Kolkata Court August 1910 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Abani Bhushan Chuckerbutty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal169
Harington, Holmwood and Doss, JJ.1. The prisoners in this case stand charged with offences under Section 121 A of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case for the Crown that there exists a wide-spread conspiracy to effect a revolution by violence and by force of arms to deprive the King of the solvereignty of British India. The allegation is that the thirteen persons who now stand in the dock are participators in that conspiracy; and to justify the inference that the conspiracy exists and that the persons, who have been placed upon their trial before us, are engaged in that conspiracy, the Crown relies upon certain facts. The first important fact on which the Crown relies is that there was found in the possession of some of the prisoners a trunk containing documents advocating revolution by violence, describing how secret societies to that end should be organized and the lines on which they should carry out their operations, how high explosives were to be manufactured and how, when prepar...
Tag this Judgment!Mohendra NaraIn Chuckerbutty Vs. Shashi Bhushan Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.764
Chatterjee, J.1. The defendant obtained an ex parte rent decree against the plaintiffs and in execution thereof sold the lands in suit and purchased them himself. Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 applied for setting aside the decree under Section 103 of the Civil Procedure Code without success but plaintiff No. 1 deposited the decretal amount under Section 310A, Civil Procedure Code, and had the sale set aside.2. The plaintiffs now sue to set aside the decree as fraudulent and to recover the amount paid under the rent decree. The first Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs had failed to make out their lakhiraj-title and that as the summons in the rent suit had not been proved to have been suppressed, such a suit would not be sustainable. The lower appellate Court has set aside the decree of the first Court and given a full decree to the plaintiffs holding that they have proved their lakhiraj-title and hence the decree was fraudulent.3. It is contended in second appeal before me t...
Tag this Judgment!Khettramoni Dasi Vs. Dhirendra Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.805
Richardson, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit--and the appellant before me in this second appeal--is the widow of the late Sibram Rai, who died in 1895, leaviug a Will, by which he appointed the late Ashutosh Rai to be his executor. The latter took out probate of the Will in November 1895 and subsequently died in 1903. The defendant, now respondent, is his minor son and heir. The plaint was filed in 1907, and the relief sought is set out in the prayers contained in paragraph 8 of that document. For the present purpose, it is only necessary to refer to the first prayer and a part of the second. The plaintiff prayers firstly, for a decree for an account on the footing that the defendant is liable to render an account for the period during which his father acted as executor, extending, it is alleged, up to the date of his father's death. Then a decree is prayed for 'for such an amount as may upon adjustment of account be found due from the defendant No. 1'. These prayers must be read with pa...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Prasanna Bose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal156
D. Chatterjee, J.1. The petitioners in this case are two brothers. They admittedly belong to a most respectable family of zemindars, the Bose Chowdhries of Bahar. They are both legal practitioners, the elder, Kali Prasanna, having extensive criminal practice at Munshigunge where he mostly resides, the younger, Kali Kumar, mostly living at Bahar in the family residence, and looking after the family properties. The Bahar family has now split up by successive partitions and the several branches have been admittedly at loggerheads. The members of several branches have made a common cause against the accused and supported the prosecution by their evidence. The petitioners had special enmity with Rai Abhoy Churn Mitter Bahadur, a retired military contractor of great wealth, and the learned Magistrate says the struggle with Rai Abhoy Mitter Bahadur over the chur lands has been long and bitter, and the Rai Bahadur's influence is plainly visible in the present case. The police officers, especia...
Tag this Judgment!Ramoo Singh Vs. Miterjit Mahton and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.784
Chatterjee, J.1. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of one Bhopal Mahton and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are the sons of respondent No. 2. All the respondents were minors under the guardianship of Serko Koer, mother of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Serko Koer purchased a certain property in her own name and not being able to pay the considertion money in cash executed a mortgage of the purchased property in favour of the vendors. The vendors assigned their right to the mortgage and the assignee brought a suit on the mortgage against Serko Koer and in that suit made the respondents defendants on the ground of their having been benefited by the mortgage as the property was purchased for the joint family of which they were members. A joint decree was passed on the mortgage against all the defendants. The mortgaged property was sold but the proceeds were insufficient to satisfy the whole decree. In the meantime Serko Koer died and the decree-holder applied for a decree under Section 90 of ...
Tag this Judgment!H.P. Sandyal Vs. Bhaba Sundari Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.803
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Burdwan in. a suit for defamation in which he has given the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 500 with costs.2. It appears that the defendant was appointed Receiver to 'the joint estate of the Searsol Babus and that the plaintiff, a lady co-sharer in that estate, has in addition a large separate estate of her own.3. Her manager Chandra Mohan Das filed a petition in her name making allegations of the grossest dishonesty against the defendant and asking for his removal from the Receivership. The defendant was called upon by the Court for an explanation and the explanation he submitted is couched in the most inflated and exaggerated language showing that he has an imperfect knowledge of English idiom and has a very great feeling of rancour towards Chandra Mohan Das, against whom there is in the explanation a great deal which, if not privileged, is most defamatory.4. It appears that Chandra Mohan Das prosecut...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Vesta Cliffon Sebastian Vs. Kuloda Prosad DeogharIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.763
1. This rule arises out of an application under Section 211 of the new Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act (VI of 1908). This Act was passed on the 11th November 1908 and at that time the District of Manbhum was not governed by it. On the 22nd December 1909,. a Government Notification was issued extending the whole of this Act to the District of Manbhum. In the meantime on the 19th August 1909, the claimant had taken a kobala of certain lands forming part of a holding. After the promulgation of the new Act in the District of Manbhum, these lands being attached in execution of a money decree, the claimant put in a claim under Section 211 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act and asked for the release of the land. Her claim has been rejected on the ground that under Section 46 of Act VI of 1908, the transfer of the holding was bad and that, therefore, no title passed to her.2. It has been contended before us that Section 46 of Act VI of 1908 has no application in bar of the claimant's title. The reason g...
Tag this Judgment!Kunja Lal Chowdhury Vs. Kailash Chandra Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.740
Doss, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application under Section 50 of the Probate and Administration Act for revocation of the probate of the Will of one Raj Chand Chowdhury. The facts are shortly these:--There were two brothers Keshav Chandra Chowdhury and Raj Chandra Chowdhury. Keshav had two sons, Kailash and Tara Prasanna. Raj Chandra, the alleged testator, made a Will on the 8th July 1896 whereby he bequeathed all his properties to his nephews, Kailash and Tara Prasanna. He died four days afterwards leaving behind him a widow, Dayamayi and a daughter, Nrityamayi. Nrityamayi, who is still alive, has two sons, Behary Lal Chowdhury and Kunja Lal Chowdury. On the 2nd October 1896, Kailash and Tara Prasanna applied for probate of the Will; whereupon, besides the usual notices, special citations were issued to the widow and daughter of the testator, as also to Behary Lal who was then adult. On the 3rd March 1897, the widow represented to the Court that a compromise had been effected w...
Tag this Judgment!Langat Singh Vs. Rai Radha Kishen Bahadur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.781
1. The village of Raju Paker, Pergannah Basera, in the district of Mozafferpur appears to have been originally held in three shares, two of which aggregating 12 annas were held by Baboo Nonit Lal and a four anna share by the plaintiffs. The defendant, Langat Singh, took a thicca of an eight anna share from Baboo Nonit Lai and afterwards purchased the remaining 4 anna share in the village excluding the share of the plaintiffs. It appears that his intrusion into the village as a part proprietor was resented by the plaintiffs and that he had considerable difficulty in realising the rent, both of the 8 anna share which he held as thiccadar and of the 4 anna share which he held as proprietor. In consequence, he had to bring many suits against the tenants to recover arrears of rent for these two shares and they were contested by the tenants and the co-sharers on the ground that he had no right of separate collection. In the end, he obtained decrees, on the 30th June 1900 after contest, for r...
Tag this Judgment!Tamij Mandal Vs. Golam Rabbani Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.720
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first five defendants in a suit for recovery of possession of a holding purchased by the plaintiff-respondent from two persons, Fakir and Drajtulla, the descendants of one Alam Mandal, who was the original owner of the property. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the conveyance which was the foundation of the title was for consideration. Upon appeal the learned Subordinate Judge has reversed that finding. He has held that no question of transferability arises in the circumstances of the present case. He has further held that the question of limitation also does not arise in the suit. In this view, he has given the plaintiff a decree for 3/4ths share of the holding on the ground that his vendors were entitled to a 3/4th share of the property.2. On behalf of the defendants, the decree of the Subordinate Judge has been assailed on two grounds, namely, first, that the question of tra...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »