Kolkata Court February 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.
Kali Das Chuckerbutty Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal453
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction of, and sentences on, the petitioner, Kali Das Chuckcrbutty, should not be set aside or why a retrial should not be ordered, or why the sentences should not be reduced or otherwise modified on the ground that there had, Leon misjoinder of charges, and that the petitioner is, if guilty, only liable to be punished for a single offence.2. The facts deposed to and found by the lower Courts are that the petitioner, being a ticket collector on the E.I. Hallway at Sheoraphuli, was seen to hand two third class tickets to a man named Aswini Kumar Seal just after the arrival of a train from Haripal to Sheoraphuli. These tickets had been used and collected from passengers by the petitioner. A travelling inspector who was deputed to look out for frauds in connection with used tickets, which had been frequent of late, followed. Aswini Kumar Seal and returned with him in the same trai...
Kali Das Chakravarti Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.618
1. This was a rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction of and sentence on the petitioner Kali Das Chakraverty should not be set aside or why re-trial should not be ordered or why the sentence should not be reduced or otherwise modified on the ground that there had been misjoinder of charges and that the petitioner is, if guilty, only liable to be punished for a single offence.2. The facts deposed to and found by the lower Courts are that the petitioner being a ticket collector on the East Indian Railway at Shedraphuli was seen to hand two third class tickets to a man named Aswini Kumar Seal just after the arrival of a train from Haripal to Sheoraphuli. These tickets had been used and collected from passengers by the petitioner. A travelling Inspector who was deputed to look out for frauds in connection with used tickets, which had been frequent of late, followed Aswini Kumar Seal and returned with him in the same train to Haripal. There he saw and hear...
Buldeo Das Singh Vs. Mohamaya Prosad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.652
Harington, J.1. The action was originally brought in 1902 by one Musammat Channoo Bibee against Rai Ganga Prasad Bahadur. The plaintiff and defendant are both dead, and the administrator of the deceased son and heir of the former and the sons and legal representatives of the latter have ben substituted on the record.2. The action is brought to recover a sum of money which the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff in consideration of her consenting to give her daughter in marriage to his son.3. It appears that the plaintiff had a daughter Sreemati Lachmi Bibee, and that in 1896 the defendant was desirous that this girl should be given in marriage to his son Gobinda Prasad.4. After some negotiations it was agreed that the plaintiff should give her daughter in marriage and that in consideration thereof the defendant should pay to the plaintiff Rs. 8,000 and convey to her immoveable property bringing in a net income of Rs. 1,200 per annum.5. The marriage duly took place. The defendant d...
Bonai or Bhona and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.555
1. This is a jail appeal in a gang case under Section 401, Indian Penal Code, which before admission was sent to us by one of the Benches constituted to try undefended appeals in Chambers for argument on the point whether, having regard to the decision in the case of Mankura Pasi v. Empress and Dwarka Bunia v. The Empress 27 C. 139 : 4 C.W.N. 97 evidence of previous convictions for offences against property and for bad livelihood are admissible in gang cases. We have heard the learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer for the Crown and have considered the reported and unreported cases. It was held by Prinsep and Hill, JJ., in the case above cited, that the character of the accused was not a fact in issue on the offence of belonging to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing theft, and that, therefore, evidence of bad character or reputation of the accused is inadmissible for the purpose of proving the commission of that offence. The judgment is a very doubtful one...
Emperor Vs. Keramat Sirdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal446
Carnduff, J.1. In this case five persons were placed before me in the dock, all charged with dacoity. Four of them pleaded guilty, while the fifth pleaded not guilty. I recorded the former plea and indicated my acceptance of it by directing that, in accordance with my usual practice, the accused be brought up for sentence at the end of the Sessions. The fifth is now on his trial alone, and the question has been raised whether certain statements made by the others can now be proved and taken into consideration against him under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. Taking the same view as was taken in Queen-Empress v. Pahuji (1894) I.L.R. 19 Bom. 195, I am of opinion that this cannot be allowed.2. At the close of the trial of Keramat, who was found guilty by the Jury, his Lordship directed the other prisoners to be brought up, and sentenced all the five accused to various terms of rigorous imprisonment....
Ram Jiban Bhadra Vs. Taj-ud-dIn Kazi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.489
Carnduff, J.1. The main facts of the suit out of which this appeal arises, are not in dispute.2. Defendant No. 13, one Ramjiban Bhadra, was the holder of a mortgage of a certain patni executed in his favour by the patnidars in 1894. On this mortgage he sued on the 3rd March 1902, and he obtained the usual decree on the 17th May 1905.3. Meanwhile there had been several defaults in the payment of the rent of the patni. In March 1901, the first of these occurred, and on that occasion Benode Behari Dey, who was the darpatnidar in respect of 17 3/4 gundas of the patni, advanced the arrear so as to save the tenure from sale under the Bengal Patni Taluks Regulation, 1819, (VIII of 1819), and was, in the following July, under the fourth paragraph of Section 13 of that Regulation, placed in actual possession. Benode thereafter, in October 1901, conveyed all his rights as darpatnidar to the plaintiff, Sheikh Taj-ud-din Kazi, who succeeded in due course to possession of the tenure and enjoyment o...
Peary Mohun Das Vs. Donald Weston and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.509
ORDERFletcher, J.1. Yesterday morning, during the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. K.B. Dutt put to the witness that a certain document which he (Mr. K.B. Dutt) alleges to be a forgery was put forward by the witness in conspiracy with the defendants Weston and the Moulvie and Mr. Hadrill, the Attorney who is instructing the Counsel for the defendants in this case.2. At the time the question was put to the witness no 'objection was taken to it but after the mid-day adjournment an application was made to me by the Advocate General and Mr. Norton, on behalf of Mr. Hadrill, asking (a) that Mr. K.B. Dutt should be called upon to state whether he put the question above referred to on instructions and if so what those instructions were, (b) that I should direct an inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Hadrill and Mr. K.B. Dutt. On the first of these grounds it appears to me, as no objection was raised to the question at the time it was put and as the question reflects not on the witness but on a...
Girish Chandra Biswas Vs. Indra Kumar Kaibarta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.360a
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for rent of a certain holding. It appears that the land formed part of a Government khas mahal and the defendant was an under-tenant of the plaintiff By a contract made previously to the record-of-rights, the defendant had agreed to pay to the plaintiff rent at the rate of Rs. 10.2. In preparing the record-of-rights, the Revenue Officer, acting in accordance with the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act as it stood in March 1898, fixed the fair rent payable by the defendant in respect of his holding at Rs. 12. The Revenue Officer appears to have been acting under the provisions of Section 104 Sub-section (2) and Section 101(2)(d). The lower Courts have allowed the plaintiff rent at the contract rate of Rs. 10.2, and, the lower appellate Court states that the Government had no right to enhance the rent of its tenants' under-tenant, that the original agreement of tenancy executed between the predecessors of the present parties ...
Goloke Chandra Roy Vs. Shafar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.363
1. The only question in this appeal is whether the first defendant could in this suit raise the question of non-transferability of the property in question. It appears that the plaintiff purchased these lands among others at an auction sale in execution of a decree 'which he had obtained against Panaullah, the father of the present defendant No. 1. The plaintiff then brought a second suit against the said Panaullah and others who are said to have colluded and kept him out of possession of the property. The plaintiff obtained a decree in that suit, and in execution of that decree was given formal possession of the lands and houses by the Court, but the defendants, as a matter of fact, still kept the plaintiff out of possession, and the plaintiff was, therefore, compelled to file this third suit.2. It appears that the second suit was in respect of property described in three schedules. The present defendant No. 1 claimed an interest only in the property comprised in Schedule No. 2, while...
Shib Chandra Mookerjee Vs. Krishna Chandra Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.576
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit for an injunction to restrain the first two defendants from executing a decree for rent, obtained by the latter against the defendants Nos. 3 and 4, in so far as the holding in the hands of the plaintiff is concerned.2. The case for the plaintiff was that the decree in question had been obtained fraudulently, and consequently the landlords were not entitled to execute it against the holding which, had been purchased by the plaintiff from defendants Nos. 3 and 4, The Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that the alleged fraud has not been established. But the facts found in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge do not support his conclusion.3. It appears that the plaintiff had purchased two jamas, one of which it is said bear the rental of Rs. 110 and odd and the other Rs. 23 and odd. The learned Judge has found that after the purchase by the plaintiff, there were negotiations between him and the landlords ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›