Kolkata Court January 1911 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.
Ahed Khund Kar and ors. Vs. Mohendra Lal Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.320
N. Chatterjee, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether in an appeal against; a decree passed after granting a review of judgment on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence which the applicant for review alleged was not within his knowledge or could not be adduced by him at the time when the decree was originally passed against him, it is competent to the appellate Court to try the question whether there was strict proof of the allegation as provided in Section 626(b) of the Civil Procedure Code, or whether the decision of the Court granting the review is final upon the question.2. The plaintiffs brought a suit for rent at the rate of Rs. 18 per year, and obtained a decree at the rate claimed. The defendants applied for review of judgment under Section 623, Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that the defendants could not file certain documents when the case was taken up as they did not know that those documents had been filed in a previous suit. The Court admitted ...
Baikuntha Nath Sen Vs. Bidhu Bhushan Jash and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.322
N. Chatterjee, J.1. The lands in depute were resumed as chaukidari chakran lands by the Collector under the provisions of Act VI of 1870 (B.C.), and transferred to the defendant No. 2, who is the zemindar of the mauzah in which the lands are situated.2. The plaintiff claimed the lands as putnidar under defendant No. 2.3. The defence was that the lands were not chaukidari chakran lands but were the lakhiraj lands of defendant No. 1 (ka) under whom the defendant No. I had been holding as tenant and that the former had purchased them in execution of a rent decree.4. The learned Munsif held that the defendants could only dispute the validity of the order declaring the lands to be chaukidari chakran lands if they could show that the proceedings had been held without due notice to them and he held that he was justified in presuming that defendant No. 1 knew of the resumption proceedings and came to the conclusion that the lands were chaukidari chakran lands and gave a decree to the plaintiff...
Edward Thornton Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.480
1. This was a rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed upon the petitioner, Mr. E. Thornton, should not be set aside on the ground that his statement was not recorded and there is no finding that he was in the car and there is clear finding in a subsequent case that he was not in the car.2. As regards the first point we think it is to he regretted, considering that this is a case of first impression as to the interpretation of a rule which is not altogether free from difficulties, that a fuller record of the evidence and the plea of the petitioners was not made. It is, however, clear from the explanation of the Chief Presidency Magistrate that Mr. Thornton did not seek to impeach Mr. Watson's evidence and in the absence of the chauffeur merely denied all knowledge of the offence. The only question, therefore, to be considered is the responsibility of the owner under the bye-law No. 4 read with Rule 20 when the owner is not h...
Ramnath Pandit Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal413
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. From the wording of the Rule it appears that it was issued under a misapprehension that Section 76(a) applies. We find from the explanation of the District Magistrate that the case is tinder Section 76(b) and the embankment is within the limits of the tract included in the notice under Section 6, which is Bengal Government Notification No. 77, dated 11th March, 1910. It is, therefore, clear that no addition can be made to the existing embankment without the permission of the Collector.2. It is sought to be argued that the ruling in Goverdhan Sinha v. Queen-Empress (1885) I.L.R. 11 Cale. 570, has not been overruled by the full Bench case in Ajodhya Nath Koila v. Raj Krishto Bhar (1902) I.L.R. 30 Cale. 481. But it is clear from the terms of the reference that that ruling has been distinctly and clearly overruled as far as the interpretation of the words 'existing embankments' in both the Clauses (b) and (a) are concerned. If, as the Pull Bench held, the wor...
Rama Nath Pandit Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.360
1. From the wording of the Rule it appears that it was issued under a misapprehension that Section 76(a) applies. We find from the explanation of the District Magistrate that the case is tinder Section 76(b) and the embankment is within the limits of the tract included in the notice under Section 6, which is Bengal Government Notification No. 77 dated 11th March 1910. It is, therefore, clear that no addition can be made to the existing embankment without the permission of the Collector.2. It is sought to be argued that the ruling in Goverdhan Sinha v. Queen-Empress 11 C. 570 has not been overruled by the Full Bench case in Ajodhya Nath Koila v. Raj Kristo Bhar 30 C. 481. But it is clear from the terms of the reference that that ruling has been distinctly and clearly overruled as far as the interpretations of the words existing embankments' in both the Clauses (6) and (a) are concerned. If, as the Full Bench held, the words 'existing embankments' in Clause (a) mean embankments existing ...
Ram Nath Singh and ors. Vs. Raja Kamleshwar Prasad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.323
1. There appears to be a difficulty in dealing with this application as if it were one under Order XLI, Rule 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure: for, through an apparent oversight, there has not been an affidavit put in, as required by the Rules; and although that might in this case not be of much importance, because the facts stated in the petition are not now disputed before us there is another objection, namely, that it has not been shown in the terms of the Order XLI, Rule 5, that the conditions mentioned in Sub-section 3, (a), (b) and Co) have been fulfilled. It is open to us, however, and I think we should deal with this matter by way of revision, under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, of the order which was passed by the Subordinate Judge on the 7th of December 1910: for that order appears to be clearly erroneous. Under Order XLI, Rule 6(2), the Court in the case of an order for sale of immovable property in execution of a decree is bound, where an appeal is pending from such d...
Lal Behary Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.361
1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Patna to show cause why the further trial of the petitioner in the Court of Session on charges of cheating should not be quashed on the ground that there has been no commitment to the Court of Session on these charges; secondly, why the accused should not be acquitted of the third charge framed against him before the Sessions at the last trial on the ground that the Public Prosecutor withdrew from a part of the charge; and, thirdly, why the proceedings should not be quashed on the ground that they were instituted in an illegal and improper manner by the Jail authorities.2. We think that the Rule must succeed on the first ground. But before passing orders upon that, we will briefly deal with the other two grounds. It appears as regards the second ground that the learned Judge did not allow the Public Prosecutor to withdraw, and the rather knotty question which arises upon this part of the Rule need not, therefore, be considered;...
Sham Chandra Dafadar and anr. Vs. Godadhar Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.377
1. This is an appeal on be-half of the plaintiffs in an action for recovery of possession of a two-thirds share in a parcel of immovable property. There is no controversy between the parties as to the circumstances under which the claim has been put forward. The disputed property originally belonged to one Kailas Chandra Dufadar, who left, as his heirs, three infant sons, the two plaintiffs and their brother, now deceased, represented by his infant widow, the sixth defendant. In 1895, the widow of the original owner, acting as the natural guardian of her infant children, executed a mortgage by conditional sale of the disputed property for a consideration of rupees three Hundred. On the 7th January 1898, she executed a conveyance in favour of the mortgagees. The deed recited that the consideration, rupees eight hundred, was to be applied in satisfaction partly of the debt due on the mortgage, and partly of the arrears of rent due to the superior landlord. The first plaintiff attained hi...
Raj Chandra Chakravarti and anr. Vs. Hara Kishore Chakravarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.564
1. This is a Rule issued upon the Deputy Commissioner of Cachar to show cause why the proceedings under Sections 175 and 500, Indian Penal Code, should not be stayed pending the search for the document under Section 96, Criminal Procedure Code, inasmuch as such a warrant cannot be addressed to an accused person on his trial and there is nothing to show that the document is defamatory.2. It is clear that the proceedings under Section 175 must be stayed on the ground stated in the Rule and as regards them the Rule is made absolute. But the private prosecutor very reasonably contends that as summons was issued on his complaint under Section 500 there is no reason why his case should not be heard, and proceedings in that matter cannot be stayed. They may fail owing to the non-production of this document, but with that we have nothing to do. He is willing to take the risk of proceeding with the case without any proceeding to compel the production of the document. It is clear that as long as...
Baisnab Charan Manjhi and ors. Vs. Gati Nath Munshi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.830
1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate and the opposing party to show cause why the order attaching a certain jalkar should not be sat aside on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to proceed after all the members of the second party had been bound down, under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, on the 19bh December 1910 in a prior proceeding.2. The proceedings under Section 145 were taken on the 23rd, February 1911 and the order complained of was passed on the 4th May 1911, and the Magistrate finding it impossible to determine who was in possession of the jalkar attached the property under Section 146. Now it would be impossible for us to say that in no case can the fact, that one party had been bound down to keep the peace under Section 107, leave the Magistrate any jurisdiction to act under Section 145, when the circumstances so require; and we cannot see our way to making this Rule absolute without laying down such a general proposition. Certainly, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »