Kolkata Court August 1915 Judgments
Sumanta Dhupi and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.132
Roe, J.1. The facts of this case as set forth in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge are as follows: On the 3rd February one Girish Kahar disappeared and was never seen again alive. On the 12th February a dead body was found in a pond which appears to be an overflow from a tidal river. The body was lying under three feet of mud and on it was a heavy ladder. It was so far decomposed that the Medical Officer who held the post mortem examination was unable to give any cause of death: but from its clothing it was identified as the body of Girish by his relations. As soon as the body was discovered, a first information was lodged before the Police in which it was stated that the undoubted cause of the killing of Girish Kahar was that his cousin was an idiot and that his wife Nandarani was an immoral woman, her chief visitors being Sumanta Dhupi and Bhagwan Dhupi, two of the accused now before us, and that Girish was an obstacle to these intrigues. After investigation two other Dhupie...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjamani Dasi Vs. Nikunja Behary Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.823
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant, in a suit for declaration that the plaintiff has a four annas share in the shebaitship of a deity, Syamsundar, established by his paternal grandfather and for confirmation or recovery of possession of the corresponding share of the properties of the endowment. The claim was contested by the widow of the step-brother of the father of the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge held that the title of the plaintiff to the shebaitship was established and made a decree accordingly. On the present appeal, that decision has been assailed as founded on an erroneous construction of the Will of the founder. The relationship between the parties may be elucidated by the annexed genealogical table: First wife= Jasmant Das =Second wife Kishori [Will, 22-7-1882. Bhagirathi | Died, 20-9-1882.] | ___________|_____ _______________________________|_____________ | | | | | | Raimohan Payrimohan, Jogendra Brojendra, Sarada, |Defendant No. 2, Died Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Sures Chandra Palit and anr. Vs. Lalit Mohan Dutta Chaudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.405
1. The subject-matter of the litigation, which has culminated in this appeal, originally formed the estate of one Sarat Chandra Datta Chaudhuri, who made a testamentary disposition on the 2nd April 1899, and died on the 7th November 1901. He left a childless widow, Girija Sundari Chaudhri, who died on the 21st November 1903. After the death of the widow, a dispute arose as to the devolution of the estate of her husband which had vested in her. The sons of the sister of the widow contended that the estate had vested in her absolutely and on her death, had devolved upon them as her heirs. The son of the sister of the testator contended, on the other hand, that the widow took nothing beyond a life-interest and that upon her death, the estate had devolved upon him as the reversionary heir to the estate of her husband. The result was that on the 11th September 1911, the sons of the sister of the widow instituted this suit against the son of the sister of the testator for construction of his...
Tag this Judgment!Amrita Lal Kundu Vs. Anukul Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.253
1. We must discharge the Rule. Though the matter is by no means clear, we feel that apart from any defect of jurisdiction the distribution of the proceeds in Court must be governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The proceeds came into Court before the application was made to us to pass an order in favour of the liquidator. The liquidator's argument before us has been to a certain degree based upon the idea that the property of the company vested in the liquidator. It is better that that idea should be at once removed. The liquidator of a company differs in this respect from the Official Assignee in that the property of the company does not vest in him. I am of course leaving out of consideration the possible vesting of the property of an unregistered company under a vesting order.2. The opposite party will get his costs of this Rule. We assess the hearing fee at one gold mohur....
Tag this Judgment!Kali Das Basu and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1915
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.513
1. The four appellants Kalidas Bose, Narendra Nath Bannerjee, Bhujanga Bhushan Dhar and Hari Das Dutta have been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of an offence under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code read with Section 19 (f) of the Arms Act (XI of 1878) and Section 109 Indian Penal Code and sentenced each to two years' rigorous imprisonment. Two. charges were framed in the Magistrate's Court against the four appellants and three other persons, Anukul Chandra Mookerjee, Girindra Nath Bannerjee, and Asutosh Roy, one under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 379 and 109, Indian Penal Code, and the other under Section 120-B read with Section 19 (f) of the Arms Act and Section 109, Indian Penal Code. Anukul, Girindra and Asutosh were acquitted on both charges being given the benefit of the doubt. The four appellants were convicted in the second charge only, Three other persons Baidyanath Biswas, Purba Doyal Marwari and Upendra Nath Sen had also been put upon thei...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Rani Dasi Vs. Brinda Rani Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.405
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order for the appointment of a Receiver in a mortgage suit. The application for the appointment of a Receiver was made by the mortgagee. That application was supported by some of the defendants who, at the instance of the mortgagee, had joined in the execution of the mortgage, as they were the presumptive reversioners to the estate, which was granted by way of security by a Hindu widow in possession of the properties left by her husband. These defendants, though responsible under the mortgage instrument for repayment of the loan, have thus no present interest in the mortgaged property. The Court below was satisfied that the mortgagor had wasted the property and appointed a Receiver. The Court, however, considered the matter, not so much from the point of view of the mortgagee, as from that of the reversioners. This clearly was not the proper standpoint in the investigation of the case. When the mortgagee applies in his suit for...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Krishna Kalyani Dasi Vs. Mr. R. Braunfield and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1915
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.184
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of a reference made by the Collector of the 24-Pergannas under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference was made as there were disputes about title between the parties claiming the compensation awarded by the Collector.2. The land acquired was about 37 bighas, and is situated in Mouza Majerhat, which consists of Estates Nos. 167, 53 and several other estates which are referred to as ejmali estates which have no concern with the case.3. The claimant No. 4, Mr. Braunfield, was at the time of the acquisition admittedly in possession of all the lands with the exception of those purchased by the Banerjees or Prince Kamar Kader (the claimants Nos. 5 and 6). He asserted that the greater portion of the lands were lakhiraj and claimed the whole of the compensation.4. The claimant No. 2, Krishna Kalyani, claims about 17 bighas as appertaining to taluk No. 167 purchased by her from one Charu Chandra Bose, who purchased the taluk at a sale ...
Tag this Judgment!Hemendra Nath Roy Vs. Upendra NaraIn Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1914Cal508,32Ind.Cas.437
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The plaintiff, Upendra Narain Roy, has brought this suit to establish his claim to lands in Ghat Bharra in the District of Bankura as held in Digwari chakran right. The defendants are his rival claimant, Hemendra Nath Roy, the Secretary of State for India in Council, and the Raja of Panchakote, the zemindar. There are also certain pro forma defendants of whom some are the plaintiffs brothers, and one is Darpanarain Roy, who is admittedly one of the two Digwars of Ghaut Bharra.2. The Subordinate Judge has passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour and has directed that the plaintiff do recover possession of the land in suit, and effect has been given to this direction. From this decree an appeal to the High Court was preferred. It was heard by Fletcher and N.R. Chatterjea, JJ. They were divided in opinion and so the view of Chatterjea, J., who was for confirming the decree of the Subordinate Judge, prevailed.3. From this judgment the present appeal has been prefe...
Tag this Judgment!Baikuntha Nath Rai Chaudhuri and ors. Vs. Basanta Kumari Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.946
Asutosh Mookerjee J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a, suit for recovery of possession upon declaration of title, instituted so far back as the 27th February 1899. There were more than 100 defendants in the suit, with the result that frequent deaths amongst the parties litigants have delayed the trial of the suit both here and in the Court below.' The Trial Court was not able to dispose of the suit till the 5th September 1904, and although the appeal was lodged in this Court on the 18th February 1905, it could not be finally heard till more than ten years later.2. The plaintiffs claim the disputed lands as included in Kismat Baldia, which they allege is comprised in estate No. 3846 purchased by them at a sale held for arrears of revenue on the 25th March 1897. This estate constitutes a 12 1/4-gandas share of Perganah Selimabad. Three of the defendants Nos. 58, 59 and 60 are the recorded proprietors of estate No. 3847, another No. 61 is the proprietor of estate No. 3848, and t...
Tag this Judgment!Ganes Dutt Singh and ors. Vs. Lachmi NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.783
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of arrears, of rent due for the years 1313 to 1316 (Fasli). The case for the plaintiffs is that the holding in question was originally bhowli, that about the year 1889, the rent was commuted into nagdi at the rate of Rs. 5 a year and that rent was realised at that rate up to the year 1897, when the tenants agreed to pay rent at the enhanced rate of Rs. 6-8 in consideration of an improvement to be effected by the landlords. The improvement in question was a channel through which surplus water might flow out of the land. The plaintiffs assert that the improvement was effected at their expense and that the tenants have enjoyed the benefit thereof. The plaintiffs further allege that rent was paid by the tenants at the rate of Rs. 6-8 per bigha till quite recently, when there was a fresh agreement to pay rent at the enhanced rate of Rs. 9 per bigha in consideration of an improvement in the channel. The defend...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »