Kolkata Court January 1902 Judgments

Mani Chander Chakerbutty Vs. Baikanta Nath Biswas

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal363

Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. The only question raised in this appeal is as to whether the defendants, being tenants of the plaintiffs, can claim a right of easement in respect of the water, fish and earth of the tank in dispute.2. The Munsif disallowed the claim of the defendants, because a tenant cannot acquire a right of easement against his landlord. The Subordinate Judge decided that the defendants had acquired the easement in question. He said: ' When a tenant has no right to the land which he occupies, he cannot claim prescriptive right over the servile tenement, inasmuch as he has no right to the dominant tenement itself. But the defendants in this case are osat talukdars, having a proprietary interest in the dominant tenement. Consequently, they are entitled to claim right of easement over the land in the khas possession of plaintiffs.'3. The plaintiffs appeal. The first point that calls for observation in this case is the fact that the defendants, in their written statement, never...

Girish Chunder Ghose Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal457

Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.1. In this case a certain person not concerned in the matter before us was, on a complaint made, convicted and sentenced under Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint accused other persons, but the Magistrate thought proper to proceed only against one. The complainant then appeared before the Magistrate and asked that processes might be issued against the others, but this was refused. He has now obtained an order from the Sessions Judge under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing a further inquiry. On an objection taken that this order was passed without notice to the petitioners, a rule has been granted to set it aside on the grounds, first, that notice should have been issued; secondly, that the order of the Magistrate refusing to entertain the complaint is not an order in regard to which a further inquiry should be made; and, lastly, that the Magistrate had no authority to take cognizance of the complaint itself. No doubt ordina...

Emperor Vs. Nuri Sheikh

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal483

Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.1. The jury unanimously acquitted the accused Nuri Sheikh of murder of his younger wife, Safina Bibi. The Sessions Judge has referred this case to us because he considers that on the evidence the jury should have returned a verdict convicting the accused.2. The evidence is that the prisoner slept alone with the dec(sic)ised, and that some time in the morning at about 8 or 9 o'clock the villages became aware that she was dead. Their suspicions were, however, aroused, and accordingly the chaukidar gave the first information to the police-station distant about four miles. The Sub-Inspector arrived shortly afterwards, and has told us in his evidence that he examined all the witnesses and sent the accused to the Subdivisional Magistrate at Jamalpore, who released the accused on bail, stating that there was nothing but mere suspicion against him. At the post-mortem examination of the body it was found that the deceased woman had died from strangulation. The police the...

Serajul Huq Khan Vs. Abdul Rahaman

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal257

Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca, dated the 19th of September 1900.2. The suit is brought for recovery of possession of land, after a declaration of the plaintiff's right as purchaser from the defendant No. 2, for an order for the registration of the plaintiff's name under Act YII of 1876, for mesne profits, and also for a refund of the purchase money from the defendant No. 2 in case the plaintiff's claim against the defendant No. 1 fails.3. The Court of first instance held that there was misjoinder of parties and causes of action and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the Subordinate Judge, who held that there had been misjoinder in both respects. But he was of opinion that the Court of first instance should have given an opportunity to the plaintiff to elect the cause of action on which he wished to proceed with the suit; and he therefore set aside the decree of the first Court and remanded the case to the Munsif in...

Emperor Vs. Bheleka Aham

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal493

Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.1. The jury have convicted the accused of murder, but the Sessions Judge has refused to accept this verdict because he considers that the jury, while finding that the 'accused killed the boy Ratneshwar should also have found that he was by reason of unsoundness of mind incapable of knowing, the nature of his act or that he was doing what is either wrong or contrary to law (Section 84 of the Penal Code), and that on this ground the jury should have acquitted the accused.2. The evidence shows that the accused is addicted to intemperate habits by excessive use of opium, and that occasionally or for some days before and after killing the boy he was irresponsible for his actions. The manner in which the boy was killed amply confirms this.3. The only doubt in our minds is whether the case falls under Section 84 or Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code. Under Section 84 unsoundness of mind producing incapacity to know the nature of the act committed or that it is wrong o...

Abdul Ghani Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal412

Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Magistrate under Section 52 of the Post Office Act (VI of 1898). On appeal the Sessions Judge discharged the accused on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hold the trial. Further proceedings were then commenced by another Magistrate,' who has committed the accused for trial to the Sessions Court, and on objection taken by him, a Rule has been granted by a Bench of this Court to show cause why the order of commitment should not be set aside upon the ground that, having regard to the order of the Sessions Judge, the Magistrate has no authority to make such commitment. A commitment, it may be observed, can be quashed only on a point of law (see Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The point of law for which the learned Pleader for the petitioner contends is that, inasmuch as the Sessions Judge in appeal was empowered to make an order for retrial by a Court of competent jurisdiction and had not don...

Sarat Chunder Roy Vs. BepIn Chandra Roy

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal389

Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.1. The objection taken in this case on which a Rule was granted is represented to us as being this. The Subdivisional Magistrate instituted proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the purpose of binding the petitioner down to keep the peace. Objection was taken to his trying the case, and consequently it was, under the orders of the District Magistrate, transferred to a Magistrate not in the subdivision, but holding his Court at the head-quarters of the district. When the case was taken up before this Magistrate objection was raised that the original order instituting the proceedings was bad, inasmuch as it did not give sufficient notice to the parties of the substance of the information upon which the Subdivisional Magistrate had acted. The Magistrate, out of consideration for the parties, amended the proceedings by drawing up a fresh proceeding, citing the substance of the information in full, but still relying upon the same informatio...

Surat Lall Chowdhry Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Stevens and Harington, JJ.1. The appellants in this case have been convicted of dacoity under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and amounts of fine.2. The appeal was admitted on the ground that there appeared to have been a non-compliance on the part of the Sessions Judge with the provisions of Sub-Section (8) of Section 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code, inasmuch as before the commencement of the trial the appellants, who then occupied the position of accused persons, notified to the Court of Session their intention to make an application for the transfer of the case under the provisions of Section 526 and applied to the Court to exercise its powers of postponement in order to afford them a reasonable time for the application being made and an order being made thereon, and the Court refused to exercise these powers. The learned Sessions Judge was called upon for an explanation with reference to the allegations made in the pe...

Baida Nath Majumdar Vs. Nibaran Chunder Ghose

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal242

Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.1. On receipt of a police report to the effect that there was a breach of the peace likely to take place between certain persons in consequence of a dispute con-corning land, the Magistrate found that there were no sufficient grounds for proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. One of the parties to the dispute then moved the District Magistrate to proceed. The District Magistrate thereupon recorded a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the 20th July, within the terms of Sub-section (1), and it further appears that, on its being afterwards brought to his notice that certain persons, who were concerned in such dispute, came within the terms of a decision of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra Das v. Monohur Roy (1893) I. L. R. 21 Calc. 29., he drew up a fresh proceeding so as to make these persons parties. The objection that has been raised before us is that under the authority of the case of Chathu Rai v. N...

In Re: Dukshina Mohun Roy

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal32

Sale, J.1. My view is this, that, where there are two sets of defendants and their interests are practically the same, both should address the Court before any evidence is gone into....