Kolkata Court May 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.
Jadab Gobinda Singh and ors. Vs. Anath Bandhu Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.998
1. The defendants in this case were originally tenants jointly under the plaintiff and his co-sharers. The plaintiff and his co-sharers partitioned their property, and the result was that some portions of the holdings of the various tenants fell into the plaintiff's share and others into the shares of his co-sharers. The plaintiff accordingly sued for apportionment of the rent. The Munsif gave him a modified decree. But on appeal to the District Judge, he noted that it was admitted on behalf of the plaintiff that all the co-sharer proprietors, and also some other persons who were interested in the land, had not been made parties. He, therefore, remitted the suits to the Munsif, with a direction to make these persons parties and to take certain other action.2. Two of the defendants have appealed to this Court, and it is argued on their behalf that this order of remand was illegal under Section 564 of, the old Code. It may be conceded; that the Munsif did not dispose of the suit upon a p...
Bhuyan Abdus Sobhan Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.846
1. This is an application for the review of an order of a 1st Class Magistrate, dated the 30th March 1909. We are informed that no application on the subject has been made to the Sessions Judge of Cuttack with a view to his referring any error on a point of law for final determination by this Court. The practice which ought to be followed in such cases is that indicated in the case of the Queen-Empress v. Reolah 14 C. 887 where it was laid down that ' the High Court will not entertain an application for revision in cases where the District Court or Magistrate has concurrent revisional jurisdiction with the High Court, save on some special ground shown, unless a previous application shall have been made to the lower Court : but in cases in which concurrent jurisdiction is not possessed by the lower Courts, no such general rule exists.' That was a decision arrived at after consultation with the Chief Justice and the other Judges of this Court on the point. We are not prepared to differ f...
Srimohan Jha Vs. Brijbehary Misser
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal753
Stephen and Vincent, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises is brought in order that a kobala executed on the 29th December 1877 and the usufructuary mortgage-bonds, dated the 23rd June 1891 and 8th August 1891, may be declared null and void on the death of one Musammat Bisneshuri Dai. She was the tenant for life of the estate of her father who was the last full owner. The plaintiff is his reversionary heir, and he now sues to have the sales set aside as having been made by the lady in excess of her powers of alienation. It is for the defendant to show that these sales were made for legal necessity.2. As regards the kobala of the 29th December 1887, it was executed in the first place for the purpose of securing money for performing the sradh ceremony of the mother of the tenant for life. It is admitted by the plaintiff that the lower Appellate Court is right in the view it takes of the decision in the case of Raj Chandra Deb Biswas v. Sheeshoo Ram Deb (1867) 7 W.E. 146, and tha...
Srish Chandra Mukerjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.16
1. On the authority of the two cases cited Gul Mahomed Sircar v. Ckeharu Mandal 10 C.W.N. 53; 3 Cr. L.J. 141; Johan v. King-Emperor 10 C.W.N. 520; 2 C.L.J. 618; 3 Cr. L.J. 111 we hold that the charge in this case is bad. The only question is whether we should send back the case for re-trial. We think, in the circumstances it would be highly unprofitable to do so, and specially having regard to the evidence brought to our notice and to the statement elicited from Girish Chunder Ghosh in re-examination.2. The result is that we set aside the conviction and sentence, and order that the fine be refunded if already paid....
Srimohan Jha Vs. Brij Behary Missri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.152
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises is brought in order that a kobala executed on the 29th December 1887 and the usufructuary mortgage bonds, dated the 23rd June 1891 and 8th August 1891, may be declared null and void on the death of one Muxammat Bijneshuri Dai. She was the tenant for life of the estate of her father who was the last full owner. The plaintiff is his reversionary heir and he now sues to have the sales set aside as having been made by the lady in excess of her powers of alienation. It is for the defendants to show that these sales were made for legal necessity.2. As regards the kobala of the 29th December 1887, it was executed in the first place for the purpose of securing money for performing the sradh ceremony of the mother of the tenant for life. It is admitted by the plaintiff that the lower appellate Court is right in the view it takes of the decision in the case of Raj Chunder Deb v. Sheeshoo Ram Deb 7 W.R. 146 and that the performance of the sradh ceremony...
NabIn Chandra Baruah and ors. Vs. Chandra Madhab Baruah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.205
Coxe, J.1. This was a suit for an account and other reliefs brought by the plaintiffs on the allegation that the defendant was in charge of a certain forest mahal which belonged jointly to him and them; that his agency terminated in Magh 1308 and that thereafter he had failed to render accounts. A number of issues were laid down for trial, but the suit has been disposed of by the Subordinate Judge of Dhubri on the preliminary point that it is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs appeal.2. The Subordinate Judge observes: ' The whole trend of evidence goes to show that defendant merely acted as an agent for collection purposes.' It has been sought to show that the profits from the present mehal were to be devoted exclusively to the purpose of paying off debts incurred in litigation. But it is proved that they were applied to the discharge of other obligations of a joint nature. The defendant's position appears to have been that of a collecting agent, and this being so, the law applicable...
Behari Lal Chatterjee and Rash Behari Sen Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal749
Caspersz and Ryves, JJ.Criminal Revision No. 339 of 1909.1. This is a Rule upon the District Magistrate to show cause why his order, dated the 5th March 1909, directing forfeiture of ten per cent, of the amount of each bail-bond, executed by the petitioners on behalf of certain accused persons, should not be set aside.2. We do not propose to enter into all the facts of this case, because, in our opinion, the petitioners are not liable for the forfeiture of their bonds, in accordance with the conditions mentioned therein. Now, the terms of each bail-bond are these:We hereby stand surety for the production of the above-named persons in the Sessions Court, on the 1st December next, in the sum of Rs. 200 each, and that, in the case of default, we shall forfeit the amount of the surety to the King-Emperor.3. The accused did appear in the Court of Session on the 1st December 1908, and, consequently, the condition of the bond was satisfied. The subsequent proceedings, at the instance of the D...
Silajit Mahto Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal865
Lawrence H. Jenkins C.J. and Mookerjee, JJ.1. The six appellants before this Court have all been convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. One of them, Silajit Mahto, has also been convicted under Section 304, and another, Sudhakar, has been convicted under Section 323. Silajit has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years, Sudhakar to rigorous imprisonment for two years, and the other four appellants to one year each.2. There is no real dispute as to the facts. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the appellants were in possession of their land, and were engaged in cutting the paddy which they had grown. The complainant's party came and attempted to cut the paddy; there was a fight, the result of which was that one man was seriously wounded and subsequently died. The learned Sessions Judge has held upon these facts that the accused are liable to be convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as they were members of an unlawful assembly,...
Silajit Mahoto and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.19
1. The six appellants before this Court have all been convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. One of them, Silajit Mahoto, has also been convicted under Section 304 and another Sudhakar has been convicted under Section 323. Silajit has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years, Sudhakar to rigorous imprisonment for two years and the other four appellants to one year each.2. There is no real dispute as to the facts. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the appellants were in possession of their land and were engaged in cutting the paddy which they had, grown. The complainant's party came, and attempted to cut the paddy; there was a fight, the result of which was that one man was seriously wounded and subsequently died. The learned Sessions Judge has held upon these facts that the accused are liable to be convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as they were members of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to enforce a ...
Laskari and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1
1. This was a rule on the District Magistrate to snow cause why the conviction and sentences passed upon the petitioners should not be set aside, or revised, on the ground that the joint trial on various charges was illegal, It is unnecessary to consider the second branch of the rule, as we are of opinion that, on the first part of this rule, it must be made absolute.2. Cause is shown by the learned junior Government pleader, and the Magistrate has no further cause to show in the case.3. The petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment in respect of a disturbance (in two parts) arising out of the execution of a decree against the petitioner, Padu. Padu, however, was not charged, or prosecuted, in respect of the second part of the disturbance. The facts, as found by the Sessions Judge, are mentioned in his judgment. They are shortly these: That after the Civil Court peons had been obstructed in executing the decree, the rioters, after consultation, and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »