Kolkata Court August 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.
Projapat Jha and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.154
1. This is a rule on the District Magistrate, to show cause why the, sanction to prosecute the petitioners under, Section 188 should not be set aside Firstly, on, the ground that the order under Section 144 was not in accordance with the provisions of Scheduled 5, Form 21, of the Criminal Procedure, Code, and, secondly, on the ground, that the, order sanctioning the prosecution did not show that disobedience caused, or tended to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury or a riot.2. When we granted this rule we understood that the only order passed under Section 144 ran as follows: 'Issue notice through special peon to both parties under Section 141, Criminal Procedure Code, not to go to the disputed land or commit a breach of the peace.' Such an order would not be in accordance with the provisions of the, schedule. But on reference to the record we, find that an order has been drawn, up in accordance with the requirements of Form No. 21 of Scheduled 5.3. It has been urged that this order...
Kishori Pal Vs. Sheikh Bhushai Bhuiya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.78
1. The prayer in this suit is for recovery of possession of an 8 anna share of the land in suit or for rent according to the prevailing rate : and, the facts out of which this suit a rose may be briefly stated as follows : The plaintiff claims to be the transferee of the landlord's interest in this land by virtue of a transfer executed in his favour in June 1897. Under that transfer he says he became entitled to an 8 anna share in the land in suit, and so claims the relief, I have indicated, alleging that the defendant respondent is a trespasser inasmuch as he claims to be the transferee of an occupancy right which was not transferable.2. In the first Court the decree passed was in these terms : The suit is decreed with' costs and interest at 6 per cent, per annum,' and, it is unfortunate that it should be the practice of the Courts to pass their decrees and to express their conclusions in these vague and general terms-it is almost a common form for the Judge to say that the suit is de...
Lal Chand Shaw and ors. Vs. Srimatl Sarnamoyee Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.102
1. This appeal arises out of a partition suit brought by one Sarnamoyee Dasi, widow of Prom Chand Shaw, against her three brother's-in-law, Lal Chand Shaw, Rassik Chandra Shaw and Jogendra Nath. Shaw. It appears that Biswanath Shaw, the father of these four brothers, died in or about the year 1878. Prom Chand, the husband of the plaintiff, died about 1892. Since that time, the prospects of the family have considerably improved and the plaintiff now claims a one-fourth share of all the properties, both ancestral and subsequently acquired. She divides the properties in her plaint into five categories; first, ancestral immovable properties; secondly, monies due to the sons of Biswanatli Shaw on mortgage of immovable properties, such mortgages having been effected after the death of Biswanath; thirdly, the movable properties; fourthly, money-lending business and, fifthly, the tobacco business. The learned Subordinate Judge has decreed the plaintiff's claim for a one-fourth share of all the...
Hira Lal Sahu Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.113
1. In this case a rule was issued calling upon the Magistrate; of the District to show cause why the order complained of in the petition should not be set aside or why in the alternative, a portion of the penalty should not be remitted on the grounds stated in the petition.2. The applicant is stated in the petition to have stood surety for one Jodu Lal Sahu who may charged under Sections 193 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and, as such surety to have executed a bond for appearance of Jodu Lal before the Court of the Sessions Judge of Mozaffarpore on the 18th of May 1909 at 6 a.m. to answer the charge against him and in default the petitioner bound himself to pay the sum of Rs. 50,000. Jodu Lal did not attend on the 18th of May in accordance with the terms of the bond, and proceedings wore, therefore, initiated with a view to have the bond forfeited and the amount of the forfeited money levied. An order has been made by the Deputy Magistrate that the bond of the surety be forfeited and...
Bindubashini Dasi Vs. Giridhari Lal Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.330
1. This appear is directed against a decree in a suit to enforce a mortgage security executed by the appellant and her husband Radha Nath. Bose on the 3rd April 1899 in favour of Kishori' Mohun Roy, a money-lender of this city now represented by the plaintiffs-respondents. The mortgage which was jointly executed by the husband and wife was for a consideration of Rs. 14,500 and covered three properties. Out of the consideration a sum of Rs. 8,337-14 was due under two hand-notes executed on the 1st October 1898 in favour of Kishori Mohun by the husband of the appellant Bindubashini as her constituted attorney. A sum of Rs. 1,804-14 was covered by four hand-notes executed by Radha Nath himself in favour of Kishori Mohun on various dates between the 6th May 1895 and the 23rd March. 1899. A further sum of Rs. 4,357-3-10 is stated in the mortgage-deed to have been advanced in cash, at the time of the transaction, so as to bring up the total sum advanced to Rs. 14,500. The husband and the wif...
Dakhineswar Misra and ors. Vs. Haris Chundra Chatterji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.368
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order of the Courts below made under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In support of the Rule it has been urged that the offence for which the prosecution of the petitioners was ordered was not brought to the notice of the Court in the course of a judicial proceeding; and in support of this view reliance has been placed upon the cases of Hara Charan Mookerjee v. The King Emperor 32 C. 367; 1 C.L.J. 161; 9 C.W.N. 364; 2 Cr. L.J. 110 and Kanto Ram Das v. Gobardhun Das 35 C. 133; 7 Cr. L.J. 159. It appears that the Court below directed the attachment of certain movable properties of the judgment-debtor in execution of a decree for money obtained on the 7th December 1908. When the officers of the Court went to effect the attachment, they were resisted by the present petitioners. The peon reported to the Court that he could not find the judgment-debtor and when he attempted to seize the movables, resistance was offered by the present ...
Surja Prasad Sukul and ors. Vs. Shyama Sundari Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1909
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.550
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by two ladies, widows of the late Din Dayal Agasti, and by it they seek to recover payment of a sum of money which they alleged was due to them by virtue of an agreement. The prayers of their plaint are that a decree may be passed against the defendants for the total sum of Rs. 759-1 as shown in the account below of which Rs. 720 is principal and Rs. 39-1 its interest at Re. 1 per cent. per mensem, for the costs of suit with interest and for such other remedies as the Court may deem proper ; and, secondly, that a decree may be passed directing the above amount to be realized from the estate left by the plaintiffs' husband.2. The defendants are three in number and happen to be the persons who were appointed executors of a document which they put forward as the last Will and testament of Din Dayal Agasti--one of them being the son-in-law of the alleged testator and the other two his grand-sons. When this alleged Will was b...
Kumar Rameswar Malia and ors. Vs. Bhaba Sundari Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.304
1. We are invited in this rule to set aside an order made by the Court below under Section 206 of the Code of 1882. The learned Subordinate Judge has by this order amended a decree originally made in his Court and subsequently modified on appeal by consent of parties in this Court. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the Subordinate Court had no jurisdiction to make any order for amendment so as to affect what is now the decree of this Court. This contention is obviously well-founded and is supported by a long series of decisions which are mentioned in the judgment of this Court in Srigobind Singh v. Gangatri Pershad Singh 6 C.L.J. 542. The same view has been affirmed even in cases in which an appeal has been dismissed under Section 551, Code of Civil Procedure: Peary Mohan Mukherjee v. Mohendra Nath Manna 4 C.L.J. 566, Munisami Naidu v. Munisami Reddi 22 M. 293 and Asma Bibi v. Ahmed Husain 30 A. 290 : 5 A.L.J. 584 : A.W.N. (1908) 109. This is not contested on behalf of the...
Bhagwan Das Vs. Rash Behari Mullick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1909
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.595
Ryves, J.1. The facts are as follows: There was a large rambling building abutting on the north side of Shibu Thakur's Lane in Calcutta known as No. 67, Shibu Thakur's Lane. Some four years ago it was partitioned by a decree in a suit between Rash Behary Mullick, the complainant's predecessors, and one Bansidhar, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners. According to this decree 3/4th of the building, on the south, i.e., adjoining Shibu Thakur's Lane, was allotted to Bansidhar, while th on the north or rear of the premises was given to the complainant. In order to provide access to the portion that fell to the complainant, it was agreed that a strip of land 4 feet broad along the eastern boundary of the premises allotted to Bansidhar should remain open for ever. At the time of the partition, portions of the southern end of the building were partly one-storied, partly two-storied and partly three-storied. After the partition had been carried out, the two partitioned portions were sep...
Banku Behary Sarkar and anr. Vs. Benode Pal Kumar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.350
Richardson, J.1. Section 45 of the Bengal Tenancy Act runs as follows: A suit for ejectment on the ground of the expiration of the term of a lease shall not be instituted against a non-occupancy raiyat unless notice to quit has been served on the raiyat not less than six months before the expiration of the term and shall not be instituted after six months from the expiration of the term.2. The only point which arises in this second appeal is whether these provisions apply to the case of a tenant of an undivided share of a holding, the tenant being admitted not to have occupancy rights.3. For the appellants, it is submitted that this question should be answered in the negative and reliance is placed on the case of Hurry Churn Bose v. Raja Runjit Singh 1 C.W.W.N. 521 on certain cases following that case namely Baidya Nath Be Sarkar v. Sheikh Jhin 2 C.W.N. 44 : 25 C. 917; Haribole Brohmo v. Tasimuddin Mondul 2 C.W.N. 680 and Ahadulla Sheikh v. Gagan Mollah 2 C.L.J. 10.4. Reference to thes...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »