Kolkata Court December 1910 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.
Amanat Sardar Vs. Nagendra Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal307,9Ind.Cas.65
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. We are of opinion that this appeal should be re-heard on the three grounds on which the Rule was issued. The law under Section 421 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not appear to be very precise, but it does lay down that the appellant or his pleader shall have a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the appeal. Now, this must be taken to include the possible right of reply, if necessary, for it is obvious that if the Crown in its reply raises any points or displaces, in the opinion of the learned Judge, the points which were raised in the opening, the appellant or his pleader will have no reasonable opportunity of supporting their case, unless they are allowed to reply, and that this is so has been laid down by a Bench of this Court in the case of Promoda Bhusan Roy v. Emperor (1906) 111 C.W.N. xliii.2. As regards the other two points, the finding of the learned Judge is vague as to the question whether Shashi and Afsar are or are not acc...
Abdul Aziz Vs. Kanthu Mallik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal512
Mookerjee and Coxe, JJ.1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside a decree by which the Court of appeal below in concurrence with the Court of first instance has dismissed a suit for rent. The plaintiff alleged that the disputed holdings are situated within Taluks Nos. 4424 and 4425, of which he is a part-proprietor; that on the 25th July 1892 and the 5th December 1893 the defendant executed two kabuliyats in his favour and was inducted into the land; that he consented to a decree for arrears for the year 1302, but that subsequently lie has attorned to one Mohinikanta and withheld rent for the years 1312 to 1314. The defendant resisted the claim broadly on the ground that the plaintiff had no title to the property, that he was not entitled to realise any rent, as his name had not been registered under Section 78 of the Land Registration Act, and that, in any event, as the defendant had paid rent to Mohinikanta, who had been duly registered, there was a complete defence to the claim of...
Sheikh Mozaffar Ali and ors. Vs. Darogha Gope and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.19
1. The substantial point for our determination in this appeal is whether, on the facts of the case, the proposition laid down in Sujjad Ahamed Chowdhury v. Ganga Charan Ghose 9 C.W.N. 460 : 1 C.L.J. 116 is or is not applicable.2. The plaintiffs appellants alleged that the principal defendant, whom they sought to eject from the land in suit, was their bataidar for three years, in or about the year 1900 but that the defendant having given up the land which had been settled with him in darjote, the plaintiffs came into possession. The plaintiff further stated that, in spite of this, the principal defendant secured an order, under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, in the year 1906, declaring his possession as darjotedar. The defendant raised another sort of defence, but he admitted some intermediary title of the plaintiffs in that he said that he paid rent (Rs. 15) to the zamindars through plaintiff No. 1. His story that the jote had been held furzi (benami) by the plaintiff No. 1, tho...
Radha Madhab Pakra and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.46
1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Cuttack to show cause why the conviction of and sentences passed on the petitioner should not be set aside on the grounds, first, that the questions arising in the case are of civil rights and, secondly, that there was no jurisdiction to depute the Sub-Deputy Magistrate to hold the local investigation and to give his evidence in the course of the trial, and, thirdly, that as regards the second petitioner there is no finding as to his having taken any intentional part in the proceedings.2. As regards the first two points, we think that the findings of the lower Court are conclusive that there is no question of civil right. The finding is clear that it was plot No. 138 from which the bamboos were cut, that it was in the possession of the complainant that the bamboos had been planted by his father and that he had the sole right to these bamboos. We need not enter into the rather inconsistent second defence that bamboos are trees a...
Darsing Nakma Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.114
1. It is clear from the rules framed under the Assam Regulation that we have no jurisdiction to deal with this matter. It appears that the petty Magistrates who are known as Laskars and who appear to be nothing but tribal Chiefs have jurisdiction to grant compensation for any kind of affront committed in connection with any petty complaint. A fortiori the Magistrate had full jurisdiction to do the same. In fact calling it fine makes no difference as the Code of Criminal Procedure is not in force in those districts.2. The rule is discharged....
Arjun Ram Pal and ors. Vs. Sadananda Sarma and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.1
Caspersz, J.1. This is an appeal in a suit to obtain a declaration that a certain hut (together with doors, door frames etc.), is liable for the dues on account of a decree which the plaintiffs had recovered against the defendant No. 1, who is the father of defendant No. 2. Both the lower Courts have found that the hut is the property of defendant No. 2, and this fact cannot be assailed in second appeal. But it is urged on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants, first, that the defendant No. 1 is entitled under the Hindu Law to a half share of the self-acquired property of his son the defendant No. 2, and, secondly, that the hut, being the joint family property of both the defendants, the father is the owner of half of it which can be sold in execution of the decree.2. A preliminary objection that no appeal lies has been abandoned by the learned Vakil for the defendants-respondents. The suit was not one of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes and a hut is immovable property. Th...
Abdool Rackman Mia Vs. Safar Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.262
1. This was a Rule calling upon the Deputy Commissioner of Cachar and on the opposite party to show cause why the order under Section 147 should not be set aside as being without jurisdiction inasmuch as it was passed on proceedings under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, without any action in accordance with Section 1.0.2. The only explanation furnished by the Magistrate who heard the case is that he did not take evidence because in his opinion under Section 147, Criminal Procedure Code, the taking of evidence is unnecessary.3. We must say that we are surprised that the Deputy Commissioner has forwarded this explanation without any comment. We must notice, firstly, that it has nothing whatever to do with the ground on which the rule was issued and, secondly, that it displays an entire ignorance of the law and the rulings of this Court. We must say we should have expected the Deputy Commissioner to see that his subordinates did not send such an explanation to this Court without him...
Lalit Koer and ors. Vs. Babu Hit NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.5
Caspersz, J.1. The plaintiff brought the suits, out of which these second appeals have arisen, for the purpose of enhancing the rents of his tenants under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. A Commission was issued in the first Court to a Sub-Deputy Collector for the purpose of making a local enquiry as provided by Section 31(b) of the Act. The instructions given to him were to ascertain the prevailing rate of rent paid by the tenants and to report whether the defendant's lands were of a similar description with similar advantages with reference to the prevailing rate paid. The Sub-Deputy Collector's report, and this finding is not challenged before me, is as follows: He finds the rates of rent, payable for first class lands, to vary from Rs. 9 to Rs. 10, those for second class lands from Rs. 7 to Rs. 8, those for the 3rd class of lands from Rs. 5 to Rs. 6 and those for lands of the fourth class from Rs. 3 to Rs. 4 per bigha. The Sub-Deputy Collector then proceeded, as appears fr...
Sadhu Biswas and anr. Vs. Mahamad Ali Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.167
1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate and on the opposite party to show cause why the order under Section 145, dated the 23rd July 1910, should not be set aside as made without jurisdiction inasmuch as the previous order dated the 31st May 1909 was still in force and no proceedings had been taken in the Civil Court since.2. Now, the previous order of the 31st May 1909 is as follows: 'The parties compromised and filed a petition of compromise. According to its terms the lands will be in the possession of both sides as stated in the petition.' Now, this order, as we read it, cannot be an order under Clause 6 of Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. That section is mandatory and it says: If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was in such possession of the said subject, he shall issue an order declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law, and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such evicti...
Bajrangi Gope Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal304
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This was a Rule calling on the District Magistrate of Mozufferpore to show cause why the conviction of, and sentences passed on, the petitioners should not be set aside on the ground that the common object charged failed, and that the search for stolen property without a warrant was not a legal search, and, therefore, the petitioners had a right of private defence. We have heard the learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer showing cause against the Rule, and we are clearly of opinion that Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not authorize a general search for stolen property. It speaks of a specific document or thing which may be the subject of summons or order under Section 94, and it is clear that Section 94 does not refer to stolen articles or to any incriminating document or thing in the possession of an accused person. The latter proposition has been laid down in the case of Ishwar Chandra Ghoshal v. Emperor (1908) 12 C.W.N. 1016. In this case, h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »