Kolkata Court July 1917 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.
Bhupendra Mohan Pal Chaudhuri and ors. Vs. the Chairman of Madaripur M ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.1004
1. We think this Rule must be discharged. The only point that Requires serious consideration is whether the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing the order without stating the material facts in the order. For the petitioners, reliance is placed on a decision of this Court it the case of Karoolal Sajawal v. Shyam Lal 32 C. 935 : 9 C. W. N. 864 : 1 C. L. J. 216 : 2 Cr. L. J. 215 and that at first sight seems to support the contention that the statement of material facts is necessary to give the Magistrate jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code. On reading the ruling as a whole it appears that the real reasons for the decision were based on the ground that it did not appear from the proceedings that the Magistrate was of opinion that immediate prevention or speedy remedy was necessary.2. In the present case there can be no doubt on the facts reported by the Police and accepted by the Magistrate that there was. a most serious danger of a riot wh...
Harendranath Banerjee Vs. Hari Charan Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.450
1. This is a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the execution proceedings mentioned in the petition should not be stayed until the security bond is enquired into and final order is passed thereon and secondly, why the sale proclamation should not he cancelled and a fresh proclamation issued after the matters to be proclaimed are settled by the Court. The first portion of the Rule was obtained on a misstatement of facts. The record clearly shows that the Nazir reported that the security bond should be rejected on the ground that the Pleader who had identified the surety said that the security bond need not be furnished as it was not required, and having taken that statement the learned Munsif rightly rejected the security bond on the ground that the Pleader who identified the surety said that it need not be taken as it was not required. There is nothing in that point.2. The second point is a point that has been urged with some force and that is this, that the Court has...
Upendra NaraIn Roy Vs. Janaki Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1917
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.129
John Woodroffe, J.1. The respondents instituted this suit on the 9th December 19l6 against the defendants for recovery of money due to them by the first defendant on the mortgage; of the 1st April 1915, There were a previous mortgage and a further charge, dated 7th January 1914 and 11th December 1914, executed by the same defendant. But these Were not included in the suit. On the 26th February 1917, the plaintiffs gave notice at an application for amendment of the plaint. The affidavit, which is verified by the plaintiffs' attorney, states that they did not include their claims under the previous mortgage and charge under the bona fide and erroneous impression that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain any suit in respect of the mortgage and charge as they comprised properties outside the local limits of our jurisdiction. They say they overlooked one of the provisions of the mortgage of the 1st April 1915. It is said that the defendant, taking advantage of the omission to include...
Nistarini Dasi Vs. Mohendra Nath Kar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1917
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.535
1. This appeal is directed against an order of remand made in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment. The suit was decreed ex parte, by the trial Court, on the 1st June 1910. The defendants thereupon instituted a suit to set aside the ex parte deoree on the ground of fraud. The specific fraud alleged was to the effect that the plaintiff had agreed, on receipt of Rs. 44 from the defendants, to withdraw from the suit, but that - he had not intimated this arrangement to the Court and had on the other hand taken advantage of the absence of the defendants to secure against them an ex parte decree. This allegation was fully established and the ex parte decree was set aside on the ground of fraud. An appeal was preferred against this decree, but the finding of the Court of first instance was not challenged. At the instance of the then appellant, an addition, however, was made to the decree to the effect that the original suit do stand revived. The propriety of this direction...
Surendra Nath Ghosh Vs. Kaligopal Mozoomdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.431
1. These appeals have been preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a judgment of Mr. Justice Roe in a suit for recovery of possession of land on establishment of title. The case for the plaintiff is that the property in dispute is comprised within his estate, which originally belonged to the husband of his sister Kadambini, that he sued her for recovery of the money due from her husband, that he obtained a decree and that in execution thereof he purchased the property at a sale held by the Court. The case for the defendant is that the plaintiff has no title to the estate mentioned, because the proceedings against his sister were collusive and fraudulent. The defendant further pleads that the disputed land is comprised within his estate, and not within the estate claimed by the plaintiff. The Trial Court found against the defendant and decreed the suit. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge reversed that decision and dismissed the suit. He held that as the proceedings taken...
Sheikh Sahebjan Khansama and ors. Vs. Sheikh Abdul Jalil and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.84
Fletcher, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Munsif of the Second Court at Sealdah, exercising the powers of a Small Cause Court Judge, under the provisions of Order XLVI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the question referred by the learned Munsif is this: Is succession certificate necessary for the recovery of the arrears of rent in respect of homestead land by the heirs or the legal representatives of a deceased landlord to whom the rent in arrears was due? The question turns solely upon the definition of the word 'debt' contained iii the 4th Section of the Succession Certificate Act (VII of 1889). The word 'debt' as used in that Section is defined as including any debt except rent, revenue or profits payable in respect of land' used for agricultural purposes. The only question is, do the words 'land used for agricultural purposes' govern the words rent, revenue or profits or whether rent, apart from the question whether or not it is derived from agricultur...
Sayed Rajab Ali Mian and anr. Vs. Pandu Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.396
1. It is found that the tenant who executed the usufructuary mortgage never left the village for good. As a matter of fact within a short time after the mortgage, his sons came back and they are in possession of a portion of the land. The Court of Appeal below, upon a consideration of these circumstances, has come to the conclusion that there was no abandonment.2. That being so, the appeal must fail and is dismissed with costs....
Digambar Chakravarti Vs. Ram Taran Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.663
1. In this case the petitioner has been committed to the Court of Session to take his trial on a charge under Section 471 read with Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code.2. It appears that one Nimai Haldar and others brought a suit to recover possession of some 3 bighas of land. They asserted, it would seem, that they were petitioner's tenants and cited him to depose as a witness and to produce his title-deed. He produced as his title-deed the document now said to be a forged document and gave evidence with regard to it.3. We are invited in the present application to quash the commitment and in support of the application three contentions are advanced before us. It is urged, firstly, that no sanction having yet been given for the prosecution of the plaintiffs, the prosecution of the petitioner should not be allowed to proceed; secondly, that no sanction having been given for the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 193 of the Penal Code in respect of the statements he made regard...
Maulvi Muhfoozul Huq and ors. Vs. Maulvi Mazhorul Huq and ors. and Naz ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.685
1. This is an appeal by the decree-holders, whose application for execution has been rejected by both the lower Courts on the ground that the application, which was filed, on the last day of the period, of limitation, was filed by a Pleader who had no authority to do so. The application for execution was filed on '24th April 1914 by Babu Srish Chandra Guha, representing himself as Pleader for the decree-holders. On that application notices were ordered to issue and the judgment-debtors appeared on 27th May and took time to file their objections. That time was extended and eventually on 9th June 1914 the judgment-debtors objected that the Pleader for the decree-holders had no authority to act. On the very next day the decree-holders filed another vakulatnama in favour of the Pleader. When the matter came before the Subordinate Judge) as appears from the order of 17th June 1914, Babu Srish Chandra Guha, the Pleader for the decree-holders, admitted that the petition for execution of the d...
Panchanan Das Majumdar Vs. Kunja Behari Malo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.259
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal has been heard only against the respondent No. 7 who purchased lot No. 32 for the sum of Rs. 40, the case against the other respondents having been compromised. Now the fact relied on in this case is that the Court below, has found that there was, in fact, no attachment of this property before it was sold. It is urged, therefore, that having regard to Order XXI, Rule 64, Civil Procedure Code, there being no attachment, the Court had no jurisdiction to sell the property. The case has been argued ex parte as the respondent No. 7 has not entered appearance and the other respondents have compromised the case; but we think that the oases that have been referred to as well as the terms of the order support the view taken by the appellant. Order XXI, Rule 64, provides that any Court executing a decree may order that any property attached by it and liable to sale shall be sold. The Court having found that there was no attachment in this case, it is said that the Cour...