Kolkata Court February 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.
Tilakdhari Mahton and ors. Vs. Lali Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.69
1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Monghyr to show cause why the conviction and sentences on the petitioners should not be set aside and re-trial ordered on the ground that the charges of theft and charges under Section 225 I.P.C. cannot be joined, and on the further ground that there was a misjoinder in respect of the two cases of theft one of which is alleged to have occurred during the rescue and the other previous to the rescue. 2. It appears that Tulsi and Chando were charged with stealing bamboos along with two other thieves. Of these only Tulsi was caught by the complainant and the other three fled. While Tulsi, was being taker to the Thana Chando with others is alleged to have rescued Tulsi, and in the rescue another man Tilakdhari is alleged to have snatched a gamcha and Chulhai a chadder from the person of the complainant.3. This appears to bring the case within the purview of the well-known case of Subrahmania Ayyar v. King-Emperor 25 M. 61; L.R. 28 I....
Guru Prasad Das and anr. Vs. Narendra NaraIn Maity and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.361
1. These appeals are brought by the plaintiff and by defendants 2 and 3 respectively against the decision of the District Judge.2. The suit was for declaration of title and possession, the plaintiff basing his title upon a conveyance from Defendants 2 and 3, while defendant No. 1, who is alleged to have dispossessed the plaintiff, claims under a conveyance from the vendors of defendants 2 and 3. The land in question belonged to Banomali and Roghu Jana; they executed a conveyance in favour of defendants 2 and 3 on August 6th 1893. On May 25th 1903, defendants 2 and 3 sold to the plaintiff, who alleges that he was dispossessed in December 1903, by defendant No. 1.3. Defendant No. 1 claimed the property under a conveyance from Banomali and Raghu Jana dated July 17th 1903, and alleged that the conveyance of August 1893 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 was merely a paper transaction.4. The Munsiff holding that defendant 1 had failed to prove that that sale was a benami transaction gave judgm...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›