Kolkata Court September 1909 Judgments
Abdullah Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-30-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal52,5Ind.Cas.62
Chatterjee, J.1. In this case the petitioner has been convicted under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code for giving false evidence in the course of a judicial proceeding. The nature of that judicial proceeding was as follows. The Assistant Settlement Officer made an inquiry under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code as to whether he should or should not order the prosecution of certain persons for filing false receipts in the course of a settlement proceeding before him. The petitioner is said to have given false evidence in that inquiry. The petitioner obtained a Rule on the District Magistrate to show cause why the sentence passed upon him should not be set aside on the ground that the proceeding under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not a judicial proceeding. 'Judicial proceeding' has been defined in Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and it includes any proceeding in the course of which evidence is or may legally be taken on oath. Now, in order to see ...
Tag this Judgment!Narki Vs. Lal Sahu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal103
Stephen and Chatterjee, JJ.1. This case comes before us on second appeal and the facts admitted and found are as follows. The plaintiff is the daughter of one Moula Miyan who during his life was in possession of a holding jointly with his brother, Halkhori. The latter died first and Moula Miyan afterwards executed a deed of gift of all the property in question to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sues to recover possession of the holding, but her claim is resisted by defendant No. 3, on the plea that she is the widow of Halkhori's son, Mangru, and is entitled to the property in dispute jointly with the plaintiff and has been so since the death of Halkhori and Moula, and is now in possession. It is admitted that if Mangru died after Halkhori this contention is correct. All that we know about Mangru is that he went abroad about 1862, ten years before the death of Halkhori, which occurred in 1872, and has not since been heard of by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been ali...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Idris and ors. Vs. Motasaddi Mian and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1909
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.743
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the annulment of a sale for arrears of revenue which took place on the 19th of September 1904. The main grounds upon which the plaintiffs come to Court, are two. First, that the Collector had no jurisdiction to hold the sale as no arrears** were legally due and second, that the Sale was brought about by the fraud of defendant No. 3, who was the accredited agent of some of the plaintiffs for the payment of revenue and being as such bound to give information of the estate having fallen into arrears, did not do so, but on the contrary, colluded with defendants Nos. 1 and 2 whose servant also he was and purchased the estate for himself, his relation defendant No. 4 and defendants Nos. 1 and 2, entitling the plaintiffs to a reconveyance of their shares on payment of the proportionate value.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has decided the suit against the plaintiffs on both these points and they have appealed mainly on the grounds indicated above.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Zaki Hasan and anr. Vs. Deo Math Sahai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.433
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the third and fourth defendants in an action to enforce a mortgage security. The first defendant executed the bond in favour of the plaintiff on the 25th September, 1904, for a sum of Rs. 5,500, and got it registered on the 12th November following. The date fixed for repayment was the 11th December 1905. On the 27th June, 1906, the plaintiff commenced this action against the mortgagor and his son and two other persons who had purchased the property at a sale in execution of a money decree against the mortgagor on the 8th June 1906. The claim was resisted by these purchasers, substantially on the ground that the bond represented a fictitious transaction and had been executed solely with a view to place the properties out of the reach of the creditors of the mortgagor. The Subordinate Judge overruled this contention and made a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The two purchaser-defendants have now appealed to this Court, and on their behalf the decision...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Narki Vs. Musammat Phekia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.709
1. This case comes before, us on second appeal and the facts admitted and found are as follows. The plaintiff is the daughter of one Moula Miyan who during his life was in possession of a holding jointly with his brother Halkori. The latter died first and Moula Miyan afterwards executed a deed of gift of all the property in question to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sues to recover possession of the holding, but her claim is resisted by defendant No. 3 the sole respondent before us, on the plea that she is the widow of Halkori's son Mangru, and is entitled to the property in dispute jointly with the plaintiff and has been so since the death of Halkori and Moula, and is now in possession. It is admitted that if Mangru died after Halkori this contention is correct. All that we know about Mangru is that he went abroad about 1862, ten years before the death of Halkori, which occurred in 1872, and has not since been heard of by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive....
Tag this Judgment!Thakomoni Dasi Vs. Mohendra Nath Dey Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.389
1. The substantial question of law which calls for decision in this appeal is, whether an application for execution, of a decree for arrears of rent obtained by one of several joint landlords in respect of. her share, is governed by the rule of limitation prescribed in Clause 6 of schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The appellant before this Court sued the respondent for arrears of rent of a tenancy governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act and obtained a decree on the 13th October 1898, which was confirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge on the 6th November 1899 and ultimately by this Court on the 2nd June 1902. There were execution proceedings in 1904, 1905 and 1906, before the present application for execution was presented on the 20th January 1908. The objection of the judgment-debtor is that the application is barred by limitation under article 6 of schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Court of first instance has allowed the objection on the ground that the case is governed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›