Kolkata Court April 1913 Judgments
Shewdhar Sukul Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal990
Imam and Chapman, JJ.1. This was a Rule calling on the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the conviction should not be set aside on the ground that the production of the railway receipt does not establish the possession of the petitioner.2. The petitioner was prosecuted for receiving stolen property, under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, in the form of a package containing some piece-goods, at the railway station Takia, on the Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway. The goods belonged to a firm of dealers of the name of Ramkissen Das Jaiparmal, and were missed from their godown on the 25th December, 1912. Information of the disappearance of the package was given to the police on the 27th December, and it seems that, on the 28th December, Seo Sagar, a jemadar of that firm, having come to know that the goods had been despatched to Takia, started for that railway station. On arrival at Takia on the following morning, 29th December, he informed the station-master of the incident afte...
Tag this Judgment!PulIn Tanti Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal600,(1913)ILR40Cal873
Imam and Chapman, JJ.1. The appellant, Pulin Tanti, has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Bhagalpore under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life for killing his brother's widow whom he had been keeping as his mistress. The assessors were of the opinion that the deceased had been murdered, but they found no proof that the accused had caused her death.2. The facts of the case appear to be these:3. After the deceased became a Widow she went to live with her father, but after some time she was brought back by the appellant to his house to live with him and his mother. An intimacy between the; two resulted in her pregnancy, followed by bickerings and quarrels between the deceased on one side and the appellant and his mother on the other. An appeal by the woman to the village community led to a panchayat, at which the appellant acknowledged the paternity of the unborn child and agreed to maintain her. This, instead of removing the unpleasantness...
Tag this Judgment!Umes Chandra Banerjee Vs. Dinabandhu Mahanti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1913
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.956
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit to enforce a mortgage granted to him and Dina Nath Acharji on the 16th July 1897. The suit was commenced on the 29th July 1909 and was defended by the purchasers of the equity of redemption, who contended that the mortgage-debt had been satisfied by payments made on behalf of the mortgagor to the co-mortgagee of the plaintiff oh the 27th July 1899. The question, therefore, arose, whether the payment made by the mortgagor to one of the joint mortgagees was a good payment as against the other mortgagee. The Courts below have answered this question in the affirmative on the authority of the decisions in Barbar Maran v. Ramana Gounden 20 M. 461 : 7 M.L.J. 269; Bhup Singh v. Zain-ul-Abdin 9 A. 205 : A.W.N. (1886) 279 and Kari Chengamma v. Jatti Kristnammah 1 Ind. Cas. 219. On behalf of the plaintiff, this decision has been challenged and reliance has been placed upon the cases of Harihar Pershad v. Bholi Pershad 6 C.L.J. 383 at p. 394; Husaina...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendra Nath Bose Vs. Bansi Tanti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal870
Richardson and Newbould, JJ.1. This second appeal, preferred by the plaintiffs, is rested on the ground that the mere fact that the tenants defendants mortgaged their holding by way of usufructuary mortgage and put the mortgagee in possession, the holding not being transferable by custom, entitles the plaintiffs, who are the landlords, to re-enter. The decision in the case of Baroda Charan Butt v. Hemlata Dassi (1908) 13 C. W. N. 242, to which reference has been made, is not inconsistent with the earlier decisions of this Court. In the course of the judgment at page 244 of the report the learned Judge observed that the usufructuary mortgagee had been in possession for several years, and that during that period the tenants had had no connection with the land. The current of authorities shows that the unauthorised transfer of a holding, or the parting with the possession of it, in whole or in part, does not per se work a forfeiture under the Bengal Tenancy Act. There must be something mo...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Sashi Bhusan Mukherji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1913
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.549
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of a right of way, for restoration of the path to its former condition and for perpetual injunction. The Courts below have concurred in decreeing the suit, and the defendants have appealed to this Court.2. The first contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the suit ought to fail, as the owners of all the servient tenements over which the way is claimed, have not been made parties to the suit, and the case of Madon Mohan Chattopadhya v. Akshoy Kumar Baruri 5 Ind. Cas. 23 : 14 C.W.N. 15 is relied on in support of the contention. It is not alleged that the owner of any land other than bhadrar kola over which the way passes, has obstructed the plaintiffs or ever has denied the plaintiffs' right. The owners of the land bhadrar kola alone have caused the obstruction, and all the owners of that land have been made parties to the suit. In the case cited above, all the servient owners were not made parties and t...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Baikunth Nath De and ors. Vs. Benode Behari De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1913
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.13
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of immoveable property. On the 19th January 1891, the respondents transferred to the appellants one-half share in a Zemindari for a consideration of Rs. 9,000. On the 21st January 1891, the purchasers entered into an agreement with the vendors under which they undertook to re-convey the property on these terms:Whenever you or your heirs shall, within a period of 31 years from the date hereof, pay in any year one anna price out of the price stipulated above, we and our heirs and representatives shall, at the end of every such year, convey to you and your heirs, by a registered deed of sale, at your cost, the share in the said Zemindari proportionate to the price paid out of the aforesaid Kismat Zemindari purchased by us from you; and in the manner, we shall convey to you by many of deeds of sale one anna shares of Kismat Zemindari on payment of the price of such one-anna shares of the Zeminda...
Tag this Judgment!Deno Nath Dey Sarkar Vs. Kali Kumar Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1913
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.916
Stephen, J.1. The petitioner before us is a mortgagee of a non-transferable occupancy-holding which was brought to sale in execution of a rent-decree and purchased'by theland-lord decree-holder. Subsequently he sought to deposit in Court the decretal amount and compensation under Order XXI, Rule 89, but the Court refused to accept it on the ground that he had not any interest under the rule in question. A Rule has been granted to show cause why the order should not be set aside on the ground that he had such an interest. We are, however, of opinion, that the case is covered by the authority of Nalini Baliari Boy v. Fulmani Dasi 13 Ind. Cas. 487 : 15 C.L.J. 388 : 16 C.W.N. 421 on which the lower Court relied; and the Rule is accordingly discharged with costs. Hearing fee one gold mohur.2. Mullick, J.--I agree....
Tag this Judgment!Ashrafi Singh Vs. Bidyaprasad NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal862
Sharfuddin and Richardson, JJ.1. The question for our consideration is whether the Subordinate Judge has correctly decided that a Civil Court acting under Order XL of the Civil Procedure Code has power to appoint a receiver in supersession of the receiver appointed by the Magistrate under Clause (2) of Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. When, there is a dispute as to immoveable property likely to cause a breach of the peace, and the Magistrate, having made an order in the terms of, Section 145 of the latter Code, is unable to decide which of the parties was in actual possession at the date of such order, he is empowered by Clause (1) of Section 146 to attach the subject of dispute ' until (sic) petent Court has determined the rights of the (sic) thereto or the person entitled to possession thereof'. Clause (2) of the section provides that 'when the Magistrate attaches the subject of dispute; he may, if he thinks fit, appoint a receiver thereof, who, subject to the control of...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Charan Ghose Vs. Manmatha Nath Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal1
Jenkins, C.J.1. This is a Rule obtained, at the instance of a claimant under Order XXI, Rule 100 of the Civil Procedure Code calling upon the opposite party, the decree-holder, to show cause why the order of the Munsif should not be set aside on the ground that it was made without jurisdiction.2. The Claimant applied under Rule 100, and, the decree-holder not appearing, he obtained an order in his favour under Rule 101. Rule 103 provides that 'any party not being a judgment-debtor against Whom an order is made under Rule 98, Rule 99 or Rule 101 may Institute a suit to establish the right which, he claims to the present possession of the property but, subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order shall be Conclusive.' The claimant therefore maintains that the order in his favour though made in the absence of the decree-holder is conclusive: and, his complaint is that notwithstanding the terms of Rule 103, the Munsif has set aside the order made under Rule 101. The Munsif appears...
Tag this Judgment!Guru Charan Hajam Vs. Suklal Hajam
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal858
Chapman and Mullick, JJ.1. The appellant (sic) raiyat. He sued the defendant, who is an under-raiyat in ejectment. The learned Judicial Commissioner has in appeal dismissed the appellant's suit upon the ground that the provisions of Section 41 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act have not been complied with. That section provides that non-occupancy raiyats shall not be ejected, except upon certain grounds, and the learned Judicial Commissioner holds that an under raiyat has at least the rights of a non-occupancy raiyat. This view is in our opinion erroneous. It is clear from the definitions in Section 4 of the Act that an under raiyat must for the purposes of the Act be treated as belonging to a class of tenants quite distinct from the class of non-occupancy raiyats. It is true that there is no provision in the Act dealing separately with the class 'under-raiyate' defined in Section 4, but that does not do away with the effect of the definitions in Section 4, which is that where the Act ref...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »