Kolkata Court June 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.
Legal Remembrancer Vs. Matilal Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal173
Jenkins, C.J.1. On the 12th of May 1913 Mr. Lionel Hewitt Colson, Special Superintendent, Intelligence Branch, Criminal Investigation Department, Indian Police Service, filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the Additional Magistrate at Barisal, alleging that one Girindra Mohan Das and 43 others had been guilty of offences under Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate, Mr. Nelson, examined the complainant on oath, recorded his deposition, and directed certain warrants to issue.2. On the 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 24th, 26th and 30th days of May, articles, it is said, containing comments on the criminal proceeding initiated by this complaint, described as the Barisal Conspiracy Case, were published in a newspaper called the Amrita Bazar Patrika.3. The Government of Bengal, having been advised that the publication of these articles, and each of them, and in particular the leading article of the 22nd May, 1913, constituted serious contempt of Court, the Advocate-General,...
Shaikh Nura Vs. Baikuntha Nath Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1913
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.398
1. The sole point in this case is a very simple one and it is whether the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court was justified in admitting evidence which became relevant because of the discovery of two documents which had previously been out of the reach of defendant No. 2, who is the appellant before us. We can entertain no doubt that the Judge was entitled to admit the documents. Indeed that is conceded before us. The oral evidence that was admitted was a natural consequence of the admission of the documentary evidence, and we think there can be no legal objection to its admission. If that be so, it is conceded that the findings of the lower Appellate Court are conclusive,2. We must, therefore, reverse the judgment of Mr. Justice Digarabar Chatterjee, and restore the decree of the Judicial Commissioner. The respondent before us must pay the costs of both appeals in the High Court....
Bishnu Charan Roy Choudhury and ors. Vs. BipIn Chandra Roy Choudhury a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal863,25Ind.Cas.729
1. This appeal arises onto a suit for contribution. The findings of the Subordinate Judge are all in favour of the plaintiffs, with the one exception that he considered that he was unable to pass; decree in the plaintiffs' favour by reason o the difficulty in determining the share in which the several defendants should con tribute. The result has been that the suit has been dismissed. From this decree the present appeal has been preferred.2. The case stated broadly is this. The plaintiffs and the defendants in the present suit may be described in general terms as the zemindars of Amgram. There was an adjoining estate which belonged to the zemindars of Narail. There was a contest between these two sets of zemindars as to the ownership of a considerable area of marshy land, each claiming it to be within their zemindari. This led to proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in which it was determined that possession as to a part was with the zemindars of Narail, and as ...
Khetramani Dasee Vs. Dhirendra Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal271,25Ind.Cas.370
Jenkins, C.J.1. Much time, and I fear expense, has, been wasted on this litigation, for I cannot help thinking that the true nature of the suit hag been misunderstood. Though I would not hold the plaint up as a model of good drafting, still I think it is clear what its purpose is. The plaintiff is the widow of a deceased testator. Her case is that she obtained under her husband's will a share in his residue for the interest indicated in the will. The executor of that will, according to her, was one Ashutosh Roy who died on the 2nd of January 1904, leaving the present first defendant his sole heir. The testator died on the 21st January, 1895, and probate of the will was taken out by Ashutosh Roy on the 14th of November, 1895. The plaintiff says that there were considerable assets, that the estate remained in the hand of the executor Ashutosh up to his death, and was not handed over to her or her co-residuary legatee even on his death. It is in these circumstances that she has instituted...
Sheikh Faizu Vs. Sheikh Doman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal215,25Ind.Cas.536
1. This a suit whereby one; of many sharers claims a declaration of his exclusive right to certain property. He has omitted to join his sisters and his mother who apparently are his co-sharers. There is apt to be some sinister motive in attempts of this kind, and this case does not, in our opinion, fall within Order I, Rule 9, of the present Civil Procedure Code. We say this because Order I, Rule 9, did not apply to the suit at the time when it was instituted, but Section 31 of the Code of 1882 which did not contain a saving clause in favour of non-joinder. But more than that, on the merits it appears to us that the plaintiff is not a person who is entitled to the declaration that he seeks, first, because he is not exclusively entitled to the property, and secondly, because it was wrong to have omitted to join his co-sharers.2. We must, therefore, set aside the judgment of Mr. Justice Carnduff and restore, the decree of the lower Appellate Court. The appellant is entitled to his costs ...
Sheikh Sanoo and anr. Vs. Muhammad Sabed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1913
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.539
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of land.2. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that the land in dispute was included in a jote of one Mathura Nath Chowdhry, that he had purchased it on the 6th of November 1906 and that subsequently he got his purchase recognized by the superior landlord on the 14th of November 1907. On the 17th of December 1906, the defendants purchased a half share of the land from the co-sharer of the vendor of the plaintiff. It has been found by all the Courts below that the vendor of the plaintiff was not the sole owner and that consequently the transfer in favour of the plaintiff, if operative at all, operated to the extent of the half share. But the plaintiff relies upon recognition by the superior landlord. In our opinion it is impossible for the plaintiff to succeed on the strength of this recognition. It is plain from the first and second paragraphs of the plaint that the land did not consti...
Deb NaraIn Dutt Vs. Chairman Baruipore Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal168
Jenkins, C.J.1. This is a suit brought to question the legality of a tax imposed upon the plaintiff under Section 85 of the Bengal Municipal Act. That section provides that 'The Commissioners may, from time to time, at a meeting convened expressly for the purpose, of which due notice shall have been given, and with the sanction of the Local Government, impose within the limits of the municipality one or other,' or 'both of the following taxes: (a) a tax upon persons occupying holdings within the municipality according to their circumstances and property within the municipality: provided that the amount assessed upon any person in respect of the occupation of any holding shall not be more than eighty-four rupees per annum; or (b) a rate on the annual value of holdings situated within the municipality.' The tax here has been imposed upon an assessment which values the plaintiff's circumstances and property at Rs. 6,000. It is to this that the plaintiff demurs. The value of his property w...
Jagabandhu Saha Vs. Magnamoy Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1913
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.884
1. The subject-matter or the litigation, which has culminated in these appeals, comprises the lands of three tenancies held by one Kaliprasanna Pal under the plaintiff. The plaintiff asserts that the tenancies were nontransferable, and, yet on the 22nd June 1939, the tenant transferred the lands to the defendant who entered into wrongful possession. He consequently instituted this suit on the 20th September 1911 for recovery of possession on declaration of title. His claim was resisted substantially on the ground that the tenancies were transferable. As regards the first two tenancies, each of which consisted of 25 bighas of land, the defendant alleged that they were ryoti holdings held at a fixed rent and were consequently transferable in the same way as a permanent tenure under Section 18 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. As regards the third tenancy, which comprises an area of 63 bighas, she pleaded that it constituted a transferable tenure. The Court of first instance came to the conclusi...
Bissar Misser Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal261
Richardson and Imam, JJ.1. This Rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Muzaffarpur to show cause why the convictions of the petitioners Bissar Misser and Moti Misser, under Sections 332 and 353 of the Penal Code, respectively, should not be set aside in view of the decision of the Court in the case of Bajrangi Gope v. Emperor (3) and why the sentence passed on the petitioner, Rameswar Misser, under Section 342 of the Penal Code, should not be revised.2. The facts found are thus stated in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge on appeal:A Sub-Inspector of Police, who is the complainant in the case, went with Bisseswar Marwari to search the house of a servant of his, one Sirjawan Misser, whom he had charged with criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 340. The object of the search was to discover the money and a bag in which it was contained. A house was pointed out to the Sub-Inspector by Bisseswar as that of Sirjawan. The Sub-Inspector called two residents of the...
Debnarayan Dutt Vs. Chunilal Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal137
Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from, a judgment of Mr. Justice Coxe, who has confirmed, the decree of the lower Appellate Court, which in its, turn confirmed that of the Court of: first instance dismissing the suit with costs.2. The facts are briefly these. On the 22nd of July, 1899, defendants Nos. 1 to 4 borrowed from the plain tiff a sum of Rs. 800, and, by way of security for this, they gave a personal covenant by a, registered bond, and also purported, though ineffectually, to create a charge, by deposit of a pattah relating to immoveable property. Interest was paid on this bond up to the 13th of April 1903; and, on the 18th August, 1903, defendants Nos. 1 to 4 executed a registered instrument of transfer of all their property, moveable and immoveable, to defendant No. 5 for a sum of Rs. 2,000, becoming thereby, as the plaint' describes it, 'rightless.'This Rs. 2,000 was not all paid, in cash, but there was a provision and declaration in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »