Guwahati Court February 1958 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.
Subhas Chandra Deb Vs. Subhashini Deb and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-27-1958
H. Deka, J.1. These are two connected appeals arising from the same set of facts and involving the same point of law. The judgment-debtor is the appellant and the orders dated 7th and 9th March 1955 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge at Silchar have been appealed against. It appears from the record that the decree-holder Srimati Subhashini Deb obtained a decree against the defendants in original Title Suit No. 18 of 1939 and the decree was dated 1-9-41. Several execution cases were filed previously without much success. The last execution proceedings were started in the year 1952, and they were separately numbered as separate reliefs were sought in three different cases, but by an order of 24-3-54 they were directed to be amalgamated, which order however, was revised by the learned Subordinate Judge on 24-7-1954. That by itself is not of much importance. What has really been challenged in this case is whether the execution is competent or it is hit by Section 48 of the Civil Pro...
Thangjam Vs. Union Territory
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-24-1958
J.N. Datta, J.C.1. The petitioner Thangjam Amu Singh, was tried for an offence punishable under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act, for being found in possession of a part of a gun, and another a country-made gun and was convicted by the learned A. D. M., Manipur, on a plea of guilty and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 3 months.2. Petitioner's appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, failed and he has come up to this Court with this petition for the exorcise of its revisional jurisdiction.3. Ordinarily, as laid down in Section 412, Cr. P.C. when an; accused person is convicted on his own plea of guilty, no appeal lies except as to the extent or legality of the sentence. It however does not mean, that the appellant is prevented or debarred from showing that the plea was not really one or did not amount to a plea of guilty, and if the appellant can show that, then certainly the conviction would be liable to be set aside.The revisional powers of a High Court, as is well settled, are even g...
Dr. Niranjam Bhattacharjee Vs. Manipur Administration
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-24-1958
J.N. Datta, J.C.1. The petitioner Dr. Niranjan Bhattacharjee, who appears to have been in this Territory from October, 1957 sent a petition to 'this Court, complaining against his detention in the Jail at Imphal, which appears to have commenced from 18-12-57 and the same has been taken up and dealt with under Section 491 of the Cr.PC2. The facts necessary for the consideration, of the question involved, namely, whether petitioner's detention is illegal or improper, and which were presented by the learned Govt. Advocate on behalf of the Administration and which will be found mentioned in the return filed on behalf of the Administration and can be gathered from the papers produced, though not without difficulty, may be briefly stated thus : The petitioner was arrested by the Officer -in-charge, Imphal Police Station under Section 55 Cr.PC on 17-12-57. On the same day he was also arrested by the same officer, under Section 54, Cr. P.C. He was produced before the A.D.M., Manipur, on 18-12...
Abdul Ali Mia Vs. Abdulla and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-24-1958
J.N. Datta, J.C.1. The petitioner Abdul Ali Mia, aged about 85, of village Lilong Khunou, who was convicted under Section 420 of the I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period Order 11/2 months,, has filed this revision petition against his conviction and sentence, his appeal to the court of Sessions having failed.2. The facts necessary for the appreciation of the point involved briefly stated are, that in 1951, the complainant Abdulla alias Tomba Mia, brought a suit against the petitioner, in which his son Abdul Hakim Mia was also later joined as a defendant, for possession of some land on the ground that the petitioner had sold it to him by a registered sale deed D/-30-5-50 (Ext. P-1) for a consideration of Rs. 700/-.The defence was that the petitioner had already made a valid gift of the land to his son (the other defendant) in 1944 sometime before he left for Macca, and the son was since then in possession, that is, on the date of the alleged sale to the plaintiff, the p...
Ramesh Chandra Das Vs. Atul Chandra Sarkar
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-17-1958
G. Mehrotra, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. The suit land, according to the plaintiff, originally belonged to Khatija Bibi who has been impleaded as pro forma defendant No. 1 in the suit and Nejifar Rashman--her husband who has been impleaded as pro forma defendant No. 2. The husband used to manage the land for her. On the 20th -December, 1944, the defendant No. 1 sold the suit land to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed and she delivered possession. The principal defendant Atul Sarkar took the land from the proforma defendants under a lease dated 18th March, 1941 for 10 years at a monthly rental of Rs. 2/8/-. The rent was to be payable within the 1st week of the next month. The lease began from March, 1942.There was a provision in the lease that after the end of the period of 10 years, defendant Atul Sarkar will be entitled to remain in the suit land on a new Bandobasta only. On his failure to get the renewal of lease, he will have to remo...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›