Kolkata Court August 1907 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.
Kamal Kumari Devi Vs. Narendra Nath Mukherji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1907
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.573
Woodroffe, J.1. The first plaintiff appellant is the third widow of Rai Jadu Nath Mukerjee Bahadur, the testator. The second plaintiff is her minor son and the third is the minor widow of another son. The defendant respondents are the sons of the testator's deceased second wife Srimati Sattyabati Debi. The testator was the Government pleader of Hazaribagh and a man of considerable property. On the 16th November 1900, he executed a Will which was deposited in the Registry. This Will the Subordinate Judge has found to be a good family arrangement and according to the real intention of the testator. The defendants state that they are unaware of the steps which led to the execution of the Will. About four months, however, before the testator died, he left his house at Badambazar where all his children lived and went with the plaintiff and her relations to live in another house about a mile away called the Khirgram Bungalow. There are two circumstances in connection with this removal which ...
Harihar Pande Vs. Chowdhury Karamat HosseIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1907
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.175
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant in a suit for assessment of rent and for recovery of such rent for a certain period. In the Court of first instance the defendant pleaded that the land was rent-free. In answer, the plaintiffs contended that the question was res judicata. The Court of first instance held that the matter was not res judicata, inasmuch as although the question had been raised in a previous suit, between the parties and decided, the decision was not final within the meaning of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court of first instance, therefore, went into the merits and found that the title of the plaintiffs to have rent assessed on the disputed land had been extinguished by adverse possession. In this view of the matter, the Munsif dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs then appealed to the District Judge, and it was contended on their behalf that the question of the character of the disputed land was res judicata. The learned District Judge gave e...
Beni Bhushan Roy Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal991
Mitra and Fletcher, JJ.1. The petitioner has been bound down under Section 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the sum of rupees five thousand, with two sureties each in like sum, to be of good behaviour for one year.2. The charges against, the petitioner are contained in the notice issued under Section 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is this:--'Whereas from the police report it has been made to appear before me that you, Beni Bhushau Roy, on Saturday, the 25th May, read out a written speech as President of the Reception Committee of a meeting held at the Hindu Dharma-Sabha within the Khulna town on the aforesaid date, in the course of which you referred to the present year as being very auspicious for the inauguration of the meeting, as it was the fiftieth anniverary of the Indian Mutiny, when there was an attempt of the natives of India to regain their country which was almost successful, and you incited the members of the meeting to exert themselves to secure an in...
Abinash Chandra Mitra Vs. the Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1907
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.415
1. The petitioner was charged with others with committing an offence under Section 147, I.P.C. The Deputy Magistrate after going carefully through the evidence against the accused discharged all of them except 3 under Section 253 of the Code. The learned Sessions Judge of Birbhum set aside the order of discharge and directed a farther enquiry under Section 437 of the Code. As regards the petitioner before us, all that the Sessions Judge says for a further enquiry is this: It will, of course, be the duty of the Court below to see whether he could have any 'motive to join in the riot and whether the evidence is sufficient against him.' It was the duty of the Sessions Judge, before directing a further enquiry as regards the petitioner, to have perused the evidence and stated what the grounds were which induced him to direct a further enquiry. The mere fact that the petitioner was one of the accused would not be sufficient to direct a further enquiry as regards him, simply because there wa...
Gobinda Sundar Sinha Chowdhury Vs. Sri Krishna Chakravarti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1907
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.346
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in an action for rent of putni tenure for the year 1311 and the first instalment of the year 1312. The defendants Nos. 2 to, 5 originally held the putni which was created on the 6th May 1896. On the 20th March 1901 the first defendant and his brother, Bijoy Krishna now deceased purchased, the putni from, the other defendants. They did their best to have their purchase recognized by the plaintiff and repeatedly tendered the rent as it fell due, instalment by instalment. The plaintiff, however, refused to recognize the transfer and on the 23rd April 1904 commenced an action for rent against the recorded tenants for arrears in respect of the years 1307 to 1310. It appears from an examination of the original plaint in this suit that the name of the purchaser was added as that of a party defendant and the body of the plaint contained a recital that he claimed to have acquired an interest in the putni from the original holders thereof. For some...
Elem Molla and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1907
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.921
1. The two accused were placed on their trial before the Sessions Judge, Faridpur, charged, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, with having committed murder by causing the death of one Nowai Khan. The two Assessors were of opinion that the guilt of the accused was not established by the evidence adduced. The Sessions Judge, however, disagreeing with the opinion of the Assessors, has found that the charge has been fully proved against them both, and has convicted and sentenced them to transportation for life.2. Both the accused have appealed. The case against them was that they, with members of their party, had a long-standing feud with Nowai Khan and members of his party; that litigation had been going on between them for the past two years, and that a criminal case was pending on the 9th March 190 7. On that date the deceased, Nowai Khan, went to the Dignagar hat, which was in a neighbouring village, apparently about midday, and was returning home a little after dusk. While re...
Abinash Chandra Bhattacharjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal986
Mitra and Fletcher, JJ.1. This is a Rule calling on the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why his order, dated the 24th July last, directing that the Sadhana Printing Press be confiscated, should not be set aside on grounds Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 taken in the petition before us.2. One Bhupedra Nath Dutt was prosecuted under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code for the publication, in the issue of the newspaper called Yugantar of the 16th June 1907, of matters which, it was alleged, attempted to excite disaffection towards the Government of India. He was convicted on the 24th July, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The Sadhana Printing Press which, it was alleged was used for the purpose of the publication of the Yugantar of the 16th June, was also directed by the said Magistrate to be confiscated. On the 26th July, an application was made to the Chief Presidency Magistrate by the present petitioner for an order directing that the execution of the...
Chairman, South Barrackpore Municipality Vs. Amulya Nath Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal1030
R.F. Rampini, Acting C.J. and Sharfuddin, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Alipore, dated the 13th June 1905.2. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the South Barrackpore Municipality against the defendant Amulya Nath Chatterjee to set aside a permanent maurasi mokurrari lease granted on the 22nd March 1902 by the latter to the former in respect of 35 bighas, 15 cottahs of land. The Municipality had to pay a salami of Rs. 357 8 annas to the defendant and the rent reserved was one rupee per bigha per month. The Municipality in this suit prayed for cancellation of this lease; but the suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge.3. The Municipality now appeal, and on their behalf it is contended, first, that the lease entered into by them with the defendant was ultra vires; secondly, that it binds the executing persons, but not the rate-payers; thirdly, that it is a contract entered into in fraud of the Bengal Municipal Act fourthly, t...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›