Kolkata Court May 1913 Judgments
Saraswati Barmania Vs. Golap Das Barman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal160
Coxe and Ray, JJ.1. In this case it was ordered by this Court that a certain attachment should be removed pending the hearing of a certain appeal, upon the petitioner furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Court below for execution of the decree. The case then went back to the lower Court. Security was tendered; and the lower Court accepted that security on the 3rd March 1913. Against this order accepting the security an appeal has been preferred to this Court.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies. In our opinion this objection must prevail. It may well be (though we need not express any opinion on the point) that the order attacked relates to the execution of a decree and comes within the scope of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908. It may also be the case that it would have been appealable under the Code of 1882. But we do not think it is appealable under the present Code. It was pointed out in the case of Deoki Nandan Singh v. Bansi Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Charan Bajpai Vs. Rakhal Das Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal19
N.R. Chatterjea and Walmsley, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff was legally appointed superintendent of a charitable and religious endowment, that his dismissal by the defendants Nos. 1 to 5, the trustees of the endowment, and the appointment of the defendant No. 6 as superintendent by the said defendants 1 to 5 were illegal and wrongful, for reinstatement of the plaintiff in his post as superintendent, and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the rights and privileges of such superintendent, as provided in the deed of trust and for other reliefs.2. The defence of the defendants Nos.1 to 5, inter alia, was that the plaintiff was appointed to act as superintendent on September 6, 1908, until further orders, and subsequently on September 7, 1908,. the plaintiff was directed to furnish security to the extent of Rs. 5,000 at an early date which he failed to do. The defendants charged the plaintiff with various a...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Nath Das Vs. Kangali Charan Sahu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1913
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.980
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made by the Court of first instance under Sub-section (1) (c) of Section 171 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The circumstances under which the order has been made are not disputed. The Maharaja of Burdwan obtained a decree for arrears of rent against one of his tenants. In execution of this decree the holding was advertised for sale. It appears that the tenant had executed a simple mortgage of the holding on the 27th May 1900 and a usufructuary mortgage on the 9th July 1103. On the 17th January 1911, the simple mortgagee made an application under Sub-section (3) of Section 170 for leave to deposit the judgment-debt on the allegation that he had, in the holding advertised for sale, an interest voidable on the sale. This application was granted without notice to the decree-bolder or the judgment debtor. On the 11th April 1911, the simple mortgagee who had made the deposit, applied to the Court to be put in possession of the holding as first...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Chandra De Vs. Jakhomal Mehera
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1913
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.90
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money paid by him for the benefit of the defendants. The circumstances under which the payments have been made are not disputed. The defendants on the 6th May 1895 acquired a putni taluk created on the 17th February 1811. The plaintiff is the owner of a dar-putni of four out of the five villages comprised in the putni. This dar putni was created on the 16th May 1862. Shortly after the creation of the dar putni the putnidar made default in the payment of rent to the superior landlord. The dar-putnidar thereupon paid up the arrears and on the 17th November 1862 came into possession under Clause (4) of Section 13 of the Putni Regulation of 1819. The dar-putnidar continued in possession for many years. Indeed, it was not till the 7th August 1899 that his possession was formally terminated. On the 1st February 1901 the putnidar instituted a suit for rent against the dar putnidar for the period between May 1995 and January 1901....
Tag this Judgment!Sakhi Lal Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Munshi Wajid Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1913
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.91
1. These appeals arise out of an apportionment case in land acquisition proceedings and relate to the 1/12th share of Heera Lal Chowdhury in the property acquired. The appellants are Sakhi Lal Chowdhury and others, claimants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the brothers and nephew of Heera Lal. They are supporting their own case and that of the mortgagees from Sakhi Lal, who do not appear in these appeals. The respondent Munshi Wajid Ali, claimant No. 4, claims the share of Heera Lal by a purchase, dated 28th August 1900 (Exhibit A) The only question is, whether Heera Lal had power to sell his share in 1900, the brothers having before that time formed members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law.2. On 28th July 1889, Sakhi Lal Choudhury, acting as karta, had mortgaged the whole property for Rs. 8,000. The sale by Heera Lal, as we have said, was in 1903, following very closely after the mortgage and further charge executed by him in favour of his vendee. Sakhi Lal agai...
Tag this Judgment!Munessar Ahir and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1913
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.174
1. This is an appeal preferred by fifteen accused who have been convicted of dacoity by the Sessions Judge of Saran agreeing with the opinion of both the assessors. The evidence principally is that of accomplices. An accomplice is a competent witness and there is no absolute rule of law which enacts that the conviction on the evidence of an accomplice is bad, but there is an established practice founded on the judicial experience of generations which requires corroboration by some untainted evidence, and that there should be a corroboration in a material particular pointing not only to the crime but to the participation of the accused in that crime. This rule has been disregarded to a large extent by the Sessions Judge. Perhaps it was not known to the assessors. We do not feel at liberty to disregard this rule, and the result is that as to seven of the accused it has to be conceded that there is not that evidence on which a Court of law, properly guided, would convict. Those accused ar...
Tag this Judgment!Purna Chandra Kundu Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal272,(1914)ILR41Cal17
Imam and Chapman, JJ.1. The first petitioner has been convicted under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code for escaping from lawful custody, namely, that of a chowkidar, and the other two have been convicted under Section 224/109 of the Indian Penal Code for aiding and abetting the first petitioner in so escaping.2. This Rule was issued on the ground that the custody of the chowkidar was not a lawful custody. It appears that the first petitioner was arrested by a private person within the terms of Section 59 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and was made over to the chowkidar to be taken to the police-station. This case is Covered by the authority of Kalai v. Kalu Chowkidar (1900) I.L.R. 27 Calc. 366 in which the question was decided that a chowkidar cannot be properly regarded as a police-officer within the terms of Section 59. This Rule must be made absolute. The conviction and Sentences are set aside. The petitioners, if on bail, are discharged from their bail. If they are in jail, th...
Tag this Judgment!India General Navigation and Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopal Chandra Guin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal80
Chatterjea and Walmsley, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs respondents for recovery of damages for the loss of 6 packages of matka silk-thread which were booked as luggage by the plaintiff No. 2 (who was the agent of the plaintiff No. 1) for conveyance by a steamer by the defendant Company from Maldah to Kasimbazar. It has been found that the packages were destroyed by fire owing to the negligence of the defendants. The Court of first instance gave a decree to the plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 1784-15-3, that being the price of the articles lost. On appeal, that decree was affirmed and the defendant Company has appealed to this Court.2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants, first, that the plaintiff not having disclosed the fact that the luggage contained matka silk of the value of more than Rs. 100 upon which the Company could charge a higher rate under Sections 3 and 4 of the Common Carriers Act (Act III of 1865), the defendant was not liable to ...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Gopi Sundari Dasya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1913
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.366
1. The plaintiffs and the defendant in the suit were joint proprietors in equal shares of an estate called Islampur. The estate was valued by the Collector for the purposes of road and public work cesses at Rs. 65,075 odd. 'The amount of cesses assessed upon that valuation was Rs. 3,543 odd. The parties each paid annually half of the total cesses assessed, that is, they paid in proportion to their shares in the joint estate or, which is the same thing, in proportion to the amount of land revenue for which each was responsible. Subsequently the defendant opened a separate account for the purpose of the payment of land revenue and in connection with that separate account, the Collector proceeded under Section 44 of the Bengal Cess Act ( IX of 1880) to apportion half the cesses to the plaintiffs' share and half the cesses to the defendant's share. The defendant took no objection such as is contemplated by Clauses (2) and (4) of Section 44. On this suit the plaintiffs claim to recover from...
Tag this Judgment!Charu Chandra Ghose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal628(2),(1914)ILR41Cal11
Imam and Chapman, JJ.1. This was a Rule on the District Magistrate of Khulna to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under Section 19 of the Indian Arms Act should not be set aside.2. The facts of this case are these. The petitioner was carrying a gun on behalf of his master with the license to the Magistrate for the purpose of a renewal of the license, and the authorities prosecuted him for possessing a gun in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The case for the prosecution is not that the petitioner possessed the gun with the object of using it, nor is it alleged that he used it at all. In fact, looking at the case, we find it admitted that the object of the petitioner was merely to carry the gun to the Magistrate. In these circumstances, we do not see how the conviction of the petitioner under Section 19 of the Act can be upheld. The cases of Queen-Empress v. Tota Ram (1894) I.L.R. 16 All. 276 and Prabhat Chandra Chowdhry v. Emperor (1907) I.L.R. 35 Calc. 219 are ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »