Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1906)ILR33Cal1023
Mitra and Holmwood, JJ.1. This was a rule calling upon the Magistrate of Dacca to show cause why the conviction and sentence of the accused 1 and 2 under Section 143 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and of the other accused under Section 143 should not be set aside, or why such other order should not be passed as to this Court may seem proper.2. The facts found in the Lower Courts were that accused were members of an unlawful assembly with the common object of entering with force and causing mischief and using criminal force to the shopkeepers and thereby causing damage to the bazar of Babu Bhabaranjan Banerjee.3. The accused 3, 4 and 5 were found to have gone up into the bazar and committed rioting armed with deadly weapons. The accused 1 and 2 were found to have stood below the bazar and encouraged and directed such rioting. The first question raised before us was whether a conviction under Section 148 read with Section 114 could lie against these persons. No doubt, if ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1906)ILR33Cal905
Rampini, J.1. The appeal arises out of a suit, which the plaintiffs have brought on behalf of themselves and certain members of the Satchasi community of Chatra, to obtain a declaration of their right to take part in the management of the worship of the goddess Sitala celebrated at that village and to have joint possession with the defendants of two plots of land, on which the worship of the goddess is carried on.The lower Appellate Court has given the plaintiffs a decree.The defendants appeal.The grounds of appeal urged before us are,(1) that the suit is not maintainable under Section 30, Code of Civil Procedure;(2) that the plaintiffs have not conformed to the requirements of Section 30,(3) that there is defect of parties,(4) that the Judge's finding is wrong on the facts,(5) that the suit is barred by limitation,(6) that the plaintiffs are estopped from questioning the exclusive right of worship of the defendants, and(7) that the decree should have been limited to plot (1), the plot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1906)ILR33Cal1183
Mitra, J.1. This rule was issued. on the District Magistrate of Faridpur and the complainant Raj jab Ali to show cause why the case against the petitioner now pending in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Madaripur should not be transferred for trial to some other Magistrate in the district competent to try it.2. The complainant has not appeared and shown cause. The Subdivisional Magistrate of Madaripur has submitted an explanation through the District Magistrate, and the District Magistrate has stated in his letter to the Registrar of this Court that it will be extremely inconvenient and expensive to the complainant and his witnesses, especially at the present sowing season, to attend any Court other than a Court at Madaripur for the trial of the case. The District Magistrate has also expressed his fear that the transfer of the case might compel the complainant to come to an amicable settlement with the accused and thus defeat justice.3. The main grounds relied on by the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1906)ILR33Cal1282
Mitra and Holmwood, JJ.1. In this matter we called up the record and issued a Rule to show cause why the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, dated the 23rd April 1906, dismissing the complaint of the petitioners should not be set aside on the ground that the proceedings taken before him were not in accordance with law.2. The petitioners presented their petition of complaint in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate accusing the defendant of criminal breach of trust. Their allegations were that they had entered into a deed of partnership with the accused and they had arranged that they should carry on the partnership business, the defendant receiving a third share of the profits. The defendant was also to get the sum of Rs. 40 a month in the meantime and until the accounts were adjusted. The defendant drew various sums of money in all exceeding what he was entitled to at Rs. 40 a month and hence the complaint was lodged.3. On the complaint being lodged the Chief Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1907)ILR34Cal36
Rampini, J.1. The facts of the suit, out of which this appeal arises are, that one Abadi died, leaving a widow, a major son, a minor son and two minor daughters. The widow and major son sold two bighas of the laud left by Abadi to one Bechu Sheikh in August 1897 and 4 bighas of the land to the same person in June 1899. Subsequently, in February 1902, the minor son and daughters having attained their majority sold their share of the land amounting to 9 annas odd to the plaintiff, who has now sued for possession.2. The Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit. The District Judge has held that the sales to Bechu Sheikh were good sales and conveyed the interest of the minors, as well as of the major son and the widow. He has found that the sales were for legal necessity and for the benefit of the minors, and accordingly held that the plaintiff took nothing by his purchase of February 1902.3. The plaintiff appeals. On his behalf it has been urged.(1) that the first hobala of August 1897...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1906)ILR33Cal821
Chunder M. Ghose, A.C.J., and Caspersz, J.1. The plaintiffs in these cases are the tenants of cue Nawab Ali Chowdhry, the owner of mouza Musuddi, while the defendants are the zemindar of Jhupna, a neighbouring village, and certain tenants, who claim title under him. The suit was to recover possession of certain lands as appertaining to the said mouza Musuddi, the cause of action alleged being dispossession by the tenant defendants in September 1894 and March 1896 under colour of the possessory decrees obtained by them under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, on the 24th May 1894 and 9th September 1895, respectively. The main questions upon which the parties went to trial in the Court of first instance were, first, whether the plaintiffs' claim was barred by the law of limitation and, secondly, whether the lands in suit appertain to mouza Musuddi, which, is said to belong to Nawab Ali Chowdhry, or to Jhupna belonging to Maharaja Surjya Kant Acharjya Chowdhry. The Munsif found that in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1906)ILR33Cal827
Sale, J.1. I think that the Taxing Officer was quite right in holding that the fee of 30 gold mohurs paid to counsel in a motion for the discharge of guardians of an infant was unusual and excessive and was not prima facie allowable on taxation for payment either out of the estate or by the clients, who were the guardians of the infant. The order disallowing the costs as against the clients was not however absolute; but the attorney was required to show that he had written instructions from his clients to pay this excessive fee or to produce before the Taxing Officer a written authority to pass the fee for payment as against himself. The order, under which the taxation in question was made, directed the costs of the guardians in the motion to be taxed as between attorney and client and to be paid out of the estate of Troylockho Nath Biswas then in the hands of the Administrator-General.2. Notice to the clients was given to appear on the taxation, but they did not appear; but exception ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1906)ILR33Cal915
Rampini, J.1. The facts of the case, out of which this appeal arises, are as follows:The plaintiff alleges that he has purchased a plot of 8 cottahs of land in Kidderpore from one Punti Bewah and seeks to eject the defendant, who is now in possession of it. He admits that his vendor Punti Bewah previously to his purchase of it sold the and to the defendant, but he alleges that this sale was a fraudulent one, brought about by undue influence on the part of the defendant, who was Punti Bewah's mukhtear in certain criminal cases.2. The defendant contended that Punti Bewah had no title to the land and that the true owner of the land was Narain Khela, from whom he purchased it. He admits that he previously purchased the land from Punti Bewah in ignorance of the title of Narain Khela, but avers that, when he learnt of Narain Khela's title, he obtained a conveyance of it from him.3. The Judge has found (1) that Punti Bewah had no title to the land either by inheritance or adverse possession, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1906)ILR33Cal702
Sale, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit claims to recover a sum of Rs. 3,000 as damages from the defendant Company for non-delivery of the January instalment of gunny-bags, which under a contract dated the 27th July 1905 the defendant Company agreed to sell and deliver to one Cassim Karim. The plaintiff claims to enforce the contract as the assignee of Cassim Karim, the original purchaser. The deed of assignment is dated the 16th August 1905 and purports in consideration of the sum of Rs. 100 paid by the assignee to the assignor to transfer and assign over to the assignee the contracts in the schedule thereto set forth as also the benefits and advantages thereunder as also the right, title, interest, estate, claim and demand whatsoever of the assignor into or upon the said contracts. The schedule to the assignment sets out nine different contracts entered into by the Delta Jute Mills Company, Ld., and by the Budge-Budge Jute Mills Company, Ld., and also by the Bombay Company, Ld., by Mes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1906)ILR33Cal1232
Rampini and Harington, JJ.1. These are two appeals from orders passed by the District Judge of Nadia, affirming the orders of the Subordinate Judge of that District in two execution cases.2. The facts are that the decree-holder appellant, having obtained decrees for the mesne profits accruing due both previous to the institution of the suits and after that date up to the date of recovery of possession, made applications for the ascertainment of these mesne profits. In one case he claimed Rs. 422-8 and in another Rs. 343-12. He paid Court-fees on these amounts. He subsequently claimed Rs. 31,000 and Rs. 27,000 as mesne profits in the two cases.3. The Subordinate Judge awarded him Rs. 2,414-15-6 and Rs. 1,724-15-10 and on the 7th May 1902 ordered him to pay in the deficit Court-fees payable on these amounts within seven days' time. The decree-holder did not pay these fees within these seven days. The deficit Court-fees were subsequently paid into Court on the 26th May, but no application...
Tag this Judgment!