Kolkata Court March 1949 Judgments
Benoy Shankar Dhandania and ors. Vs. Choteylal Dhandania and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal343
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Das J. dated 12-8-1948 dismissing the plffs' suit for a declaration that the decree & order made in suit No. 1676 of 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the said suit) are invalid & void, for setting aside the said decree & order & for other reliefs.2. The relationship of the parties will appear from the following genealogical table: HARCHANDRAI (d) _______________________|__________________________ | | Jawala Prasad Gobordhandas (died) | _______________| | Hiralal (deft. 3) Banarashi debi = Choteylal (deft. 1) ______________________________________| (Ist wife deceased) = Narbadadebi (2nd wife) | | | | | Purushottamlal (minor) Ratanlal (minor) Banwari (minor) | Tulsiprasad (minor) (deft. 2) (deft. 4) (deft. 5) (deft 6) Bhagwatiprasad = Savitri Debi (deft. 7) _________________________|______________________ | | | Benoy S sakar Bejcy Shankar Bimal Shatikar (minor) (Pltf. 1) (minor) (Pltf. 2) (minor) (pltf3)3. The said suit was instituted by H...
Tag this Judgment!Governor-general in Council Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal121
Das, J.1. The appellant, Dominion of India, representing the East Indian Railways, (formerly Bengal Assam Railway) appeals to this Court under Section 141, Calcutta Municipal Act III [3] of 1923 (hereinafter called the Act) against an order dated 30th June 1947, passed by Mr. R. N. Ray, learned Small Cause Court Judge, Sealdah, District 24 Parganas, whereby he dismissed an appeal against the order of the second Deputy Executive Officer, Corporation of Calcutta, dated 11th April 1946, under Section 140 of the Act in respect of the assessment of Premises No. 52, Gopal Chandra Chatterjee Road.2. The B. A. Railway (Bengal Assam Railway) was the owner and occupier of premises No. 52, Gopal Chandra Chatterjee Road, measuring 83 Bighag, 9 Kottahs 6 chhataks and 14Sq ft., and was paying Rs. 3004-12-0 per annum on account of municipal rates and taxes to the Corporation of Calcutta, hereinafter called the Corporation.3. By a memorandum, Ex. 4, the B. A. Railway let out to the Civil Supply Depart...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Chandra Dutta Vs. Haran Chandra Mete and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal322,54CWN164
Das Gupta, J.1. This Rule raises the question whether the Court, in ordering delivery of possession under Order 21, Rule 95, Civil P. C. can order removal of the huts standing on the land, where the auction-purchaser, who asked for delivery of possession, had purchased the land but had not purchased the huts.2. The words of Order 21, Rule 95 make provision for removing any person who refuses to vacate the property of which possession is to be given. Specific provision has not, however, been made therein for removal of any structures.3. Reliance is placed by Mr. Bakshi, on behalf of the petitioner, on the observations of Rankin C. J. in the case of The Government of Bengal v. Alimaddin : AIR1933Cal469 , which though a criminal case, did raise this question of the duties of the Court's officers acting under a writ under Order 21, Rule 95, Civil P. C. The question which arose there was whether the accused persons had any right of private defence against the act of the officer in demolishi...
Tag this Judgment!Bejoy Dutta and ors. Vs. the King and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal452
ORDERSen, J.1. The facts which it is necessary to state in connection with this rule briefly are as follows : One Mahamaya Dasi filed a petn. of complaint on 24-7-1948 against the petnrs. The allegations made against them were that on the day of the solar eclipse, the 26th of Raisakh between 9 & 10 A. M. the petnrs. assaulted her with blows & slaps. The assault was a result of a dispute which had arisen between her & the petnrs. who were her tenants. Upon this complaint being filed the accused were summoned under Section 352, I. P. C. On a date fixed for hearing the complainant was absent & the accused were acquitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 247, Cr. P. C. Thereafter on 23-10-1948 a second complaint was filed by Mahamaya Dasi against these petnrs. with respect to the same occurrence & making virtually the same allegations against them. In this petn. the place of assault was stated. It was said that Mahamaya was assaulted in her kitchen. In the former case no mention...
Tag this Judgment!Dawoo Doyal Kothari Vs. Giridhari Laha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal214,54CWN12
Lahiri, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the plaintiff landlord in a proceeding under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Court Act for the recovery of possession of room no. 27 of premises No. 57 Clive Street of which the opposite party was a monthly tenant at a rent of Rs. 75 per month. The facts of the case, which are undisputed, are as follows: the present proceeding was started on 7th March 1945, inter alia, on the ground of default in payment of rent after service of a notice to quit and on 27th July 1945 it was decreed on consent in favour of the landlord. On 29th August 1945, the Calcutta House Rent Control Order was amended by the insertion of para. 9B which inter alia provided by sub-para. (3) that where any decree or order for recovery of possession had been made before 29th August 1945 on the ground of default in payment or deposit of rent but possession had not been recovered, the proceeding for recovery of possession in execution of the decree or order shall be stayed till 2...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Tapeswari D/O Madho Kairi Vs. Sm. Sukharajia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Cal432
ORDER1. This application is for revision of an order of the Dist. J. 24-'Parganas, summarily dismissing an application under Section 192, Succession Act.2. One Ramchiz died intestate on 22-12-1948, leaving certain movable & immovable properties. The petitioner before us Sm. Tapeswari claims to be the sole heir of Ramchiz, being his sister, & thus entitled to succeed to his estate under Act II (2) of 1929. She alleged that the properties left by Ramchiz were in the possession of one Sukharajia, who had been Ramchiz's concubine & was not legally entitled to any part of the properties & that there was risk that by the time the petitioner could obtain letters of administration, the properties, or a greater portion of it would be wasted. She therefore made an application under Section 192, Succession Act.3. On such an application being made, the Dist. J. had to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 193, Succession Act. According to this section the Dist. J. has first to exami...
Tag this Judgment!Subodh Chandra Mukherjee Vs. Sudhir Kumar Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal209,54CWN106
Das Gupta, J.1. This application is direct, ed against an order setting aside under Section 151, Civil P. C., an order of dismissal of an application under Section 174 (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. It appears that the application for setting aside the sale was put up before the Munsif on 1st March 1947, and on that date, hearing was adjourned to 28th April 1947, 'for orders awaiting reciept of the record from the appellate Court.' The case was, however, never put up on 28th April because on an earlier date it was dismissed for default. The circumstances under which it was dismissed for default are peculiar. It appears that after the Court had, on 1st March 1947, adjourned the case to 28th April 1947, the records on being received from the High Court were put up before the Munsif on 14th March 1947. On that date, apparently in the absence of either party, the Munsif passed the following orders:'Applicants are directed to take necessary steps for service of fresh notice upon opposite ...
Tag this Judgment!Sashi Bhusan Dey and ors. Vs. Rai Chand Bural and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal333
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 12th March 1946 is respect of premises No. 21, Madan Gopal Lane, Calcutta, and for compensation for the delay in executing the conveyance and for turning out the trespassers. The agreement is in writing signed by Rai Chand Bural, Kissen Chand Bural and Bissen Chand Bural. They are the vendors and plaintiff Rai Bahadur Soshi Bhusan Dey is the purchaser. The agreement provides that the vendors shall sell the said premises to the Rai Bahadur free from all encumbrances at a price of Rs. 45,000 and that the vendors shall within 15 days deliver all documents of title and shall at their expense make out a marketable title and cause the property to be freed from all encumbrances. The agreement also provides that the conveyance is to be executed in favour of Rai Bahadur or his nominee or nominees. The sum of Rs. 1,000 was paid as earnest money and in part-payment of the purchase price on...
Tag this Judgment!Capt. A.C. Smyth Vs. Mrs. Hannah Smyth
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Cal293
K.C. Chunder, J.1. This rule was issued at the instance of Capt. A. C. Smyth against an order of a Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, allowing a monthly maintenance of Rs. 100 to the opposite party Mrs. Hannah Smyth tinder Section 488, Criminal P. C.2. The point at issue is whether the parties are husband and wife. According to Mr. Das appearing on behalf of the petitioner husband, a Roman Catholic like Capt. Smyth could not marry Mrs. Smyth because she was one professing the Jewish Faith at the time of the marriage. According to him, under Section c, Indian Christian Marriage Act (XV [15] of 1872), a marriage in which one of the parties is a Christian has got to be solemnised according to the Indian Christian Marriage Act, and Section 5 lays down by whom or where such marriages may be solemnised. One of the persons before whom such a marriage can be solemnised is a Marriage Registrar appointed under the Act. The parties were no doubt married before such a Marriage Registrar. His conte...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Gangamoyee Dey Vs. Manindra Chandra Nundy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Cal225
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a suit for possession of premises No. 3A, Anukul Mukherjee Road, Calcutta, for arrears of rent for the two months of Jaistha and Aswar 1354 B. S. corresponding to 16th May to 17th July 1947 amounting to Rs. 202 and for mesne profits and other reliefs. The plaintiff's case is that she is the owner of the said premises and that the defendant was a monthly tenant under her at a rent of Rs. 101 per month. The plaintiff gave a notice of ejectment through her Solicitors Messrs. Mitter & Bural on 29th May 1947 calling upon the defendant to quit and vacate on the expiry of the month of Aswar 1354 B. S. corresponding to 17th July 1947. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant sub-let the premises without her consent. This suit was filed on 21st July 1947.2. The defendant filed his written statement admitting the receipt of notice to quit. He also admits sub-letting but states in his written state. ment that it was a condition of the tenancy that he should sub-let por...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »