Kolkata Court August 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.
Sarat Chandra Mitra Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal202
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 5 of the Newspapers (Incitement to Offences) Act of 1908, against an order absolute for forfeiture made under Section 3, Sub-section (5) of that Act. The appeal was heard in the first instance by my learned brothers Harington and Teunon, who have differed in opinion. My learned brother Harington is of opinion that the order for forfeiture must be set aside, while my learned brother Teunon is of opinion that the order for forfeiture should be maintained. The case has, therefore, been laid before me under Section 429 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 9 of Act VII of 1908.2. The circumstances under which the order absolute for forfeiture was made by the Court below are set out in the opinions recorded by my learned brothers, and need not be recalculated at full length. It is sufficient to state that the order has been made on the ground that the Pallichitra is a 'newspaper' within the meaning of the Newspapers (Incitement to O...
Sarat Chandra Mitra and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.641
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 5 of the Newspapers (Incitements to Offences) Act of 1908, against an order absolute for forfeiture made under Section 3, Sub-section (5), of that Act. The appeal was heard in the first instance by my learned brothers Harington and Teunon who have differed in opinion. My learned brother Harington is of opinion that the order for forfeiture must be set aside, while my learned brother Teunon is of opinion that the order for forfeiture should be maintained. The case has, therefore, been laid before me under Section 429 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 9 of Act VII of 1908.2. The circumstances, under which the order absolute for forfeiture was made by the Court below, are set out in the opinions recorded by my learned brothers, and need not be recapitulated at full length, It is sufficient to state that the order has been made on the ground that the Pallichitra is a Newspaper within the meaning of the Newspapers (Incitements t...
Mahomed Syed Fayez Ali Khan Vs. Sitara Begum
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.704
1. The plaintiff brought this suit to enforce her right as his widow to a share of the estate of the late Syed Nawab Azam Ali Khan Bahadur, who was known to the public as the Nawab of Jafargunge in the district of Murshidabad. He was the eldest of five brothers and traced his descent from the eldest son of the historic Mir Jafar, Nawab Nazim of Bengal, the present Nawab of Murshidabad being, it is said, descended from a younger son of Mir Jafar.2. The principal defendant (defendant No. 1) is the eldest son of Nawab Nazim Ali Khan and the pro forma defendants are other members of the same family.3. It is common ground that the Nawab went on pilgrimage to Mecca and afterwards died at karbala, in Turkish territory, on the 20th February 1896.4. Part of his estate appears to be still in the custody of the British Counsel at Bagdad and consists of the articles enumerated in schedule ka of the plaint. As to the remainder, it is not now denied that the defendant No. 1 is or has been in possess...
Rahimunnessa Bibee Vs. Mahadeb Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.846
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in an action for rent which has had a varied history. The plaintiff alleged that on the 2nd November 1905, he obtained an intermediate lease from the Maharaja of Burdwan within whose zemindary the land in the occupation of the defendant was situated. He, therefore, sued to recover rent from the defendant in respect of the years 1312 and 131:1. The defendant did not deny that he held lands under the Maharaja of Bardwan but he disputed the title of the plaintiff. He alleged that although the lease was granted by the Maharaja in the name of the plaintiff, the person beneficially interested in the lease-hold property was one Makhan Lal Mukerjee under whom the husband of the plaintiff was a servant, The Court of first instance stated the question in controversy to be, whether the relationship of landlord and tenant, existed between the plaintiff and the defendants. Evidence was adduced by the parties in support of their respective allegations ...
Syed Basir-ud-dIn Ahmed Vs. Kalika Prosad Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.582
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent Brought by the plaintiffs who are the transferees of the original lessor's rights in the property. The lower appellate Court has given the plaintiffs a decree for the full reliefs claimed. The defendant No. 1 has appealed to this Court and, in support of the appeal, three points have been raised. The first point is that the ekrarnama or the document by which the rights of the lessors were transferred to the plaintiffs not having been properly stamped and the penalty not having been paid, the document is inadmissible in evidence and the plaintiffs' claim which is based on that document should not have been decreed. It seems, however, that, in the Court of first instance, a point was raised as to the character of this document and as to the stamp duty payable thereon and the learned Munsif came to the decisions that the stamp upon the document was sufficient under the law and he accordingly admitted the document in evide...
Moizuddi Biswas Vs. Ishan Chandra Das Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.849
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of land which the plaintiff-respondent claimed to have acquired free from all incumbrances at a sale for arrears of revenue held on the 21st June 1895. The case for the plaintiff was that the lands now in dispute are included in Taluk Tafazzal Ali which bears No. 1530 on the Revenue Rolls of the Collectorate of Faridpur, that the defendant was in possession without any title and that consequently the plaintiff as purchaser of the estate was entitled to eject him. The defendant resisted the claim substantially on the ground that the lands were not included within the estate purchased by the plaintiff; but that they were part of another estate owned by the defendant himself. The Courts below have concurrently made a decree in favour of the plaintiff.2. The first defendant has now appealed to this Court, and on his behalf the decision of the District Judge has been assailed substantially on three gr...
Surendra Nath Ghose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal75
Mookerjee, J.1. The circumstances under which the appellant, Surendra Nath Ghose, has been convicted of an offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, have been narrated in the opinions recorded by my learned brothers Harington and Teunon, and need not be recapitulated at full length. On the 4th August, 1909, the appellant deposed as a witness in a case under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in which he himself was a party. He stated, inter alia, as follows: 'I am a witness to the kabuliats Exhibits I and II.' Later on, in cross-examination he qualified the statement to some extent: 'I was not a writing witness in any of the kabuliats.' The kabuliats had been executed on the 15th March and 3rd April 1898, and had been registered on the 15th April of that year. Certified copies from the Registration Office were produced, and these established conclusively that the name of the appellant was not on the original documents as an attesting witness before their registration;...
Sagore Nath Bose and anr. Vs. Rakhal Dasi Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.912
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in a suit under Section 37 of Act XI of 1859. The plaintiff purchased the estate at a sale for arrears of revenue under Act XI of 1859, on the 26th September 1808. On the 11th April 1907, he commenced the present action against two defendants to eject them on the allegation that they were not entitled to continue in occupation of the land. The first defendant resisted the claim on the ground that the land in his possession came within the 4th clause of Section 37 of Act XI of 1859, because it was land on which a dwelling-house had been erected and gardens and tanks had been made. The second defendant resisted the claim on the ground that he was a raiyat with a right of occupancy, at a fixed rent or at a rent assessable according to fixed rule under the law in force. The Court of first instance found in favour of the first defendant but against the 2nd defendant ; and the result was that the suit was dismissed, because as the 2nd defendan...
Durga Prasad Singh Vs. Ram Doyal Chaudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal153
Woodroffe, J.1. The main ground which has been argued in this appeal is that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is wrong in law, inasmuch as it is based on materials which were not evidence and which have been improperly admitted. It is not necessary to go, with detail, into the various points on which the judgment of the learned Judicial Commissioner is attacked. It is sufficient to point out one or two instances which are the grounds for the order which I propose to make. It appears from the judgment itself that certain books which were described as text-books, namely, Robinson's Land Tenure Reports, Cotton's Memorandum of Land Tenures in Bengal and Webster's Report on the Land Tenure of Chota Nagpur, were referred to, and, (so far as 1 understand the judgment) relied on by the learned Judicial Commissioner. These books were referred to by him after the case was closed and the parties had no opportunity of dealing with the matters therein mentioned. Assuming (as to which 1 say...
Kedar GaIn Vs. Ramoni Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.884
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the third defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property which admittedly belonged at one time to Madan Sundar, the father of the plaintiff-respondent. Madan died many years ago leaving him surviving his widow Surjamoni and two daughters, Sonamoni and Ramoni. After the death of Surjamoni the estate of Madan came into the possession of his two daughters On the 26th August 1895, Sonamoni executed a usufructuary mortgage of the entire property in favour of the present appellant. The result was that the mortgagee got into possession and dispossessed Ramoni. Ramoni forthwith sued the mortgagee, as also her sister, for declaration of her title to a half share of the property and for recovery of joint possession. A decree was made in her favour which entitled her in express terms to recover joint possession of the property. Sonamoni died in 1901 and left a son the second defendant before us. On the 20th June 1906, Ramoni commenced this a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »