Kolkata Court July 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.
Bhupendra Nath Chatterji Vs. Upendra Nath Cangopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.39
1. This appeal, which has been preferred by a purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree for arrears of rent, is ' directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Jessore setting aside the sale. The sale which has been reversed took place on the 20th February 190G. On the 13th November following the present respondent made an application to set aside the sale on the ground of fraud and irregularity. The title which was set up by him was based on a purchase at a sale in execution of a mortgage decree on the 19th November 1903. The Court of first instance found that the property was not transferable and, there fore, the applicant had no locus standi under Sections 244 and 311 Civil Procedure Code. Upon appeal the learned Subordinate Judge has held that as rent was received from the respondent by the landlord on the 24th June 1906 he has been recognised as a tenant and is consequently entitled to maintain this application. On the merits, the Subordinate Judge has found that the sa...
Kamal Krishna Kundu Chowdhury Vs. Rai Kedar Nath Kundu Chowdhury Bahad ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.34
1. This appeal, which has been preferred on behalf of the second defendant in the Court below, is directed against a decree for balance of arrears of rent of a darpatni taluk. The circumstances under which the plaintiff preferred his claim he in a narrow compass and may be briefly described. The plaintiff-respondent and the second defendant-appellant, who are related as uncle and nephew, were the holders of the patni taluk Dhurmapota under the zemindary of the Maharaja of Burdwan. The first defendant held a darpatni under the paint in respect of which he had stipulated to pay an annual rent of Rs. 10,400 together with cesses and interest. He was unable to pay', rent regularly and in the beginning of 1902, a considerable sum of money was found due as arrears of rent. On the 11th April 1902, he executed an acknowledgment in respect of his liability on that date. This acknowledgment sets out in detail the amount or rent in arrears in respect of each of the four years l305 to 1308, as also...
Khosal Chandra Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Ukiladdi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.47
1. The substantial question of law which calls for decision in this appeal is whether an application made on the 20th December 1907 for execution of a decree obtained by the appellants on the 28th November 18899 is barred by limitation. The Court of first instance held that the application was not barred because successive applications for execution had been made within three years from the date when an application had been made to the proper Court to take a step-in-aid of execution of the decree. The District Judge on appeal has held that as a previous application for execution had been refused on the ground that it was barred by limitation, no sub-sequent application could be entertained. The first application for execution was made on the 6th July 1901 and process fees were paid on the 26th July following. The application, however, was not presented and was subsequently dismissed. On the 25th July 1904 a second application for execution was filed. On this the Court recorded the foll...
Brindaban Chunder Shaha Vs. Sureshwar Saha Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.178
1. One Phanindra Mohan Shaha, owner of an estate of considerable value, died on the 20th July 1900. He left a minor widow Gour Dasi the daughter of the present appellant Brindaban Chandra Shaha, a sister by the name of Shobha Sundari, a nephew Sureshwar Shaha the infant adopted son of his sister, and a cousin Bhuban Mohan Shaha. On the 18th September 1900 Brindaban Chandra Shaha and Shobha Sundari made an application to the District Judge of Dacca for probate of a will alleged to have been executed by Phanindra Mohan Shaha on the day previous to his death. Under the will the petitioners, who are the father -in-law and the sister of the testator, were appointed executors. The will provided that the widow was to take a life-interest in the estate of the testator but would not be able to do any act that might cause deterioration to the same. The widow was further authorised to take three sons in adoption successively. The will also contained a direction for the management of the estate du...
Gobinda Mohun Das and ors. Vs. Kunja Behari Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.380
1. We are invited in this Rule, under Sections 22 and 24 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908,to transfer a suit pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Barisal. The suit was instituted on the 12th March last by the plaintiffs' Opposite Party for dissolution of three partnership businesses, for accounts and for incidental reliefs. The 6th of May was fixed for settlement of issues, but as the defendants have obtained time from the Court to file their written statements, the suit is still at the preliminary stage. On the 25th May last, the Subordinate Judge made an order for production of documents against the defendants who are applicants before this Court. On the 1st July these defendants applied to this Court for transfer of the suit and obtained the rule now under consideration. The substantial grounds upon which the transfer is sought are three-fold; namely, first, that the main partnership business in respect of which dissoluti...
Government of Eastern Bengal and Assam Vs. Seraj-ud-dIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.555a
1. This is an appeal by the Government from the acquittal of three men, Hamid Ali, Seraj-ud-din and Akhil Ali, who were charged under Section 9 of the Opium Act, I of 1878, with possessing opium. The possession of the opium is alleged to have been by reason of its being in a boat in which these three men and another were. For the purposes of an offence under Section 9, Clause (c), nothing is necessary beyond possession of the opium. There is no particular frame of mind required, so that what we have to consider is, first of all 'whether these three accused or any one of them 'was in possession of the opium. As against two of the accused, that is to say, Hamid Ali and Akhil Ali, there is, I think, a complete failure on the part of the prosecution to show possession, for the evidence so far as it goes is that they were not owners of the boat, nor jointly interested with Seraj-ud-din in any venture as an incident of which we might attribute to them possession of the opium, bat they were m...
Ashruf Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal1016
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J. and Caspersz, J.1. On the facts we are in agreement with the learned Magistrate, for we hold with him that the accused was in possession of the railway receipt. The question then arises whether that constitutes possession of the opium to which the railway receipt relates, so as to be an offence within Section 9 of the Opium Act '(I of 1878). If unfettered by authority, I should have been disposed to hold that there was no such possession, for, as I read the Act, it relates to possession of opium, and not of a receipt for the opium. However, there is a decision of this Court by which we are bound, Kashi Nath Bania v. Emperor (1905) I.L.R. 32 Calc. 557, in which, on facts not fairly distinguishable from the present, it was held that possession of the railway receipt was possession of opium within the meaning of the section. It appears to me that this decision overlooks the distinction between 'possession' and the 'right to possession.' But there the decision sta...
Ashraf Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.699
1. On the facts we are in agreement with the learned Magistrate, for we hold with him that the accused was in possession of the railway receipt. The question then arises whether that constitutes possession of the opium to which the railway receipt relates, so as to be an offence within Section 9 of the Opium Act (I of 1878). If unfettered by authority, I should have been disposed to hold that there was no such possession, for, as I read the Act, it relates to possession of opium, and not of a receipt for the opium. However, there is a decision of this Court by which we are bound, Kashi Nath Bania v. Emperor 32 C. 557; 9 C.W.N. 719; 2 Cr. L.J. 470 in which, on facts not fairly distinguishable from the present, it was held that possession of the railway receipt was possession of opium within the meaning of the section. It appears to me that this decision overlooks the distinction between 'possession' and the 'right to possession.' But there the decision stands, and we are bound by it. We...
Kali Mohan Kar and ors. Vs. Nakari Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.722
1. This is an application which arises of proceedings under Chapter X of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Rule issued is to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside on the first and third grounds stated in the petition. Those grounds are: 'I. That the Deputy Magistrate had no jurisdiction to proceed with the case without deciding that your petitioner's claim was not bona fide;' and, 'III. That the order passed is vague and indefinite and fit to be set aside.' The first ground manifestly must fail, because it was not taken before the Sessions Court, and we, therefore, cannot give effect to it here; after careful consideration, and not without some reluctance we have come to the conclusion that on the third' ground we must make the Rule absolute, for we are of opinion that the order passed is too vague and indefinite, and should, therefore, be set aside. Our reason for considering that the order is too vague and indefinite, and, therefore, should be set aside, i...
Bhut Nath Dome and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.867
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The appellant in this case has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Bankura, disagreeing with the assessors, under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The occurrence arose out of a quarrel between the children of two families, which afterwards extended to the ladies and ultimately culminated in the attack which resulted in the death of one of the attacking party, Suchand Dome. The evidence shows, and it is not disputed before us, that the attack was made by Ramsadoy and his party who in the language of one of the witnesses advanced to beat. The party consisted of Ramsadoy, Purno, Fakir and Suchand. Those against whom they advanced were the appellant and his party, three in number. At that time the members of the attacking party were armed with sticks while those who were being attacked were unarmed. The party attacked, however, called out for sticks and lathis were brought. The appellant, Bhut Nath Dom...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »