Kolkata Court June 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.
Abdul Karim Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.492
1. This was a Rule calling upon 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 there is no finding that the cement was stolen property, and also why the Act XXI of 1857 was used in this case when the case appears to fall under Section 411, Indian Penal Code.2. Now we find that this person has been convicted for being in possession of a certain quantity of cement; and because there was a heap of cement lying on the premises of the East Indian Railway Company at Lilua, and because the petitioner is an electric mistry in the employ of the East Indian Railway Company at Lilua, it was calmly assumed that this cement was stolen from the Railway Company. This we need hardly point out is not a reasonable suspicion. It would have been perfectly easy to call the officer in charge of the cement at Lilua to state that shortly or immediately previous to the finding of this cement in the possession o...
Priya Nath Pal Vs. Rajani Kanta Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.619
1. This Rule is directed against a decree by which the suit of the petitioner for value of crops grown on his. land by the second defendant has been dismissed. The petitioner alleges that in execution of a decree for rent against the second defendant, he purchased the holding on the 19th May 1911, that he obtained delivery of possession through Court on the 19th August, and that the crops grown thereon by the second defendant were unlawfully cut and taken away by the first defendant on the 25th December. His contention is that as the crops were grown after his purchase by the second defendant on land, the title whereto had vested in him, the crops became his property, and he is, consequently, entitled to the value there of. The learned Small Cause Court Judge has negatived this claim and dismissed the suit; in our opinion the view taken by him is correct and his decree must be affirmed.2. It was pointed out by this Court, in the case of Mofiz Sheikh v. Rasik Lal Ghosh 37 C. 815 : 14 C....
Jogendra Nath Chatterjee Vs. Manmatha Nath Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.668
1. The question of law which requires decision in this Rule is one of first impression; namely, whether a person, who has obtained an attachment of property before judgment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code of 1908, is a person whose interest is affected by the sale of that property at the instance of a decree-holder against the defendant in the suit within the meaing of Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code. It appears that the petitioner, Jogendra Nath Chatterjee, in execution of a decree for money which he held against his judgment-debtor, Basanta Kumar Chatterjee, purchased the disputed property at the execution sale on the 21st April 1911. On the 31st March 1911, the property had been attached at the instance of the opposite party, Monmatha Nath Ghose, during the pendency of a suit which he bad instituted. On the 20th May following, Monmatha Nath Ghose applied for reversal of the sale under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code. The application was resisted by Jogendra Nath Chatterjee...
ibrahim and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.406
Imam, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge of Sylhet, at the Sessions held at Cachar, who differing from both the assessors found the six appellants guilty of the offence of dacoity under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them each to five years' rigorous imprisonment.2. There is no doubt that a very serious dacoity took place on the night of the 2nd May 1911 in the house of Sonai Goalini of Ramnagar and a large quantity of valuable property belonging to herself and to her pujari, Balbhadra, was carried off.3. Of the six appellants Hasan and Sajid have elected to escape from Jail without having their appeal heard. Their appeals must, therefore, be dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed upon them confirmed.4. With regard to the appellant Basanta, who is a Manipuri, he made a confession before the Deputy Magistrate who speaks to its being entirely voluntary, and that confession, though now retracted, is fully corroborat...
Mirza Ahamed Ali Khan Vs. NabIn Chandra Tarkaratna Bhattacharjee and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.385
1. In 1902, the opposite party obtained a decree for money against Mirza Mahomed Based, the petitioner's father, who subsequently died. The petitioner was brought on the record in place of his father in proceedings for the execution of the decree which were commenced in the year 1910.In the course of those proceedings two properties were attached as part of his father's estate which had descended to the petitioner. The petitioner objected to the attachment and set up an independent title to the properties. The first Court (the Court of the Munsif), on the both September 1911, allowed the objection and withdrew the attachment. Then the opposite party appealed 10 the District Court and on the 5th February 1912, the appeal was allowed in respect of one of the properties and dismissed as regards the other.2. The point, which arises upon this Rule, is whether the appeal to the District Court was competent, and it comes to this whether in allowing the petitioner's objection, the Munsif did o...
Lokenath Ruth and anr. Vs. Chintamoni Tripathi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.547
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first two defendants in a suit commenced by the plaintiffs-respondents for a declaration that a deed of release executed by their maternal aunt, the third defendant, is, null and void and doss not affect their interest in the disputed property. The case for the plaintiffs is that the property belonged to their maternal uncle, Baidyanath Ruth, that after his death, the third defendant was made to execute a deed of release in favour of the first two defendants, that the deed was executed under circumstances which do not make it binding upon, the executant; and that, in any event, it does not affect the plaintiffs as the reversionary heirs to the estate of her deceased husband. The document was executed on the 17th April 1889 and the suit was not commenced till the 19th February 1908. To take the case out of the bar of limitation, the plaintiffs stated, first, that the second plaintiff had attained majority in April or May 1905, that is, within three ...
Shib Charan Dey Vs. Nil Kantha Mahato and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.747
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to land and for recovery of possession thereof. The plaintiff founded his claim upon a lease granted in favour of his predecessor by the defendant on the 20oh June 1881, and the question in controversy between the parties is whether the lands now in dispute are comprised within the boundaries of the lease. The Court of first instance decided in favour of the plaintiff.2. Upon appeal, that judgment has been reversed by the Judicial Commissioner. His decision has been assailed in this Court on behalf of the plaintiff on two grounds, namely first, that reliance has been improperly placed upon a map prepared in 1892 for the purposes of another litigation; and, secondly, that the question of the location of the eastern boundary specified in the lease has not been properly considered.3. In so far as the first ground is concerned, it has been broadly contended, on the authority of the decisions in Priya Nath Ma...
Banga Chandra Nandi Vs. Tara Kinkar Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.291
Carnduff, J.1. The short point raised by this appeal is as to whether the provisions of Section 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1882, which correspond with those of Section 63 of the Code of 1908, and bar a suit against a certified purchaser buying benami at a sale in execution of a decree, apply to the case of a purchaser at a sale in enforcement and execution of a certificate issued under the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1895, (Bengal Act I of 1895), by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the said Act.2. The application to such certificates of Section 241 of the old Code, in Chapter XIX of which both that section and Section 317 find place, has been the subject of a number of conflicting decisions. Thus, in Umedali Bhuya v. Rajlakshmi Debya 1 C.L.J. 538 : 10 C.W.N. 130 : 33 C. 84, Brett and Woodroffe, JJ., held that Section 244 was applicable; whereas in Raghubans Sahai v. Ful Kumari 1 C.L.J. 542 : 32 C. 1130, Harington and Mookerjee, JJ., ruled that it was inapplicable. Bu...
Amanullah and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.165
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge of Sylhet who, agreeing with both the assessors as regards the charge under Section 376 against Amanullah and under Section 342 against Amanullah and Sujatullah, and apparently differing from the assessors as regards the charge under Section 379, has convicted, Amanullah and Sujatullah under Section 342, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to one year's rigorous imprisonment each, Amanullah under Section 376 and sentenced him to four years' rigorous imprisonment and Sujatullah under Section 384, extortion, and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment.2. Now, the first point which we have to animadvert upon in this conviction, is that there was no charge of extortion under Section 384, and it is wholly illegal to punish a man for a grave offence, involving many totally different ingredients to a charge of theft, on a charge under Section 379. Such a conviction cannot stand for one moment. The co...
Haidar Ali Pradhania and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.881
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge of Tipperah, who, in agreement with both the assessors, has found the appellant, Hyder Ali, guilty of forgery under Section 467, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, and has found the second appellant, Affsaruddin, guilty under Section 467 read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The document which is said to be forged is a kabuliyat executed by Hyder Ali himself in favour of his landlord, Chand Buksh Sarkar. The original document is not forthcoming but in the copy which has been produced from the Registration Office, the name of Chand Buksh Sarkar of Pachania appears as a witness. The defence is that this Chand Buksh Sarkar is not the landlord of the appellant, but a travelling munshi or tutor who for some time resided with the family of one Mansur Ali in north Pachania. It is necessary to understand the cas...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »