Kolkata Court May 1910 Judgments

Nityamoni Dasi and ors. Vs. Gokul Chandra Sen and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.210

1. This is an appeal on behalf of some of the defendants in a suits for partition of joint property. In the Court below, the parties put in a petition of compromise which as drawn up was obviously intended to be signed by all the plaintiffs and all the defendants. For some unexplained reason, however, it was signed only by some of the plaintiffs and some of the defendants. This defect was apparently overlooked, and arbitrators were appointed to give effect to the terms upon which the parties had agreed. One of the defendants who did not sign the petition of compromise took objection before the arbitrator; the result was that the arbitration fell through and the matter was brought back into Court, The Subordinate Judge then took up the matter for disposal, and on the 19th August, 1909, he held that as against the non-appearing defendant who had objected to the arbitration, the suit should be heard ex parte, and that as regards the other parties a preliminary decree should be passed in t...

Emperor Vs. Taranath Roy Chowdhry

Court: Kolkata

Woodroffe, J.1. I am not satisfied that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code allow the statement made by the accused to be admissible, Apart from that, I am not clear that the statement can be taken to be a voluntary statement, for the same document contains an allegation (whether true or not need not now be considered) that the statement is not voluntary. I must, therefore, reject it upon the objection of the learned Counsel for the defence....

Rajendra Kumar Bose Vs. Gangaram Koyal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal856

Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to rectify a decree passed in a previous suit No. 830 of 1904. If regard be had to the allegations of the plaint, it is apparent that the plaintiffs' case rested wholly on fraud, and the Munsif has correctly described the position when he said--' The plaintiffs' case is that the decree was vitiated by fraud, which consisted in the present defendant having misled the Court to pass the decree.' The fraud was negatived, and thereupon a case of mistake was set up, and on this ground the Munsif passed a decree in the plaintiffs' favour. This was confirmed by the lower Appellate Court, and also by the judgment of this Court on appeal when the case was heard by a single Judge. From this judgment the present appeal is preferred.2. I take it to be well-established that where pleadings are so framed as to rest the claim for relief solely on the ground of fraud, it is not open to the plaintiff, if he fails in establishing the fr...

Shama Bibi Vs. Chairman of Baranagore Municipality

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.675

1. The events antecedent to the litigation, which has culminated in the present appeal, have not formed the subject of controversy before this Court. The plaintiff appellant is the owner of a garden house situated within the limits of the jurisdiction of the defendant Municipality. In the year 1900, she let out the garden to her maternal uncle, Juggarnath Das, who erected a privy thereon as also walls along portions of the western and southern boundary lines of the garden house. In November 1903, the Vice-Chairman of the Baranagore Municipality served notice upon the plaintiff requiring her to remove the structures on the ground that they had encroached upon Municipal land. The plaintiff in reply intimated to the Municipality that the garden house was in the entire charge of Juggarnath Das and the notices ought to be directed to the latter. Her objection was overruled and she was prosecuted under Section 218 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1834. The case for the plaintiff is, that this pr...

Rajendra Kumar Bose Vs. Gangaram Koyal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.472

Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to rectify a decree passed in a previous suit No. 830 of 1904. If regard be had to the allegations of the plaint, it is apparent that the plaintiff's case rested on fraud; and the Munsif has correctly described the position when he said: 'The plaintiff's case is that the decree was vitiated by fraud which consisted in the present defendants having misled the Court to pass the decree'. The fraud was negatived, and thereupon a case of mistake was set up, and on this ground the Munsif passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour. This was confirmed by the lower appellate Court and also by the judgment of this Court on appeal when the case was heard by a single Judge. Prom this decree this present appeal is preferred.2. I take it to be well established that where pleadings are so framed as to rest the claim for relief solely on the ground of fraud, it is not open to the plaintiff, if he fails in establishing the fraud, to pick ...

Trilochan Hazra Vs. Bakkeswar Ta

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.839

1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of property which at one time belonged to his brother. The case for the plaintiff is that the property has been sold in execution of a decree obtained against the widow of his brother under circumstances which do not make the sale binding upon him as the reversionary heir. The Subordinate Judge, in concurrence with the Court of first instance, has found that the sale was held for legal necessity and that the effect of the sale was to transfer the entire interest in the. property to the execution purchaser. In this view, the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed, and that decree has been affirmed by a learned Judge of this Court. We are now invited under Section 15 of the Letters Patent) to set aside the concurrent decisions of three Courts. The grounds urged against the view which has prevailed in all the Courts are threefold; first, that the legal effect of the sale has not been properly appreciate...

Panchanan Bose Vs. Chandi Charan Misra

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal808

Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. This case comes before us by way of second appeal, the suit being one by which the plaintiffs seek a declaration of their right to a patta in a four-anna share in the lands described in the schedule, for relief in respect of that four-anna share and for possession. The suit is based on a solehnama or agreement of compromise, by which the differences in a former suit, that is, suit No. 350 of 1903, were composed.2. The defendants have objected to the plaintiff's claim on several grounds, but on appeal the only point discussed has been regarding (sic) not the solehnama was admissible in evidence. The field (sic) that has found favour with the lower Courts and also (sic) Mr. Justice Sharfuddin, before whom the case came by way of appeal in the first instance, has been that it was inadmissible, and it is from the judgment confirming the decree of the lower Appellate Court that the present appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.3. Before us it ...

Anu Sheikh Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal812

Harington and Teunon, JJ.1. The first point taken is that this proceeding, having begun before one Magistrate and continued and ended by another, is without jurisdiction, because the 'second Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make the order. But Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides: 'whenever any Magistrate, after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an inquiry or a trial, ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is succeeded by another Magistrate who has, and who exercises, such jurisdiction, the Magistrate so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by 'his predecessor, or partly recorded by his predecessor and partly recorded by himself; or he may re-summon the witnesses and re-commence the enquiry or trial.' Now, it is argued that section does not apply. But that section is in its terms wide enough to cover every trial or inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the proceeding under Section 145 is, we think, an inqui...

Anu Sheikh Vs. Jitu Sheikh and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.54

1. The first point taken is that this proceeding having begun before one Magistrate and continued and ended by another is without jurisdiction because the second Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make the order. But Section 350 provides 'whenever any Magistrate, after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an enquiry or a trial, ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein and is succeeded by another Magistrate who has and who exercises such jurisdiction, the Magistrate so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by his predecessor, or partly recorded by his predecessor and partly recorded by himself or he may re-summon the witnesses and recommence the enquiry or trial.' Now, it is argued that that Section does not apply. But that Section is in its terms wide enough to cover every trial or enquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the proceeding under Section 145 is we think an enquiry, because in it the Magistrate's duty is to enquire who is in poss...

Prayag NaraIn Kafri and ors. Vs. Chedi Rai and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.979

1. These second appeals arise out of two suits to enforce mortgage bonds, dated respectively 25th September 1894 and 1st October 1894. The appeals are with regard to the order of the District Judge in appeal disallowing the contract rate of interest and fixing an arbitrary rate of his own.2. There are cross-objections by defendants second party who are purchasers of the equity of redemption under a kobala, dated the 5th April 1891, under which they paid off three prior simple mortgages created by Exts. A2, A3 and A4 and a prior usufructuary mortgage created by Ex. A3. They also paid off a puisne mortgagee with whom we are not concerned.3. The kobalas recite the circumstances and mention the mortgages. The defendants second party have preserved the bonds and produce them. Under these circumstances the well-known principle of subrogation laid down in the Privy Council judgment in the case of Gokaldas Gopaldas v. Puranmal Premsukhdas 10 C. 1035 : 11 I.A. 126 seems to apply with the strong...