Kolkata Court November 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.
Bibi Taibatannessa Chowdhurani Vs. Pravabati Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.750
1. In these appeals, the contesting appellant is Sirimati Bibi Taibatannessa Chowdhurani Saheba and the contesting respondent is Srimati Pravabati Dasi. The main point is dispute between them is, whether the appellant, under a purchase made by her of the entire durputni taluq Chuk Baharan on the 6th June 1904 at a sale in execution of a decree for arrears of rent brought against the original durputnidar by the putnidar, has acquired a good title to the whole taluq and whether, on the basis of that title, she can recover the full rents from the tenants of the taluq, or whether the respondent, under three purchases made by her of shares in the durputni, aggregating 8 annas 8 pies, on the 11th December 1903, 9th March 1904, and 19th May 1904, respectively, in execution of mortgage decrees obtained by her against some of the durputnidars has acquired encumbrances on the durputni to the extent of those shares which encumbrances the appellant has not legally annulled by notices issued on the...
TamizuddIn Khan and ors. Vs. Khoda Nawaz Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.116
1. The facts giving rise to this second appeal may be shortly stated thus.2. The defendant No. 7 was the tenant of a certain non-transferable holding. He sold If kauris out of his holding to the defendants Nos. 1 to 4. The landlord declined to recognise that transfer but accepted a surrender of the If kauris from the defendant No. 7, and then settled the same, by means of a registered qabuliat, with the plaintiffs who, however, failing to obtain possess from the defendants Nos. 1 to 4, brought the suit to recover khas possession of that area or adjudication of their title thereto.3. The first Court decreed the suit in full. On appeal to the Subordinate Judge, the decision of the first Court has been reversed the sale by the defendant No. 7 to the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 has been held to be an incumbrance within the meaning of Section 86 Sub-Section ((5) and (7) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Subordinate Judge has further declared that rent for If 1 kauris must be paid by the defendants ...
Gouri Churn Patni Vs. Sita Patni
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.710
1. This is an appeal in a suit brought by the plaintiff to obtain possession of certain property against which a decree had been recovered on the basis of a mortgage executed by Paran Patni deceased.2. The facts found are that, on the death of the mortgagor, his mother Sita remained in possession of the premises. His widow Chinta, however, against whom alone the decree was obtained after an interval of several years, had, meanwhile, re-married and left her husband's house. The Court of first instance gave the plaintiff a decree and directed him to be put in possession of the promises (which he had purchased in execution) by ejecting the mother of the deceased mortgagor. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge has reversed that decision and dismissed the plaintiff's suit basing his judgment, for the most part, on the provisions of the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act (XV of 1856).3. In second appeal before us, four contentions have been advanced for the plaintiff, first, that the mortgage decree wa...
Mohunt Permanand Das GossaIn and ors. Vs. Tripasindhu Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1909
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.275
1. The present Rule was obtained by the petitioners, the plaintiffs, against the defendant No. 1 who was the judgment-debtor in a suit before the Subordinate, Judge of C attack to show cause why the order obtained by: the defendant No. 1 in that suit from the Subordinate Judge on the 1st Jane 1909 extending the period fixed in; the decree for the execution of a qabuliyat by him in favour of the petitioners, the decree-holders in that suit, beyond the period stated in the decree should not be set aside. It appears that, by the decree, the present Opposite Party, who was the defendant No. 1; in Suit No. 404 of 1907 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, was directed-to execute a qabuliyit as sarbarakar in favour, of the plaintiffs' decree-holders, within two months from the date of the decree. The Opposite Party, the judgment-debtor, appealed to this Court and, within the two months limited by the decree, he put in an application to this Court on the 20th May 1909 praying for ...
Thackur Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.240
1. A rule has been issued in this case calling upon the District Magistrate, Gaya, to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed upon the petitioners should not be set aside on certain grounds mentioned in the petition. The ground which appears to us to be the only one on which at present the petitioners can succeed is the fourth which is in these terms: 'That the telegram on which the learned Sessions Judge has relied is not admissible in evidence and the Sessions Judge has erred in using it in evidence against the petitioners.' The way in which the telegram was used is this. The first information did not contain enumeration of facts on which the prosecution now rely, and this led the learned Judge of the appellate Court to say, 'I should have been disposed to regard this omission as highly suspicious, were it not that a telegram had been sent by this very Shamat from the village at 1-35 P.M., on the day before informing the Collector of Gaya that the crops had been plundered a...
Shiba Lakhan Bhakat Vs. Srimati Tarangini Dasi and Chowdhury PulIn Beh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.483
1. The present appeals arise out of a suit brought by Chowdhury Pulin Behari Mosanta, the appellant in cross-Appeal No. 964 of 1906, against Shib Lakhan Bhakat, the appellant in Appeal No. 952 of 1906, as the principal defendant and one Tarangini Dasi as defendant No. 2. The suit was to obtain a declaration that a certain mortgage bond alleged to have been executed on the 23rd June 1899 by Tarangini Dasi in favour of the defendant No. 1, Shib Lakhan Bhakat, and the decree obtained on that bond in suit No. 47 of 1904 were void and ineffectual and not binding at all on the plaintiff and for other reliefs. The plaintiff is the adopted son to Tarangini Dasi, the defendant No. 2. It appears that, after the death of Chowdhury Mohendra Nath Masanta, the husband of Tarangini Dasi. Tarangini took possession of his estate as executrix under a Will executed on the 10th Magh 1293, corresponding to 22nd January 1886. Under that Will, Tarangini was appointed executrix of the estate and was given pow...
Aghora Kumar Ganguli Vs. Mahomed Musa
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.723a
1. We are invited in this Rule to amend the decree of this Court in appeal from Original Decree No. 476 of 1908. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench in May and June last, and on the 16th June, the appeal was allowed, the decree of the lower Court set aside, and the suit dismissed. The full judgment in that case is reported in 2 Ind. Cas. 662 Ed. It was further directed that the plaintiff-respondent should pay to the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the then appellants before this Court, the costs incurred by them in the lower Court. These costs were not specified in the decree of this Court, but had been set out in the decree of the lower Court, which to this extent was thus incorporated by implication. In that decree, however, by a clerical error, the amount of costs incurred by the second and third defendants stated to be Rs. 684-8-6, whereas it ought to have been Rs. 1,549-12 6. So far as the fourth defendant was concerned, the costs payable to him had been inaccurately stated to be...
Satanji Koer and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.311
1. In our opinion this Rule must be discharged. It is not suggested on the part of the prosecution that the petitioner in this case harboured any one who had escaped from lawful custody, but it is maintained that he harboured or concealed a person in respect of whom a public servant had made an order that he should be apprehended for an offence. The findings of the lower Court show that there was an order for apprehension of the particular person. Further it is manifest that the order for his apprehension was because he had committed an offence. If he had not committed an offence there would have been no order for his apprehension and the offence as the causa sine qua non of his apprehension. That seems to me to satisfy the expression 'order the person to be apprehended for an offence' in Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Then it is said that it must be an offence in respect of which punishment has not been inflicted, and for that, reliance is placed on the latter part of section...
NaraIn Chandra Chatterjee Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal545
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. In this case a Rule has been issued calling on the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why the order of conviction of the petitioner should not be set aside on the ground that the learned Magistrate ought to have held that the prosecution was barred under Section 631 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. The facts are briefly these. It has been found by the Municipal Magistrate that two pillars have been placed by the petitioner in such a position as to cause an encroachment on a public street. On the 3rd of August 1908, the Chairman of the Municipality by a written notice called on the petitioner to remove this obstruction within seven days. He purported to act under one of the Municipal bye-laws, which deal with obstructions and encroachments. The notice was not obeyed, and, on the 8th of February 1909, these proceedings were commenced with the result that the Magistrate held an offence for breach of the bye-law to be established, and fined the petitio...
Narayan Chandra Chatterjee Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.259
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. In this case a rule has been issued calling upon the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why the order of conviction of the petitioner should not be set aside on the ground that the learned Magistrate ought to have held the prosecution was barred under Section 631 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. The facts are briefly these: It has been found by the Municipal Magistrate that two pillars have been placed by the petitioner in such a position as to cause an encroachment on a public street. On the 3rd of August 1908, the Chairman of the Municipality by a written notice called on the petitioner to remove this obstruction within seven days. He purported to act under one of the Municipal Bye-laws, being the first of those which deal with obstructions and encroachments. The notice was not obeyed and on the 8th February 1909 these proceedings were commenced with the result that the Magistrate held an offence for breach of the Bye-laws to be established and fine...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »