Kolkata Court March 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.
Emperor Vs. Harkumar Barman Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal693
Sharfuddin, J.1. This is a Reference under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code made by the Additional Sessions Judge of Mymensingh. There is also an appeal against the sentence of death by the appellant.2. The prosecution case is as follows. Ganga Moyi Dasya was a tenant and a near neighbour of the accused. Between these there had been a dispute, for some time before the present occurrence, with regard to the occupation of a certain bari which was in possession of Ganga Moyi, the deceased.3. On the 3rd September 1912 Ganga Moyi, at about noon, is said to have been sleeping in the bari in question, while her daughter-in-law Bagala Moyi Dasya (P. W. 1) was in the kitchen, which is just to the west of that bari, at a distance of five or six cubits, when suddenly Bagala heard a sound as if something had fallen down, and going to the bari she saw the accused cutting Ganga Moyi on the neck with a dao. She went to the uthan of the bari and began to scream; she id also said to have seen...
Aziz Sheikh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal631
Coxe and N.R. Chatterjee, JJ.1. In this case the petitioners were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 323 (or, in the case of Muhir Sheik, under Section 323 read with Section 114), to rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 418, and to rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 147. All these sentences were con-current. They appealed, and the Sessions Judge passed the following order:' Admit. Send for the records, issue notices. Bail allowed Rs. 100 each. Fix 5th October.' Then, during the vacation, the Vacation Judge heard the appeal and expressed himself as follows: 'It appears to me, therefore, that no appeal lies. As, however, the appeal was admitted by the Sessions Judge, I do not pass final orders. I do not know whether the appeal was admitted on a different view of the law, or by reason of the fact of the sentences being concurrent not being brought to the notice of the Judge. I, therefore, leave the case to be disposed of by him.' On ...
Chatrapat Singh Dugar Vs. Kharag Singh Lachmiram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal685
Jenkins, C.J.1. That Act is distinguishable.2. The point is fully discussed in The Special Officer, Salsette Building Sites v. Dasabhai Bezanji Motiwala (1913) 17 C. W. N. 421. In Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation, Ld. v. Dorabji Cursetji Shroff (1903) I.L.R. 27 Bom. 415 the application was under the Code, I think. If you see the arguments of Mr. Branson and Mr. Lowndes in the last mentioned case, yon will find the point fully discussed.3. It would be a very serious thing if no appeal lay under the Provincial Insolvency Act. Then no appeal would lie under the Bengal Tenancy Act, Probate and Administration Act, and Companies Act.4. See In the Matter of the Petition of Feda Hossein (1876) I.L.R. I Calc. 431. Before 1874 concurrent findings of fact did not of itself debar appeal, to His Majesty. In this case Mr. Kennedy contended that the section taking away the right of appeal in such cases was ultra vires.5. Here all that can be said is that the powers of the High Court under the Letter...
Ganga Chandra Choudhury and ors. Vs. Alak Chand Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.996
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs, as proprietors of the lands mentioned in the plaint, for recovery of khas possession thereof on the allegation that the lands have been transferred in usufructuary mortgage by the pro forma defendant contrary to the usage and custom of the locality, and that such transfer operated as a forfeiture. The second ground for claiming khas possession was that the tenant had surrendered a portion of the holding; or as the plaintiffs contended the entire holding in suit, and that by such surrender the rights of the contesting defendants were altogether defeated and that they are entitled to khas possession without further notice. Both the Courts have held that the entire holding of the pro forma defendant not having been transferred, it cannot be said that there has been a forfeiture of the tenancy. Against this, a ruling of the Full Bench in the case of Narendro Narayan Roy v. Ishan Chundra Sen 22 W.R., 22; 13 B.L.R. (F.B.) ...
Harai Saha Vs. Faizlur Rahman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal619
Stephen and Chatterjee, JJ.1. The petitioners before us obtained a money decree against certain persons, and executed it by a sale of immoveable property belonging to them. Two decree-holders in other suits, opposite parties Nos. 6 and 7, then applied under Section 73 of the Code for rateable distribution of the money realized by the sale in the petitioner's suit; the judgment-debtor proceeded to deposit in Court under Order XXI, Rule 89, money representing the decretal amount, and got the sale set aside, after which opposite parties Nos. 8 and 9 applied for rateable distribution, which was made among the petitioners and all the other decree-holders. A Rule has been granted calling on the decree-holders other than the petitioners to show cause why the, order made under Section 73 should not be set aside on the ground that the Court had no power to order rateable distribution.2. Under the old Code it was held by this Court in Roshun Lall v. Ram Lall Mullick (1903) I.L.R. 30 Calc. 262 th...
Hari Saha and anr. Vs. Faizlar Rahman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.839
1. The petitioners before us obtained a money decree against certain persons, and executed it by a sale of immoveable property belonging to them. Two decree-holders in other suits, opposite parties Nos. 6 and 7, then applied under Section 73 of the Code for rateable distribution of the money realized by the sale in the petitioner's suit; the judgment-debtor proceeded to deposit in Court under Order XXI, Rule 89, money representing the decretal amount, and got the sale set aside, after which opposite parties Nos. 8 and 9 applied for rateable distribution, which was made among the petitioners and all the other decree holders. A Rule has been granted calling on the decree-holders other than the petitioners to show cause why the order made under Section 73 should not be set aside on the ground that the Court had no power to order rateable distribution.2. Under the old Code, it was held by this Court in Roshun Lall v. Ram Lall Mullick 30 C. 262 that when money was paid into Court under Sect...
Anand Mahanti Vs. Ganesh Maheswar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal678
Mookeejee and Beachcroft, JJ.1. We are invited by the petitioner in this Rule to make an order of a novel- character. The opposite party belongs to a family of hereditary priests attached to the temple of Jagannath. He applied to be adjudicated an insolvent under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1907. An adjudication order was made, and subsequently, under Section 44, a conditional order of discharge was passed. Against that order an appeal has been preferred to this Court by the creditor. The latter now applies for the appointment of a receiver to take charge of what is described as ' pilgrim business', during the pendency of the appeal. The question arises, whether what is described as 'pilgrim business' is a business of which the Court will appoint a receiver. It has been stated to us that the insolvent, as a hereditary priest, receives pilgrims, houses them, feeds them, looks after their comfort and accompanies them to the temple of Jagannath; for these services he receives from the ...
Jagarnath Missir Vs. Shama Pandey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.819
Richard Harington, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for possession of three plots of land. The allegation made in the plaint was that Raja Misser was the karta of his family and that he alienated the family properties to the plaintiff for legal necessity, the conveyance purporting to sell the whole 16-annas. Now, as a fact, it has been found that Raja Misser and a man named Gomti were joint in estate. They were brothers and though they were not living together because of some quarrel with regard to some misconduct of Gomti, it has been found affirmatively by the lower Appellate Court that they remained joint in estate. The defendants, I should say, whom it is sought to eject, are persons who purchased the lands from the sons of Gomti. It has been found that Raja Misser and Gomti were joint and it has also been found that Raja Misser was not the karta of the family and that there was no legal necessity for the sale, these findings, in my opinion, dispose of...
Lakhi Charan Shaha and ors. Vs. Chuni Miah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.852
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs seek to recover possession of five plots of land by virtue of a title they acquired at an auction sale to a permanent tenure covering the land in question. The defendants set up different defences, and it is found that they came into possession of different plots of land under different rights at different times, and that the plaintiffs failed to prove that there was a community of interest between them or collusion. The finding as to collusion is open to some doubt, but for present purposes may be accepted as it stands. Under these circumstances, both the lower Courts have held that the suit must fail for misjoinder of causes of action, under the old Code which applies to the case and it has been dismissed accordingly.2. This decision is erroneous as being contrary to the rule laid down in Nundo Kumar Nisker v. Banomali Gayan 29 C. 871 where it is said: 'The cause of action of a plaintiff suing in ejectment cannot, so far as ...
Ram Chandra Marwari Vs. Dhadhai Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1913
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.440
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit to enforce a mortgage security, commenced more than four years ago and not yet tried on the merits because the defendants have hitherto succeeded' in their preliminary objections which are of an entirely technical and unsubstantial character. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants second party and third party had five-sixths and one-sixth share respectively in a mortgage security executed by the defendants first party, and they allege that they have purchased the one-sixth share which belonged to the third party defendants. They state that they have been informed that the defendants second party have received from the mortgagors a sum of money sufficient to satisfy their dues, they consequently bring this suit to enforce the security, only in respect of the money due in their share. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit as bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. Upon appeal the District Judge has a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »