Kolkata Court March 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.
Adu Malo and ors. Vs. Nagar Bashi Malo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.728
1. The allegation in the plaint was that the plaintiff's net had been forcibly torn and the fish collected by him in an enclosure allowed to escape, so that he had suffered damage to the extent of Rs. 150, namely, Rs. 25 for net and Rs. 125 for fish, which he wanted to recover from the defendants on account of their wrongful act. The suit has been decreed for the sum of Rs. 100 by the Small Cause Court Judge.2. The contention before us is that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit as it was barred by the provisions of item (i), Article, 35 of Schedule II to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, as amended by Act VI of 1914.3. The allegations contained in the plaint seem to make out an offence against property under Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. This was, therefore, a case which was excepted from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court and the said Court had no jurisdiction to try it.4. The judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court are set aside. We m...
Emperor Vs. Sheik Abdul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.825
1. This reference has now been returned with the further evidence recorded by the learned Second Presidency Magistrate under our order of 3rd January 1916. The learned Magistrate has also, in accordance with that order, recorded an opinion. We regret, however, to find that he has not taken steps to carry out our directions to the full extent. The additional evidence which has been recorded is of very much the same type as the evidence recorded in the first instance of which we had reason to complain, and the statements now made by the additional witnesses do not carry the case much further against any one of the six accused.2. With regard to the statement of the learned Magistrate as to the procedure adopted in the Police Court for the proof of previous convictions, we may say at once that we cannot accept the learned Magistrate's suggestion that Presidency Magistrates are absolved from the ordinary rules of evidence in taking proof of such previous convictions. Whenever it is required...
Lala Joyti Prokash Nande Vs. Lala Muti Prokash Nande and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.891
1. The plaintiffs and the defendant are brothers. When they and their brother Goti Prokash Nandy, who is not a party to this suit, were all minors, Karuna Nidhan Mukherjee was appointed their guardian by the District Judge of Burdwan. Certain Government securities endorsed in the names of the five brothers came into the hands of Karuna Nidhan as such guardian. The defendant Jyoti Prokash attained his majority about 1901. Their estate, however, remained under the management of Karuna Nidhan who acted as the manager of the defendant and as guardian for his infant brothers. In or about 1909 the defendant wanted money for purchasing a house in Calcutta, but there was not sufficient money in the hands of his manager, in his share of the income, from which the amount could at that time be paid. Karuna thereupon suggested that he could advance Rs. 50,000 from certain Government securities in his hands belonging to the shares of his infant brothers, who are the plaintiffs in this suit, two of ...
Kanta Mohini Dasi Minor by Her Next Friend, Kamini Dasi Vs. Nanichora ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.566
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In my judgment this appeal must be dismissed.2. The facts of the case were these: --They are concisely set out in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court at page 10 of the paper-book- The action was brought by the plaintiff, a minor who was the widow of one Bhusan and who was represented in the action by her mother. The defendant was the maternal uncle of the deceased Bhusan. The action was brought for a declaration, first of all, that a certain deed of gift executed by the plaintiff's husband in favour of his maternal uncle was fraudulent and invalid and the same should be set aside; and secondly, for a a declaration or for that which was equivalent to a declaration that the property was liable for the plaintiff's maintenance if it were found that she was not entitled to have the deed of gift set aside, and to obtain possession of the property.3. Now, Bhusan, apparently, was paralyzed and he had this young wife, the plaintiff who was of tender years. I thi...
Brojendra Kumar Das and ors. Vs. Gobinda Mohan Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.186
D. Chatterjee, J.1. The plaintiffs brought the suit giving rise to these proceedings in 1909, for declaration of title to certain stares in a certain partnership business with its branches, for dissolution of the said partnership and for accounts. The suit went on for several years through various vicissitudes of fortune until in March 1914, the plaintiffs made a compromise with the principal defendants and on receipt of consideration from them made an application for withdrawing from the suit, the said defendants giving up costs. The petition of compromise stated the nature of the settlement, but did not ask for any relief and in fact under the circumstances related no decree was required, as the plaintiffs stated that they had received the value for the rights given up by them under a deed of release.2. Upon the said application being made by the plaintiffs, the appellants before us, i.e., the defendants who had not joined in the petition of compromise, applied to be made plaintiffs,...
Rajani Kanta Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Yusuf Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.92
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. These appeals arise out of suits for ejectment of the defendants, who were tenants under the plaintiffs, on the expiry of the term of their leases. The plaintiffs allege that they themselves are occupancy raiyats, and the defendants are under raiyats and are liable to be ejected under the provisions of Section 49, Clause (a), on the expiration of the term, of the written leases, and that, even if the defendants are non-occupancy raiyats, they are liable to be ejected under Section 44, Clause (e), on the ground that the terra of their leases had expired, they having been admitted to occupation of the lands under registered leases.2. The Court of first instance held that the status of the plaintiffs was that of raiyats, and the defendants were under-raiyats and even if the latter had a raiyati right, they had not acquired a right of occupancy and accordingly decreed the suits. On appeal, the learned District Judge held that the plaintiffs are tenure-holders and the ...
Bishessur Chuckerbutty and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.312
1. In this case a Rule was issued calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why the order of the Deputy Magistrate passed under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, should not be set aside on grounds Nos. 1 and 3 in the petition mentioned. It would have been more correct had it been based on grounds Nos. 2 and 3. In this case the dispute is with regard to rival hats. The petitioners at the close of last year had started a rival hat on grounds belonging to themselves, which the Magistrate thought was likely to lead to a breach of the peace. He accordingly passed an order under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, on 18th December restraining them from holding a hat at that spot This order would have expired on 18th February 1916. The petitioners moved this Court towards the end of January, and we rejected the petition on the ground that the order of the Magistrate was about to expire, and that there was, therefore, no reason for an interference by this Court. This was our chief...
Rahiman Bibi Vs. Mobarak Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.336
1. This is a reference in the matter of two persons Mobarak Mondal and Sabak Mondal. They were tried summarily by the Magistrate on two charges--theft in a building (under Section 380, Indian Penal Code) committed on 13th November 1915, and theft of paddy in a field (under Section 379, Indian Penal Code) committed on 14th November 1915,--the property the building and the paddy belonging to one and the same complainant. The Judge points out that the trial on these two charges of the two persons was illegal within the meaning of the sections in the Criminal Procedure Code relating to joinder of charges. Technically speaking, the Judge is correct. Section 234, Criminal Procedure Code, has been held to apply only to one person and the offences are also technically not of the same kind. It is difficult to see how the accused could have been prejudiced, as it appears from the Magistrate's order that the charge of theft in the building, which was for the removal of some doors, was not serious...
Kali Prasanna Sil Vs. Panchanan Nandi Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.670
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan made on the 12th of September 1913, in which he dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the matter was res judicata. It appears that the plaintiff brought a suit in the year 1905 in respect of the same property which was the subject-matter of this suit, asking for the same relief which he asked for in the present suit. That suit was contested, evidence being called on both sides, and the Court of first instance which heard that evidence dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Then on appeal to the lower Appellate Court, and at some stage of that hearing, he applied under Section 373 of the old Civil Procedure Code for leave to withdraw from the suit alleging first of all a formal defect, and secondly, his inability to produce the necessary evidence in time. It was admitted by the learned Vakil who argued this case for the appellant that, as far as he knew, there was no form...
Danesh Molla, and on His Death His Heirs and Legal Representatives Abd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.408
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Mr. Justice D. Chatterjee in a suit for recovery of possession of land. The Court of First Instance dismissed the suit. Upon appeal the Subordinate Judge reversed that decision and on appeal to this Court the decree of the Subordinate Judge has been confirmed. The defendants contend that the suit should have been treated as barred under Section 11 and Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. To determine the validity of this objection, we must bear in mind the facts of a previous litigation between the parlies.2. On the 3rd January 1902, the present plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendants for recovery of possession of what we may briefly describe as two parcels of land A and B. The plaintiffs then alleged that they had been dispossessed by the defendants on the 1st January 1900. A Commissioner was appointed to survey the disputed lands. The plaintiffs confined their claim to plot ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »