the defendants in the second mentioned suit, have sought for a declaration that the defendants therein who are the plaintiffs in the second mentioned suit have no right, title or interest in the properties left by one Gopal Chandra Mondal deceased. In the second mentioned suit the plaintiff sought for a partition by metes and bounds of his share in the properties of the said Gopal Chandra Mondal upon declaration of his title therein. The facts of the case with which ...
Tag this Judgment!Shebaits of Sree Sree Iswar Lakshmi Janardan Deb Thakur, Jiban Krishna ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1948
Roxburgh, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Judge of Murshidabad, affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampore dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for patni rent and cesses for the years 1345 and 1346.2. The plaintiffs previously brought Suit No. 557 of 1941 in the second Court of the Munsif at Jangipore for the rent of the same patni tenure for the year 1344 on 2nd Baisakh 1348 (15th April 1941) when the rent for the years 1345,1346. had already fallen due. That suit was dismissed for default or 10th April 1942. The present suit was brought on 15th April 1942.3. It is found by both the Courts that the rent for 1344 had been paid amicably before 10th April 1942 when suit No. 557 of 1941 was dismissed by the following order 'plaintiff's pleader states that he has to instruction. Ordered, dismissed for default.' The defendants claim that the present suit is barred by the terms of Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P.C. In the lower Courts the plaintiffs contended that the...
Tag this Judgment!Pyari Mohan Kundoo and anr. Vs. Bejoy Singh Chopra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1948
Harries, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court from a decree of this Court made in a second appeal. The case was heard at first instance by the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Faridpur, who dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. On appeal this decision was reversed by the Additional District Judge of Faridpur. In second appeal to this Court the decree of the learned Additional District Judge was set aside and the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge restored.2. The present application was filed on 17th November 1947 which was the day upon which this Court re-opened after the long vacation. The application was for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, but since the recent legislation, Act 1 [I] of 1948, the application must now be treated as an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court.3. The suit giving rise to these proceedings was brought by the plaintiffs for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2500 which the plaintiffs claimed to be payable to them ...
Tag this Judgment!Chittaranjan Sen Gupta Vs. Samarendra Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1948
Chakravartti, J.1. This appeal has been before this Court on a previous occasion, but if the appellant's contention is right, the proceedings so far had by respondent 1 have all been misconceived and he must begin anew in another forum.2. The facts have now been finally found by the Courts below and are as follows: On 17th November 1944, one Sarat Chandra Sen, residing as a tenant at 6 Rajabagan Lane, Cossipore, Calcutta, applied for adjudication of himself as an insolvent. He had experience in the line, for it appears from the application that he had been adjudged an insolvent once before, when too he had applied himself. The present application was allowed on 6th April 1945. In his application Sarat did not mention his tenancy of 6 Rajabagan Lane as one of his assets. Shortly after his adjudication, however, three of his creditors pointed out the property to the Official Receiver and asked him to bring it to sale. The Receiver complied and a sale was held on 18th May 1945, when the t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›