Kolkata Court February 1913 Judgments
Jhulan SaIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal548
Sharfuddin, J.1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Patna to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed upon him should not he set aside on the facts found by the lower Court.2. It appears that the petitioner was prosecuted for two offences, namely, one under Section 295 and the other under Section 297 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence under Section 295' related to the petitioner's building a chabutra, and thus causing disturbance of the complainant's mother's grave, except as to the small portion known as the minaret. With regard to this offence there has been no conviction, and the petitioner has, therefore, been acquitted. But he has been convicted for the offence under Section 297 of the Indian Penal Code. That section runs thus: 'Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or of insulting the religion of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded, or that t...
Tag this Judgment!Najabat Ali Vs. Bibi Kadiran
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1913
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.49
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside a decree of dismissal in a suit for rent, in which the value of the claim was under Rs. 100. On the 2nd July 1908 the plaintiff purchased the interest of the landlord as well as the back rent due. On the 5th February 1909 he instituted this suit for recovery of arrears for 1906, 1907, 1908 and two instalments of 1909. The claim in respect of the years 1906, 1907, 1908 was for back rent to which he had acquired title by purchase. The remainder of the claim has accrued due since his purchase. The defendant resisted the claim on the ground, among others, that the plaintiff had not registered his name under the Land Registration Act of 1876, and was consequently not competent to sue in view of the provisions of Section 78. It is stated on behalf of the plaintiff in this Court, and not denied on the part of the defendant, that this objection was abandoned by the Pleader for the defendant, in the Court of first instance. The plaintiff, however, app...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Babujan and ors. Vs. Ramjaddi Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.597
1. The only question which arises in this second appeal is whether a tenant can acquire the right to irrigate his field from the landlord's tank by continuous and open user from time immemorial. The lower Courts have found that he can, and we agree with them. The matter seems to be concluded by the judgment of Maclean, C.J., in Madub Das Bairagi v. Jogesh Chunder Sarkar 30 C. 281; there the plaintiff was a cultivator of the village and the tank belonged to the maliks of the defendant, who claimed exclusive right to open the irrigation channels leading up into the tank at their pleasure and denied the right of the tenant. The learned Chief Justice pointed out that on the findings of fact in the case, which apply equally to the present case, 'we may reasonably hold that a presumption arises that this enjoyment had an origin which conferred a right;' and he relied upon the case of Ramessur Persad Narain Singh v. Koonj Behari Pattuk 4 C. 633; 6 I.A. 33. He pointed out that some doubt might...
Tag this Judgment!Jhulam SaIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.677
Sharfuddin, J.1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Patna to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed upon him should not be set aside on the facts found by the lower Court.2. It appears that the petitioner was prosecuted for two offences, namely, one under Section 295 and the other under Section 297, Indian Penal Code. The offence under Section 295 related to the petitioner's building a chabutra and thus causing disturbance of the complainant's mother's grave, except as to the small portion known as the minaret. With regard to this offence, there has been no conviction and the petitioner has, therefore, been acquitted. But he has been convicted for the offence under Section 297, Indian Penal Code. That section runs thus: 'Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or of insulting the religion of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded, or that the religion of...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Chandra Roy Vs. Atir Mahmud
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal545
Holmwood and Chapman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of property which the plaintiff had purchased from one Brojo Nath Das who, in his turn, had purchased it from one Ram Krishna Dass. Admittedly the decision of the appeal turns upon the question whether Ram Krishna Das was entitled to this property at the time when he sold it. He was so entitled unless he was excluded from the inheritance to his family estate by the fact of his having become a Baishnab.2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that Ram Krishna Das had totally renounced all connection with worldly affairs; that, therefore, he was excluded from the inheritance and had no title to the property which he sold. On this ground he dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, has overlooked the fact that Ram Krishna Das was a Sudra and, therefore, could not, if he wished, enter the orders of yati or sannyasi, the members of which alone are excluded from inheritance to their family ...
Tag this Judgment!Rahmatulla Vs. Mofizulla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1913
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.473
1. In this case the lower-Court has made an order under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, which is as follows:The suit is, therefore, decreed with, costs-against the defendants Nos. 1 to 8 and it is ordered that the plaintiffs do recover khas possession of the land by removing the house built on it by the defendants if necessary.2. We granted a Rule calling, upon the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside on the ground that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. That portion of the order which allows the plaintiff to remove the house built on the land by the defendant, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court under the section; for under that section the Court cannot do more than make an order with respect to possession of the land.3. The Rule is, therefore, made absolute, the first part of the order remains unaffected and that part of the order which directs to remove the house, etc., is set aside.4. The petitioner entitled to his cos...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Chandra Roy Vs. Sheikh Atir Mahmud and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.474
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of property which the plaintiff had purchased from one Brojo Nath Das, who in his turn had purchased it from one Ram Krishna Das. Admittedly, the decision of the appeal turns upon the question whether Ram Krishna Das was entitled to this property at the time when he sold it. He was so entitled unless he was excluded from the inheritance to his family estate by the fact of his having become a baishnab.2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that Ram Krishna Das had totally renounced all connection with worldly affairs; that, therefore, he was excluded from the inheritance and had no title to the property which he sold. On this ground, he dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, has overlooked the fact that Ram Krishna Das was a Sudra and, therefore, could not, if he wished, enter the orders of yati or sanyasi, the members of which alone are excluded from inheritance to their family estates under the Hindu. L...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswati Dasee Vs. Biraj Mohini Dasee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.898
Imam, J.1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit against her mother and two brothers on allegations that necessitate leave of the Court, under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, before the reception of the suit. In her plaint, the plaintiff has stated that such leave is necessary, but no such leave, however, is endorsed on it. Her attorney has sworn that he presented the plaint for admission on the 7th April 1911 and asked for leave which he says was granted but through some inadvertence, the leave so granted has not been endorsed on the plaint. The attorney's statement is not challenged nor do I think there is any reason to doubt the truth of it. The leave, I presume, was declared by the Registrar subject to its ratification by the Court for there is no allegation that the plaint was ever placed before a Judge of this Court for such leave. By her present application, the plaintiff makes the prayer that leave under Clause 12 of the Charter may be endorsed on the plaint as of the date on...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Bahal Ud-dIn and ors. Vs. Rafaqat HusaIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.451
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from an order of the District Judge of Bhagalpur confirming that of the Munsif dismissing the plaintiff's suit for possession. Plaintiffs sued to recover possession of a house from, the defendant first party on the ground that the defendant first party was a trespasser. They sued by virtue of a conveyance of the house to them in the name of the plaintiff Khusal-ud-din by the defendant 2nd party. Both the Courts have held that because Khusal-ud-din, who is named in the conveyance as the purchaser, was a minor at the date of that conveyance, the contract of sale was absolutely void. This view of law is clearly incorrect. It is perfectly open to a person who owns property to convey that property to a minor and the conveyance may be made in the minor's name and will convey a perfectly good title to the minor, provided the transferor has a good title to convey. That being so, the title was clearly in Khusal-ud-din who had the right to bring this suit.2...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Charan Shaha and ors. Vs. DabiruddIn Ahammad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal748,18Ind.Cas.616
1. The plaintiffs in this case sued for a declaration of their title to a certain Jalkar, known as Durgadaha Damush, and for an injunction prohibiting the defendants from catching fish in the Damush or Jalkar. It is admitted that the plaintiffs are entitled to an eight-annas share of the Jalkar. The question is whether they or the defendants are entitled to the other eight-annas share. In the Court below, a question was raised as to the construction of a darpatni which was the foundation of the titles of both parties. But it is now admitted that the darpatni does not cover the Jalkar in question. The result is that the plaintiffs are admittedly entitled to eight annas of the Jalkar and they put forward a lease of 1299 B.S. by one Radhikanath in respect of the other eight annas. On the findings of the Court below, this lease is valid in respect of the eight annas in question unless the defendants can set up any prior claim. They cannot set up any such claim on the darpatni under which t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »