Kolkata Court August 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.
Baldeo NaraIn Jha Vs. Bhaya Lal Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal712,30Ind.Cas.47
1. This appeal is directed against the decree in a suit for declaration of title to immoveable property and for recovery of possession thereof. The plaintiff-respondent claims title by purchase at a sale held in execution of a mortgage-decree. The mortgage was created by the representatives of four branches of a Milakshara family. The appellant was entitled to one-sixth share of the properties given by way of security; another of the mortgagors was ostensibly entitled to a half share and two others were entitled to one-sixth share each. The appellant now contends that the mortgagor whose name stood registered in respect of one-half share and who joined in the mortgage as owner of that share, was not really interested in the property at all, he was merely a benamidar for the appellant and that, consequently, the purchaser in execution of the mortgage-decree has not acquired a valid title to that share. The Subordinate Judge has overruled tins contention on the ground that the evidence e...
Prosonno Kumar Chakravarti and anr. Vs. Prokash Chandra Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal695(1),28Ind.Cas.560
1. This Rule must be make absolute on the ground on which it was issued. The principle laid down by North, J., in the case of Consolidated Explorationand Finace Co. v. Musgrave (1900) 1 Ch. 37 : 81 L.T. 747 : 48 W.R. 298 : 69 L.J. Ch. 11 : 16 T.L.R. 13 has been applied in this country both by the Punjab and Allahabad Courts and obviously must apply in every country where! English criminal justice is ad ministered. The principle is that it is essential that the person giving bail should be interested in looking after and, if necessary, exercising the legal powers he has to prevent the accused from isappearing. This is essential for the protection of the public, and anything that tends to prevent or hinder his so doing is illegal. Why is it not equally illegal for the bail to be indemnified by a third person, it being admittedly illegal to be indemnified by the prisoner? The reason of the illegality is the same in each case. There fore, the opposite party cannot escape by saying that he ...
Raghoram Singh Vs. Rajani Kanta Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal432,29Ind.Cas.752
1. This is an appeal by the third defendant in a suit for partition of joint property. The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff purchased shares in the properties in suit in execution of a decree on the basis of two mortgages granted in his favour on the 5th April 1888 and the 24th June 1896. The mortgages were executed by one Sobhnath Singh, the head of a joint Mitakshara family, and his four adult sons. The mortgagee sued on the 13th January 1903 to enforce his security. At that time, Sobhnath Singh as also two of his sons were dead. The mortgagee joined as defendants the two surviving sons and also brought on the record the infant sons of the mortgagors in so far as their existence was known to him. A decree was made in due course and the mortgaged properties were sold in execution. In answer to the present claim, it has been urged by the third defendant, who is a grandson of Sobhnath Singh, that as he was not joined as a party to the mortgage suit, his right of redemption has n...
Chintamoni Jena and ors. Vs. Jagannath Ramanuja Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal644(1),28Ind.Cas.651
1. The question which appears to be one of jurisdiction on the Rule really depends upon the second ground of the Rule, which is that; effect has not been given to the presumption arising from the entries in a recently published Record of Rights. That certainly is not a question going to the jurisdiction and we, therefore, cannot interfere, We at first thought that the other ground that there should have been separate proceedings in respect of the several plots claimed by the several sets of tenants, was a separate point going to the jurisdiction. But we find that this is not so. The other sets of tenants have not come here at all, and the present applicants have only come upon the ground that they had obtained tenant rights and possession by a recently published Record of Rights. It is needless to say that whatever presumption may be raised by such a record, id does not in itself establish the fuel am of possession, and that if the Magistrate decides the fart it DI of possession wrongl...
Rabbi Raut and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1914
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.656
1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Darbhanga under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that on the 8th April 1914, the petitioners presented a petition to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Samastipur, complaining against nine persons who are servants of the Birauli Factory. In the concluding portion of their petition the petitioners prayed for proceedings against these nine persons under Sections 144 and 107, Criminal Procedure Code. The substance of the petition was that these nine persons had criminally intimidated the petitioners, assaulted them and attempted to wrongfully confine them. On the tiling of this petition the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the following order: 'To Mr. Wylde of Birauli Factory. Please report on the circumstances of this petition. Put up on the 25th April 1914.' This order is open to great objection. It was Birauli people who were the accused. Mr. Wylde, the Manager of the Birauli Factory, and, therefore, an interested party...
Madhu Sudan Pal and anr. Vs. Parbati Sundari Dassya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal477(1),29Ind.Cas.406
Woodroffe, J.1. The matter in respect of which an order for leave to appeal is sought, is a question whether the property described in the application should be re-sold. There is no appeal on the question whether the Court was right in refusing to set aside the order passed for default of the 10th June, except so far as the effect of that order was to affirm the order for sale. To make this matter clear, I desire to record the fact that the applicant states that he is prepared to argue this appeal on the materials now on the record without further evidence, oral or documentary.2. The order of the 4th May was, in my opinion, an order under the Insolvency Act and though the Judge has refused leave to appeal under Section 46, there is a concurrent jurisdiction in us to grant leave to appeal and I would accordingly do so. The appeal is admitted and there is no necessity to make a further application under Order XLI.3. The Rule, therefore, is made absolute and the costs will be dealt with u...
Kanchan Mandar and ors. Vs. Kamala Prosad Chowdhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1914
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.734
1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has culminated in this appeal is an agricultural holding owned by the members of a family of Mandars under the plaintiffs and the defendants as their landlords. The plaintiffs are interested to the extent of a fourth share and the defendants to the extent of a three-fourths share in the superior interest. The Mandars had mortgaged the holding to the defendants who sued to enforce their security, obtained a decree thereon, and took steps to bring the holding to salein execution. On the 17th February 1908, the Mandars transferred the holding to the plaintiffs under a conveyance for Rs. 1020 which was paid into Court in satisfaction of the mortgage-decree held by the defendants. The defendants had, prior to these proceedings, instituted a suit against the Mandars for arrears of rent payable in respect of their three-fourths share. An ex parte decre was at first obtained and was subsequently set aside; finally, on the 20th February 1908, a decr...
Maharani Janki Koer Vs. Mahabir Prasad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.706
1. The defendant was an Am-mukhtear of the Bettiah Raj appointed under a letter of appointment by the Assistant Manager on the 16th May 1904. On the 29th June 1904 he was given a registered am-mukhteamama by which he was authorised to do various things, one of which was signing petitions of executions and filing them. In February 1907 he made reports in respect of a number of decrees that they could not be realized by execution and the Assistant Manager in charge at Chapra sent these remission reports to the Manager. The Manager sanctioned certain of these recommendations, but with regard to certain decrees the Manager ordered further inquiries. 'What the result of the further inquiries was, does not appear. But it seems that it was found out that these decrees had been barred by limitation. Upon that, some reports seem to have been called for from the Head Clerk, and the Head Clerk made his report on the 6th September 1907. The defendant was dismissed in 1909 and the suit was brought ...
The Eastern Mortgage and Agency Company, Ltd. Vs. Premananda Saha and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1914
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.789
Woodroffe, J.1. I am of opinion that the preliminary objection that no appeal lies in this matter succeeds. This is not a case of an application for appointment of a Receiver or of a refusal to appoint a Receiver. In substance it is one for the removal of a Receiver who has already been appointed. Therefore, I think that no appeal lies. But as the case has been argued at some length I shall deal with some other points which have been raised.2. The Court was of opinion that in the interest of the estate two Receivers should be appointed so that the interest of both the mortgagor and the mortgagee might be represented. Each of the parties was allowed to nominate. The plaintiffs nominated Mr. Tweedie and the defendants nominated Premananda Saha who is a Court officer, a sheristadar. Our attention has been drawn to the decision in Mohini Mohan Patra v. Bam Narain Patra 12 Ind. Cas. 780 : 14 C.I.J. 445., in which an opinion was expressed that it was not expedient to appoint a Court officer ...
Ram Ranjan Roy Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal545,(1915)ILR42Cal422; AIR 1915 Cal 545
Jenkins, C.J.1. Ram Ranjan Roy a zemindar in the Bankura district, Umesh Chandra Mookerjee, one of his gomastas, and Madhab Mistri, his up-country peon, have been charged with offences which resulted in the death of Dhan Kristo Laik and his nephew Banwari Laik, tenants of Ram Ranjan. The charges against Ram Ranjan were that he, on or about the 18th of March 1914, at Dejuri, committed murder of Dhan Kristo Laik by striking him with a lathi and thereby killing him, and also that he committed murder of Banwari Laik by being present and abetting Madhab Mistri in striking and thereby killing him. Umesh Chandra Mookerjee was also charged with the murder of Banwari by being present and abetting Madhab. The charge against Madhab Mistri was that he murdered Banwari, and that he caused simple hurt to Hari Laik.2. Umesh has been acquitted. Ram Ranjan has been acquitted of the murder of Dhan Kristo, but convicted of the murder of Banwari by being present and abetting Madhab Mistri. And Madhab Mist...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »