Kolkata Court May 1915 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Durga Halwai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.442
1. This is a reference under Section 123, Criminal Procedure Code, in the matter of six persons, Durga Halwai, Mohendra Karmaltar, Jai Gopal Das, Ganga Bissen, Dwarka Sukul and Sham La], who have been ordered to furnish security for good behaviour, the first four for three years, and the last two for two years, respectively, under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, and who have all failed to furnish such security. The case made against them is that they are all by habit house-breakers and thieves, and form part of a gang who have been operating in Calcutta during the past three years or thereabouts. On behalf of Mohendra Karmakar arid Jai Gopal Das it was argued that the Presidency Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take proceedings against them under Section 110, because they were not within the local limits of his jurisdiction. There appears to be no force in this contention. Mohendra Karmakar may be a native of Midnapur, but it is proved that he was residing in Calcutta down to Ag...
Tag this Judgment!Asad Ali Vs. Bujrus Meher Bibi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.716
Woodroffe, J.1. This was a suit for redemption which was decreed by the first Court. The lower Appellate Court has, I think, intended to affirm the findings of the first Court, but has held that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and has, therefore, dismissed the suit. Now, as regards the applicability of Section 66, it is to be noted that the sale and purchase to which the defendant sought to make it applicable took place in. 1895, when the old Code was in force. There is no doubt, upon the findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts, that, at that time and afterwards and until the passing of the present Code, the plaintiff had a vested right of redemption. Now, there is also no question as to that if the present Code governs the case then Section 66 is applicable. However, as the law then stood the section was only applicable to the certified purchaser; as it is now amended it applies also to persons standing in the shoes of the pur...
Tag this Judgment!Paramananda Singh Vs. Syjou Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1915
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.201
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in an action in ejectment. On the 18th April 1904, the defendant took a lease of the disputed land from the plaintiff for a term' of three years, from the 13th April 1904 to the 12th April 1907. The lease provided explicitly that the tenant would give up possession upon the expiry of the term and that, if he desired to continue as tenant, he would take a fresh lease. The term expired, but the defendant neither took a fresh lease nor made over possession of the land to the plaintiff. The consequence was that on the 8th and 15th October 1910, the plaintiff gave notices to the defendant and asked him to quit the land on the 13th April 1911. This demand was infructuous, and on the 29th June 1911 the plaintiff commenced this action to eject the defendant. The Subordinate Judge has held that the tenancy terminated upon the expiry of the prescribed term of three years and that thereafter, as the landlord did not assent to the continuance of the occupation...
Tag this Judgment!Dwijapada Karmakar Vs. Miss Baileau and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.632
1. This is an appeal which arises out of an application for guardianship of the persons and property of two minors, Gobinda Karmakar and Monindra Chandra Karmakar. Gobinds, who is now stated to be 9 years old, is stated to be just over 7 years of age in the judgment under appeal. Monindra is now said to be 5 years of age. The application was opposed by Subasini Dasi, the mother of the two minors. The petitioner, Dwijapada Karmakar, the uncle of the minor, sought to remove the mother from the guardianship on two grounds: first of all, on the ground that she was a woman of bad moral character and secondly, that she had herself gone over to the Mission House and had made up her mind to adopt the Christian religion and also to get her sons baptised. The mother denied the allegations which were made against her moral character and those have been held not to be established in the judgment now under appeal; and there is no attempt made in this Court to controvert the findings upon this point...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Behari Nath and anr. Vs. Kailas Chandra Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.887
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in an action in ejectment. The sole question in controversy at this stage is, whether the notice to quit served by the plaintiff on the defendants is sufficient in law to terminate the tenancy. In the decision of this question, the assumption has been made that the defendants are entitled to a six months' notice terminating with a year of their tenancy, provided that it be ultimately found that the defendants hold a tenancy which can at all be legally terminated by a notice to quit. The Subordinate Judge has found on this basis that the notice is sufficient and has remanded the case for adjudication on the merits.2. On the 19th Aswin 1318, which corresponded to the 16th October 1911, the plaintiff served the defendants with notice to quit on the last day of Chaitra, 1318, which corresponded to the 13th April, 1912. The defendants maintain that if they are at all liable to be ejected, they are entitled to six months' notice calculated according to ...
Tag this Judgment!Lenga Lalung Vs. Penguri Lalungani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.796
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit which has been described as a suit for possession of a wife or for restitution of conjugal rights. The first defendant is the wife of the plaintiff and the second defendant is his father-in-law. The parties are Laungs, a semi-aboriginal tribe who are governed by many customs peculiar to themselves. One of their marriage customs is that the parents of the girl find a husband for her and take him to their house as a member of their family: the offsprings of the marriage enter the clan of the mother. The defendants place reliance upon this custom and contend that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for possession of his wife and for her removal from the residence of her father, as it is incumbent upon him to reside in the family of his father-in-law. They allege that the plaintiff is always welcome in the household of his father-in-law where he may have free access to the society of his wife. The Subordinate Judge has held that this cu...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Chandra Bagdi and ors. Vs. Satish Chandra Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1915
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.365
1. This suit has been decided adversely to the plaintiffs on the ground that it is barred by what is commonly called the special law of limitation, that is, the law of limitation as prescribed by the Bengal Tenancy Act. It seems to be overlooked at times, in applying the provisions of that Act, that it is one to amend and consolidate certain enactments relating to landlord and tenant and that, as its preamble shows, what was regarded as expedient was to amend and consolidate certain enactments relating to landlord and tenant.2. Section 184 of the Act prescribes certain rules of limitation by a reference to the Schedule. But Section 184 as also Chapter XVI, of which it is a part, is but a portion of this Code which governs the relations of landlord and tenant. In determining what Article 3 of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act means, we must not leave out of sight the purpose and scope of the Act. It was not the design of the Act, as I understand it, to deprive a tenant of the right...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Charan Chandra Vs. the Khorda Co., Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.696
1. The plaintiff-appellant sued the defendant company for damages for having demolished a building, a 19/80th share of which is alleged by the plaintiff to have been purchased by him from one Ram Chandra Banerjee in the name of one Bepin Behari Haldar on the 10th December 1907. The defendants also purchased the same share from the heirs of Ram Chandra on the 22nd September 1908. They also purchased the remaining shares from the other co-sharers and dismantled the whole building in October 1908.2. The defence was that the alleged purchase by the plaintiff from Ram Chandra was a colourable and lienami transaction and the plaintiff had not acquired any title under it.3. The Court of first instance placed the burden of proving the lienami upon the defendants, and decreed the suit, but that decree was reversed by the District Judge on appeal, and the decree of the District Judge was affirmed on second appeal by Mr. Justice Coxe. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal under the Letters Pate...
Tag this Judgment!The National Insurance and Banking Co., Ltd. Vs. Biswambar Chowdhury a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.566
1. It does not appear to us in this case that there are any merits which should induce us to interfere upon this application, which is mainly based upon the ground that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. No objection of this kind seems to have been taken in the lower Court and from the report which the Jearned Munsif h.as submitted to us, it would appear that no such objection was taken. He says that if such an objection had been taken, it would have been found mentioned in the findings or the judgment as is usually done in other cases. He further points out in his report that it is significant that Bona Charan Nandi, who swore two affidavits on behalf of the petitioners, did not mention this fact in his first affidavit, and on receipt of intimation from Calcutta he swore a second affidavit to that effect'.2. We may point out, further, in this case, the disadvantage to which the plaintiff might be put by the absence of objection as to jurisdiction and the allowa...
Tag this Judgment!Brojabasi Koer Vs. Ram Sankar Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.834
1. This is an appeal in an action in ejectment by the plaintiff, who holds a putni from a purchaser at a sale, for arrears of revenue of the residuary share of an estate under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, and seeks to evict the defendants as trespassers. The defendants resist the claim on a two fold ground, namely, first, that the lands are included within, not the residuary estate purchased by the grantor of the plaintiff, but a separate account which lias not been sold, and secondly, that they are, in any event, occupancy raiyats as they have been in possession as cultivators for more than twelve years. The Courts below have concurrently found that the disputed lands lie within the residuary estate, but while the trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for ejectment, the Subordinate Judge has taken a contrary view. On the present appeal, the decree of the lower Appellate Court has been assailed substantially on two grounds, first, that as the land...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »