Kolkata Court May 1893 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.
Chathu Rai Vs. Niranjan Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal729
Trevelyan and Rampini, JJ.1. In this case the learned Counsel in support of the order of the Magistrate has only been able to refer us to Section 437, Code of Criminal Procedure, in support of the power of the Magistrate to make the order which he had passed. Now, that section only allows a further enquiry into a complaint. A complaint means a complaint of an offence [Section 4 (a), Criminal Procedure Code], and an offence is defined in the Code as 'any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force.' We think it is quite clear that Section 437, which enables a Magistrate to make an order for further enquiry does not authorize him to order a further enquiry in a case under Section 145, which is not directed to any offence at all. That being so, we think that this rule must be made absolute, and that the orders dated the 9th February and 24th February should be set aside....
Promoda Nath Roy and ors. Vs. Modhu Sudan Kundu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal732
Ghose, J.1. This was a suit for ejectment of the defendant from 1 bigha 14 1/2 cottahs of land in chur Sulkea (Howrah).2. It appears that the main estate, chur Sulkea, was settled by Government with the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants' predecessors in title in the year 1849. Subsequent thereto, there was an accretion to that estate, and the whole of the lands, both old and new, were settled by Government with the then owners of the parent estate in November 1877.3. In the meantime the Government made a public road over a portion of the lands, measuring 7 1/2 cottahs, and upon the passing of the Bengal Municipal Act, III of 1864, and upon the extension of that Act in 1865 to the town of Howrah, the Municipality of Howrah took possession of the land; and they held such possession by erecting a toll-house and stacking stones for metalling roads. The predecessors in title of the plaintiffs then brought a suit for possession of their share in the said land, and some other lands, but...
Khiroda Dasi and ors. Vs. Moni Lal Bandopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal740
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This action was brought to recover possession of 9 cottahs of land at Agarpara, which the plaintiff's say was homestead land and had been held by two persons called Mala as tenants of Maharajah Norendro Kristo. which they, the plaintiff's, had purchased from them, and of which they say the defendants have forcibly taken possession in December 1889.2. The defence was that the 9 cottahs had been held by Shyama Sundari Dasi under the Maharajah; that 5 cottahs of it had been held by the Malaa, and the other 4 cottahs by other persons, as her tenants; that she sold the land to defendant No. 4 and, that since the sale the Malas and the other tenants paid their rent to the defendants, and that the Malas had no saleable or transferable interest in the land which they could transfer to the plaintiffs.3. After a good many postponements, the case came on for hearing before the Munsif of Sealdah on the 30th of December 1890, on which occasion the defendants applied for a ...