Kolkata Court July 1908 Judgments
Prosonna Kumar Bose and ors. Vs. Sarat Shoshi Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.766
Brett, J.1. The appellants in these four appeals are the four sons and the respondents are the three married daughters of Saroda Moyi Basu. On the 15th June 1853, Saroda Moyi received a gift from her father of taluk Roy Chandra Sarma No. 5480. This was after her marriage. On the 7th October 1903 she died, leaving four sons and three daughters her surviving. Three of the sons, other than the appellant in appeal No. 2095 of 1906, applied to the Collector to be registered as heirs of the taluk by right of inheritance from their mother. They were opposed by the three daughters, and, on the 24th August 1904, the applications of the sons were refused and an order was passed to register the three daughters as proprietors of the taluk by right of inheritance from Saroda Moyi Basu. The four brothers then filed four suits on the 5th July 1905 and following days, praying for declaration of their title each to one-fourth share in the taluk and for recovery of possession.2. In the Court of first in...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rauf and anr. Vs. RahomuddIn Bhuia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.328
1. We have heard the learned Vakil in support of this rule and nobody appearing to oppose it, we think it must be made absolute.2. The order of the Magistrate, dated the 3rd April 1907, postponing the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sine die and at the same time retaining the property covered by those proceedings under attachment, is an order which he certainly had no jurisdiction to pass. The reasons given in the order itself for passing it are not, in our opinion, tenable. There is nothing whatever to show that the estate or area in which the land in dispute is situated is now under settlement by the revenue authorities under the provisions of Regulation VII of 1822, and even if it had been, the Deputy Magistrate does not appear to have followed the instructions contained in Section 34 of that Regulation. We hold that the reasons given for postponing the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sine die are bad in law. We, theref...
Tag this Judgment!Nagendra Bala Debya Vs. Tarapada Acharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.369
1. This is suit for two years rent of a putni holding and was originally brought by plaintiff No.. 1, one of the respondents before us, at a period when no portion of the claim was barred by any limitation. Plaintiff No. 1 is an 8 annas co-sharer of the holding and as his co-sharer refused to join him, he made him a pro forma defendant. He stated in his plaint that he sued for the entire 16 annas of the rent due, but at the same time he asked to have awarded to him only half of the money actually due. The suit was decreed ex parte, but was subsequently re-opened under Section 108, C.P.C., on defendant's applying a year after. After this plaintiff No. 1 procured the amendment of his plaint in two ways, namely, by having a guardian ad litem appointed for the first defendant, and a description of the pro forma defendant as an executor to a deceased lady added to his name. 2. The pro forma defendant also procured himself to be made a plaintiff instead of a defendant. All these changes were...
Tag this Judgment!Haradhan Rakshit Vs. Girish Chandra Mukerji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.326
1. The questions raised before us are whether a second appeal lies to this Court and whether the appellant has locus standi to make the present application.2. The judgment of the lower appellate Court has proceeded mainly, if not wholly, on the question whether the appellant had a locus standi to come in under Sections 311 and 244, C.P.C. The application was dealt with at length by the Court of first instance and that Court allowed the application and set aside the sale complained of The Munsif did not say very distinctly that the conduct of the landlord, and whose instance the sale was held on the 14th March 1906, was fraudulent, but we gather that all the essentials both under Sections 311 and 244 had been made out in the opinion of the Munsif who concluded his judgment by observing that the sale is vitiated with fraud.' Now, the lower appellate Court in dealing with the merits has dealt with a hypothetical case only. The District Judge observes: 'If the findings of fact arrived at b...
Tag this Judgment!Basir Ali and anr. Vs. Hafiz Nazir Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.462
Chitty, J.1. 'This is a suit brought by one Basir Ali an infant by his grandmother and next-friend Elahi Jan Begum and by Elahi Jan Begum in her personal capacity. Basir Ali has since the institution of the suit attained full age and Elahi Jan Begum now remains on the record only in her personal capacity as plaintiff. The defendants are the father of Basir Ali, Hafiz Nazir Ali, and the three daughters of the first defendant, who are all infants. The suit is for a declaration that a partition effected by a decree of 1903 is not binding on Basir Ali and (it may be presumed) on his minor sisters. The plaintiff asks for an enquiry as to the estate of his mother Kobra Begum, for the administration of that estate and for an account against the father Hafiz Nazir Ali. The plaintiff also seeks to include in his claim, his share in a sum of Rs. 32,000, the dower agreed upon between his father and mother and a further sum of Rs. 23,800 which he alleges to have been due to his mother for arrears ...
Tag this Judgment!Ayatunnessa Beebee Vs. Karam Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal23,1Ind.Cas.513
Coxe and Doss, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of a wife.2. The defence is that at the time of the marriage it was stipulated between the parties that in the event of the husband taking another wife the wife should have the power to divorce herself and that in the exercise of that power the defendant divorced herself in December 1904.3. The Subordinate Judge has found that the stipulation was made and that the plaintiff broke it by marrying a second time. But he has held that the divorce is invalid, because the defendant did not exercise the option given to her immediately on hearing of the second marriage. The Subordinate Judge accordingly decreed the suit.4. The wife appeals. The learned vakeel for the appellant relying on the decision in Meer Ashruf Ali v. Meer Ashad Ali (1871) 16 W.R. 260 argues that the wife did not lose her option of declaring herself divorced by reason of the delay between the time, when she heard of the second marriage of her husband and...
Tag this Judgment!Phanindra Nath Mitra Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR36Cal48
Brett and Ryves, JJ.1. The present application is made to us under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying that we will quash the commitment made by the Chief Presidency Magistrate to the High Court of the petitioner, Phanindra Nath Mitra, on a charge under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. The grounds, on which we are asked to quash the commitment are, that the Presidency Magistrate refused to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses examined for the prosecution or to cite and examine witnesses in his defence, it being contended that the provisions of Section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code are imperative, and that the Magistrate was in law bound to allow the petitioner these privileges It seems that, while the witnesses for the prosecution were being cited and examined, no attempt was made by the accused to cross-examine them, and that the application to cross-examine those witnesses and to cite witnesses for the defence was made to the Presidency Magist...
Tag this Judgment!Phanindra Nath Mitra Vs. the King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.469
1. The present application is made to us under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedures Code praying that we will quash the commitment made by the Chief Presidency Magistrate to the High Court of the petitioner, Phanindra Nath Mitra, on a charge under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. The grounds, on which we are asked to quash the commitment are, that the Presidency Magistrate refused to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses examined for the prosecution or to cite and examine witnesses in his defence, it being contended that the provisions of Section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code are imperative, and that the Magistrate was in law bound to allow the petitioner these privileges. It seems that, while the witnesses for the prosecution were being cited and examined, no attempt was made by the accused to cross-examine them, and that the application to cross-examine those witnesses and to cite witnesses for the defence was made to the Presidency Magistrate after the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Bansi Lal Bhagat and ors. Vs. Durga Prashad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.645
1. The facts of this case are somewhat complicated; but they are fully set out in the judgment under appeal and we need not repeat them. The equities between the parties have to be ascertained on the application of principles which regulate the rights of sub-mortgagees.2. The plaintiffs are sub-mortgagees with respect to property No. 4 mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. The property belonged to Durga Prasad and he mortgaged it first to one Mohan Lal. Then he gave a zurpeshgi lease for Rs. 2,000 to defendants Nos. 1 and 4 and the father of the defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The mortgage money was Rs. 2,000 and the mortgagees were to remain in possession under the covenants in the deed and pay as huq aziri a certain sum to Durga Prasad. Mohan Lal's debt was paid off by the mortgagees. In order to pay off the debt due to Mohan Lal and for other purposes, the mortgagees sub-mortgaged property No. 4 as well as three other properties of theirs to the plaintiffs.3. After the execution of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Khudiram Bose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.625
1. The appellant Khudiram Bose was placed on his trial before the Sessions Judge of Mozufferpur. charged under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, with having committed murder by causing the deaths of Mrs. Kennedy and Miss Kennedy by means pi an explosive bomb on the 30th April 1908 or in the alternative with having abetted the commission of the murders by Dinesh Chunder Roy or some person or persons unknown. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of murder. The Sessions Judge recorded the plea, but decided to hear the evidence and to try the appellant. He also asked a pleader to assist the accused in his defence. The trial was with the aid of assessors both of whom unanimously found the appellant guilty of murder. The Sessions Judge agreeing with the opinion of the assessors convicted the appellant of the offence charged and sentenced him to death under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The case has been submitted to this Court under Section 374,, Criminal Procedure Code, for confirmati...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »