Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1953Cal95
ORDERG.N. Das, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the plaintiff against an order of Mr. J. C. Chakravartty, learned Munsif, staying the plaintiff's suit under Section 9 (2) read with Section 18 of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950. The learned Munsif found negativing the defendant's contention that he was a Bhagchasi. It is not disputed that no Bhag Conciliation Board has been established in the area where these properties are situated. Section 9 (2) of the Act only applies to cases of disputes referred to in Section 7 (1) which requires to be decided by la Board referred to in that sub-section. The dispute 'which is now in question does not relate to any of the matters referred to in Section 7 (1) and as there is no Board established, the dispute, even if it came within Section 7 (1) cannot be said to be one which requires to be decided by a Board. In these circumstances, the order made by the learned Munsif staying the suit is wholly unauthorised.2. It was contended by Mr. Dey appearin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1953Cal526,[1953]23CompCas399(Cal)
Sarkar, J. 1. In this suit there are three defendants but only one of them, namely, defendant 3, appeared to contest the claim. The other two defendants filed their written statements but did not appear at the hearing. The substantial contest is whether the plaintiff or defendant 3 is entitled to a prior charge over certain shares belonging to defendant 2. 2. The plaintiff alleges that on 1-8-1946, defendant 1, Pandit Shirali & Co., executed a promissory note for Rs. -37,500/- payable to him on demand and defendant 2, Hemmad, guaranteed the due payment of the promissory note and as security for the guarantee, in or about November 1947, pledged to the plaintiff certain shares held by him in the Orient Movietone Corporation Ltd., which is defendant 3 in this suit. The plaintiff claims the amount of the promissory note against the debtor and the guarantor and also the enforcement of the pledge by the guarantor. He has proved the promissory note and the guarantee and is, therefore, entitle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal773
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a suit instituted on 15th day of April 1948. In this suit the plaintiff claims to recover possession of the top floor of premises No. 115, Lower Circular Road, Calcutta. The plaintiff's case, briefly, is that the defendant was a monthly tenant of the said premises of which one of the important conditions was that the defendant would behave properly and/or never use any filthy and abusive language towards the plaintiff or his agents It is a curious condition to find as a term of tenancy but the events will show how it came to be incorporated as a condition. I will describe this condition as the condition of good behaviour. The plaintiff alleges breach of this condition and pleads in para. 10 that the defendant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance and/or annoyance to occupiers of adjoining or neighbouring premises and continuously uses most abusive and filthy language and threats himself and by the members of his family and that he is liable to be ej...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1953Cal164,57CWN81
Mookerjee J. 1. This is an appeal on behalf of defendants 1 to 4 and is directed against a preliminary decree for partition. The parties to the suit are descendants of one Tinkari Basu. The plaintiff Sushama is the wife of one of the grandsons of Tinkari and is the transferee of the interest which another grandson of Tinkori had in the joint family estate. The defendants are the other descendants of Tinkori who have an interest in the joint family property.2. The plaintiff prayed for partition of the share purchased by her. Various defences were raised by the different sets of defendants, but in view of the limited points raised in the present appeal it is not necessary to refer in detail to the divergent cases as made by the parties in the lower Court. The two questions raised in the present appeal are whether there had been a previous partition as between the parties, and whether on the facts of the present case the provisions of Section 4 of the Partition Act can be invoked.3. The l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1953Cal223
Bose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate writs for cancellation of an order of requisition dated 8th May 1950, purported to be passed under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 (Act 5 of 1947) and for direction upon the opposite partics to forbear from giving effect to that order or taking any steps or proceedings thereunder.2. The petitioner is the owner of premises No. 2 Chhaku Khansama Lane, Calcutta. The case of the petitioner is that prior to March 1950 the petitioner let out the premises to one Yusuf Miah at a rent of Rs. 300 per month. In or about the month of March 1950 communal disturbances broke out in Calcutta and the area where the petitioner's premises was situated was badly affected by such disturbances, with the result that refugees from East Pakistan and other persons forcibiy ousted all the sub-tenants under the said Yusuf Miah (who were all Muslims) from the said premises. Yusu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1953Cal76,56CWN329
Chakravartti, J. 1. The petitioner hag been convicted under Section 386 (i) (c), read with Section 488, Calcutta Municipal Act, for having kept some cattle at NOS. 22A and 22B, Southern Avenue, without having a license therefor. The sentence passed upon him is the maximum provided for in the section, viz., a fine of Rs. 250, but the learned Magistrate added that in default of payment he was to undergo simple imprisonment for 40 days. It appears that after recording the conviction the Magistrate purported to proceed under Section 388, Criminal P. C., but as the petitioner was not prepared to take advantage of the option provided for in that section, the learned Magistrate was prepared to send him to jail. But shortly thereafter a brother of his appeared and offered bail and on that bail he was released.2. It is not disputed that the petitioner did keep a few heads of cattle at the premises concerned and that at the relevant time he did not hold any license which would authorise him to u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal713,56CWN608
Chakravartti, J.1. These Rules raise two procedural questions of some practical importance. Both are questions under S l45, Criminal P. C.2. The disputed property is a small piece of land, about half a cottah. in area, and includes a mud-built house standing thereon. It is really the northern adjunct to the ancestral homestead of one Bepin Behari Mondal and was purchased in the Bengali year 1327 by a deed executed in favour of one of his sons, named Jogesh. Jogesh pre-deceased his father, leaving a widow, named Surabala or Surendrabala. After the death of Bepin, his surviving sons, Jitendra Nath and Harendra Nath, appear to have made some kind of a partition of the homestead, Jitendra taking the northern portion and Harendra the southern. In June 1950, one Kshudiram, who is the Petitioner in these Rules, obtained a transfer of the disputed property from Surabala who obviously dealt , with it on the basis that it was a self-acquired property of her husband. Jitendra and Harendra dispute...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1953Cal241
P.N. Mookerjee,J. 1. This is the plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for confirmation of possession and permanent injunction on declaration and establishment of their tenancy right in the suit land. The suit has been dismissed by the two Courts below and in this appeal the plaintiffs as appellants contend that the said dismissal is erroneous as, according to them, on a proper construction of the two documents, namely, the Kobala (Ex. 1) and the Kabuliyat (Ex. 2) it ought to be held that the said Kobala and Kaouliyat were parts of one transaction so that what was sold by the Kobala (Ex. 1) was only the superior on (or?) the landlord's interest in the suit land under the Kabuliyat (Ex. 2) and the principal defendant No. 1 Respondent got in his pre-emption case nothing more of the suit land than the said superior or the landlord's interest. This contention of the plaintiffs-appellants which has been rejected by both the learned Munsif and the learned Additional District Judge will ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal898,56CWN353
K.C. Das Gupta, J1. The decision of this appeal by the defendant in an action for ejectment depends on the decision of a question of law whether in exercising powers under Section 14, West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the 1950 Act, under the provisions of Section 18 (5) of that Act, the Court has to take notice of the proviso to Section 14 (3). Another question that was raised at first by the learned Advocate for the appellant, namely, that while the alleged ipso facto determination of the tenancy on which the action was based was stated to have taken place on 15-2-1948, the tenancy could not have been determined on that date as there had not been up to that date default of rents for three months accrued due after the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948, came into operation, was given up when it was pointed out that the plaint did also aver defaults for other periods of three months accrued due after 1-12-1948, which defaults would undoubte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1953Cal496,57CWN68
ORDERGuha, J.1. The petitioners were summoned under Section 411, Penal Code, to take their trial. It appears that the case dragged on for a very considerable period mainly owing to the complainant not offering himself for examination. Ultimately the trying Magistrate got exasperated, and decided to hear arguments regarding the framing of the charge. By that time it may be mentioned 12 witnesses have been examined for the prosecution. Ultimately the trying Magistrate discharged the present petitioners under Section 253, Criminal P. C., holding that no case has been made out against them as the complainant had not been examined and it could not be said that the articles found with the present petitioners were properties which were stolen from the complainant. It was also held by the Magistrate that there was nothing to show that these articles were entrusted with the present petitioners by the complainant. Thereupon there was a petition before the Additional District Magistrate at the in...
Tag this Judgment!