Kolkata Court February 1960 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.
Gopiram Onkarmall Vs. Sewantilal Punam Chand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal580,65CWN483
Renupada Mukherjee, J.1. The defendant of the trial court which is a firmof the name and style of Gopiram Onkarmal, is appellant in this appeal. The suit out of which thisappeal hag arisen was instituted in the trial court byrespondent Sewantilal Punam Chand for a declaration of his tenancy right in two rooms on the thirdfloor of premises No. 208 Cross-Street, Calcutta.There was also a prayer for a declaration that thedecree, passed in, an ejectment, suit against the firm-name of the plaintiff is not binding on him. Subsequent to the institution of the suit a prayer was alsomade for obtaining delivery of possession of the disputed rooms, because during the pendency of thesuit in the trial court the appellant firm had takendelivery of possession of the rooms by executing itsdecree.The suit was, contested by the appellantfirm. Its defence was that the firm bearing the nameSewantilal Punam Chand was the recorded tenantand the plaintiff was the sole proprietor of the firm and so the decree...
Satya Mandalini and anr. Vs. Sahadur Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Cal40,64CWN775
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This is the defendant's second appeal, arising out of a suit for specific performance. In the view, which we are taking it is not necessary to go into any controversial question of fact, inasmuch as the case has to be remanded to the Court of appeal below for re-hearing and further consideration, as the appeal before it, out of which this instant second appeal arises appears to have been disposed of on a point of law, more or less of a preliminary nature, upon a wholly wrong view of the same.2. The facts, relevant for our present purpose, stand as follows : The suit property originally belonged to defendant No. 1 Padmabati. According to the plaintiffs, Padmabati agreed to sell the said property to the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, who were respectively the wives of plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4. The alleged stipulated price was Rs. 599/- and the agreement in Question was stated to have been made on January 27, 1950, when Padmabati took Rs. 100/- from the plaintiffs Nos. 3 and ...
Jugal Charan Mondal, Judgment-debtor Vs. Sm. Pankajini Dasi, Decree-ho ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal183
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal, arising oat of a proceeding under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant judgment-debtor, who was also the Receiver to the judgment-debtor's estate, objected to the holding of the sale, upon the ground, inter alia, that the Court which made the relevant order for sale, or, more precisely, made the order, directing issue of sale proclamation, and fixed the date of sale, had no jurisdiction to pass the relevant order or orders, and had also no jurisdiction to hold the sale at the time, or, in the manner, in which the same was held. The objection was overruled by both the Courts below and the sale has since been actually held and the property has been purchased by the decree-holder respondent.2. The relevant facts stand as follows :On June 1, 1955, the respondent decree-holder obtained the decree in Question for Rs. 2178/-, with interest Rs. 81-2-0 and costs Rs. 297-11-6, in Money Suit No. 144 of 1954, from Sri K. ...
Shaib Ali Biswas Vs. Jinnatan Nahar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal717,64CWN756
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This is the plaintiff-husband's appeal against an appellate decision, dismissing his suit for restitution of conjugal rights and consequential injunction. 2. The trial court decreed the suit on certain conditions which were duly complied with by the plaintiff. On appeal by the defendants, namely, the wife and her parents and uncle, the said decree was set aside and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The present second appeal is directed against this dismissal and seeks restoration of the trial court's decree. 3. The relevant facts lie within a short compass and they may be conveniently stated here as follows: Admittedly, defendant No. 1 Jinnatan Nahar was married to the plaintiff Shaib Ali Biswas in Magh1356 B. S. There was a dispute between the parties as to the wife's (Jinnatan Nahar's) age at the time of the said marriage, the plaintiff alleging that she was then 15 years 3 months old and the defendant asserting that she was then aged only just a little above ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›