Kolkata Court May 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.
Panchu Mandal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal136,(1914)ILR41Cal14
Imam, J.1. This was a Rule calling on the District Magistrate of Nadia to show cause why the sanction to prosecute the, petitioner for disobedience of the order passed by the Subdivisional Officer should not be set aside on the ground that the order complained of is neither a sanction under Section 195 nor a direction to prosecute under Section 476 of the Criminal. Procedure Code.2. We find no substance in this Rule. The order was clearly made under Section 195, Clause (a) of the Criminal procedure Code. It is pressed on us that a sanction under Section 195(a) cannot be good without an application made on behalf of somebody for sanction to be granted. It is admitted that the sanction was given by the Magistrate on a police report, setting forth the facts of the disobedience of the order and also containing a request that the petitioner should be prosecuted under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. We see in the report a sufficient application for the purposes of the law to justify th...
Bhagirathi Das Vs. Baleshwar Bagarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal69
Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in a suit for declaration of title to village Resam and for recovery of possession thereof. The subject-matter of the litigation belonged admittedly to one Lakhan who died in 1859. After his death, his paternal grandmother Mathura came into possession of the property, though it is admitted that his mother Bhamo was entitled to succeed, as his heiress. His grandmother continued in possession till 1866 when she was ousted by his uncle Samo who died in 1878. After the death of Samo, Bhamo the mother of Lakhan obtained possession. This led to a dispute between Bhamo and a cousin of Lakhan, by name Satyabadi, and there was a litigation between them, which ultimately terminated in favour of Bhamo. On the 30th April 1899, Bhamo executed a conditional mortgage in favour of the predecessor of the defendants. On the 80th September 1904, the mortgagee obtained a foreclosure decree. To this suit the present plaintiff was...
Chintamani Pramanik Vs. Hriday Nath Kamila
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1913
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.123
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs for declaration of title to a share in two tanks and for recovery of joint possession thereof. The case for the plaintiffs was that the disputed tanks originally belonged to one Nityanand Kamila, and after his death, were held in equal halves by his two sons. The plaintiffs claimed to have purchased one-thirtieth share in the tanks from Nirupama Dasi, wife of Dinanath Kamila, who was a great-grandson of the original proprietor by one of the five sons of his second son. The defendants are the representatives of the first son of the original proprietor. Their defence was twofold; namely, first, that they had acquired title to this share by purchase; and, secondly, that the claim was barred by limitation. Upon the question of limitation, the Courts below have concurrently held against the plaintiffs. Upon the question of title, the Subordinate Judge has held that the defendants have failed to prove the alleged sale by Dinanath to his uncle Kishore. B...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›