Kolkata Court April 1911 Judgments
Paresh Nath Mallick Vs. Hari Charan Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal622
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an application to set aside a sale held in execution of a decree for money. This decree was passed ex parte in 1903 and on the 12th of February, 1906, there was a sale in execution of this decree at which the appellant before us became the purchaser. It is this sale that is now impugned. On the 17th of May, 1906, an application was made to have the decree set aside, and on the 21st of May an application was made to have the sale set aside. On the 19th of August this application to have the sale set aside was dismissed, and though an application was subsequently made for its restoration that application was rejected. On the 1st of September, 1906, the decree was set aside, and the suit was restored, with the result that a modified decree was passed in the plaintiff's favour. On the 5th of February 1909, the present application was made to have the sale set aside.2. I may deal with one point at once. It is the suggestion that there is...
Tag this Judgment!Gajendra Ghorai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.1004
1. This Rule involves a contest between two persons who are, respectively, the under-tenants of Baidyanath and Sukhamani Dey. Baidyanath bought the disputed land from the guardian of a certain minor. That minor, however, subsequently sold the same land to Sukhamani Dey. Thereupon, Baidyanath obtained an ex parte decree on the 14th March 1910, declaring his right to the land; and, in pursuance of that decree, he secured possession.2. Now, the riot in respect of which the petitioners have been convicted, and which conviction has been upheld by the District Magistrate on appeal, was due to an assertion of right by the petitioners who held as bhagdars under Sukhamani. It has been found that the crop for which, the quarrel took place, was grown by Sukhamani, that is, by the petitioners who would be entitled to possession of the same in their capacity as bhagdars. The decree in favour of Baidyanath was one passed in a suit to which the petitioners were not parties; and, even if they had been...
Tag this Judgment!PajiruddIn and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1911
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.919
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Midnapur reversing that of the Officiating Subordinate Judge and directing that three weeks' time be given to the plaintiffs to file the deficit ad valorem Court-fees to be assessed on the valuations stated in the plaints. There was a further order that, if this was done, the suits will be remanded for farther determination after the subordinate tenants have been added as defendants and costs will abide the result.2. We have heard the learned Vakils on either side and have carefully considered the matter, and we are of opinion that the order of the learned Judge on both points must be upheld. As a matter of fact, the plaintiffs have paid in the deficit Court-fees.3. A certain difficulty arises on the wording of Section 104-H, for although Sub-clause (3) of that section expressly sets out the suits which may be instituted under that section from (a) to (g) and no others, and these causes of action are all of them purely dec...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Lalit Mohan Chuckerbutty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal559
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. Forty-six accused have been, committed to this Court for trial under Section 6V(&) of Act XIV of 1908, and the charges against them are under Sections 121A, 122 and 123 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Of these the principal charge is that under Section 121A, of conspiracy to wage war against His Majesty the King-Emperor, and deprive the King-Emperor of the sovereignty of British India, and to overawe by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Government of India, as bylaw established. The charges under the other sections are subsidiary, and have not been discussed before us. The period of the conspiracy, as charged, is 'between the Christian years 1905 and 1910 both inclusive,' and the accused are charged with having conspired at Sibpur in the District of Howrah, and at other places in British India.3. Of the 46 accused so charged, Bhuban Mukherjee is alleged to be of unsound mind, and consequently incapable of making his defence, and an applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Meher Sardar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.218
1. This is an appeal from the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Khulna upon seven persons. Agreeing with the unanimous verdict of the jury, he found them guilty under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, and directed that they be rigorously imprisoned for one year and six months each under that section. The accused Kader Sardar and Kobil were further found guilty by the jury under Section 326 and they were sentenced to be rigorously imprisoned for three years under that section, the sentences were to run concurrently with those passed under Section 147.2. The jury found incidentally that possession whether rightly or wrongly was with the first accused Meher Sardar and, therefore, following the direction of the Judge they must have found that Meher Sardar and his party had the right of private defence against the taking of their crops. They were, therefore, justified in using sufficient force to get rid of these people and prevent their stealing their crops and ...
Tag this Judgment!Jaiwanti Kumri Vs. Gajadhar Upadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal783
Chitty and N.R. Chatterjea, JJ.1. This is an appeal by Musummat Jaiwanti Kumri from an order of the learned District Judge of Bhagalpur refusing her application to be appointed guardian of the property of her minor sons, Babu Jagdish Prosad and Babu Jogesser Prosad.2. It appears thai along with the petition of Musummat Jaiwanti Kumri, the mother of the minors, the District Judge had before him a petition of Musummat Champabati Kumri, the grandmother of the minors, that she should be appointed. On the 22nd of November, 1910, the ladies were agreed that Babu Dalip Narain Singh should be appointed guardian of the property of the minors. That gentleman was asked whether he would undertake the charge but lie declined. The learned District Judge then without holding any enquiry into the respective merits of the applications of the mother and the grand-mother, made an order, which is in form a permanent Order C but which from his letter would appear to be a temporary order, appointing the Naz...
Tag this Judgment!Kamini Debi Vs. Pramatha Nath Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal33
Mookerjee and Caspersz, JJ.1. The substantial quest ion of law, which calls for our decision in this Rule, relates to the true construction of Section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, and is apparently of first impression, in so far, at any rate, as the Courts of this country are concerned. There is no controversy as to the circumstances under which the order of the Court below now under consideration, was made. The petitioner before us is the present shebait of an idol, Gopaljiu, to whom considerable properties were dedicated by her father, Ram Kamal Mukherjee, under a testamentary disposition made on the 4th February, 1845. Ever since the foundation of the endowment there has been litigation relating to the properties, the most recent instance of which will be found reported in the case of Aghore Nath Mukerjee v. Srimati Kamini Debi (1909) 11 C.L.J. 461. By this decision given on the 15th December, 1909, the right of the petitioner to the office of shebait was declared.2. It a...
Tag this Judgment!Sati Nath Sikdar Vs. Ratanmani Naskar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1911
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.808
1. We are invited in this Rule, under very exceptional circumstances, to set aside an order by which the Court below has assessed mesne profits at the instance of the decree-holder. The judgment-debtor had preferred an appeal to this Court against a previous order in the same proceedings, and on the 9th February last, he obtained a Rule calling upon the decree-holder to show cause why the proceedings for the ascertainment of mesne profits should not be stayed pending the disposal of that appeal. At the time the Rule was granted, the Court also made an ad interim order for stay of proceedings for the determination of mesne profits. Two days later, the judgment-debtor applied to the Munsif for adjournment of the proceedings pending before him. In support of the application, an affidavit was filed in which it was specifically stated that the High Court had already stayed proceedings for the determination of mesne profits. To the affidavit was annexed as an exhibit, a letter in original wr...
Tag this Judgment!Tufani Sheikh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1911
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.667
1. This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence passed upon the accused Tufani Sheikh on the verdict of the majority of four to one of the Jury who found him guilty under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (2nd part).2. It appears that one Takani Sheikh, who was a man of loose character, was brutally murdered by having his throat cut and his ears cut off and various other injuries inflicted upon him on the 21st of September or rather in the smail hours of the morning of the 22nd September 1910. The deceased was last seen alive in the company of Darbari and Raja and Darbari has been acquitted by the Sessions Judge, and Raja, who was made King's evidence and resiled from all his statements, has been discharged; why, we are unable to comprehend; certainly, some proceedings ought to have been taken against him. On the 26th September 1910, Tufani made a confessional statement before a Magistrate. This confessional statement cannot be reconciled with the medical evidence and it is, the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›