Kolkata Court April 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.
Emperor Vs. Nirmal Kanta Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal901(2),(1914)ILR41Cal1072
Stephen, J.1. The accused in this case has been indicted under five counts. These are, first, the murder of Nripendra Nath Ghose under Sections 302 and 34 of the Penal Code; secondly, murder of the same man under Sections 114 and 302 of the Code; thirdly, abetting the murder of the same man under Sections 109 and 302 of the Code; fourthly, the murder of Ananta Teli; fifthly, culpable homicide of Ananta Teli. To these charges he pleaded 'not guilty.' I told the jury that there was no evidence of an offence under the first count, and they acquitted him accordingly. The jury differed as to his guilt under the second and third charges and there were not as many as six who agreed in opinion. The jury unanimously acquitted him of murder under the fourth charge, and differed as to the fifth charge, without six agreeing in opinion, I accordingly discharged the Jury under Section 305 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The accused was then tried again in accordance with Section 308 of the Code; a...
Safaruddi and ors. Vs. A.K. Fazal Huq and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal3644(2),30Ind.Cas.414
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This case has been decided favourably to the plaintiffs by Mr. Justice Digambar Chatterjee on the footing that there were separate tenancies, and we think that if there were separate tenancies then in the circumstances of this case there was a compliance with the provisions of Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Even if there had not been separate tenancies, we think it a possible view in the peculiar circumstances of this case that there was a sufficient application by the landlords, but it is not necessary for us to go into that point. In our opinion the judgment of Mr. Justice Digamber Chatterjee should be upheld.2. We must, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.N. Chatterjea, J.3. I agree....
Shaikh Rafic Vs. Bhagaban Chandar Dhar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal170(2),25Ind.Cas.377
Woodroffe, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit claims as reversioner after the death of Joy Tara, widow of one Ganga Prosad Dhar, and the defendants claim under certain conveyances said to have been executed during her life-time. The plaintiff's claim has been decreed by both the lower Courts and it is the defendant who now appeals. We have heard this appeal at great length for the greater part of the day with the result that, in my opinion, that decision which has been arrived at by both the lower Courts is the correct one.2. The decision of the Subordinate Judge has been attacked upon two grounds, first, that of limitation, it being contended that the defendants as the purchasers-in-interest had been in adverse possession for more than 50 years and that thereby they acquired a title which was not defeasible by the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court has held that the title' of Joy Tara and of the reversioner was not extinguished by limitation and this finding has been impugned as erroneo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›