Kolkata Court July 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.
Pratap Chandra Shaha Vs. Mahomed Ali Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal342
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff landlord under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Mr. Justice Coxe in a suit for rent. The substantial question in controversy between the parties is as to the rate at which interest is payable upon the amount of rent in arrears. The contract between the parties is embodied in a kabuliyat executed on the 20th of Jane 1872. This document recites that interest would be paid by the tenant upon rent in arrears at the rate: of one anna per rupee. The document does not expressly state whether interest at this rate was payable monthly or annually.2. The Court of first instance allowed evidence to be given as to what was intended, and came to the conclusion that the interest intended to be payable was at the rate of one anna per rupee per month, that is, 75 per cent. per annum. A decree was made accordingly in favour of the landlord. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge held that the document was ambiguous, and that evidence...
Sadasiv Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal834,(1914)ILR41Cal299
Woodroffe, J.1. In this case the three appellants, Sadasiv Singh, Bhabuti Singh and Suambar Singh, have been tried and convicted of murder. According to the evidence, another man, Tulshi Singh, was present at and took part in the alleged crime. The Public Prosecutor, however, elected not to proceed against him, for no reason that I am aware of except that this man surrendered after the trial had commenced in the Magistrate's Court, and it was not thought worth-while to charge him and recommence the trial. However this may be, no other reason appears on the record.2. In the order-sheet of the 16th April, on which date the case was taken up, learned Counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellants asked that he might cross examine the witnesses on the day following, as he was not prepared to cross-examine that day. This application was refused, the learned Judge ordering 'that the eye witnesses and mother important witnesses should be examined on the 17th, and that the examination of the...
Musai Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal288,(1914)ILR41Cal66
Imam and Chapman, JJ.1. At the time of the alleged offences the petitioner was a sazawal of the Bettiah Raj and was entrusted with the work, of collecting rents from the tenants of the Raj. Three tenants are said to have been cheated by him while he was so engaged in the collection of rents. They laid three separate complaints against him before the Magistrate; who, purporting to act under Section 234 of the Criminal Procedure Code, tried the petitioner for the three offences at one trial and framed only one charge, setting out only one offence of cheating in respect of all the three complainants.2. If the Magistrate had treated the three complaints as complaints of distinct offences and had drawn up three separate charges, the procedure would have been without defect. There was no obstacle to the disposal of all three cases at one trial. There was no misjoinder and no contravention of any law limiting the joinder of offences in one indictment: Subramanya Ayyar v. King-Emperor (1901) I...
In Re: the Goods of Kanai Lal Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal756,24Ind.Cas.447
Chaudhuri, J.1. Kanai Lal Khan died on the 19th of February 1908 leaving him surviving an infant son, Shama Das Khan, his only son by a pre-deceased wife. He also left his mother, Lakhi Mani Dasi, and his widow, Sreemutty Santosh Kumari Dasi, and three daughters. He was living jointly with his cousins, sons of his father's brother. On the 21st April 1908 the petitioner, Raman Lal Khan, was appointed guardian of Shama Das Khan for the purpose of taking out Letters of Administration. On the 6th of July 1908 he obtained an order for grant to him of such Letters of Administration limited during Shama Das Khan's minority. The estate was a very large one, the gross value appearing from the affidavit of valuation to be over 26 lacs. The debts and trust properties amounted to over 9 lacs. There was considerable difficulty in finding sureties and on the 9th of July Mr. Justice Woodroffe made a special order giving the Registrar leave to accept Bunwari Lal Khan and Mani Lal Khan, two of the cous...
Radha Charan Das Vs. SharfuddIn Hossein
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal276
Newbould, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree setting aside a revenue sale on the ground that the said sale did not take place in accordance with the provisions of Act XI of 1859. The lower Court has held that it was absolutely necessary that the notification of the sale should be published in the Vernacular Government Gazette in Uriya and that its non-publication has made the sale null and void apart from any consideration as to inadequacy of price. We are unable to agree with the learned Subordinate Judge on either of these findings.2. As regards the first point, the notification was published in the Calcutta Gazette and in our opinion that was sufficient. The law on this point is contained in Section 6 of the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act (XI of 1859) and is in the following words 'And if the Government revenue of any estate, or share of an estate to be sold, exceed the sum of five hundred rupees, a notification of the sale of such estate or share of an estate shall be published...
Uma Singh and ors. Vs. Rai Tarini Prosad Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal799,25Ind.Cas.532
1. It appears to us that this is really a very simple case and one which we can dispose of very briefly. If once it be held that the Court was entitled to make the presumption permitted, though not made obligatory, by Sub-section (6), it follows that the rent is one to be determined by reference to the area and is not a consolidated rent. The first point, therefore, to determine is whether the Court was entitled to make the presumption; we think it was. If that be so, we think there is an end of the case because it supports the conclusion that the rent was not consolidated but one to be determined by reference to the area. The area has been found and justifies the conclusion of the lower Appellate Court.2. We must, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›