Kolkata Court February 1916 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.
Mahabir Thakur Vs. Emperor on the Complaint of Mahmud Alam
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.316
1. These two oases arise out of the same trial and may be conveniently disposed of together. The petitioners Ram Kumar Patlaik and Mahabir Thakur were convicted under Sections 197 and 198 and Sections 197/109 and 198/109 respectively and sentenced each to one year's rigorous imprisonment under each section, the sentences to run concurrently. The finding, which for the present purpose we may assume to be correct, was that Ram Kumar, purporting to represent the decree-holder in a certain suit, signed and filed a petition in the Court of the Sub-Judge stating, contrary to the fact, that Mahabir Thakur, the Judgment-debtor, had paid off the decretal amount to the decree-holder through him, her ammuktear, Mahabir Thakur was found to have abetted Ram Kumar in so doing.2. The question in these Rules is whether the signed petition of Ram Kumar was a certificate within the purview of Sections 197 and 198. Both the Courts below have held that it was, but we find ourselves unable to agree with th...
Simrik Lal Bhakat Vs. Radharaman Kalidaha and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.857
Woodroffe, J.1. I think that this appeal fails, and that the obvious interpretation of the sections and the rules, to which we have been referred, is that the attachment in Section 64 of the present Code means an attachment which has been made in the manner prescribed in Order XXI, Rule 54. The words which were originally in Section 276 of the Code of 1682, and which have been omitted from the present Section 64, are not material and have been omitted as being mere surplusage.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.Mookerjee, J.3. I agree....
V.R. Alexander Vs. R.W. Connor and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.305
1. In this case, the procedure of the learned Magistrate in discharging the accused under Section 253, Criminal Procedure Code, in consequence of the absence of the complainant was not in accordance with law. Section 253 only provides for the discharge of an accused where the Magistrate finds that no case-has been made out or he considers the charge to be groundless. The discharge in the absence of the complainant can only be made under Section 259, Criminal Procedure Code, and then only in a case where the offence may be lawfully compounded. We must accordingly set aside the order of discharge and direct a further enquiry into the case. As on 8th December 1915 the learned Magistrate expressed a strong opinion with regard to the case, we direct that, the Chief Presidency Magistrate do transfer the case to some other Magistrate for trial....
Rasul Gazi and ors. Vs. Abdul Jalil Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.450
Newbould, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment of the defendants, who are under-ryots of the plaintiffs. The defendants held under a registered kabulyat for a term of nine years which expired in 1314. The kabulyat contained a condition that on the expiry of the term the defendants would possess the land on taking a fresh settlement at the rate prevailing for surrounding lands. The only question I have to decide is, whether this condition is a bar to the plaintiffs succeeding in a suit for ejectment on the ground of the expiration of the term of the lease. The first Court held that the covenant was too vague to be given effect to and the lower Appellate Court agreed with this view. The case of Surendra Nath Sen v. Dinabandhu Naik 4 Ind. Cas. 536 : 13 C.W.N. 595 supports this view. But a contrary decision was arrived at in the cafe of Secretary of State v. Forbes 17 Ind. Cas. 180 : 16 C.L.J. 217. It was there held that if the option does...
Mahendra NaraIn Saha and ors. Vs. Gurudas Bairagi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.689
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order, whereby the Subordinate Judge has in substance dismissed an application for attachment before judgment. The respondents have taken a preliminary, objection to the competency of the appeal.2. The appellants contend that the order must be deemed to have been made under Rule 6 of Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, and is, consequently, open to appeal under Rule 1, Clause (q), of Order XLIII of the Code. The respondents, on the other hand, urge that the order could not possibly have been made under Rule 6, that it was probably made under Rule 5, and that, treated as an order under Rule 5, it is not liable to be challenged fay way of appeal.3. To explain the relative situations of the parties, it is necessary to recapitulate briefly the course of events in the Court below. The suit was instituted on the 24th March 1915. On the 3rd May 1915, the plaintiffs made an application for attachment before judgment under Rul...
Charusila Dasi Vs. Jyotish Chandra Sirkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.157
1. The question which arises in this appeal from order is one of considerable importance and it is this: Whether the nomination by a husband for an unascertained sum of money in insurance is a debt for which succession certificate can properly be issued to his heirs under Act VII of 1889. A good deal of argument has been addressed to the question whether such insurance money is part of the estate of the deceased. That it is part of the estate of the deceased is concluded by authority. A Bench of the Bombay Court in Shankar Vishvanath Vagh v. Umabai 19 Ind. Cas. 736 : 37 B. 471 : 15 Bom. L.R. 320, a Bench of this Court in Ishani Dasi v. Gopal Chandra Dey 25 Ind. Cas. 286 : 20 C.L.J. 44 : 18 C.W.N. 1335 and the case of Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Company Limited v. Vantidu Ammiraju 10 Ind. Cas. 263 : 35 M. 162 at p. 167 : (1911) 1 M.W.N. 276 : 9 M.L.T. 451 all based upon the English decision in Cleaver v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association (1892) 1 Q.B. 147 : 61 L.J.Q.B...
ReyazaddIn Vs. Ashraf Ali Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.606
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit based on an instalment mortgage-bond. There was a stipulation in the bond that on default of two consecutive instalments the whole of the instalments would become due. The Court of the first instance found that the plaintiff accepted part of the instalments due in 1305 and 1306 and that the full instalment for those years was never paid. On appeal the learned District Judge held with reference to the endorsement of payment on the bond that the instalments due up to 1307 had been fully paid. But the endorsement on the bond does not show that all the instalments for 1305 had been paid up. There was thus not a payment of the instalments up to 1306 in full in 1307, and the acceptance of a part of overdue instalments does not constitute waiver see the case of Mohesh Chandra Banerji v. Prosanna Lal Singh 31 C 83 : 8 C.W.N. 66. That being so all the instalments became due more than twelve years before suit, so that even if the principle i...
Babu Krishna Prasad Vs. Babu Ram Pershad Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.990
1. This is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Patna dismissing the plaintiff's suit for enforcing a mortgage-bond, dated the 2nd June 1905. The defendant No. 1 is the original mortgagor, defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are his minor sons and defendants Nos. 5 to 8 are puisne mortgagees. The original mortgagee is dead and his son has brought the present suit.2. The suit was instituted on the 19th July 1910; it was decreed ex parte; that decree was set aside on the application of the infant defendants after the decree absolute was made. Then they filed a written statement on the 24th March 1912. The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit with costs. Against that the representative of the original mortgagee, who is now the plaintiff, has appealed.3. There is no question that the mortgage in suit was executed by defendant No. 1 and was duly attested. With regard to the passing of the consideration-money, the learned Subordinate Judge seems to have made a confusion be...
G.C. Sett and anr. Vs. Madhoram Hurdeodass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.540
Chaudhuri, J.1. The plaintiff firm sues to recover Rs. 3,5653-14-6 as damages for breach on the part of the defendant firm of a contract, dated 2nd February 1914, by which they agreed to sell 150 tons basic steel bars to be shipped in June, July and August 1914 in equal proportions. The plaintiffs allege that in pursuance of the said agreement they paid for and took delivery of the June shipment, and they received invoices in respect of the July shipment of the said goods on the 2nd October 1914, the goods actually arriving in Calcutta on or about the 2nd January 1915, that thereupon they offered to pay for and take delivery of the July shipment, but the defendant firm put them off under various pretexts, The time for delivery of the said goods was extended, according to the plaintiffs, by mutual consent till the 12th February 1915. They allege that they made a tender on the 19th January 1915 which was not accepted.2. The defendants in their original written statement admitted the agre...
Protab Chandra Mondal and ors. Vs. Mohendra Lal Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.717
1. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 are purchasers from one Piru Manjhi and plaintiff No. 4 is a purchaser from the other plaintiffs. The purchase of the former was on the 21st Falgoon, 1305. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are purchasers from one Indra Dass. The other defendants are settlement-holders. They are in possession. The defendants' purchase was on the 28th Aswin, 1302. Indra Dass was admittedly a tenure-holder directly under the proprietors. The whole question involved depends upon the ascertainment of Piru Manjhi's right. If he was a tenure-holder, the plaintiffs should succeed. If he was an under-raiyat or even an occupancy raiyat the suit should fail.2. Piru's title-deed, Exhibit D, is a kabuliat of 1292 executed in favour of Indra Dass. It appears from the kabuliat that the whole of Mauza Ranjannagore was let out to Piru excepting the jote of Bakranata Bagdi. The area appears to be about 500 bighas. The learned Subordinate Judge found that there were some Santhal and Bhuia residents at Ran...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »