Kolkata Court May 1915 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.
Paban Sardar Vs. Bhupendra Nath Nag
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.769
1. We must allow this appeal and set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court. A decree in this case was passed by the Subordinate Judge not after a hearing but on the basis of a compromise, that is to say, it was a decree justified, if at all, by Order XXIII, Rule 3. But when the terms of that rule come to be examined, it is apparent that a decree can be passed only after there has been an order that the compromise be recorded. This is not a mere matter of form. It has an important result. If the decree is in accordance with a recorded compromise, then it may well be contended that the provisions of Section 96, Clause (3), of the Code apply and the person feeling himself aggrieved by such a decree may be without the remedy of an appeal from that decree. I put it in a tentative form, as whether it is so or not is not a matter which calls for our express decision now. But the remedy of a person who says that in fact there was no compromise is that he is able to appeal from the orde...
Ram Subhag Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.465
Fletcher, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed upon the petitioner should not he set aside.2. The petitioner was charged along with others of having committed an offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also charged with having caused hurt to two persons, Khalifa Ahir and Rambilas Lal, and thereby having committed an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Only one charge was framed against the petitioner in respect of the hurt caused to these two persons. The petitioner having been convicted and sentenced on the charges framed against him applied for and obtained the present Rule.3. The only question for our decision is, whether the charges of committing hurt against two persons having been charged in one charge renders the trial illegal.4. Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that for every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a...
Krishna Kumar Nandy Vs. Joy Krishna Nandy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.690
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit to enforce a mortgage security, which comprised two properties, namely, a parcel of land and a hut ou a second parcel. The mortgage was executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff on the 11th October 1909. The second defendant, a creditor of the first defendant, obtained a decree for money against the mortgagor on the 27th August 1909, and in execution of that decree, purchased the hut on the second parcel for a sum of Rs. 50. The present suit has been defended by the purchaser, who has been joined as a party, on the ground that he has acquired an interest in the equity of redemption subsequent to the mortgage. The Court of Jirst instance found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that any money was advanced on the mortgage and consequently dismissed the suit. Upon appeal the Subordinate Judge found that though the consideration for the mortgage was stated to be Rs. 150, the plaintiff had established that a sum of Rs. 10 ...
Nilkanta Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Lalit Mohan Banerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.989
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit framed, in the alternative, for specific performance of a contract to grant a lease of land specified in the schedule to the plaint, or for the award of damages for wrongful breach of that contract. The Courts below have concurrently found against the plaintiffs that there was no contract to grant a lease of the land specified in the plaint; and in this view, they have dismissed the claim for specific performance. But while the primary Court dismissed the claim for damages as well, the Subordinate Judge has awarded the plaintiffs damages to the extent of Rs. 500. On the present appeal the controversy has centred round the question, whether it was competent to the Subordinate Judge to award damages. In our opinion there is no room for serious argument that the decree of the Subordinate Judge cannot be supported.2. It is well settled that when a plaintiff has alleged a contract of which he seeks specific performance and fails to establish ...
Gobinda Chandra Saha Sardar and ors. Vs. Lalit Mohan Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.352
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The controversy relates to the liability of the parties in respect of cesses. The lease executed on the 2nd June 1902 fixes the rent at an aggregate sum of Rs. 1,151-6-16-2 krants inclusive of cesses and the dues of the superior landlord; out of this sum, Rs. 600 is payable by the tenants direct to their grantor and the remainder to the superior landlord. There is also a provision that the tenants will every year deposit, in the name of their landlord, in the office of the zemindar, the sudder rent payable to the zemindar and the cesses thereupon payable by their landlord. It is finally stipulated that if any new tax be imposed by the Government in future and if the same be payable by the subordinate tenure holder, the tenants will successively remain bound to pay the tax separately in the office of their landlord in addition to the aforesaid fixed road cesses and public works cesses....
Janaki Nath Hore and anr. Vs. Prabhasini Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.898
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for possession of land upon declaration of title by purchase at an execution sale and for mesne profits. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit; upon appeal the District Judge has reversed that decision and has made a decree for ejectment in respect of the first seven parcels of land. On the present appeal the propriety of the decision of the District Judge has been assailed as erroneous in law. But before we deal with the questions which arise in the appeal, we have to examine two preliminary objections taken on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent.2. The appeal was lodged in this Court on the 31st July 1913. On the 1st December 191,i the appeal was summarily dismissed under Rule 11, Order XLI, of the Code by Carnduff and Richardson, JJ. On the 28th February 1914, an application was made by the appellants for a review of this order. The application was heard ex parte on the 8th April 1914. The result was that the previous order of...
Emperor Vs. Dwijendra Chandra Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.164
Chitty, J.1. In this case the appellant, Dwijendra Chandra Mukerjee, was found guilty of murder by the majority of the Jury (4 to 1) and sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge of Khulna. He has appealed, and the matter comes before us also on a reference under Section 374, Criminal Procedure Code. The petition of appeal contains no less than 27 grounds based on the alleged errors of law and instances of misdirection on the part of the learned Sessions Judge. None of these, however, have been touched upon in the argument before us and it was conceded for the appellant that there had been no want of fairness in the trial. The main facts of the case are not in dispute. The deceased girl, Aparna Debi, was the second daughter of Purna Chandra Bhattacharya of Senhati. Senhati is about five miles from Khulna on the other side of the river. Purna Chandra died some time ago. Aparna was married to Charu Chandra Mukerjee of Pabla near Daulatpur. He is the Head Master of the Siddipasa High Engli...
Tekait Ganesh NaraIn Sahi Deo Vs. Maharaja Protap Udai Nath Sahi Deo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.691
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to have it declared that the entire Pargana Barwray is a hereditary impartible estate of the family of the plaintiff and that it is descendible generation after generation in the male line of the original holder and that the right of the second plaintiff to hereditary succession be declared.2. It appears that Bar way is one of six parganas which, Cuthbertson in his report states, were incorporated with the Chota Nagpur Raj on the assumption of British rule. The Maharaja has the right to receive the Government revenue, but in other respects the so-called Raja for the time being is in the position of a talukdar subject to the custom of primogeniture and impartibility.3. The question of resumability by the Maharaja on the failure of direct male heirs is not dealt with by Cuthbertson, but in the Revenue Settlement of 1908 the final publication of which as far as Pargana Barway is concerned took place on the 22nd April 1909, the p...
Hari Das Samanta and anr. Vs. Abdul Matleb Mallik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.142
1. This is a Rule granted in' respect of Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, proceedings taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Uluberia with regard to So plots of land. All these plots are held by the tenants on a yearly rent of half the produce. The parties to these proceedings are first party, the perchaser at a putni sale and so no putnidar, and second party, the lakherajdar. The dispute between them is, which of them has the right to collect this rent. The order of the Magistrate is not very happily worded but it is easy to see what he means. He has found that the rent of certain plots has been received by the first party and of certain other plots by the second party, and has declared that each party should remain in possession of the plots of which they have been respectively receiving the rents.2. As regards 20 of the plots, there is no dispute as to what tenants are in possession. As to the remaining 13 there is a dispute. It is covious that with regard to those 13 the Magis...
Sirmati Sabitri ThakuraIn Vs. F.A. Sain, Executor to the Estate of Lat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.743
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the appellant against a judgment of the learned District Judge of Bhagalpur dated the 13th November 1914. The respondent in the present appeal presented for Probate to the learned Judge a document which, he alleged, was the last Will of one Woogra Mohan Thaknr, the alleged Will bearing date the 10th May 1913. The deceased died on the 29th January 1914 childless, leaving the present appellant him surviving who is his widow. The respondent to the present appeal is one of the executors named in the Will, the other executor having renounced Probate thereof. The alleged Will had been deposited by the deceased with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances. It is not denied that the Will which is a holograph Will is, in fact, wholly in the handwriting of the deceased and it bears many of his signatures on the various pages thereof. The, only question raised in this appeal is, whether the Will has been executed in the manner provided by Section 50 of the Indian Succe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »