Kolkata Court January 1914 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.
Manindra Chandra Ghose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal886,(1914)ILR41Cal754
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Hooghly to show cause why further proceedings for conspiracy to commit murder against the petitioner, Manindra Chandra Ghose alias Binoo, should not be stayed on the ground that the two alleged co-conspirators having been acquitted there is no possibility of a conviction being obtained against the alleged conspirator who now stands alone, and upon the other grounds mentioned in the petition.2. As regards the specific ground which is first mentioned in this Rule, it has not been argued before us, and it is clear that there is no charge of conspiracy at present against the petitioner, and the fact that there was an acquittal of the other two would not conclude the matter, inasmuch as there are two persons named as conspirators who have not yet been tried, and it is stated that others unknown also conspired, so that the ground that the petitioner is the only alleged conspirator remaining, can no longer ...
Emperor Vs. Asiraddi Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal764
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This was a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of the 24-Parganas in a case in which the Magistrate has refused to accept certain sureties under Section 122 of the Criminal Procedure Code, because he considered them unfit, the reason given by the trying Magistrate himself being because Elem, the person bound down, was a notorious dacoit, and there was a consensus of opinion that his brothers would not be able to keep him in control.2. When the rule was first issued by the learned Judge in the Court below the Sub-divisional Officer, who was then in charge and who had tried the 110 case, rightly said that he would not reply to the rule until he had made a careful enquiry on the spot. He went out, he made a careful enquiry and he found as we have said. He made enquiries not only at the Fatelapur Hat but also at Baderia. But this did not satisfy the learned Judge who has referred the matter to us because another Sub-divisional Officer who succeeded t...
Gur Prosad Singh and ors. Vs. Gur Prosad Lal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.438
1. These are appeals against the decisions of the District Judge of Bhagalpore confirming the decisions of the Munsif of Jamui. The effect of the decisions is to dismiss the plaintiffs' suits both for misjoinder of parties and for misjoinder of causes of action. A preliminary objection; is taken that no appeal lies in these cases; and this is not contested. The appeals must, therefore, be dismissed with costs. We assess the hearing fee at Rs. 8 in each case in which appearance is made.2. A petition has been put in that the orders: may be revised. Under Order I, Rule 9, the Court has no power to direct a suit to be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties and we think that in the circumstances of this case it was the duty of the Court to take action under Order I, Rule 2, and Order II, Rule 6. It was stated in the plaint that the collection of rent was joint: and this was not traversed in the written statement. But considering the difficulties which have been descri...
Ayatunnessa Bibi Vs. Kulfu Khalifa
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal749
Carnduff, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the dismissal of her suit on the preliminary ground that it was not maintainable without the consent of the Advocate-General, as required by Section 92 of the Code of Civil. Procedure.2. The plaintiff claims to be the rightful mutawalli of a religious and charitable endowment by virtue of a towliatnama executed by the founder, her deceased husband. The defendants, she declares, have no right whatever to interfere with the management of the trust, and are in fact, trespassers, who have wrongfully intervened, had their names registered under the Land Registration Act, 1876, in respect of the trust property and usurped the management of it. She now seeks to obtain the possession to which she claims to be entitled under the deed of endowment. She complains of no breach of trust, and she does not ask for any direction as to the administration of the trust.3. The Subordinate Judge in the Court below has argued that the defen...
Manmatha Nath Mandal Vs. Khirodhar Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal8525,24Ind.Cas.110
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit to set aside a conveyance and to recover possession of immoveable property. On the 30th November 1899, while the plaintiff was an infant, his mother, for alleged legal necessity, transferred the disputed property to the defendants for valuable consideration. The plaintiff commenced the present action on the 10th August 1909. It has been found that he attained majority more than three years before the institution of the suit. It has been found by the lower Appellate Court that although there was no legal necessity for the alienation by the mother of the plaintiff, yet the money had been, in fact, applied for his benefit. The Court thereupon expressed the opinion that if it was still open to the plaintiff to have the sale set aside and to recover possession of the property, relief would be afforded to him only on terms,, that is, upon a refund of the consideration money to the purchasers. But the Courts also held that the claim of the plain...
Hari Charan Saha Vs. Baran Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal283(1),(1914)ILR41Cal746
Carnduff and Richardson, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order granting a review of judgment.2. The first question that arises is whether it is competent or not.3. Order XLVII, Rule 7, of the Civil Procedure Code, provides that an order rejecting an application for review shall not be appealable, but that an order granting such an application may be objected to on certain grounds. None of those grounds can be asserted in this case, and it is quite clear that, in so far as Rule 7 of Order XLVII goes, no appeal lies.4. But it is contended that an appeal lies under Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (w), which provides in general terms for an appeal against 'an order under Rule 4 of Order XLVII granting an application for review.'5. It has, on at least three occasions, been held by this Court that Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (w), must be read with, and subject to, Rule 7 of Order XLVII. We refer to the unreported decisions in Jugernath Pershad Singh v. Earn Autar Singh (1911) Mis. A. No. 341 ...
Hari Charan Saha and ors. Vs. Bran Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.903
1. This is an appeal against an order granting a review of judgment.2. The first question that arises is whether it is competent or not.3. Order XLVII, Rule 7, of the Civil Procedure Code, provides that an order rejecting an application for review shall not be appealable, but that an order granting such an application may be objected to on certain grounds. None of those grounds can be asserted in this case, and it is quite clear that, in so far as Rule 7 of Order XLVII goes, no appeal lies.4. But it is contended that an appeal lies under Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (w), which provides in general terms for an appeal against an order under Rule 4 of Order XLVII granting an application for review.'5. It has, on at least three occasions, been held by this Court that Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (w), must be read with, and subject to, Rule 7 of Order XLVII. ' We refer to the decisions in Jagar Nath Prosad Singh v. Ramavatar Singh 14 Ind. Cas. 39, Tripura Char an Kul v. Shoroshi Bala 22 Ind. ...
Bata Mandal and anr. Vs. Maharaja Manindra Chandra Nandi Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal211,25Ind.Cas.829
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In the course of proceedings for the preparation of a Record of Rights under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act, a dispute arose between the landlord and the tenants as to the amount of rent annually payable by the latter. The landlord relied upon a kabulyat executed by the tenants on the 17th April 1893. The kabulyat on the face of it states that the tenants held a definite quantity of land and that they agreed to pay a specified rent in respect of the land. The tenants contended that the kabulyat had been executed in contravention of the provisions of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. To meet this objection, the landlord relied upon an amanat roha, in which it was stated by the tenants that there was no certainty of the actual quantity of land and the amount of rent payable in respect thereof at the time when they executed the kabulyat. The Settlement Officer held that the kabulyat was ...
Haradas Acharyea Chaudhuri and ors. Vs. Abhoy Charan Dhupi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal109,24Ind.Cas.58
Teunon, J.1. These two appeals arise out of proceedings under Section 105 of the Bengal (sic)Act and have been heard together by consent.The tenure in question known as a nim-howla was created by a patta (Exhibit C) dated 29th of Falgoon 1251. The patta provides that the tenant should pay rent for years 1252 and 1253 at the rate of Rs. 22-8 and from the year 1254 onwards (that is to say) at the. rate of Rs. 100 plus 2 annas in the rupee under the denomination of Akhrajat kharach that is, to say, at the rate of Rs. 112-8 per annum.2. It then appears that some time before or about 1902 the tenure was divided and that the tenant-respondents in Appeal No. 1407 hold the one-half and the tenant-respondents in Appeal No. 1816 the other half.3. A Record of Rights under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act having been pre-pared and finally published, the plaintiff-landlord applied under Section 105 of the Act for a settlement of fair rent in respect of the two tenures, in other words for an enha...
Mahomed HossaIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal743
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. We are of opinion that this Rule must be made absolute upon the ground on which it was issued. The learned Magistrate in his explanation has shown either ignorance or neglect of the law as clearly laid down in Section 342. Section 263 does not give him discretion whether he will examine the accused or not. This is governed by Section 342. It gives the accused the right to refuse to say anything if he chooses. But there must be examination in all warrant cases. Therefore, the words 'if any' do not apply to warrant cases. Then again the charge was with intent to commit theft, as alleged by the prosecution in their evidence, and in their evidence they did not aver that there was any other reason for the house-breaking. It was the defence which tried to elicit from the prosecution witnesses that there was some familiarity between the accused and a woman in the complainant's house. It is, therefore, on the defence that the conviction rests and not on the prose...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »