Kolkata Court December 1914 Judgments
Saroda Prosad Bhattacharjee Vs. Rai Manmotho Nath Mitter Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal554,28Ind.Cas.371
1. The predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff leased 100 bighas of laud within certain boundaries to defendant No. I in 1308, and established a hat on some portion of the demised land and realised from the Government the rent for a portion of the said land on which the salt office was situated. Defendant No. 1, therefore, did not get possession of the lands occupied by the hat office and the had, but he continued paying the full rent and when in 1818 the plaintiff investigated the assets of the lessor's interests in view of purchasing' the same defendant No. 1 made a declaration that he held 100 big has of land at a rental of Rs. 100. The plaintiff then purchased the lessor's interest and brought the present suit for arrears of rent from 1818 to 1816 against defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Defendant No. 1 did not appear but defendant No. 2 pleaded that as he was dispossessed of the lands covered by the salt office and the hat, the plaintiff was not entitled to any rent.2. The Courts below have...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Behari Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal722
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge of Sylhet who in partial agreement with both the Assessors convicted the appellant, Raman Behari Das, of three offences under Section 477A and three offences under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment under each section, the sentences to run concurrently.2. We are met at the outset by the objection that this trial is wholly void by reason of misjoinder of charges, and that this is so is perfectly clear from the authority of Kashi Viswanathan v. Emperor (1907) I.L.R. 30 Mad. 328. The same principle has been affirmed in more than one case recently decided by the Criminal Bench of this Court, and there cannot be the slightest doubt that Section 222 does not cover two sets of offences any number of which may be tried together. The second clause of the section refers to cases of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropria...
Tag this Judgment!Bama Charan GosaIn Vs. Ram Kanai Dubey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal665,28Ind.Cas.374
1. This second appeal raises a simple question of law, namely, whether the defendant has acquired an occupancy right and retained it even although the mokarari right, which he has also obtained, is extinguished by operation of Section 16 of Act VIII of 1865. The learned Munsif was perfectly right in saying that the case of Nil Madhub Kurmokar v. Shiboo Pal 13 W.R. 410 : 5 B.L.R. App. 18 was clear authority for the proposition that he did, and the learned District Judge in the lower Appellate Court refers to a later case in which this was followed. That case is the case of Emam Ali Mestory v. Ator Ali Khan 22 W.R. 133 and in the case of Nil Madhub Kurmokar v. Shiboo Paul 13 W.R. 410 : 5 B.L.R. App. 18 the learned Judges had referred to a still earlier case reported as Pureeag Singh v. Purtap Narain Singh 11 W.R. 133. As far as we have been able to ascertain these authorities have never been dissented from. The learned District Judge thinks that the case of Jogeshwar Mazumdar v. Ahed Moh...
Tag this Judgment!Mohabir Pershad Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Chandra Shekar Sahai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal586(1),28Ind.Cas.304
1. This was a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why we should not amend a decree of this Court which is now under execution. It was heard at length on the 3rd instant, when at the suggestion of the petitioner who has also sought for a remedy by appealing to this Court against the refusal of the lower Court to execute his decree, we reserved judgment and intimated that we would dispose of both the appeal and the Rule together. On further consideration, however, and in view of the delay which the course suggested will involve and of the circumstance that the question now raised is totally different from that raised by the appeal, we are strongly of opinion that we ought to deal with the latter as soon as possible.2. The decree was for the sale of certain property, which was originally an undivided share in a mahal bearing Touzi No. 588 in the Patna Collectorate and is so described in the mortgage-deed, but which was before the institution of the suit formed into a separate...
Tag this Judgment!The Dedputy Legal Remembrancer and Public Prosecutor of Bihar and Oris ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal457,28Ind.Cas.334
Fletcher, J.1. This is a Rule obtained by the Deputy Legal Remembrancer and Public Prosecutor of Behar and Orissa calling upon the opposite party to show cause why sanction for his prosecution under Section 208 of the Indian Penal Code should not be granted.2. It appears that the opposite party on the 10th of December 1912 brought a Hint against Naik Lahera and Hira Lahera in the Court of the 2nd Munsif of Muzaffarpore to recover the sum of Rs. 35.3. This suit was on the 3rd of February 1913 dismissed the claim being found to be false and malicious. On the 20th of November id IS an application was made to the 2nd Munsif for sanction to prosecute the opposite party. The Munsif heard such application and examined witnesses. The conclusion arrived at by the Munsif was that although the suit brought by the opposite party was false, sanction ought to be refused on the ground of delay in making the application An appeal was then preferred to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Nath Sen Vs. Tara Prasanna Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1914
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.797
1. These two cases arise out of two applications for re-hearing made before the first Munsif of Narail. On the 14th May 1914, the first Munsif wrote to the District Judge of Jessore that subsequently, to the trial of the original case he had come to know that a friend of his was interested in the case and that ho would rather not try these cases. He also said that he understood that the 3rd Munsif was also similarly interested. He, therefore, requested that the case might be transferred to the Court of the 2nd Munsif. On the 20th of May the defendant made an application to the District Judge stating that the 2nd Munsif was also interested; and without any notice to the plaintiff the learned District Judge passed an order transferring the case to the 3rd Court of the Munsif at Jessore. The order made is objected to, and we think rightly objected to, on two grounds. The first is that the petitioner before the learned District Judge was allowed to make an allegation against a judicial off...
Tag this Judgment!Khettermani Dasi Vs. Jiban Krishna Kundoo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal716,28Ind.Cas.510
D. Chatterjee, J.1. The predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff, and the pro forma defendants took a mourasi mokarari lease of about 2,200 bighas of land in two plots, one of 800 bighas and the other of 1,400 bighas in the Sunderbans from the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant and executed a kabuliat dated the 23rd. of April 1890. Under the terms of the kabuliat there was a measurement in 1303 B.S. made by a Civil Court Amin and the mokarari was fixed at the full stipulated rate of 121/2 annas per bigha on the quantity of land found. The plaintiffs, who by an amicable arrangement with the pro forma defendants hold the smaller plot, have brought the present suit for abatement of rent under Section 52(b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act in respect of the whole tenure, on the allegation that there had been a reduction of about 600 bighas in the area of the entire tenure by diluvion and joined the pro forma defendants as parties on the ground that they had refused to join as plaintiffs. T...
Tag this Judgment!Mahanta Hunuman Saran Vs. Sheonath Mahto and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal589,28Ind.Cas.305
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff as the malik of the village to eject the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 as trespassers. We are now only concerned with defendant No. 4. The Munsif in the first Court held that the dependants had failed to prove any tenancy, or rather the plaintiffs's title as zemindar has been admitted and proved, and, therefore, gave a decree to the plaintiff. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge has held that the defendant, who is the widow of the original occupancy raiyat, has established her title to the disputed land as occupancy tenant and, therefore, the plaintiff's suit must fail.2. It appears that the defendant No. 4 was the widow of the original tenant, Dular Chand, and in the view we take of the case it is unnecessary to consider the questions that have been incidentally argued, whether the holding of 1 bigha 18 cottahs forms a complete raiyati holding in the plaintiff's tukhta and whether there; is a custom of transferab...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Cargo Ex S.S. Rappenfels
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal793,30Ind.Cas.174
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The Rappenfels, a German merchant ship, was captured after the outbreak of hostilities by one of His Majesty's ships of war, and was in due course condemned as good and lawful prize by the Prize Court in Ceylon. The cargo, however, was released, nut absolutely, but merely in order that its liability to condemnation might be considered and determined by this Court. This curious arrangement was the result of an understanding between claimants of the cargo and the authorities. With its wisdom I have no concern, nor do I propose to discuss its propriety, for the cargo is now within the limits of this Court's jurisdiction and no one has (Questioned the Court's competence to deal with it. On the contrary, an adjudication by the Court has been invited by all concerned. The Rappenfels sailed from Calcutta on the 2nd of August last, having on board the goods which are now the subject of adjudication. War had not then been declared, and it is conceded on behalf of the Cr...
Tag this Judgment!Rasul Mahmed Bepari Vs. Abul Fazal Chowdhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal663,28Ind.Cas.380
1. This appeal arises out of a Suit for rout. Plaintiff claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 44-14-0. The defence was that the rent payable was Rs. 32-4-0. It appears that the rout was enhanced in 1892 from Rs. 32-4-0 to Rs. 39-14-0 and subsequently to Rs. 44-14-0. The lower Appellate Court has held that the plaintiff cannot recover runt tit the rate of Rs. 44-14-0, but has decreed runt at the rate of Rs. 39-12-0.2. It appears that the jama, of Rs. 32-4-0 consisted of several smaller jamas. One of them bore a rental of Rs. 17-8-0 and was held under a kabuliat, dated Chati 1288. That jama together with four others were consolidated into one jama of Rs. 32-4-0 and the rent was enhanced in 1299 to Rs. 39-12-0.3. The enhancement was more than two annas in the rupee and if the defendant was an occupancy raiyat, the enhancement was void under the provisions of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The kabuliat was executed in the year 1288, and that enhancement having been effected in 1299 the de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »