Kolkata Court March 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.
Emperor Vs. Debendra Prosad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal573
Caspersz and Ryves, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the Local Government of Bengal against the appellate judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Darbhanga, dated the 23rd July 1908, setting aside the conviction of Debendra Prasad who had been convicted by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Samastipur, on the 3rd of July 1908, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 or, in the event of non-payment, to an additional term of three months' rigorous imprisonment.2. We have heard the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the Crown and the learned Counsel for the accused. The feats of the case are set out carefully and accurately in the judgment of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, and we do not propose to recapitulate them at length. Stated briefly, it appears that, OH. or about the 26th of January 1908, the accused, who was then travelling by train in a second class compartment, at Bazidpore station sent...
Rakhal Patak and anr. Vs. Kumar Jyoti Proshad Singh Deo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.536
1. This is a rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the judgment of the Deputy Commissioner of Manbhum, dated the 13th August 1908, should not be set aside or varied.2. The Petitioner brought a suit for rent in the Court of the Deputy Collector of Raghunathpur. The opposite party intervened under Section 77 of Act X of 1859 on the ground that he had actually and in good faith received and enjoyed the rent before, and up to the commencement of the suit. The Deputy Collector held that the intervenor had failed to substantiate his ground and accordingly gave a decree to the plaintiff. The intervenor appealed to the Deputy Commissioner exercising jurisdiction as Collector under Act X of 1859 and the latter officer has reversed the judgment and dismissed the suit.3. The point for decision in this case is whether an appeal lay from the judgment of the Deputy Collector, dated the 20th June 1908, to the Collector or to the Court of the Zillah Judge. That depends upon the question...
Emperor Vs. Debendra Pershad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.601
1. This is an appeal by the Local Government of Bengal against the appellate judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Darbhanga, dated the 23rd July 1908, setting aside the conviction of Debendra Pershad who had been convicted by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Samastipur, on the 3rd of July 1908, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 or, in the event of non-payment, to an additional term of three months' rigorous imprisonment.2. We have heard the learned Advocate. General on behalf of the Crown and the learned Counsel for the accused. The facts of the case are set out carefully and accurately in the judgment of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, and we do not propose to recapitulate them at length. Stated briefly, it appears that, on or about the 26th of January 1908, the accused, who was then travelling by train in a second class compartment, at Bazid-pore station sent for one Boodrie who ...
Prosunno Kumar Middar and anr. Vs. Bama Churn Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.461
1. The present appeal is against an order passed by the lower appellate Court confirming an order made by the Court of first instance on an application made to that Court under the provisions of Sections 311 and 244, C. P. C, to set aside a sale. The present appellants are the original decree-holders and their case is as follows:-There was a holding which had been settled with one Potai Mondal under the present appellants. On the 5th September 1906, the present appellants got a decree for arrears of rent against Potai Mondal and, in execution of the same, sold up and purchased the holding on the 26th February 1907. On the 11th April 1907, Bama Churn Mondal applied under Sections 311 and 244, C. P. C, to have the sale set aside. He claimed to be entitled to make the application because he had purchased the holding from Potai Mondal in November 1904. The case for the decree-holders was that Potai Mondal's rights in the holding were not transferable by custom or usage and, therefore, Bama...
Umatul Mehdi Vs. Musammat Kulsoom
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.539
1. This is a reference by the District Judge of Patna under Section 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, for transfer of a suit now pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Patna to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Monghyr. The circumstances under which the application has been made may be briefly stated. One Nawab Subdar Hossein Khan, a wealthy zemindar of Hasnabad, in the district of Monghyr, died on the 7th August 1905, and left considerable landed properties in the districts of Monghyr, Gya and Patna. Musammat Kulsoom who claims to be the sister of the father of Subdar and who is the plaintiff in the suit instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Patna, has sued for recovery of possession of the properties on the basis of title by inheritance. The defendant in that suit, Musammat Umatul Mehdi who claims to be the widow of Subdar and the daughter of his maternal uncle, has instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Monghyr, for recovery o...
Ranshan Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.31
1. The petitioners Nos. 1. 2 and 3 have been convicted under Section 225, I.P.C., and the petitioner No. 4 has been convicted under Section 224 of the Code, and sentenced to terms of imprisonment, and the point for determination in this rule is whether the warrant, in virtue of which the petitioner No. 4, Posan Singh, was arrested by the Police, was a lapsed warrant at the time of the arrest, that is, on the 29th October 1908. 2. The rule was issued on the ground that the warrant was not one falling under Section 75(2), Criminal Procedure Code, but under Section 76, and that as the conditions in the endorsement had become impossible of fulfillment, the warrant could not be executed after the 26th October 1908.3. The facts are these: Posan Singh was accused of an offence under Section 147, I.P.C. The Magistrate issued the warrant in question with a provision endorsed for bail to be taken for the appearance of the accused on the 26th October. Posan Singh did not appear on that date. He w...
Ram Deo Rai and anr. Vs. Maharani Beni Pershad Koeri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.379
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in an action for rent. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants held under her a tenancy of 21 bighas at an annual rental of Rs. 191 created in 1897. The defendants alleged on the other hand that they held 51 bigahs under a tenancy created so far back as the 30th August 1887. According to them, the term of the lease was for a period of 7 years from 1297 to 1302, that since the expiry of the terms, they have been holding over, and that by a subsequent arrangement the rent has been reduced from Rs. 441 to Rs. 191 on the ground that a considerable portion of the lands of the holding has become covered with sand. On these pleadings, the point for determination was stated in the Court of first instance to be, whether the defendants held 21 bighas 15 cottahs at the yearly rental of Rs. 191 with cesses. The Munsiff came to the conclusion upon the evidence that the defendants still held under the lease of 1887, that the lands of the tenancy mea...
Hudson Vs. Morgan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal713
Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. We are invited in this appeal to discharge an order made by the Court below under Section 503 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, under which one of the respondents, the Receiver appointed in a mortgage suit, is authorized to take possession of properties in the custody of the appellant who is not a party to the mortgage suit, In order to appreciate the grounds upon which the propriety of the order is questioned, it is necessary to narrate the circumstances under which it has been made.2. On the 29th June 1904, the appellant, Rowland Hudson, was, under a power-of-attorney executed by one of the respondents known as The Indian Development Company, appointed their attorney, and authorized to take possession of all property, moveable and immoveable, belonging to the latter and to superintend, manage, cultivate, carry on and conduct their estate and business in India. On the 4th October 1905, Hudson entered into an agreement with the Company, under which i...
Brojo Kishoree Bashnavi Vs. Meajan Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.791
1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this case. She sued on the basis of a title by purchase in execution, of a mortgage decree obtained against three brothers, Safatulla, Ebratulla and Faratulla, for recovery of possession of the whole of the two holdings which belonged to those three brothers and another brother Safatulla and their two sisters Shymla Bibee and Pala Bibee. Her allegation is that, after she had purchased in execution of her mortgage decree in January 1895, she was dispossessed by the defendants who alleged that they had purchased the interests of Faratulla and Safatulla and the two sisters, Shymla Bibee and Pala Bibee, under a deed of sale, dated the 17th November 1894. The dispossession is alleged to have commenced in 1899 and to have been completed in 1902. Of the two holdings in respect of which this suit was brought, it appears that one was the ancestral holding belonging to the four brothers and the two sisters, and the other was a holding acquired in 1293 by Safa...
Emperor Vs. Dedendra Prosad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.65
1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bengal against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge of Darbhanga, dated the 23rd September 1908, allowing the appeal of Debendra Persad who had been convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Samastipur on the 5th August 1908, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo nine months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300, or in default thereof, a further term of three months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts of the case have been set out with very great care in the exhaustive judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. For the purposes of this appeal, it is not necessary to recapitulate all the facts. The case for the Crown, stated briefly, was as follows: The accused Debendra Persad, early in 1907, went to the shop of J. Bryan, a tailor in Allahabad, and ordered a suit of, clothes stating that he was the dewan of the Narhan estate. He paid for the clothes subsequently and took them away. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »