Guwahati Court February 1952 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.
State Vs. Babar Ali
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-26-1952
Thadani, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Garo Hills District in the case of 'The State v. Babar Ali', under Rule 16 of the rules framed for the administration of justice in the Garo Hills for confirmation of the sentence of 7 years' R.I. passed upon Babar Ali under Section 304, I.P.C.Mr. Sarma appears for Babar Ali.2. The case for the prosecution was that on 17.2.51 at about 2 or 2-30 p.m. Babar Ali was annoyed with his wife, Mariam Bibi, for delay in cooking his food; he beat her with a bamboo 'lathi' and caused two injuries on her back. There were no eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Bogo the younger sister of Babar Ali, arrived shortly afterwards; she saw Mariam Bibi sitting in an uncomfortable posture; Mariam Bibi asked for a drink of water, which Bogo gave her; shortly after drinking water she became restless and unconscious. Bogo massaged her chest and poured water on her head but Mariam did not revive and died shortly afterwards. A report of...
Kalikanta Barman and ors. Vs. Rainath Barmon
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-26-1952
Thadani, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Deputy Commissioner pf Goal-para under the provisions of Section 438, Cr.P.C. inviting our attention to certain irregularities In a case filed before the Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhubri, under Section 145, Cr.P.C., It appears that the learned Magistrate, Dhubri, without following the procedure laid down in Section 145, Cr.P.C., permitted the case to be referred to arbitration, by his order dated 6.11.50. The arbitration proved in fructuous and on 3.2.51 one of the arbitrators sent a report, and the Magistrate, acting upon this report, proceeded to examine the first party. The 2nd party was apparently absent that day and the learned Magistrate then proceeded to pass an 'ex parte' order declaring the first party to be in possession.2. The learned District Magistrate rightly, points out that in the first place the matter* under Section 145, Cr.P.C. could not properly be referred to arbitration, in the second place, when the arbitratio...
Abdul Bari Vs. Asrab Ali
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-26-1952
Ram Labhaya, J.1. This petition of revision is directed against an order of the Munsiff of Cachar dated 30-6-1951 by which plaintiff's suit for possession of the disputed land was decreed under Section 9, Specific Relief Act. 2. Plaintiff's case was that he was in occupation of 5 powas of land under his Mirasdar and he was dispossessed forcibly on 12-6-1950 by the defendant. Defendant pleaded that he had been in possession of the suit land under one Arju Mia and others and denied that he dispossessed the plaintiff forcibly as alleged. 3. The trial Court found on the evidence, direct and circumstantial, that the plaintiff was in pos-session of the property and had been dispossessed. He also found that the dispossession occurred on 12-6-1950. On these findings, he decreed the claim. 4. The learned counsel for the defendant petitioner has contended before me that the findings arrived at on the two questions that arose in the case are erroneous. He has pointed out that the learned Munsif...
H.C. Khan and anr. Vs. Purni Agarwallani and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-21-1952
Ram Labhaya, J.1. This petition of revision arises out of suit for possession of a house and some land. The claim included also a prayer for recovery of rent. The jurisdiction value of the suit was Rs. 1,320. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Munsiff at Shillong who can try suits up to the value of Rs.1,000. The value of the suit thus exceeded the limits of his pecuniary jurisdiction. Prom the side of the defendants, the objection was raised to the jurisdiction of the Court. The plaintiff applied to the Court for the amendment of the plaint by reducing jurisdictional value of the suit in order to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff. His prayer was that he may be allowed to withdraw his claim for rent from the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit for the part of the claim withdrawn. The learned Judge allowed withdrawal of the claim for rent with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of this part of the claim. The plaint was amended in consequence of ...
State Vs. Dalma Marak and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-20-1952
Thadani, C.J.1. This is an appeal from Garo Hills by 3 persons who have been convicted by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Garo Hills, under Section 395, I.P.C., and each sentenced to undergo R. I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.100 or, in default, to undergo further R.I. for six months. The learned Deputy Commissioner has also sent up the case of the appellants under RULE 16 of the Rules framed for the administration of justice in the Garo Hills District, for confirmation of their convictions and sentences. 2. The case for the prosecution was that on 2-11-1950, towards midnight, when one Subal Marak and members of his family were asleep in their house, 5 persons broke into the middle room of the house armed with lathis, spears, daos and pointed bamboos. On entering the room, they flashed torch lights upon the inmates of the house; some of them seized Subal Marak and severely assaulted him with a lathi, his wife, Matri Mechik, and her son, Gamansing Sangma, were also beaten: Ga...
Abdul Hamid Khan and ors. Vs. Tridip Kumar Chanda and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-14-1952
Ram Labhaya, J. 1. This petition of revision is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dibrugarh, dated 18-6-1951 by which the order of the Munsiff vacating a previous order by which an ad interim temporary injunction had been issued against defendants 1-3 was reversed. The learned Subordinate Judge by his order granted a temporary injunction against the defendants restraining them from executing an ejectment decree which had been passed in their favour against the opposite parties, the minor plaintiffs and several other persons who were members of the family of the minor plaintiffs. 2. The suit out of which this petition of revision arises was instituted by the two minors alone. They were defendants along with several other members of their family in the ejectment suit which had been decreed ex parte in favour of defendants 1-3, who were plaintiffs in that case. The decree was against the minor plaintiffs to this case as also against several other members of th...
Dhan Bahadur Ghorti Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-14-1952
Deka, J. 1. This is a Criminal Miscellaneous case started on a petition purported to be one under Rule 22 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Garo Hills District against the order of the Deputy Commr., Garo Hills, dated 5-10-1951, directing the petitioner Dhan Bahadur Ghorti to leave Damalgiri Akhing (the village within the jurisdiction of Nokhmas) by 15-11-1951. 2. The learned Deputy Commissioner of Garo Hills started the proceeding numbered Misc. Case No. 170/51 on the application of some 33 persons many of whom came from the village of Damalgiri including the Nokhma thereof. These persons stated in the petition before the Deputy Commissioner that Dhan Bahadur Ghorti was a man of undesirable character and as such his stay in the locality was a sort of nuisance to the people there. The learned Deputy Commissioner directed a notice to be issued on Dhan Bahadur Ghorti to show cause why he should not be asked to vacate Damalgiri within a reasonable time. D...
Biswanath Agarwalla Vs. State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-08-1952
Deka, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Biswanath Agarwalla for issue of appropriate writ against the Government quashing an order of detention passed against him Under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act (Act IV of 1950) as amended by the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act of 1951. 2. The petitioner was detained mainly for smuggling rice and paddy from the cordoned, area in the district of Nowgong, The order of detention was passed and served on the petitioner on 8th August 1951 and his case was placed before the Advisory Board constituted under the Preventive Detention Act as amended. After the report from the Advisory Board-was received the Provincial Government acting Under Section 11 of the Preventive Detention Act (as amended) passed an order confirming the detention of the petitioner for an indeterminate period. His main ground for challenging the order of detention was that the Advisory Board was not properly constituted bu...
Lohit Chandra and anr. Vs. Rongdeb Goswami and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-01-1952
Deka, J.1. These are two analogous appeals from an order of the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup dated 24-11-1950 whereby he affirmed the orders of the learned Sub-Deputy Collector of Kamalpur Circle, dated 18-2-50 covering three cases i.e. Case Nos. N. K. 80 of 1948-49, N. K. 104 of 1948-49, and N. K. 1 of 1949-50. These three revenue cases were heard together by the learned S. D. C. and were covered by one judgment. Rev. Appeal No. 21 of 1951 relates to Mut. Case No. 80/48-49 and Rev. Appeal No. 22 of 1951 relates to Mut. Case No. 1 of 1949-50. 2. The Mutation case No. 80 of 1948-49 and Mutation Case No. 1 of 1949-50 were filed by two persons Lohit Chandra Goswami and Gauri Kanta Goswami, who are the appellants in the appeals before me and Mut. Case No. 104 of 1948-49 was filed by one Syed Amir Ali who has not filed any appeal against the order of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner. 3. All these three Mutation Cases relate to N. K. Patta No. 1/52 of village Patrapu...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›