Kolkata Court September 1915 Judgments
Deputy Legal Remembrancer Vs. Matukdhari Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.137
Chitty, J.1. Matukdhari Singh and nine other persons were convicted by Babu Har Sahai Lal, Deputy Magistrate, 1st Class, of Gaya, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. They appealed to the Sessions Judge of Gaya who allowed the appeals of all the ten persons. From that order of acquittal, the present appeal has been filed by the Local Government.2. It is urged on behalf of the Local Government that the matter is one of considerable public importance, inasmuch as the accused in this case claimed to use force in asserting their rights of irrigation. It is argued that there would be considerable danger to the public peace if such action on behalf of private individuals was allowed to go unpunished. For the defence it is argued that an appeal from an acquittal stands on a different footing with regard to the consideration of evidence to an appeal from a conviction. Reference was made to the cases of Empress of India v. Gayadin 4 A. ...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Nath Dey and ors. Vs. Gour Singh Mura
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.385
D. Chatterjee, J.1. The ancestor of the plaintiffs purchased Mauza Urma in execution of a rent-decree in 1880. The defendant held some lands in the mauza and in 1905 he gave a kahuliyat to the plaintiffs in respect of 23 plots of land at a consolidated rate of rent. He fell into arrears and on the 21st of December 1909, the plaintiffs brought a suit for rent under Act X of 1859 and obtained a decree. In the meantime on the 22nd December 1909 the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act was applied to the District of Manbhoom. Execution was taken out of the rent-decree obtained by the plaintiffs and the holding of the defendant was sold on the 1st of August 1910 and purchased by the plaintiffs, who took delivery of possession from the Court in February 1911. In the meantime settlement proceedings were going on under a notification made in September 1909 (evidently under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act which then applied). The Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act having been applied from December 1909, the sett...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Kristo Ray Vs. Gooroo Prasad Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1915
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.432
Woodroffe, J.1. This is an application under Order XXI, Rule 89, of the Civil Procedure Code in respect of an English mortgage executed in Calcutta upon which a decree for sale has been made by this Court;. There was no attachment before sale. For, according to the practice of this Court, no gush attachments are made in execution of mortgage-decrees. The question raised is whether Order XXT, Rule 89 applies to the case. Such an application is contrary to the practice is not provided for and is in respects at variance with the rules of this Court and is without authority for the case before Cbaudhuri, J., was (my learned brother tells me) by consent of all parties concerned and not after contest. Mention has been made of some case before Imam, J. but there was no judgment and what the circumstances of that case were and whether it was contested does not appear. The decision in Kedar Nath Raut v. Kali Churn Ram 25 C. 703 : 2 C.W.N. 353 : 13 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 460 is against the application...
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Mohan Saha and anr. Vs. Gobinda Chandra Rat Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.565
1. These appeals arise out of suits for ejectment of the defendants from certain homestead lands in the town of Brahmanberia. The suits were decreed by the Court of first instance, and the decrees were confirmed on appeal by the lower Appellate Court. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have appealed to this Court.2. The plaintiffs alleged that they acquired a right to the lands in suit by purchase from one Kamini Kumar Das who had obtained two mokurari leases from one Channu Mia and others, the owners of the 1/3rd share of the Taluks Manik Bibi and Asadulla Bibi Somera within which the lands were situate. The defendants denied that the lands appertained to the Taluks. Manik Bibi and Asadulla Bibi Somera as alleged by the plaintiffs, and asserted that they appertained to the 2/3rds share of Taluk Asadulla Bibi Somera owned by Haidar Ali and others, the lands of which share are found to be distinctly demarcated from the 1/3rd share and to form a separate estate. They further pleaded that the pe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›