Kolkata Court June 1950 Judgments
Gouranga Sundar Das Gupta Vs. Rakhal Majhi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal244,55CWN66
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. Only one question of law has been raised in this batch of 62 appeals. The admitted facts are Touji No. 2409 of the Midnapore Collectorate was registered in the records of the Collectorate under two separate accounts. Separate account No. 1 was shown as liable for Rs. 1446-4-1 as the share of revenue payable and the residuary share Rs. 1446-11-3. The two separate accounts had been opened when the two shares were held by two sets of co-sharers. In course of time these two shares came to be owned by the same person but in the records of the collectorate the separate accounts were continued to be maintained. Both the separate accounts fell into arrears. A notice under Section 6, Revenue Sales Act, was issued, which is EX. 6A in this case. The notice included description of the two separate accounts. On 24-6-1939, the said two separate accounts were put up to sale for the realization of the total arrears of revenue, From the bid sheet, (EX. I) it appears that bids were ...
Tag this Judgment!Devji Shivji Vs. Santi Swaroop Chaturvedi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal322
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a order of Sinha J. refusing to set aside an ex parte decree made against the appellant. It was admitted before Sinha J. that the deft, was served w a summons. It appears that the deft, wrote letters-to the Registrar of this Court saying that he was ill, but the learned Resistrar of this Court made it clear that he could not interfere & that the appellant would have to take proper steps in the case. The appellant never entered appearance & in due course the case came into the undefended, list & a decree was made in favour of the plff. The date of the decree is 28-11-1949.2. The period of limitation for applications to-set aside an ex parte decree is thirty days from the date of the decree or, where no summons was duly served, thirty days from the date when the applicant had knowledge of the decree, the period of limitation being provided by Article 164, Limitation Act. The appellant having admitted that he was duly served with a summons the period...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Nandorani Dassi Vs. Satya NaraIn Harit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal215,54CWN735
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Bachawat J. dated 9-5-1950 on an application under Section 18 (1), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1960.2. The application prayed that a decree for possession passed in a suit between the parties should be vacated, and that the petitioner should be granted leave to pay the arrears of rent due from him to the plaintiff appellant within a time to be fixed by the Court.3. The defendant-respondent was a tenant of the plaintiff-appellant in respect of rooms occupied as a shop and store room in premises known as No. 114/1 Cotton Street in this city. In August of 1949 the plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit for ejectment of the tenant from these rooms and for recovery of arrears of rent, taxes, electricity charges etc. In the plaint the appellant alleged that the respondent had defaulted in the payment of rent for three consecutive months and therefore that the tenancy had ipso facto determined. There was a fur...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Behari Samanta and ors. Vs. Gourhari Dawn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal253,54CWN912
Lahiri, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit for injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from exercising any act of joint possession in respect of an undivided share of a dwelling house.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that C. S. plots Nos. 553 and 509 to 513 constitute the homestead proper of the plaintiffs and C. S. plots Nos. 516, 504 and 554 are parts of the homestead being tanks or lands adjacent to the homestead. Recently defendant No. 1 who is a stranger to the family purchased from one of the co-sharers an undivided share in C. S. plots Nos. 516, 504 and 554 and was threatening to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession. The plaintiffs accordingly prayed for an injunction in terms of the second paragraph of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act restraining defendant No. l from exercising any act of joint possession in respect of these three plots.3. The defence of the principal defendant No. 1 was that the suit was not maintain...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Akshoy Kumari Debi Vs. Nalini Ranjan Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal493,54CWN815
G.N. Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder against a decision of our learned brother Chunder J. 2. The facts of the case were not fully placed before this Court We have therefore to state those facts in some detail. 3. On 23rd March 1942, the appellant obtained a decree in the Presidency Court of Small Causes, 4th Court, against Rati Kanta Mukherji for a sum of Rs. 1127-10-9. It appears from the order sheet which is on the record that there was an attachment before judgment on 6th March 1942 which was confirmed by the Court. On 18th June 1942, the attached properties were released from attachment and the order of that date goes on to state that the execution case was dismissed. On some date which it is not possible for us to discover from the records but prior to June 1944, the sole judgment-debtor Rati Kanta Mukherji died. He was survived by his widow and four sons, Nalini Ranjan Mukherji, Anil Krishna Mukherji, Ranjit Kumar Mukherji and Sailen Mukherji the latter two being...
Tag this Judgment!Jatindra Nath Patra and ors. Vs. Bhutnath Patra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal531
Sen, J. 1. These two rules arise out of proceedings before the Debt Settlement Board. The first Rule 1705 of 1949 arises out of an order passed in revision under Section 40A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act by the learned District Judge. 2. The facts ace these: The petitioners were applicants under Section 37A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. They impleaded one Chitramoyee Devi as the landlord. She pleaded that she had transferred the property to one Bhutnath Patra before 20th December 1939, and that therefore no relief could be obtained by the petitioners. The Board held that there was no transfer before that date. Bhutnath Patra appealed although he was not a party to the proceedings and the Appellate Officer dismissed the appeal. Against that order Bhutnath Patra moved the District Judge and the appeal was allowed. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that Bhutnath Patra had no locus standi to prefer the appeal and therefore the order allowing Bhutnath's appeal should be...
Tag this Judgment!Rishindra Nath Sarkar Vs. Sakti Bhusan Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal512,54CWN793
Sen, J.1. The facts giving rise to this Rule briefly are as follows: The petitioner who is the landlord let out certain premises to the opposite party Rai Sahib Sakti Bhusan Roy sometime in March 1942 at a rental of Rs. 50 per month. An application was made under the House Rent Control Order 1943, by the landlord for fixing the rent and by consent the rent was fixed at Rs. 72 per month on 2nd November 1943. On 13th January 1944, the opposite party instituted a suit for the recovery of money paid as occupier's share of taxes stating that the sum of Rs. 72 included taxes. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes decreed it. The matter came up before this Court and the matter was remanded and is still pending. On 27th April 1949, the landlord applied for setting aside the consent order which was passed on 2nd November 1943, the application purporting to be made under Section 151, Civil P. C. The application was dismissed by she Additional Rent Contro...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Motalib Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal523
Lahiri, J.1. This rule is directed against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 406, Penal Code and an order that he be released on probation of good conduct on executing a bond for Rs. 2,000 with two sureties of Rs. 1,000 each for a period of one year, from the date of the order. 2. The prosecution case is that one Hazi Gura Mia need to carry on a business in confectionary and bakery in the town of Darjeeling. He died on 5th September 1946 leaving his confectionary and bakery shop and considerable assets. The prosecution case is that after the death of Guru Mia his widow inherited the assets and used to carry on the confectionary and bakery business. According to the practice followed by this business, the officer in charge of the bakery business used to hold in his hands the sale proceeds of the bakery shop and at the beginning of the next mouth he used to deposit the said sale proceeds in the account of the firm itself. On 1st September 1949, the petitioner who was in char...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindra Nath Dutta Vs. Moni Mohan Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal199
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for realisation of charges for hiring a carriage which had been let out by him to the defendant including damages on the ground of refusal to deliver back the carriage and also for compensation for the value of the carriage.2. On behalf of the defendant, it was contended that the carriage did not belong to the plaintiff, that the defendant had paid at least a part of the claim, the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages on the allegation of non-delivery of the carriage as the defendant had previously offered to deliver the carriage but that the plaintiff had refused to take delivery. As regards the value of the carriage it was contended that, the defendant having offered to deliver the carriage and such offer having been refused the plaintiff was not entitled to any compensation on this count. In any view the claim wag exorbitant.3. The learned Munsif decreed the suit in part. The title to the carriage was found in favour of...
Tag this Judgment!Jatindranath Naskar and ors. Vs. Baharaddi Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal519,55CWN64
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This rule arises out of proceedings under Section 37A (8), Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The judgment-debtors obtained an award and order for restoration and applied to the Munsif, 1st Court, Baruipur, under the provisions of that sub-section. Objection was made by the present petitioners (who were opposite parties Nos. 15 and 16 in that petition) on the basis of a lease from the landlord. It is unnecessary for me to give details of the nature of the objection. The objection was overruled. The objectors were not parties to the proceedings under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, a position which is quite in accordance with the decision in Taraprasanna Roy v. Adwaita Charan, A. I. R. (35) 1948 Cal. 329 and subsequent decisions. 2. On behalf of the petitioners, my attention has been called to the case of Narayan Chandra v. Rash Behari, Civil Revn. C. N. 1721 of 1946 : (I. L. R. (1948) 2 Cal. 68) in which it was held by Mukherjea and Ormond JJ. that where the judg...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »