Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 25Ind.Cas.497
1. In this case the plaintiff was the owner of a patni that was specially registered and so protected at -a sale for arrears of revenue. The parent estate fell into arrears and was sold. The plaintiff purchased it and now sues to annul the tenures subordinate to the patni. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit and hence this appeal.2. In my opinion the lower Appellate Court is right. Several cases have been cited to show that the patni merged in the zcmindari at the sale. The plaintiff' himself did not take this view as he afterwards sold an interest in the patni. And the point of law is by no means free from doubt. But whether the doctrine of merger applies to such transactions or not, no authority whatever has been shown us for holding that it can prejudice the rights of innocent strangers. If any one else had purchased the zemindari the present defendants would have been safe. If the plaintiff had surrendered the patni they would have been safe. It seems unreasonable to h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 25Ind.Cas.118
1. Thirteen properties were mortgaged by the judgment-debtor, the appellant before us, to the decree-holder, the first respondent, by an instrument dated the 15th Ashar 1312 (29th June 1905). The first Respondent, Mahananda Chakravartti, brought a suit upon his mortgage on the 4th December 1908, and on the 22nd April 1909, a decree was made therein in the usual form for payment of the mortgage-debt or in default for the sale of the mortgaged properties. On the 24th June 1909, the appellant mortgaged one of the thirteen properties (No. 11) by way of conditional sale to the other respondents in this appeal who are described as the petitioners. The latter brought a suit upon their mortgage and under the decree which they obtained, dated the 8th June 1911, they foreclosed the mortgage and entered into possession of property No. 11. Mahananda Chakravartti having obtained in the execution department an order for the sale of the properties mortgaged to him, the petitioners came in and applied...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1914Cal276,(1914)ILR41Cal406
Mookerjee, J.1. The appellant, Nafar Sheik, has been convicted of an offence under Section 376, read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. The jury unanimously found him guilty, but recommended a light sentence on the ground that he is a young man and has got a young wife. The Sessions Judge accepted the verdict of the jury, but did not give effect to their recommendation for a light sentence. The appeal to this Court was in the first instance admitted by Harington and Coxe JJ., for consideration of the sentence only, in view of the representation of the jury. The appeal thus admitted came to be heard by the Chief Justice and Sharfuddin J., who held that, in view of the provisions of Section 422 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, the appeal could not be admitted on a limited ground, and directed the scope of the order of admission to be enlarged. As the direction thus given was not formally recorded, it is desirable to draw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1914Cal828,(1914)ILR41Cal418
Richardson and Newbould, JJ.1. Thirteen properties were mortgaged by the judgment-debtor, the appellant before us, to the decree-holder, the first respondent, by an instrument dated the 15th Ashar 1312 (29th June, 1905). The first respondent, Mahananda Chakravartti, brought a suit upon his mortgage on the 4th December, 1908, and on the 22nd April, 1909, a decree was made therein in the usual form for payment of the mortgage debt or in default for the sale of the mortgaged properties. On the 24th June, 1909, the appellant mortgaged one of the thirteen properties (No. 11) by way of conditional sale to the other respondents in this appeal who are described as the petitioners. The latter brought a suit upon their mortgage and under the decree which they obtained, dated the 8th June, 1911, they foreclosed the mortgage and entered into possession of property No. 11. Mahananda Chakravartti having obtained in the execution department an order for the sale of the properties mortgaged to him, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 28Ind.Cas.25
1. The circumstances of the litigation which has culminated in the present proceedings for the adjustment of the accounts of a Receiver, are fully narrated in the previous judgment of this Court, Mohini Mohan Patra v. Baruda Kanta Sarkar 12 Ind. Cas. 78C : 14 C.L.J. 445 and need not be recited here. This Court held on that occasion that the Receiver had not fully rendered his accounts and appointed Babu Haradhan Nav, a Vakil of this Court, to take the accounts. The Commissioner commenced the work, but resigned on the ground of ill-health, whereupon the Court appointed Babu Ashutosh Mukerji, another Vakil of this Court, to take the accounts, with directions to submit his report to the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Perganahs, who had seizin of the partition suit in the course of which the Receiver had been appointed. Before the Commissioner, the proceedings were much protracted, as every single item was fought out by the parties with unusual pertinacity, irrespective of the amount in contr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1914Cal804,25Ind.Cas.436
1. This was a suit for recovery. of possession of certain property and mesne profits which has been decreed by the Court below. The defendants appeal.2. With regard to the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession, we think the appeal is clearly barred. That was decided in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants appealed and their appeal was dismissed on the 7th June 1909. The case was sent back to the lower Court to ascertain mesne profits which the first Court had disallowed. The wording of this order was not very precise, but it seems clear that it was an order passed under Order XX, Rule 12, directing an inquiry. The question whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the land, was finally determined and decided between the parties by that decision and was no longer pending for determination. Sub-section (2) of Rule 12 refers to the preparation of a final decree in respect of mesne profits and this implies that the decision with regard ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1914)ILR41Cal400
Imam and Chapman, JJ.1. This is a Reference by the Sessions Judge of Darbhanga, under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, recommending for revision an order passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Madhubani directing the surrender of two alleged fugitive offenders, namely, Gulli Sahu and Gobind Sahu, to the Nepal authorities.2. In Bhadra 1966 (1909) Gulli Sahu and Gobind Sahu with four other persons are said to have assaulted one Peary Goar under the orders of a zemindar, one Jia Lall, in village Malinia within the territory of Nepal. Seven days after the assault Peary Goar is alleged to have died. His widow, Musammat Bhagwatia, laid a complaint before the Nepal authorities on 26th Jeth 1967. Two out of the four other persons were tried in Nepal and convicted. One of the two was sentenced to be hanged and the other sentenced to transportation for life. On the 29th January 1912, the Sub-Inspector of Phulpar police-station, within the subdivision of Madhubani, sent an enquiry s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1914Cal888(2),(1914)ILR41Cal323
Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Fletcher. By that decision the learned Judge set aside an order of Mr. Dobbin, one of the Judges of the Presidency Small Cause Court, dismissing an application under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. The learned Judge also purported to pass what is described as a decree. It is objected at the outset that no appeal lies. It is not said that Mr. Justice Fletcher's pronouncement was not a judgment, but it is said that it is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. By that clause it is (among other things) ordained that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from the judgment of one Judge of the High Court or of one Judge of any Division Court pursuant to Section 13 of the Charter Act. By Section 13 of the Charter Act, it is provided that 'subject to any laws or regulations which may be made by the Governor-General in Council, the High Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1914)ILR41Cal394
Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent in a suit brought for recovery of possession of land and for declaration of the plaintiff's right therein. The plaintiff claims to be entitled to possession of the land under the Raja of Narajole. His right was affirmed by the Munsif who passed a decree in hip, favour. But on appeal, the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court reversed that decree and dismissed the suit. The judgment now under appeal has affirmed the decree of the lower Appellate Court. It is quite true that the plaintiff alleged a title in himself to possession derived from one Tripura and that this title of Tripura's has been negatived by the lower Appellate Court. The plaintiffs right, however, as formulated in the plaint, did not rest on that alone, but there were allegations of possession over a considerable number of years and also of payment of rent to the Raja of Narajole, who admittedly was the proprietor of the land and able to give a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 25Ind.Cas.76
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent in a suite brought for recovery of possession of land and for daclaration of the plaintiff's right therein. The plaintiff claims to be entitled to possession of the land under the Raja of Narajole. His right was affirmed by the Munsif who passed a decree in his favour. But on appeal, the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court reversed that decree and dismissed the suit. The judgment now under appeal has affirmed the decree of the lower Appellate Court. It is quite true that the plaintiff alleged a title in himself to possession derived from one Tripura and that this title of Tripura's has been negatived by the lower Appellate Court. The plaintiff's right, however, as formulated in the plaint, did not rest on that alone, but there were allegations of possession over a considerable number of years and also of payment of rent to the Raja of Narajole, who admittedly was the proprietor of the land and able ...
Tag this Judgment!