Kolkata Court May 1908 Judgments
Gobinda Chandra Mahapatra Vs. Chaudhury Ram Chandra Nisanka Mahapatra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.324
1. This is an appeal in an action to recover arrears of ijara rent for the second kist of 1309.2. The defendant pleaded payment.3. The first Court allowed certain payments and allowed interest in accordance with Section 67 of the Bengal Tenancy Act at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum. On appeal to the District Judge, the plaintiff's claim has been fully decreed with costs. 4. For contentions have been advanced before us on behalf of the ijardar defendant. On the first contention that the defendant is entitled to collection charges, we are informed that there is a stipulation, to that effect in the qabuliyat and the learned Vakil for the plaintiff consents that the decree of the lower appellate Court should be varied so as to allow a deduction of these collection charges, namely, to the amount of Rs. 4-15-3 (Rupees four, annas fifteen and pies three).5. The second argument of the learned Vakil for the defendant, is directed to the rate of interest which the District Judge has raised f...
Tag this Judgment!Shaffar Khan Vs. Satyanunda Das Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.545
1. This is a second appeal against an order of the District Judge of Dacca passed in an execution case. The question at issue is whether the decree-holder who has obtained a decree for foreclosure and who has been put in possession of the mortgaged property is entitled to execute his decree for costs against the mortgager personally. The decree itself is not explicit on this point. 'It declares the plaintiff entitled to Rs. 2,612-10-0 for the mortgage debt and to Rs. 220-3-0 for costs. The District Judge has held, on the authority of the case of Rutnessur Sein v. jusoda 14 C. 185 that the decree-holder is entitled, to execute his decree for costs against the judgment-debtor separately.2. The judgment-debtor appeals. We are referred to the provisions, of Section 86 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the Full Bench ruling of the Allahabad High Court in Maqbul Fatima v. Lalta Pershad 20 A. 523.3. The provisions of Section 86 do not help us. In the case of Maqbul Fatima v. Lalta Pershad ...
Tag this Judgment!Santishwar Mahanta and ors. Vs. Lakhikanta Mahanta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.321
1. The main question, which arose for determination in the suit, out of which this, appeal arises and which has been considered at the hearing of the present appeal, is whether the claim of the plaintiff to recover the balance of the money due on the bond was barred by limitation or not.2. The plaintiff, to support his contention that the claim is not barred, has relied on an endorsement of payment made on the 80th Chait 1309 B.S.,by the defendant of the sum of Rs. 53. The body of that endorsement was admittedly not in the handwriting of the debtor, and the question, which was raised and discussed in the Courts below, was whether the signature on that endorsement was in his handwriting or not.3. The Court of first instance held that the signature was a forgery, that the endorsement was a forged endorsement, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to rely on it in order to save his claim from being barred by limitation.4. On appeal the lower appellate Court has come to a different concl...
Tag this Judgment!Brindaban Behari Lal Vs. Bhawani Sahai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.301
1. There cannot be much doubt as to the facts of this case. The difficulty lies in determining the relation between the parties and their respective rights.2. It appears that some years before the grant of the Dewani to the East India Company i.e., 12th August 1765, Karta Narain who held certain villages under the Mahomedan Government as zemindar made a grant of the village Patesha which is the subject matter of dispute in the present case to one Dhansiram. The grant was rent-free, and Dhansiram and his heirs continued to be in possession of the village as rent-free from the time of the grant to the date of the Dewani and thereafter until the present day. The precise nature of the grant cannot be ascertained as there is an absence from the record of the grant itself. It is not, however, an Imperial grant which would be covered by Regulation XXXVII of 1793. It was a grant by a zemindar which would be covered by Regulation XIX of 1793 and, if the grantee was in possession under a rent-fr...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Charan Sant Vs. Kailash Chandra Bhuyan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal278,1Ind.Cas.970
Maclean, C.J.1. This is an action for malicious prosecution. This defendant, it appears, gave information to the police, upon which the plaintiff was arrested and brought before the Magistrate and subsequently acquitted. The case comes before us on second appeal, and we must take the findings of the Judge in the Court below as binding upon us. That Court has decided against the appellant and decreed a very small amount of damages. The appellant appeals: and he says that the action would not lie, that he was not the prosecutor, but that the police were the prosecutors. Now, what are the findings of the Court below There are findings of malice, findings of want of reasonable and probable cause for the institution of the criminal case. The Judge also finds, 'The defendant did not only lodge the complaint before the police, but did virtually fabricate false evidence to procure the plaintiff's conviction. The defendant did actually appoint a mukhtear to prosecute the plaintiff. The mukhtear...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Superintendent and Legal Remembrancer Vs. Chulhan Ahir and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1908
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.826
1. In this case the accused were convicted by the Deputy Magistrate of Satan of offences under Sections 144 and 427, read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. Their conviction were set aside by the Sessions Judge on appeal, and the case now comes before us in appeal from his judgment.2. The facts of the case are exceedingly simple and they are that the appellants finding their fields flooded cut a channel through the Railway to let the water run off their fields. The learned Sessions Judge has get aside their conviction on the ground that neither their intention nor the means employed by them to effect their intention were criminal, He holds that their intention was rot to cause mischief but to cause the water to run off their fields. In this, however, he makes not altogether an uncommon error in confusing motive with intention. Their intention was to make a ditch through the Railway. Their motive was to free their fields from water. There can be no doubt that what they did to the Rail...
Tag this Judgment!Dasarathi Mahapatra Vs. Raghu Sahu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal158
Rampini and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This is a Rule to show cause why the conviction of, and sentences passed on, the accused should not be set aside. The accused have been convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code of rioting, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a month and to pay a fine of Rs. 20. They have been found to have attacked the complainant and others, while cutting their paddy. The accused party were about 30 in number. This complainant was beaten and wounded and taken to the thana in a dhuli.2. The main question debated in the lower Courts was as to the possession of the land. Both the Courts below found that the complainant had been in possession of the land since 1905. His predecessor-in-interest, that is, his father-in-law,. had obtained a decree in the Civil Court and had been put in possession of the land by the Civil Court, and an under-raiyat, named Shibo Jana, who had been in actual possession till then, had gone out and the complainant's father-...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›