Kolkata Court June 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.
Kanchan Mallik Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal374
Sharfuddin and Teunon, JJ.1. In this case the petitioners were convicted under Sections 186 and 144 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced, petitioners Nos. 1 and 3, to three months- rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50 under each Section, and petitioner No. 2, Harmuz Ali, who is said to be a boy of 13 or 14 years of age, to pay a line of Rs. 25 under each Section. The sentences of imprisonment on the petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 were to run concurrently. They obtained a Rule from this Court calling upon the District Magistrate of Khulna to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside and such other or further order made as to this Court might seem fit and proper on the ground that, at the hearing of the appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Sessions Judge approached the consideration of the case from a wrong standpoint. On turning to his judgment we find that he opens his judgment as follows; 'The prosecution has examined nine witnesses and the ...
Ganesh Bhagat Vs. Sarada Prasad Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal705(2),(1915)ILR42Cal370,30Ind.Cas.111
1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalporo rejecting a plaint as being insufficiently stamped. The suit of the plaintiffs was for a declaration that a decree for over Rs. 22,000 obtained by the defendant against themselves and their relations was bad so far as they were concerned, as they never took the loan, were not benefited by the loan and were not properly respresented in the suit, and that their share in the family property which was three annas and valued at Rs. 9,000 had been improperly sold in execution of that decree. They paid Court-fee on their plaint upon ten times the Government revenue. They were, however, willing to pay upon Rs. 9,000, the value of their three-annas share of the property sold under the mortgage-decree. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, thought that they were not entitled to maintain the suit upon that Court-fee and must pay Court-fee upon the whole amount of the decree which was over Rs. 22,000.2. It has been cont...
Anand Kisore Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Daiji Thakurain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal571,28Ind.Cas.580
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration that the disputed properties arc not joint properties of the parties and that they are not liable to be partitioned, and for a prohibitory order on the Collector not to effect a partition of them under the Bengal Estates Partition Act. 1876. The suit was commenced on the 9th April 1906 and was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on the 9th March 1907 on the ground that it was not maintainable under the provisions of the Bengal Estates Partition Act, 1897. This decision was reversed by this Court on the 9th March 1909, and the case was remitted to the Court below for trial on the merits: Ananda Kishore Choudhry v. Daiji Thakurani 1 Ind. Cas. 549 : 36 C. 726 : 10 C.L.J. 189. On trial after remand, the Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that the alleged private partition of the lands in 1850 was not established by the evidence. The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court and urged two g...
AsrabuddIn Sarkar and ors. Vs. Kali Doyal Mullick and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal596,28Ind.Cas.645
1. In these two Rules it appears that, two prosecutions under Sections 474, Indian Penal Code, have been instituted against the petitioners in respect of certain documents, namely, in each case a kabuliyat and an amalnamah. It further appears that the petitioners instituted a rout suit (No. 324 of 1913) and that in that suit summoned the complainants in that criminal proceedings to produce the documents in question, each a kabuliyat and an amalnamah. The production of the documents followed. The case for the complainants is that the documents are not genuine and were in fact produced not by the complainants, hut by the plaintiffs, the petitioners before us. The contentions of the petitioners before us are that a sanction under Section 195 or an order under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is necessary before they can be prosecuted, and that in any case pending the decision of the rent suit the prosecution should be stayed.2. On behalf of the complainants-opposite parties i...
Brahmadat Tewari Vs. Chaudan Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1914
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.686
1. This appeal is directed against the grant of Probate of a Will alleged to have been executed by one Ram Charali Tewari on the 19th March 1893. The Will was registered six days later. The testator died on the 10th August 1911. On the 3rd May 1912 the application for Probate was made by his grand-daughter, the sole surviving beneficiary under the Will. The caveat or is a brother of the testator. There is no room for doubt on the evidence that the Will was executed by Bam Charan Tewari. The only substantial question in controversy is, whether it was duly attested. The document on the face of it purports to have been attested by thirteen witnesses inclusive of the scribe, of whom five signed their names as witnesses, and eight affixed to their signatures the words 'on the admission of the executants.' Six of the thirteen witnesses are proved to be dead; two have been examined and have proved hostile to the petitioner; three others have not been examined on the allegation that they too w...
Ganpat Mahton and ors. Vs. Rishal Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1914
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.978
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The plaintiffs are landlords, and their case is that the defendants executed a kabuliyat in their favour for a term of seven years, and came into occupation of the disputed lands on the 19th September 1902. The term expired on the 4th June 1909. The kabuliyat states expressly that on the expiry of, the term the tenants would give up the lands, but they did not vacate the lands, and the present action was consequently commenced on the 16th September 1910. The plaintiffs assert that the lands are their zerait and that the defendants have not acquired the status either of occupancy or non-occupancy raiyats under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defendants allege, on the other hand, that they were in occupation from before the execution of the kabuliyat, that the lands are not zerait and that they are in fact occupancy raiyats as recorded in the Settlement proceedings. The Court below has held ...
Ram Saran Lall Vs. Ram Narayan Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal612,(1915)ILR42Cal305
Stephen and Mullick, JJ.1. The plaintiff in this case is the zemindar of Perganas Raj Ramgarh which includes Mauza Salga, of which he says that a Jaigir was granted to one Kanai Singh in 1852. Kanai had two sons, of whom one predeceased him, dying childless, and the other Bansi Lal succeeded him, but died in 1897 without leaving male issue. The plaintiff succeeded in collecting rents for two years, but was dispossessed by the defendants in 1899. He now sues for possession and mesne profits, alleging that he is entitled to resume his ancestor's grant on the failure of male issue of the grantee.2. To this claim the defendants set up two defences, one based on fact and one on law. The first was that the grant was made not to Kanai, as the plaintiff says, but to Raghu, Kanai's father, of whom the defendants are descendants in the male line. There are many difficulties about this defence which is not supported by the evidence, and it was given up in the lower Court, and not raised here, and...
Achambit Mandal Vs. Mahatab Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal119,(1915)ILR42Cal365
Sharfuddin and Teunon, JJ.1. The petitioner in this case obtained a Rule from this Court culling upon the District Magistrate of Bhagalpur and also on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Magistrate, dated the 10th January 1914, and the order of the Sessions Judge dated the 31st March 1914, should not be set aside and such other order made as to this Court may seem fit on the ground that the order of the Magistrate, dated the 10th January 1914, was so irregular as to amount to no trial at all.2. The facts of the case are these. On the 22nd December 1913, a complaint was made by the petitioner against a certain number of persons. The date for the hearing as fixed by the Magistrate was the 16th January 1914. But it so happened that through some mistake or oversight on the part of the Magistrate's peshkar the case was called on for hearing on the 10th of January, i.e., six days before the date actually fixed forbearing. Of course on that date the complainant was absent. T...
Raja Ganga NaraIn Singh and Vs. Shashi Bhusan Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1914
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.811
1. The plaintiff brought this suit to have the mourasi rent-free brahmottar title of his lessors, defendants No. 3 to 18, to the mouza Gobindpore established; and to have it declared that he has a right to mines in the mouza and that the first defendant has no such right. His case is that at some time before the Permanent Settlement the mouza in question was in the zemindary of Raja laga Mohun Singh, the ancestor of defendant No. 2, who granted it as brahmottar to the ancestor of the Chakravarty defendants (Nos. 3 to 18) by a pattah, dated the 26th May 1781 and on that being lost by a second pattah, dated the 10th December 1790. On the 14th of June and the 1st December 1907, the plaintiffs took a settlement of the underground rights of the whole mouza from the Chakravartys and commenced to exercise them by sinking a pit. In the following March the principal defendants opposed their doing so, and proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, were instituted, which led to the d...
Khagaram Das Vs. Ramsankar Das Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal796,(1915)ILR42Cal652
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs to enforce a mortgage security executed in their favour on the 9th June 1904. The history of the transactions between the parties prior to the mortgage may be briefly narrated. On the 24th July 1895, the plaintiffs advanced to the defendants a sum of Rs. 375 to carry interest at 24 per cent, per annum. On the 25th January, 1899, the defendants gave the plaintiffs a bond for Rs. 600 in renewal of the promissory note of the 24th July 1895. The bond carried interest at the rate of 75 per cent, per annum. In 1901, the plaintiffs sued to recover their money. The Court held that the plaintiffs should not be allowed interest at 75 per cent, per annum, and made a decree for the amount named in the bond with interest at 24 per cent, per annum. The amount decreed was Rs. 1,060 and this carried interest at 6 per cent, per annum till realization. On the 8th June 1903, the plaintiffs advanced to the defendants a sum of Rs, 300 on a promissory note...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »