Kolkata Court June 1912 Judgments
Sita Ahir Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal168
Holmwood and Imam, JJ.1. We are of opinion that this Rule must be made absolute on the ground on which it was issued.2. The petitioners were charged with rioting under Section 147 with the common object of causing hurt to the complainant and with other objects with which we are not concerned. They have been convicted of causing hurt to another person, and the learned Magistrate in his explanation maintains that on the finding that the injuries caused to the complainant were covered by the right of private defence of property, but that the injuries caused to Ramsarup were not so covered, the Magistrate was justified in convicting the accused under Section 323 and sentencing them to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment each. He says that the omission to frame a charge is immaterial, because there was no prejudice, inasmuch as evidence was produced on both sides as to the responsibility for the injuries caused to Ramsarup, and had a charge under Section 323 been framed, the matter co...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ahir and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.161
1. We are of opinion that this Rule must be made absolute on the ground on which it was issued.2. The petitioners were charged with rioting under Section 147 with the common object of ~ causing hurt to the complainant and with other objects with which we are not concerned. They have been convicted of causing hurt to another person, and the learned Magistrate in his explanation maintains that on the finding that the injuries caused to the complainant were covered by the right of private defence of property, but that the injuries caused to Sarup were not so covered, the Magistrate was justified in convicting the accused under Section 323 and sentencing them to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment each. He says that the omission to frame a charge is immaterial, because there was no prejudice, inasmuch as evidence was produced on both sides as to the responsibility for the injuries caused to Sarup, and had a charge under Section 323 been framed, the matter could not have been more ful...
Tag this Judgment!Debendra Chandra Roy Vs. Behari Lal Mukherji and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.666
1. The present appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents to recover a sum of Rs. 522-8 on a registered mortgage-bond. The bond in question purported to have been executed by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In the Court of first instance, an objection was taken to the bond on the ground that it did not create a valid mortgage as there was only one attesting witness to the document. ''It appears that the defendant No. 2 wrote the bond and that, after writing it, he signed his name as an executant of the bond and afterwards as the writer and as one of the attesting witnesses. The Court of first instance held that this objection was valid and that the document could not have effect as a mortgage. The Munsif, however, was of opinion that, under the provisions of Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, the bond could take effect as creating a charge on the property covered by it for the realization of the debt and he, therefore, gave a decree to the plaintiffs for t...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State for India Vs. Purnendu Narayan Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal123
Brett and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff respondents, who are the proprietors of estate No. 254 on the roll of the Collector of Murshidabad, against, the defendant appellant, the Secretary of Stale for India in Council, to have it declared that an order of the Government of Bengal dated the 25th November 1908 passed under Section 114 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, apportioning the cost of the survey and preparation of records-of-rights of estates Fateh Singh in the district of Murshidabad and directing the recovery of their share from the plaintiffs should be declared to be invalid, and that the certificate subsequently issued under the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act against them for the recovery of the sum should also be declared to be bad in law and invalid, and that, therefore, it should be declared that the plaintiffs were not liable to pay any amount of the costs of the survey and settlement proceedings ref...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State for India Vs. Purnendu Narayan Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.939
1. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs-respondents, who are the proprietors of estate No. 254 on the roll of the Collector of Murshidabad, against the defendant-appellant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, to have it declared that an order of the Government of Bengal, dated the 25th November 1908, passed under Section 114 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, apportioning the cost of the survey and preparation of Records of Rights of estates Fateh Singh in the District of Murshidabad and directing the recovery of their share from the plaintiffs should be declared to be invalid and that the certificate subsequently issued under the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act against them for the recovery of the sum should also be declared to be bad in law and invalid, and that, therefore, it should be declared that the plaintiffs were not liable to pay any amount of the costs of the survey and settlement proceedings referred to in the order. T...
Tag this Judgment!Benode Behari Bhadra Vs. Ram Sarup Chamar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.679
1. This is an appeal against an appellate order, which reversed an order of the Court of first instance, setting aside a sale in execution on the ground of fraud and material irregularity in publishing and conducting it, and remanded the case for further consideration.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no such appeal lies under the present Code of Civil Procedure. This objection undoubtedly must prevail if the present Code applies; for under it fraud is put on the same footing as material irregularity by Order XXI, Rule 90, and Section 104, Sub-section (2), read with. Order XLIII, Clause (i), makes it clear that there is now no second appeal in a case such as this.3. Under the Code of 1882, a sale could be impeached for fraud under Section 244 thereof, and, therefore, a second appeal lay. The sale, with which we are here concerned, was held on the 17th September 1900, that is to say, under the old Code. The first application for setting it aside was made on the 23rd July 1907, an...
Tag this Judgment!Munshi Moruful Huq Vs. Surendra Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.893
1. This is a second appeal against the decision of the District Judge of the 24-Pargannas, affirming that of the Subordinate Judge and dismissing the appellant's suit for the setting aside of a decree on the ground of fraud.2. In 1906, the appellant was sued on ejectment by the respondent, and a decree was obtained against him ex parte. An application for the discharge of that decree and the re-hearing of the suit was made under Section 109 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882; but it was refused, and the refusal was affirmed on appeal. A regular appeal against the ex parte decree was next preferred; but it was dismissed by the first Appellate Court, and a second appeal to the High Court, was equally unsuccessful. The suit, out of which the present second appeal arises, was then instituted; and the only-fraud complained of in it is that the description in the plaint of the subject-matter of the respondent's suit of 1906, and the evidence on which the respondent obtained the ex parte ...
Tag this Judgment!Chhatrapat Singh Vs. Joy Mongala Misrain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.541
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtor against an order passed in execution of a decree, dated the 21st December 1897. The application now under consideration was presented on the 23rd March 1910. The application, on the face of it, was made more than twelve years after the date of the decree, and exception was forth-with taken by the judgment-debtor that the application could not be entertained in view of the provisions of Section 48, Sub-Section (1) Clause (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This objection has been overruled and execution directed to proceed. On the present appeal, it has been argued that the decree-holder was bound to prove that the case fell within Section 48, Sub-Section (2), of the Code, namely, to establish that he had been prevented from executing the decree by the fraud or force of the judgment-debtor. In our opinion, there is no foundation for this contention.2. If the application for execution be treated as a fresh application made beyon...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Maldah Vs. Nirode Kamini Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.621
1. In this case, Nirode Kamini Debya, the opposite party in the present proceedings, applied for Letters of Admi-Eistration of the property of her deceased husband to the Munsif of Maldah who was the Delegate for the purpose of granting such Letters under the Probate and Administration Act. It is admitted that the gross value of the estate was Rs. 1,985, and that the liabilities amounted to Rs. 1,009, giving a net value of Rs. 976. The Delegate held that as the net value did not exceed Rs. 1,000, no Court-fee was payable. On a review, he refused to set this order aside, and a Rule has been granted to show cause why it should not be set aside.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that we have no jurisdiction to interfere either under Section 115 of the Code or under Section 15 of the Charter. After hearing arguments on the point, we hold that we have jurisdiction to interfere under the latter enactment.3. The contention of the petitioner is that Court-fees are payable on the net val...
Tag this Judgment!Madanmohan Nath Sahi Deo Vs. Protap Udai Nath Sahi Deo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal623
Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ.1. This appeal raises a question of first impression as to the construction of Section 123 of the Chota Nagpur Landlord and Tenant Procedure Act, 1879. It appears that the respondent obtained a decree for rent against the appellant in respect of a tenure on the 19th April, 1905. On the 28th November, 1910, the application for execution, now under consideration, was presented. The judgment-debtor, tenure-holder, had created, on a part of his tenure, encumbrances by way of maintenance grants in favour of his dependants. The properties of these maintenance holders were at the time under the charge of the Encumbered Estates Act authorities. They applied for exemption of the villages comprised in the maintenance grants under Section 123 of the Chota Nagpur Landlord and Tenant Procedure Act, 1879. Upon the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, the order of exemption was made by the Commissioner on the 30th March, 1911. The question in controversy now is, wha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »