Kolkata Court January 1909 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.
Sheikh Fakir Mahomed Vs. Sheikh Uzir Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.320
1. This is an appeal on behalf of one Sheikh Fakir Mahomed, who made an application in the Court below to be declared an insolvent. The learned District Judge rejected the application of the Petitioner, and one of the reasons for his decision is that it is quite certain from the evidence of the applicant read with his previous deposition, Ex. A, that he has an interest in a very large number of holdings in his own village.2. It is contended on behalf of the Appellant that Ex. A was not duly proved and does not touch the present case. What is pointed out is that Ex. A was put to the Petitioner in the Court below, and he said with reference to it that he did not remember whether he had given evidence as a witness in the rent suit No. 25 of 1899, in the Munsif's Court at Amta, He was asked no further questions on the point, nor was any question put to the witness on behalf of the Respondent to show that the present Petitioner was the man who had been examined in that suit. Under these cir...
Chandra Kumar Majhi and ors. Vs. Sandhyamoni and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.412
1. This is an appeal against an order made under Section 371 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882 read with Section 582, refusing to set aside an order of dismissal of an appeal before the Subordinate Judge of Barisal.2. The circumstances under which the order came to be made may be briefly stated. The plaintiffs respondents instituted a suit for rent against three persons, Sridam Chandra Majhi, Bashiram Majhi and Banamali Majhi. In the Court of first instance the plaintiffs succeeded, whereupon Bashiram and Banamali, two of the defendants, preferred an appeal to the District Judge of Barisal. Upon the hearing of the appeal, the case was decided against the appellants. Shortly after this, one of the appellants, Bashiram died; the remaining appellant Banamali then preferred a second appeal to this Court. This second appeal was heard on the 13th June 1906, with the result that at the instance of the sole appellant the entire decree of the Court below was set aside and the case was remi...
Bhowani Prosad Shaha Vs. Juggernath Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.241
1. The events which led to the litigation out of which the present appeal arises are of a somewhat complex character, but, so far as it is necessary to state them for the disposal of the questions argued before this Court, they may be thus briefly outlined. The father of the plaintiff-appellant formed along with the first two defendants a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitahshara law. The family was engaged on mercantile business, out of the profits of which, movable and immovable properties were acquired by the care and labour of the members of the family. The father of the plaintiff died in January 1902 and, in June following, the parties separated in mess. It is alleged in the plaint that at the time of the separation, the uncles of the plaintiff gave him a share of all the immovable properties of the family, in respect of which they subsequently executed, on the 9th December 1902, a deed of release in his favour. At the same time, the plaintiff appears to have executed a deed o...
Brindaban Chander Das Vs. IshaquddIn Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.67
1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Rungpur to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed upon the petitioner under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code should not be set aside on the grounds, firstly, that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate had excluded important evidence for the defence, and secondly, that the whole of the evidence had not been heard by Babu D.K. Mitter and that, therefore, the conviction by him was without jurisdiction.2. As regards the first ground the Magistrate now explains that in view of the evidence of the first witness for the defence, the document could have been of no value. But we can hardly agree that the value of a document can be judged before it is produced and inspected. The consideration advanced by the Magistrate might be very cogent if they were based on an actual inspection of the document which bore out the suspicion which he derived from the oral evidence but we think that he was bound to accept the document and ...
Brindamoyi Dassya Vs. Maharaja Nripendra Narayan Bhup Bahadur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.21
1. The only question for determination in the suit out of which this appeal arises was whether the plaintiff was a raiyat at fixed rates or not. The plaintiff relied on Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and proved that as a matter of fact she had paid the sum of Rs. 23-14 excluding fractions of annas for the last 60 years. If this sum was paid as the rent of her land, there can be no doubt that she was entitled to the benefit of the presumption raised by Section 50 and to be recorded as a raiyat at fixed rates.2. The lower Court has decided against the plaintiff on the ground that this sum was not in the past paid in its entirety as rent. It appears that up to the year 1282 this sum was recorded in the receipts given to the plaintiff as made up of the sums of Us. 22-9 as rent and Rs. 1-5 as jalaparabi. The learned District Judge holds that jalaparabi was an abwab and was not therefore rent as defined in the Bengal Tenancy Act. After 1282 the rent recorded in the receipts given to th...
Srimati Sujan Bibi Vs. Srimati Asafa Khatun
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.69
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the daughter of one Anwar Ali to recover certain property as one of the heirs of her deceased father, and to set aside certain conveyances This appeal relates only to one of these conveyances which is said to have been executed in favour of Anwar Ali's wife, the first defendant.2. The suit was decreed by the Munsif. The defendant No. 1, appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Chittagong and her appeal was dismissed by that Officer, on the ground that the document in her favour not having been duly registered, her defence to the plaintiff's suit, therefore, failed.3. The widow appeals to this Court, and it is argued on her behalf that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in refusing to go into the merits of the case and in disposing of it on the finding that the appellant's conveyance was not duly registered. This document is said to have been executed by Anwar Ali on the day of his death and was presented for registration about three month...
Gopal Singh Vs. Laloo Lall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.953
1. This is a Rule issued by this Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the decision of the Subordinate Judge should not be set.2. The petitioner who was the plaintiff in the Court below, sued to recover money due on a bond executed in his favour on the 13th October 1905. The defendant admitted execution but pleaded that the bond had been satisfied by a set-off against the- consideration of the conveyance executed on the 13th February 1906.3. The Court below has found in favour of the defendant upon whom the onus lay to prove that the bond had been discharged. The petitioner now seeks to assail the judgment of the Subordinate Judge upon two grounds of law.4. He argues in the first place that he was not given an opportunity to produce the conveyance. There is some force in this contention. He appears to have applied to the Court below to send for the document which had been filed in another suit previously instit...
Emperor Vs. Morgan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.814
1. Corporal Morgan and Private Lawson of the Highland Light Infantry were placed on their trial before the Sessions Judge of Darjeeling and a Jury on the 16th of November 1908. The charge against them, as amended in the Court of Session, was framed under Section 304A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and ran as follows: 'That you, on or about the 25th day of October 1903, at Aloobari Busti, each abetted the other in the causing of death by a rash or negligent act, each being present when the act, which resulted in death, was committed, and the act abetted being committed in consequence of the abetment, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 314 a/114 of the Penal Code.' We will refer later on to the wording of this charge. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and, at the conclusion of the trial, the Jury returned the following verdict: 'We find that the accused, or one of them, caused the deceased's death. We find that they were careless, but n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›