Kolkata Court June 1909 Judgments
Jyotish Chandra Mukerjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal955
H. Jenkins, C.J.1. These are two separate appeals preferred by two accused who have been convicted and sentenced at the Bankura Sessions. The accused in appeal No. 494 has been convicted under Sections 409, 465, 471 and 477A, and he has been sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 409, and to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 465, of the Indian Penal Code. The accused in appeal No. 514 has been convicted under Sections 465, 471, and 477A, and he has been sentenced to one year and six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 465. That the accused in appeal No. 494 is guilty of the offence under Section 409 is, we think, clearly established. The judgment of the learned Judge on this part of the case is very careful, and his reasoning convinces us that his conclusion is correct. We, therefore, must affirm the conviction and sentence under Section 409. But we are unable to uphold the conviction and sentence under the other sections aga...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotish Chandra Mukerjee and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.416
Lawrence Jenkins C.J.1. These are two separate appeals preferred by two accused who have been convicted and sentenced at the Bankura Sessions. The accused in Appeal No. 494 has been convicted under Sections 409, 465, 471 and 477 A, and he has been sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 409, and to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused in Appeal No. 514 has been convicted under Sections 465, 471 and 477A, and he has been sentenced to one year and six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 465. That the accused in Appeal No. 494 is guilty of the offence under Section 409 is, we think, clearly established. The judgment of the learned Judge on this part of the case is very careful, and his reasoning convinces us that his conclusion is correct. We, therefore, must affirm the conviction and sentence under Section 409. But we are unable to uphold the conviction and sentence under the other sections...
Tag this Judgment!Danoo Darjee Vs. Momatajaddi Bhuiya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.846a
1. This appeal arises out of a suit by one Danoo Gazi for joint khas possession of certain rayati lands which belonged to one Sajwal Darji and which the plaintiff claimed as one of Sajwal's heirs. Sajwal died leaving a widow and three grandsons--sons of his daughter. The contest in this case is between the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 who are two of those grandsons. The third grandson Afizuddi is dead and his representatives are also on the record. Some 6 or 7 years before his death, Sajwal executed two deeds of gift, one in favour of his wife of a four anna share of certain of his properties including the homestead and the other in favour of his 3 grandsons of a quantity of 11 kanis 1 ganda 1 krant of land situated within certain boundaries and bearing a yearly rental of Rs. 19-4-0. The only question in this appeal is whether the deed of gift in favour of the grandsons is valid as against the plaintiff who is one of the heirs of Sajwal. As to the deed of gift in favour of...
Tag this Judgment!Banchharam Majumdar Vs. Adyanath Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal936
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. The question referred for our decision is whether in the case of a debt payable after the death of the creditor, his heirs can sue and obtain a decree without the production of a certificate under the Succession Certificate Act. Although the meaning of the reference is clear, I would myself have preferred to have made it more precisely applicable to the circumstances of this case, and I think we should do that and treat the reference as though it ran in these terms, whether, in the case of a debt existing in the life of the creditor, but which did not become payable until after the death of the creditor, the heirs of the creditor can sue and obtain a decree without the production of a certificate under the Succession Certificate Act. The case is to be determined on the terms of Section 4 of the Succession Certificate Act which says, no Court shall pass a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt to a person claiming to be entitled ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ram Prasad Malla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal13
Chitty and Carnduff, JJ.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of the 24-Pergunnahs to show cause why an order of the District Judge, dated the 16th March last, directing the prosecution under Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code of the petitioner, Ram Prasad Malla, should not be set aside. The facts, out of which the case has arisen, are these:2. In June 1904, the petitioner, a resident of Budge-Budge, brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 45 alleged to be due for principal and interest on account of a loan made in January 1902 to one Raghubar Malla, who was described in the plaint as then residing also at Budge-Budge. Summons was issued in due course, and, according to the process-server's report and the petitioner's own affidavit of the 18th July 1904, it was, in the absence of Raghubar Malla himself, affixed to the outer-door of his 'ordinary dwelling-house' at Budge-Budge, as pointed out by the petitioner himself. On the following day the case was heard ex parte b...
Tag this Judgment!Jagattara Dassi Vs. Daulati Bewa
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal75
Richardson and Chatterjee, JJ.1. In this suit the plaintiff, Daulati Bewa, sought to establish her title to an eight-anna share ofa raiyati holding by right of inheritance.2. It appears that the holding originally stood in the name of Narandi Sheikh, the plaintiff'sfather-in-law. On his death, it descended to the plaintiff's husband and to his brother, thedefendant No. 1. The name of the latter only was recorded as tenant in the landlord's office.Subsequently, the plaintiff's husband died leaving his widow, a minor son and a daughter. Thetwo children also died; and, under the Mahomedan Law, the plaintiff became entitled, as betweenherself and her brother-in-law, to a four-anna 11/2 pies share of the holding. Her suit, if itsucceeds at all, can only succeed to that extent.3. The only other defendant who need be mentioned is defendant No. 4. She contends that thewhole holding was purchased by her at a sale held in execution of a decree for arrears of rentobtained by the landlord of the h...
Tag this Judgment!Bancharam Majumdar Vs. Adya Nath Bhattacharja and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.492
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The question referred for our decision is whether in the case of a debt payable after the death of the creditor, his heirs can sue and obtain a decree without the production of a certificate under the Succession Certificate Act. Although the meaning of the reference is clear I would myself have preferred to have made it more precisely applicable to the circumstances of this case, and I think we should do that and treat the reference as though it ran in these terms, whether, in the case of a debt existing in the life of the creditor, but which did not become payable until after the death of the creditor, the heirs of the creditor can sue and obtain a decree without the production of a certificate under the Succession Certificate Act. The case is to be determined on the terms of Section 4 of the Succession Certificate Act which says, no Court shall pass a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt to a person claiming to be entitled to t...
Tag this Judgment!Radhika Nath Sarkar and anr. Vs. Rakhal Raj Gayen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.835
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs, in an action for rent. The plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants were durputnidars of a mehal within which the disputed holding is situated. In 1901 the putnidar brought a suit for rent against the recorded tenants of the durputni, obtained a decree and proceeded to execute it. The predecessor-in interest of the plaintiffs-appellants, who had previously purchased the share of one of the durputnidnrs, deposited the decretal amount and obtained an order for delivery of possession under Section 171 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs now bring this suit for rent against the tenant-defendant.2. The claim is resisted on two grounds : first, that the plaintiffs had no title, because they were not entitled to apply for an order under Section 171 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and in any event, could not obtain delivery of possession of the property with out a proper suit; and secondly, that the defendant had paid the rent claimed to the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prosad Malla Vs. Raghubar Malla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.6
1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of the 24-Pergunnahs to show cause why an order of the District Judge, dated the 16th March last, directing the prosecution under Section 209 of the I.P.C. of the petitioner, Ram Proshad Mallah, should not be set aside. The facts, out of which the case has arisen, are these.2. In June 1904, the petitioner, a resident of Budge Budge, brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 45, alleged to be due for principal and interest on account of a loan made in January 1902, to one Raghubar Mallah, who was described in the plaint as then residing also at Budge Budge. Summons was issued in due course, and, according to the process-server's report and the petitioner's own affidavit of the 18th July 1904, it was, on the absence of Raghubar Mallah himself, affixed to the outer door of his ordinary 'dwelling-house' at Budge Budge, as pointed out by the petitioner himself. On the following day the case was heard ex parte by the Munsif of Alipur sittin...
Tag this Judgment!Jagattara Dassya Vs. Daulati Bewa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.695
1. In this suit, the plaintiff, Daulati Bewa, sought to establish her title to an eight annas share of a raiyati holding by right of inheritance.2. It appears that the holding originally stood in the name of Naraudi Sheikh, the plaintiff's father-in-law. On his death, it descended to the plaintiff's husband and to his brother the defendant No. 1. The name of the latter only was recorded as tenant in the landlord's office. Subsequently, the plaintiff's husband died leaving his widow, a minor son and a daughter. The two children also died; and, under the Muhammadan Law, the plaintiff became entitled, as between herself and her brother-in-law, to a 4 annas 11/3 pies share of the holding. Her suit, if it succeeds at all, can only succeed to that extent.3. The only other defendant who need be mentioned is defendant No. 4. She contends that the whole holding was purchased by her at a sale held in execution of a decree for arrears of rent obtained by the landlord of the holding against the re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »