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.
Jharula Das Vs. Jalandhar Thakur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.142
1. This was a suit brought by one Banerji Thakur for recovery of 11 bighas of lekhraj land and an interest of 31/2 annas on 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 1882. Previously, in 1231, 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 would not bind th...
Baij Nath Goenka Vs. Padmanand Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal818
Coxe and Imam, JJ.1. The appellant in tins case in a former execution proceeding attached an allowance payable to the respondent. The attachment was contested, but the case was decided against the respondent and the decision was not appealed against, It is clear that what was sought to be attached in that case was not any particular instalments but the whole allowance as it fell due. Subsequently it has been held in a case between the respondent and another creditor, to which the appellant was not a party that this allowance could not be attached in this general way, and that instalments could not be attached before they respectively fell due. The appellant again took out execution and the respondent again pleaded that this attachment could not be made. This plea was accepted by the Subordinate Judge and the decree-holder accordingly appeals.2. The only point that really arises in the appeal is whether the liability of the allowance to attachment is or is not a res judicata between the...
Babu Baij Nath Goenka Vs. Raja Pudmanand Singh Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.124
1. The appellant in this case in a former execution proceeding attached an allowance payable to the respondent. The attachment was contested but it was decided against the respondent and the decision was not appealed against. It is clear that what was sought to be attached in that case was not any particular instalments but the whole allowance as it fell due. Subsequently it has been held in a case between the respondent and another creditor to which the appellant was not a party that this allowance could not be attached in this general way, and that instalments could not be attached before they respectively fell due. The appellant again took out execution and the respondent again pleaded that this attachment could not be made. This plea was accepted by the Subordinate Judge and the decree-holder accordingly appeals.2. The only point that really arises in the appeal is whether the liability of the allowance to attachment is or is not a res judicata between the parties. The former proce...
E.M.D. Cohen Vs. Allan Wilkie
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.215
Fletcher, J.1. This is an application by Mr. Elias Moses Cohen, proprietor of the Grand Opera House, Calcutta, against Mr. Allan Wilkie of the Empire Theatre, Calcutta, an actor and proprietor of a theatrical company known as Allan Wilkie Co. The present application seeks to restrain and deter Mr. Wilkie by an injunction until the termination of the suit from playing: in any theatre in Calcutta or any other town under his own or any other management other than the plaintiff's management until after the termination of the tour and the return of the defendant and his company to England as provided for in Clause 9 of the agreement mentioned in the petition. The rest of the application refers to an application for attachment before judgment. Mr. Cohen, by an agreement dated the 21st June last year, engaged Mr. Wilkie and his company to come out to the East for a certain tour. There is no doubt to ay mind that the expense of bringing Mr. Wilkie and his company out was borne by Mr. Cohen and...
Bilas Chandra Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Akshay Kumar Das Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.219
1. Taluk Hari Narayan was originally one property. It was subsequently divided into three separate Taluks, Taluka Hari Narain T. No. 75, Taluka Gauripria T. No. 76, Taluka Rampria T. No. 77. These three taluks lay to the east, north and west of a Government khas mehal named Uddamdi No. 37. There was a river named Goomti or Titas between the khas mehal and these taluks. This river shifted northwards and cut away the lands of the three taluks and as the river receded, these diluviated lands have reformed and the present suit is in respect of lands reformed in. situ of the three Taluks Nos. 75, 76 and 77.2. The Government khas mehal No. 37 was from time to time settled temporarily with the proprietors of the three taluks until 1885 when it was sold for arrears of revenue and purchased by one Bango Chandra Gope as the benamdqr of the contesting defendant who in return for his services gave him an one-anna share in the purchase. We may take it as the result of the findings as admitted at th...
Rasik Lal Mandal Vs. Singheswar Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal843
Coxe and Imam, JJ.1. The facts of the case, as laid before us, are as follows: One Majlis Sahay brought a suit for recovery of certain land over which the plaintiff had a mortgage. In the end it was agreed that Rs. 300 should be paid, by Majlis to the plaintiff apparently by way of redemption of this mortgage and the defendant's father agreed to pay that sum in the event of Majlis' default. The plaintiff thereupon gave, up the land. The defendant's father died and the plaintiff then brought this suit against the defendant for the recovery of the money. It was decreed by the Court below and the defendant obtained from this Court a Rule on the opposite party to show cause why the decision should not be set aside on the grounds, first, that the debt was incurred by the defendant's father in respect of a suretyship, and, secondly, on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to award more than six per cent, interest.2. As regards the first point, we see no reason why the plaintiff shou...
Rasik Lal Mandal Vs. Singheshwar Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.147
1. The facts of the case, as laid before us, are as follows: One Majlis Sahay brought a suit for recovery of certain land over which the plaintiff had a mortgage. In the end, it was agreed that Rs. 300 should be paid by Majlis to the plaintiff apparently by way of redemption of this mortgage and the defendant's father agreed to pay that sum in the event of Majlis's default. The plaintiff thereupon gave up the land. The defendant's father died and the plaintiff then brought this suit against the defendant for the recovery of the money. It was decreed by the Court below and the defendant obtained from this Court a Rule on the opposite party to show cause why the decision should not be set aside on the grounds, firstly, that the debt was incurred by the defendant's father in respect of a surety ship and secondly, on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to award more than six per cent. interest.2. As regards the 6rst point, we see no reason why the plaintiff should not be entitled...
Kailash Chandra Kar and anr. Vs. Haradhan Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.190
1. This application arises out of a suit that was brought by one Keshab Chandra Kar and his widowed sister-in-law, Shashi Mukhi Dasya. They were represented by a Pleader named Kuloda Proshad Mukerjee. On the 14th June 1911, an application was filed by this gentleman for permission to withdraw the suit with leave to sue again. The application was heard by the learned Subordinate Judge and was not opposed, the dispute before him being confined to the question of costs, and ultimately the petition was granted.2. The plaintiffs then obtained a rule from this Court on the opposite party to show cause why this order should not be set aside, and it was argued on their behalf that the order was bad, firstly, because Shashi Mukhi did not join in it; secondly, because Kuloda Proshad Mukerjee was not authorised by the vakalatnamah to file such a petition, and thirdly, on the ground that the reasons stated in the petition were not sufficient to justify its being granted.3. We do not think that, in...
Priya Nath Bishoi and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.607
1. This was a Rule calling on the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners should not be set aside or such other order passed as to this Court may seem fit on the ground that there was misjoinder of charges, and on the further ground that the evidence of the accomplice does not seem to be corroborated in any material particular.2. We are of opinion that the Rule fails on both the grounds. There is clearly no misjoinder. The offences of which the petitioners are charged are such as fall either within Section 46 in the case of No. 1 read with Section 56, or independently in the case of No. 1 within Section 54. He could not be convicted under both the sections and the fine inflicted was only under one section.3. As regards the question of whether a licensed vendor, who is punishable by implication under Section 56, can be tried together with his agent who commits the offence, we think there is no doubt that he can; for the ca...
Jharu Sheikh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.320
1. This was a Rule calling on the District Magistrate of Howrah to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner should not be set aside on the ground that before convicting under Sections 456, the charge under Sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code, should have been amended.2. We think that there can be no doubt on the authorities that the charge under Section 456 of entering the house with an object not specified but which is presumed to be criminal, cannot be sustained when the person is being tried for the specific charge of theft in a dwelling house and house-breaking with intent to commit theft. It is obvious that he must be seriously prejudiced by not knowing what really is the charge against him. Although it is not necessary under Section 453 to specify any particular offence, when such particular offence is specified under Section 457, it is incompetent, in our opinion, to convict of house-breaking with some other intent.3. The question then arises wheth...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »