Kolkata Court January 1913 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.
Makbul Ali and ors. Vs. Ali Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.80
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption brought by the mortgagor plaintiff against the mortgagee defendant. The plaintiff mortgaged his property by way of usufructuary mortgage to the defendant, and a month afterwards obtained a lease from him for one year at the rental of Rs. 8 a year. There was no stipulation in the usufructuary mortgage bond for any interest; and although the lease recites that there had been a mortgage there is no charge made on the property by the lease for the rent annually due upon it. The Courts below have, therefore, found that the redemption may be had on payment of the principal only, and have allowed no interest.2. The defendant appeals on the ground that the plaintiff is not entitled to redeem without payment of principal and interest. He argues this point in three ways; firstly, he mentions that the decree should be one for accounts, secondly, that on a construction of both the documents, the transaction was a single one and the plaintif...
Haridas Roy and ors. Vs. Sarat Chandra Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.121
1. The only point raised in this appeal is one of limitation. Certain properties were sold on the 16th February 1901 in execution of a mortgage decree and purchased by the plaintiff No. 1 who took possession of the same through the Court on the 16th May 1905.2. Defendant No. 1 then caused an application to be made under Section 335, Civil Procedure Code, through Mathur Mohan Sarkar, the ancestor (now deceased) of defendants Nos. 2 and 3, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nuddea and during the pendency of the case defendants Nos. 2 and 3 executed in favour of defendant No. 1 a deed of sale of their interest in the disputed properties, The case under Section 335, Civil Procedure Code, was decided in favour of defendant No. 1 and against the plaintiffs, and the possession of defendant No. 1 in the disputed properties was confirmed on the 24th February 1906.3. The plaintiffs claiming priority of title to the properties instituted a suit to establish their title and recover possessio...
Khetter Mohan Mitter Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.412
1. This was a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the proceedings should not be set aside for the present, on the ground that they were instituted upon a complaint and that, therefore, process ought not to have been issued until the complainant had been examined on oath.2. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has explained that he took cognizance of the offence under Section 190 Clause (c), Criminal Procedure Code. But it would seem that this must be a mistake, because the letter of Babu Nirapada Mukerjee, on which the proceedings were initiated, is on the record of the case, and if really the case was not started on that latter, it is difficult to understand why it should find a place on the record. In that letter, Babu Nirapada Mukerjee stated that the present petitioner used insulting language towards him and asked the Magistrate to take action. This certainly comes within the definition of complaint given in Section 4, Criminal Procedure Cods; and the learned Ma...
Harbans Pandey and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.402
1. This was a Rule issued to the District Magistrate of the 24 Perganahs to show cause why the sentences passed under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, on the first three petitioners should not be set aside on the ground that separate sentences could not be passed against them under both the Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code.2. The three petitioners, referred to above, have been convicted under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, and have each been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50. They have also been convicted under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, and each sentenced to a further term of three months' rigorous imprisonment. Objection is taken by them that the separate sentences under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code, are illegal, and reference is made to the Full Bench ruling in the case of Nilmony Poddar v. Queen-Empress 16 C. 442 where it was held that separate sentences passed upon persons for the offences of roiting and grievous h...
Bhuphndra Narayan Dutt and ors. Vs. Rajendra Nath Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.455
1. A share in a taluk called Bantra was mortgaged by Srinath Dutt to Khirod Chandra Mitra. The latter assigned his rights under the mortgage by way of security to Jogendra Chandra De, whose position was, therefore, that of a sub-mortgagee. After the death of Khirod Chandra, his executors brought a suit upon the mortgage in a Subordinate Judge's Court at Alipore against Srinath Dutt and certain persons called the Roys who had purchased from Srinath Dutt the equity of redemption in the mortgaged property. In that suit, a preliminary decree for sale was passed on the 20th July 1893, and the decree was made absolute on the 3rd October following. The decree has been referred to in argument as the Alipore decree.2. Thereafter, Jogendra Chandra De brought a suit in the High Court for a declaration that Khirod Chandra's executors were trustees for him (Jogendra Chandra) in respect; of the Alipore decree and for other reliefs. The defendants in the suit included the executors, Srinath Dutt and ...
Surendra Nath Mitra and ors. Vs. Upendra Nath Bhatta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.495
1. No one appearing to oppose this Rule, we think that it should be made absolute. The claim of the father of the petitioners was for rent. The fact that the claim was allowed and a decree for rent was obtained does not appear to us to have altered the character of the original debt which was one for rent. We, therefore, make the Rule absolute, set aside the order of the Munsif respecting the application and direct that the amount claimed be paid to the petitioners....
Sheikh Siddik Vs. Sheikh Chakauri Khansamah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.683
1. This is a Rule calling on the District Magistrate of Manbhoom to show cause why the order of the Sessions Judge directing a further inquiry should not be set aside, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to order further inquiry against the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner.2. It appears that one Chakauri Khansamah made a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the Deputy Magistrate of Singhbhoom, on the 21st November 1911, and the Deputy Magistrate passed the following order on his petition: 'Sub-Inspector, Chaibassa, to inquire and report, under Section 406, Indian Penal Coda, by the 1st proximo.' On the 28th November 1911, apparently after considering the Police officer's report, the Deputy Magistrate passed the following order: 'Enter mistake of law. Section 406, Indian Penal Code.' The opposite party then, on the 1st December, put in another complaint before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate sent this to the Deputy Magistrate for judicial inqui...
Ananda Chandra Gope Vs. Maharanee Dasya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.840
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for recovery of a plot of land on the allegation that he had bought it from the Dacca Municipality in the year 1903, and that he had been dispossessed by the defendants.2. It is found as a fact that it was part of the bed of a channel known as Dholai Khal, which vested in the Municipality under Section 6 of Act VII B.C. of 1870,3. The only point of law, therefore, which can be argued and which has been argued before us, is that the vesting of the channel in the Municipality does not include the bed of the channel and that when the bed dries up, it belongs to no body and that the plaintiff cannot succeed because he cannot establish the title of his vendor. Now it seems to us that there is no force in this contention. The khals and drains and water-courses within the town vest in the Municipality because, firstly, it is necessary for them to collect revenue from tolls and ferries thereof, and, secondly, it is necessary f...
Shangser Ali and ors. Vs. Sheikh Hadanulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.82
1. The question, which arises in this appeal, is one of some little difficulty inasmuch as at first sight various rulings of this Court on the subject appear to give rise to a certain amount of conflict. But we think that the decision in the case of Madan Chandra Kapali v. Jaki Karikar 6 C.W.N. 377 lays down the law in clear and unmistakable terms, and as we shall presently show, it has not really been dissented from. On the contrary, it has been followed and affirmed in every respect by the very learned Judge whose rulings in other cases have been cited to us as in conflict with it. The rule laid down is perfectly clear. It is a rule laid down under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and it cannot be distinguished by the fact that the lease in that case was entered into before the Tenancy Act was passed. A question of ejectment arose under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and the question was whether an under-raiyat can be ejected under that section; and what the Judges say is t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›