Kolkata Court January 1912 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.
Ambika Prosad Singh Vs. Gur Sahai Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.1000
1. This Rule was apparently issued on some apparent', conflict between the rulings in the case of Pasnpati Nath Rose v. Naanda Lal Bose 5 C.W.N. 67 and Lalit Chandra Neogi v. Tarini Persad Gupta 5 C.W.N. 335 with the later decision in the case of Dalimir Puri v. Khodadad Khan 36 C. 923 : 14 C.W.N. 178 : 4 Ind. Cas. 415 : 10 Cr. L.J. 579. All these cases, we may say, are in direct conflict with the early Madras ruling In re Alfred Lindsay 4 M. 121. But that, of course, does not affect our decision in this Court. We are bound to follow the rulings of the Calcutta Court. Now, it so happens that this apparent conflict has been dealt with by us in a judgment Dowalat Koer v. Siva Pershad Pandit 10 Ind. Cas. 618 : 12 Cr. L.J. 319 : 15 C.L.J. 267, which does not appear in any of the various reports, but we are told it is reported in 10 Indian Cases 615, which was passed in Criminal Revision No. 187 of 1911. We, therefore, hold that the ground upon which the order was set aside in Dalmir Puri's...
NaraIn Chandra Mukerjee Vs. Mohendra Nath Mukerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.820
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is a suit for specific performance brought by the purchaser against the heirs of his vendor. The suit was successful in the Court of first instance, but on appeal, the learned District Judge has reversed the decision of the Subordinate Judge, and hence this case now comes before us by way of second appeal.2. The contest depends upon the true construction, of an ekrarnamah dated the 12th of Agrahayan 1303 B.S. On this date, the property to which this ekrarnamah relateshad been sold by the mother of the plaintiff to the father of the defendants for a sum of Rs. 400. The sale was necessitated by the needs of the family, and the purchaser was the lady's brother-in-law. On the same date, the 26th of November 1896, the purchaser entered into an agreement to re-sell the property to the plaintiff for Rs. 400 on the terms set forth in that ehrarnamah. The relevant terms are thus expressed: I do, therefore, hereby execute this ekrar and agree that if you erect a fam...
Prankhang and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.76
1. This was a Rule calling upon the Deputy Commissioner of Dibrugarh to show cause why the order directing further inquiry into this case should not be set aside on the ground that the order of discharge was correct in law and could not be impugned in view of the ruling in Bajrangi Gope v. King-Emperor 15 C.W.N. 343 : 38 C. 304; 13 C.L.J. 639 : 9 Ind. Cas. 64 ; 12 Cr. L.J. 8.2. The learned Counsel who appears to show cause does not attempt to support the order on the ground taken by the learned Magistrate, that the point of law laid down in that ruling should be reconsidered. He takes a new point the whatever right of private defence the petitioner Prankhang may have had, his neighbours could have had no right to assemble and attack the Police, and he bases his contention on some remarks in this very judgment in the case of Bajrangi Gope v. The King-Emperor 15 C.W.N. 343 : 38 C. 304 : 13 C.L.J. 639 : 9 Ind. Cas. 64 : 12 Cr. L.J. 8. There we said: 'The search was, therefore, not a legal...
Girwar NaraIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.650
1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Bhagalpur to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner should not be set-aside on the grounds, firstly, that there has been misjoinder of charges, and, secondly, that the findings on the evidence do not show that there was specific misappropriation of any portion of the money by either of the accused persons, or that there was complicity between them.2. We have heard the learned Vakil in showing cause and we have carefully considered the explanation given by the District Magistrate; but we are still of opinion that, having regard to the provisions of Section 222, Clause (2), there has been a misjoinder of charges in this case. It is unnecessary to refer, as the learned Judge does, to Section 234. It is enough to point out that in Section 222 also, the wording of the section refers to a single accused; and it must be so, because it is impossible to hold that two persons can be guilty of misappropriation...
Nrisingha Deb Chatterjee and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.1008
1. This Rule must clearly be made absolute on the ground on which it was issued. It is absurd to contend that when a person on bail commits suicide the sureties are liable for default in his appearance. The proposition only needs to be stated to expose its fallacy. The order of the lower Court will be discharged and the money, if paid, will be refunded....
Moula Bux Vs. Sheikh Ajahar Molla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.689
Coxe, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of possession of a holding of 6 bighas which originally belonged to one Enayatulla. Enayatulla sold the land in 1301 be his wife Sakhijan in consideration of what was due to her as her dower. He subsequently sold it again to the defendant No. 2. Throe days after the gale to defendant No. 2, Sakhijan executed a registered kabuliat in favour of the landlords in respect of the land, Subsequently, the landlords brought a suit for rent against Sakhijan and obtained a decree and in execution the plaintiff purchased the holding. The defendants are in possession of the holding and the plaintiff accordingly brought this suit which has been decreed by the Courts below.2. The defendant No. 2 appeals to this Court.3. The principal point taken on behalf of the appellant is that the conveyance to Sakhijan is invalid under the Muhammadan Law. This point was not taken in the written statement or in the grounds of appeal in the Court below and can only be consider...
Satish Chandra Sarkar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal456,13Ind.Cas.913
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This Rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate of Rajshahi to show cause why the order directing the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs. 500, with two sureties of Rs. 500 each, for his good behaviour for one year, under Section 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and on failure to give security to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, should not be set aside on the ground that it does not appear that the petitioner is without ostensible means of subsistence, and that the account he has given of himself is satisfactory. Having given the case our most attentive consideration, we are of opinion that the Rule must be made absolute. The proceeding upon which the order complained of was based was dated the 12th August 1911, and set out that, whereas it was reported that Satish Chandra Sarkar was in Nattore or its vicinity, and was concealing himself in order to avoid observation, and there was reason to believe that he was connected with anarc...
Lala Mehdi Lal Vs. W.M. Grant and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.636
Coxe, J.S.A. No. 1287 of 1909This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The case for the plaintiff, as laid before me, is as follows. The lands in suit originally belonged to four tenants; Suits for rent were brought against them by the ijardar in possession of the village. He obtained decrees and sold the holdings in execution. Three of these holdings he purchased himself. The fourth, that of Jitu Mauji, was purchased by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the ijardar sold the jote right in the three holdings that he had purchased to the plaintiff. The plaintiff contends, with respect to these four holdings, that he is a raiyat and the defendants are his under-raiyats. In the record-of-rights he was recorded as a tenure-holder and the defendants as raiyats under him. He disputed the correctness of this entry. Hence this suit. The defendants supported the case of the plaintiff in the Courts below. But, notwithstanding this, the Assistant Settlement Officer, in...
In Re: Harold Tucker
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.398
Chitty, J.1. The senior Marriage Registrar of Calcutta do, under the provisions of Act XV of 1872, receive and publish the notice of the intended marriage given to him in writing in the form prescribed in and by the said Act and, upon compliance with the provisions of Section 41 of the said Act take all of such stops as may be necessary for the solemnization of the marriage intended to be held between the said Harold Tucker and Isabella Landeman in the said petition named....
Sharashi Mohan Roy Vs. Ramesh Charan Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.451
Caspersz, J.1. This is a second appeal in a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent to recover an 8-annas share of rent at an annual rental of Rs. 5-10. With regard to the jama, the plea was that the rental was Rs. 4-6.2. The first Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the provisions of Section 60 of the Bengal Tenancy Act were not quite applicable to the present case. In appeal, the Subordinate Judge has applied Section 60, and he has given effect to the plea as to the jama and awarded the plaintiff a decree for rent at the rate of Rs. 2-3 only.3. In second appeal it has been argued that Section 60 of the Bengal Tenancy Act does not cover the present facts, that the plaintiff never realized any rent or paid Government revenue in respect of this mahal, wherein the tenancy is situated, and that in virtue of some agreement the tenancy fell to the share of the defendant No. 3, the appellant before us.4. We have listened to an interesting discussion at the Bar upon some reported cas...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »