Kolkata Court December 1956 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rabindra Nath Mahapatra and ors. Vs. Gour Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal274,61CWN311
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This is a Reference under Rule 1(ii) of Chapter II of the Appellate Side Rules of a question of law arising out of the repeal of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950. The facts which led up to the Reference are as follows:2. On 2-6-1955, the petitioners made an application to the Bhagchas Board of Thana Mahisadal by which they prayed for an order on the opposite party for the delivery of their usual share of barga crops for the years 1360 and 1361 B. S. which was said to be in arrear. The case of the petitioners was that the opposite party was a bargadar under them in respect of a particular plot of land but had failed and neglected to deliver the share of the paddy due to them. They alleged further that the opposite party had converted a part of the land into a betel leaf plantation in violation of the terms of the barga settlement and that he had also excavated a doba without any right or authority to do so. The petitioners did not ask for any relief for those tra...
Tarak Chandra Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Ratan Lal Ghosal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal257,61CWN263
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. By three separate orders marie in three different cases under Rule 1(ii) Chapter II of the Appellate Side Rules, a Division Bench has referred practically the same question of law for decision by a larger Bench. The question concerns the effect of the repeal of the West, Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act. 1950 by Act XII of 1956 on proceedings pending on the date of the repeal. The repealed Art was a temporary Act, due to expire on the 31st March, 1956 and it was repealed on that very date. Oneof the cases out of which the references havearisen is a second appeal, one is an appeal underClause 15 of the Letters Patent and one is a revision under Section 32(4) of the repealed Act. 2. In the second appeal, S. A. No. 842 of 1954, the facts are that six persons who were the co-owners of a house brought a suit for theejectment of the tenant occupying it on theground that they required the house for theirown occupation and had terminated the tenancy...
Tarapada Mishra Vs. Hare Krishna Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal335,61CWN241
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of two proceedings for enforcement of two pre-emption orders. The pre-emptor is the appellant before us and the facts relevant for our present enquiry are as follows: 2. A non-agricultural holding belonged to three persons, viz., Suresh, Ramesh and Gopal, each having an undivided one-third share in thesaid property. On January 10, 1944, Suresh's one-third share passed to one Dwarka Nath Pal in execution of a decree. Possession was taken by this auction-purchaser on May 9, 1944. On July 15, 1944, the present appellant Tarapada Mishra purchased the said share from Dwarka's heirs' and legal representatives by a registered kobala. On September 20, 1950, the respondent Hare Krishna Das purchased Gopal's undivided one-third share by a kobala which was registered on September 21, 1950, and on the same date, namely, September 21, 1950, Hare Krishna's minor son Saradindu, who is the respondent in the other appeal (No. 9 of 1955), purchased Rames...
Sm. Ashalata Mitter Vs. Amiya Kumar Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1958Cal71
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. As I agree with the conclusions as indicated in the judgment to be just delivered by my learned brother, I do not think it necessary to discuss the various questions raised. There is, however, one matter to which I would advert.2. One of the most important questions raised in this appeal depends upon the interpretation of a document which is marked as Ex. 1 in this case. This document was executed by the Registrar of this Court on behalf of certain parties under the orders passed by the Court in Original Suit No. 305 of 1907 in the Original Side of this Court. During the hearing of the present appeal before us, it was clear that the records of that suit should be looked into. We ourselves felt the difficulty and on the 25th July 1956, we passed the following order:-'Both the parties agree that the records in Original Suit No. 345 of 1907 should be brought up. The order passed by this Court in that suit on the 9th March 1909, cannot be understood or properly explain...
Raj Kumar Dhar and ors. Vs. Colonel A. Stuart Lewis
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1958Cal104,61CWN445
P.N. Mookerjee J.1. This Rule raises an important question of procedure. It is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Fourth Court, Alipore, dismissing the defendants-petitioners' objection against, inter alia, the verification of the plaint.2. The plaint in the present case appears to contain serious allegations of fraud, falsification of accounts, culpable negligence, etc., against the defendants. The plaintiff is one Colonel A. Stuart Lewis. The suit was instituted on his behalf by one V. G. Pai who professed to be acting under a power of attorney given by the plaintiff, and, on the strength of that power of attorney, he executed the Vakalatnama, signed the plaint and also signed the verification of the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendants-petitioners objected and the learned Subordinate Judge, upon the view that the power of attorney simpliciter was sufficient to entitle Pai to sign the Vakalatnama, the plaint and also the verification, dismissed t...
Upendra Nath Chatterjee Vs. Nilmony Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal342
Sarkar, J.1. One Adhar Nath Chatterjee of Howrah dedicated certain properties including the ancestral dwelling house to the family deity Sri Sri Iswar Gopal Jiu Thakur, established in the said house, by a deed of settlement dated 25-12-1922 and appointed himself as the first sebait, his wife as the next sebait and, after her death, his two sona Upendra and Nilmony as joint sebaits to the exclusion of the sons of a predeceased son. He died in 1923 and his wife died in 1925. The two sons thereafter succeeded as sebaits, and after some time disputes and litigations commenced between them and Nilmony left the ancestral house in June 1939. On 20-9-1950 Nilmony instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises against his elder brother Upendra for the framing of a scheme for the proper preformance of the seba and puja of the aforesaid deity and for the proper management of the properties dedicated to the deity, on the allegations that since he left the family dwelling house his brother had...
Gostha Behari Bera and ors. Vs. Haridas Samanta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal557,61CWN325
P.K. Sarkar, J.1. This second appeal is by the defendants and arises out of a suit instituted in Sub-Judge's Court, Midnapore, for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to 8 as share of the suit-properties and for recovery of possession thereof. The properties in question belonged to two brothers, Ramchand and Balaichand in equal shares. Defendants No. 5 to 7 are the heirs of Balai, Ramchand died leaving behind a widow Haripriya and three daughters and Haripriya inherited a widow's estate in his properties. She died in 1352 B. S. and was survived by two of the daughters, namely, Barada, a sonless widow, and Basanta Ku-mari, defendant No. 4, and by a son of the predeceased daughter named Sripati, defendant No. 3. Haripriya had during her lifetime sold her share of the properties of ka sch. of the plaint to defendant No. 1 and had executed two deeds of gift in respect of the properties of schs. kha and ga in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 respectively. The plaintiff purchased 8 as sha...
Jagannath Upadhyay Vs. Amarendra Nath Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal479,61CWN841
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the judgment of our learned brother Guha J.2. The appeal is by the defendant and it arises out of a suit for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages.3. According to the plaintiffs respondents, the defendant took settlement of the suit property under a lease which was evidenced by a kabuliyat, dated 24-7-1937, corresponding to Sravan 8. 1344 B. S. The period of the lease, as given in the kabuliyat, was seven years and the lease purported to run from Sravan 1344 B. S., expiring, therefore, with the end of Ashar, 1351 B. S. The defendant, however, continued in occupation and, as the Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1940 (Bengal Act IX of 1940) was in force from about May 1940 right up to about the same month 1949, when it was repealed and replaced by the permanent Act, the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 (West Bengal Act XX of 1949). the plaintiffs could not take steps f...
Sk. Yearali and anr. Vs. Md. Sultan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ398
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J.1. These two petitioners were! convicted by a Magistrate at Barasat under Section 57(1)(a) of the Bengal Wakf Act, 1934 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 60/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month each. Upon appeal the convictions were upheld but the sentence was reduced in each case to a fine of Rs. 30/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three weeks by the Sessions Judge, 24 Parganas.2. Briefly stated the case against the petitioners is that they being Mutawallis of a certain Wakf estate failed to comply with the directions issued by the Wakf Commissioner for enrolment of the estate under the Bengal Wakf Act.3. It is contended before me on behalf of the petitioners that the convictions of the accused-petitioners are not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in the Bengal Wakf Act itself. There is hardly any dispute as respects the fact that the petitioners failed to comply with certain directions issued to th...
Radhashyam Vs. Katyani Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1958Cal122,1958CriLJ365
K.C. Das Gupta, J. 1. A point of some nicety was raised by Mr. Dutta in this Rule which is directed against an order passed in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P. C. What happened in this case was that on the 8th of June, 1954, the learned Magistrate passed an order under Section 145 (1), Criminal P. C., in these words:'As there seems to be real dispute over the properly in question between the contending parties and there is possibility of a breach of the peace, I draw up proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C., and call upon the parties to file written statements with regard to their respective possessions by 29-6-54.'The contending parties referred to in this order were clearly on the one hand Radhasyam Chatterjee, the first party, and on the other Katyani Dasi, Balarain Chandra, Kanail Chandra, Gobinda Prasad Dutt, Doakari De and Kali Pada De. On the 29th July, 1954, the first party filed written statement. On an earlier date, 29th June, 1954, the 2nd party had filed a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »