Kolkata Court March 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.
Tirthabasi Singh Rai and anr. Vs. Purna Chandra Nag and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.230
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was described to us in the opening by the appellant as one under Section 149, Sub-section (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and it was made a matter of complaint that, the onus was cast on the plaintiff to his detriment and to the undue advantage of the: defendants. It was urged that this operated prejudically to the plaintiff in this suit and it could not have been the intention of the Legislature in enacting Section 149 to alter; the position of the rival parties as to matters of proof. This is a forcible argument taken in the abstract, but, applied to the circumstances of this case, it has no value. To begin with, I fail to see that there has been any such possession as could have brought into play the provisions of Section 28 of the Indian Limitation Act, having regard to the findings of the lower Appellate Court. Therefore, it seems to me that in that respect the plaintiff in this case has not been prejudiced, nor the de...
Birendra Kishore Manikya Vs. Bhubaneswari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal903
Richard Harington and Asutosh Mookerjee, JJ.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for ejectment, and, in the alternative, for assessment of rent under Section 157 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. It appears that the first defendant alone is registered as tenant in respect of the disputed land in the books of the landlord, though the second and the third defendants also are jointly interested in the tenancy. The plaintiff sued the first defendant for, recovery of arrears of rent. That defendant denied the title of the plaintiff, and the result was that the action for rent was dismissed. The plaintiff now sues to eject all the defendants on the ground that the tenancy has been forfeited by disclaimer. He also prays that, if the tenancy has not been forfeited, fair and equitable rent may be assessed.3. The Court of first instance declared the title of the plaintiff, but dismissed the claim both for possession and assessment of rent. Upon appeal by the plaintiff, the Subord...
Gopala Krishna Jana Vs. Lakhiram Sardar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.212
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal to the Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Mr. Justice Digamber Chaterjee, who set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and sent back the case for decision in the light of the observations contained in his judgment.2. The suit is one for Wins-possession of lands, and the lands, in respect of which this relief is sought, have been treated as so situate and circumstanced as to come within the doctrine of encroachment; and, without questioning the propriety of this view, I assume that this is a case in which that doctrine would properly apply. The defendant, undoubtedly, is a tenant of the plaintiff in respect of the other property, and the question is whether the plaintiff, the landlord, can recover khas-possession of the laud in suit which was not included originally in the lease but is now treated as the subject of an encroachment by the defendant as a tenant of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim was uphel...
Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Bhubaneswari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.620
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for ejectment, and, in the alternative, for assessment of rent under Section 157 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. It appears that the first defendant alone is registered as tenant in respect of the disputed land in books of the landlord, though the second and the third defendants also are jointly interested in the tenancy. The plaintiff sued the first defendant for recovery of arrears of rent. That defendant denied the title of the plaintiff and the result was that the action for rent was dismissed. The plaintiff now sues to eject all the defendants on the ground that the tenancy has been forfeited by disclaimer. He also prays that if the tenancy has not been forfeited, fair and equitable rent may be assessed.3. The Court of first instance declared the title of the plaintiff but dismissed the claim both for possession and assessment of rent. Upon appeal by the plaintiff, the Subordinate Judge has declared that the title of the first...
Pika Bewa Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal855,14Ind.Cas.195
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This is an appeal and. reference from the judgment and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge of Cuttack who, agreeing with one assessor and differing from the other, has found the accused, Pika Bewa, guilty of murdering her husband and mother-in-law by aconite poisoning, and sentenced her to be hanged by the neck till she is dead.2. In the first place, with regard to the reference on the capital sentence, it is clear that such sentence cannot be carried out inasmuch as there is doubt whether the accused person is or is not pregnant. But in the view which we take of the case this will become immaterial. It is proved to our satisfaction that these two persons died of aconite poisoning, and that another man Dasa, the younger brother of the accused's husband, very nearly met his death, but was apparently saved by the decoction of various local simples which was given to him first of all by a beggar and subsequently by a sorcerer or charmer. We would observe ...
Kunja Bhuiya Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal896
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge of Midnapore, who, agreeing with both the Assessors, found the appellants, Kunja Bhuiya and Panc.hu Bhulya, guilty of the offence of rioting under Section 147, and sentenced them to two years' rigorous imprisonment each. There were charges under Sections 304 read with 149, and 325 read with 34, of the Penal Code in respect of the injuries caused to one Bariar who met his death in consequence of the assault. The learned Judge finding that the fracture of the skull which caused the death was an isolated act committed by one Srinibas, and finding also that the charge under Section 304 read with 149 was withdrawn, did not take the Assessors' opinion on it, but he says in his judgment, and we think erroneously, considering the findings which we shall shortly have to come to, that the same remarks really apply to the charge under Section 325 read with 84, as none of the contusions fo...
Rash Behary Ghoshal and anr. Vs. J.C. Stalkart
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.166
1. The plaintiff, respondent in this appeal, Mr. J.C. Stalkart, was a candidate for election as a Municipal Commissioner in Ward No. 1 of the Howrah Municipality in 1909 and in compliance with Rule 14 of the Election Rales framed by the Local Government under Sections 15 and 69 of the Bengal Municipal Act, III of 1884, as amended by Act IV of 1894 and Act II of 1896, submitted 5 nomination forms to the Chairman in Form B. These were numbered 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and of these all but No. 5 were rejected as failing to comply with the provisions of the law. The nomination form No. 5 was in due course placed before the returning officer. In column 2 of the form the name of the candidate was entered as J.C. Stalkart and in column 4, in which the particulars of qualification as a voter have to be stated, the entry was 'representing W.H. Horton & Co., Rate payers.' This information was required as Rule 13 of the Rules provides that 'any person qualified to vote under these rules and not disqualif...
Kunja Bhuniya and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.481
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge of Midnapur, who, agreeing with both the assessors, found the appellants, Kunja ' Bhuniya and Panchu Bhuniya, guilty of the offence of rioting under Section 147 and sentenced them to two years' rigorous imprisonment each. There were charges under Section 304 read with Sections 149 and 325, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 in respect of the injuries caused to one Bariar, who met his death in consequence of the assault. The learned Judge, finding that the fracture of the skull which caused the death, was an isolated act committed by one Srinibash and finding also that the charge under Section 304 read with Section 149 was withdrawn, did not take the assessors' opinion on it, but he says in his judgment, and we think erroneously, considering the findings which we shall surely have to come to, that the same remarks really apply to the charge under Section 325 read with Section 34 as none of the contusi...
Jharula Das Vs. Jalandhar Thakur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal887
Coxe and Imam, JJ.1. This was a suit brought by one Bhaiji Thakur for recovery of 11 bighas of lakheraj land and an interest of 3 annas in the income derived from offerings in a certain temple. The property originally belonged to one Pratipal who was a shebait of the temple, and was succeeded in that office by his widow, Girimoni. Girimoni sold the land to the defendant, Jharula Das, in 1282. Previously in 1281 she had mortgaged some other land and her interest in the temple income to the defendant. He sued on, the mortgage and obtained a decree on the 24th' September 1880. This was before the Transfer of Property Act, and seems to have been no more than an ordinary decree for money. In execution he put up the temple income for sale and bought it himself. He obtained delivery of possession in 1892. Girimoni and the present plaintiff then sued to have the sale set aside on the ground, among others, that the property was not alienable, and in the alternative for a declaration that it wou...
Peary Mohan Roy Vs. Sarat Kumari Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.177
1. This appeal comes before us under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, and it arises out of a suit brought for the recovery of rent and cesses. So far as a decree for the rent has been passed in favour of the plaintiff, no controversy arises, but the dispute is as to the decree in respect of (he cesses claimed. The plaint sets out in a schedule the arrears of cesses, and from that schedule it appears, as the fact is, that the claim is made in respect of four separate jamas. The decision in the Court of the Munsif, so far as it related to the cesses, was adverse to the plaintiff, inasmuch as it was not shown what was the annual value of each of these four jamas. The Subordinate Judge modified that decree, for it appeared to him that he was entitled to utilize the valuation-roll filed on behalf of the plaintiff, and marked Exhibit I which showed the annual value of the lands as Rs. 1,293 6 annas, and the total amount of rent payable by the defendant as Rs. 463-6. On that basis he passed a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »