Kolkata Court April 1950 Judgments
Manik Lal Dutt and ors. Vs. PulIn Behari Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal431
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendants and arises out of a suit for partition of a tank. 2. The plaintiffs' case is that there were other lands near about the tank belonging to the parties, there had been a previous partition of those other lands, but the tank was left Ejmali. The plaintiffs claim two-third share and defendant 1 one-third share in the disputed tank. 3. The defence was that the watery portion of the tank could not be partitioned. Some of the other contentions raised in the plaint which are not material for the present appeal were also contested. 4. The learned Munsif held in favour of the plaintiffs and came to the conclusion that it was not possible to possess the tank in two separate portions. The only way of partitioning the tank was by selling it under the provisions of the Partition Act. The Court further directed that if the parties failed to settle the price of the tank amicably among themselves, a Commissioner would be appointed on the p...
Tag this Judgment!Karunamoy Mukherjee Vs. Kalika Prosad Bhadury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal369
Das Gupta, J.1. The proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C., which were drawn up on the application of the present petitioner were 'dropped' on 22nd December 1949, on an application by the petitioner that there was no longer any likelihood of any apprehension of the breach of the peace over the possession of the property. The question then arose as to the disposal of the sale proceeds of the crops which had been sold by the receiver. The learned Magistrate passed an order for payment of this money which amounted to almost Rs. 2,000 to the second party as he was of opinion that the documents produced before him showed that the second party had title to the crops.2. An application against this order before the learned Sessions Judge was unsuccessful.3. We are now asked to interfere with the order passed by learned Magistrate on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. Obviously, unless he could be considered to have exercised jurisdiction under Section 517, Cri...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra Roy Choudhury and anr. Vs. Bhupendra Bhusan Gangully
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal438
Roxburgh, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the District Judge of Murshidabad decreeing a suit under Section 36(1), Bengal Money. Lenders Apt which was dismissed by the trial Court. The original decree was passed in Mortgage Suit No. 6 of 1938 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad, final decree being passed on 23rd August 1938. The properties were sold on 15th March 1939, for Rs. 1000 only. The decree-holder was the purchaser and he took delivery of possession. There were three properties sold. There was a personal decree for the balance, Rs. 2832 odd, on 19th June.2. The lower appellate Court has reopened the decree and passed a decree for Rs. 2,478 plus all costs giving ten instalments from March 1946 to March 1955.3. Of the three properties purchased some portion is in the actual possession of the decree-holder and forms the subject-matter of the prayer for restoration in the suit under Section 36. As regards the rest, there were claim cases which the decree-...
Tag this Judgment!Sitansujibon Mitra Vs. Dilip Kumar Dutta Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal1,54CWN782
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This is a rule purporting to be issued under Section 115, Civil P. C., against an order of a Munsif cutting down a Pleader Commissioner's bill from an amount of Rs. 1000 odd to an amount of Rs. 300 only on the ground that some unnecessary work had been done 'by the Pleader 'Commissioner.2. The order was first passed on 15-6-1949 when it is stated that although the Commissioner had received notice (vide Order No. 92 dated 20-4 1949.') he had not appeared. This seems to me on a perusal of the record to be, to put it mildly, a somewhat unfair statement. It appears to me that the mutter of the bill was pending and on 20-4-1949 an order was passed noting that the bill bad not been disposed of and 5th May was fixed for hearing in the presence of the Commissioner. The Commissioner was duly informed of this. On the 6th May, the order is: 'Pleaders are not available. To the, date fixed for hearing the above matter.' Exactly what that means is obscure. Apparently, it muse be ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Ch. Bhattacharjee and anr. Vs. Nagendra N. Mullick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal435
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a suit by the pltfs. for the recovery of the ground floor of premises No. 88/2, Wellesley Street, Calcutta. The deft. is said to be a monthly tenant in the said ground floor at a rent of Rs. 135 p. m. whose tenancy was determined by a notice to quit given on 25-5-1949 by the pltfs. solicitors. The ground on which possession is claimed is bona fide requirement for the purposes of building & rebuilding & for the purposes of the occupation of the pltfs. There is also an allegation that the deft. in violation of the terms of the tenancy caused extensive damage to the said premises. The prayers in the plaint include claim for possession, mesne profits & damages to the extent of of Rs. 20,000. The suit was filed on 1-8-1949 when the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act of 1948 was in operation.2. The original written statement of the deft. pleads that he has been working a printing press for several years with the knowledge & consent of the previous owners as wel...
Tag this Judgment!Apurba Krishna Vs. Sm. Sushama Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal381
Roxburgh, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the District Judge, Hooghly, affirming the decree of the Munsif, 1st Court, Hooghly in a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment.2. The premises forming the tenancy are two rooms on the ground floor of a house, the upper portion of which was occupied by the plaintiff. Notice to quit was given alleging bona fide requirement. Permission of the Controller was taken for bringing a suit Under Section 13, Calcutta Rent Ordinance, and both the lower Courts have found as a fact that the two rooms in question are bona fide required by the plaintiff. They have also found that there were arrears of rent due at the time of the suit and a decree has been given accordingly. The trial Court gave the defendant some option in the matter of payment of the arrears due, by which the date of delivery of possession might be postponed for a period.3. When the appeal was filed here the principal ground taken was that the lower Courts were in error in finding...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Chandra Banerjee and anr. Vs. Gopinath Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal376
Chunder, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan in a suit for partition.2. It appears that there were four brothers Bidhusekhar, Adyanath, Akul Nath and Kali Nath. It was alleged in the partition suit that Akul Nath and Kali Nath separated and Bidhusekhar and Adyanath were joint in property. Adyanath's widow Bhuban Mohini sued the heirs of Bidhusekhar, who was then dead, for a partition of the joint properties. It was numbered as Partition Suit No. 252 of 1931 and was filed on 21st February 1931. The suit was dismissed on 5th April 1933 and on an appeal being taken to this Court, being Appeal No, 148 of 1933, a preliminary decree was passed for partition by this Court on 8th June 1936. It appears that no further steps were taken towards the final decree in the Subordinate Judge's Court and the Subordinate Judge consigned the record to the record room by his order dated 10th December 1936. It appears that Bhuban Mohini died on 6th November 1943. At ...
Tag this Judgment!Surajmal Sharma and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal471,54CWN511
Das Gupta, J.1. This Rule was obtained by these petitioners against an order of Mr. G. Kumar, Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, convicting the petitioners Under Section 116/161, Penal Code, and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for six months, each. 2. A preliminary point has been taken by Mr. Talukdar on behalf of the petitioners that the trial has been vitiated by the fact that the charge on which the petitioners were originally tried was altered after arguments of both sides had been heard and immediately before judgment was delivered, on 13th February 1950. The charge originally framed was in these words: 'That you, on or about the 21st day of April 1949, at Calcutta abetted the commission by one Sri Kedar Nath Sett, Civil Supply Officer, a public servant in the department of. Civil Supplies, of an offence Under Section 161, Penal Code, punishable with imprisonment for accepting Rs. 100/-, a gratification other than legal remuneration, as a motive for forbearing to do an offi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Lal Saha Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal36,55CWN139
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of the learned Additional District Magistrate of 24 Parganas demanding a security of Rs. 1000/- from the petitioner Under Section 7 (l), Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 is in these terms :'Any publisher of a newspaper who is required to make a declaration Under Section 5, Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, may be required by the Magistrate before whom the declaration is made, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to deposit with the Magistrate within ten days from the day on which the declaration is made, security to such an amount, not being more than one thousand rupees, as the Magistrate may in each case think fit to require, in money or the equivalent thereof in securities of the Central Government as the person making the deposit may choose .....'2. The Magistrate instructed the security police to make investigations and on the material before him he gave his reasons for demanding...
Tag this Judgment!Gostha Behari Mandal Vs. Abed Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal425
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This reference must be rejected. It is against an order passed under Section 147, Criminal P. C., the dispute being about a bank of a tank used as a burial ground, in certain cases, by Hindus of neighbouring villages. A lease was taken by one of the opposite parties before the trial Magistrate of a tank and its bank, the latter being claimed by the villagers to be their burial ground. Proceedings were started under Section 145, Criminal P. C., as there was a danger of a communal riot. There were also proceedings under Section 147, Criminal P. C.2. The sole point of the reference that the last time anybody was proved to have been buried on the bank in question was more than three months before the date of the Magistrate's enquiry and therefore under Section 147(2), as the right had not been exercised within the statutory period laid down there, the order was bad. The answer is self evident and it is a little surprising that the learned Judge should have fallen into a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »