Kolkata Court August 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.
Taher Khan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.688
1. The four appellants were tried before the Sessions Judge of Faridpur sitting with two Assessors on a charge framed under Section 366, Indian Penal Code. The Assessors were for acquitting the appellants. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted them and sentenced them each to rigorous imprisonment for two years.2. The actual facts are simple enough. The abducted woman Wazidunnessa had been living with her husband at Dhubri. On her husband's death she returned, as a widow to live with her mother Abdunnessa at Paibandi in the Faridpur district. While there she received a proposal of marriage from one Daliladdi. The proposal was distasteful to her--Daliladdi being an old man with wife and children, and she, therefore, refused. She and her mother, however, came to the conclusion that it was desirable that she should marry a man who would reside with them and also maintain the mother. She accordingly, on the 18th April last, entered into a marriage in nika form with one Piziraddin. On the...
Mani Lall Sing Vs. the Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.770
Fletcher, J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench for determination is as follows:Whether the case of the Trustees for Improvement of Calcutta v. Chandra Kanta Ghosh 36 Ind. Cas. 749 : 44 C. 219 : 24 C.L.J. 246 : 21 C.W.N. 8 in so far as it holds that Act V of 1911 (B.C.) does not authorize the Board of Trustees to acquire land compulsorily for purposes of 'recoupment' i.e., by selling or otherwise dealing with the land under Section 81 or by abandoning the land in consideration of the payment of a sum under Section 78, was rightly decided.2. The suit out of which the present reference arises was instituted on the Original Side of this Court by the plaintiff as the owner of the premises known as No. 10, Halliday Street, against the Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta and the Land Acquisition Collector for the purpose of obtaining an injunction to restrain the defendants from acquiring the said premises or doing any acts in furtherance thereof. From the statement given in the ...
Nilkanta Rai Vs. Gosto Behari Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1917
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal64
Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ.1. This Rule raises a question of the relative rights of two rival decree-holders to participate in the sale-proceeds of the property of their common judgment-debtor. The petitioner obtained a decree for money against his judgment-debtor in the Court of the Subordinate Judge on the 17th March 1916. At his instance, writ of attachment was issued and served. A claimant appeared on the scene, but his objection was overruled. The claimant then sued for cancellation of the order and obtained an injunction restraining the petitioner from proceeding with execution of his decree till the suit had been decided. The Subordinate Judge thereupon stayed the sale and proceeded to dismiss the execution case. It appears to have been erroneously assumed that the effect of this order was, under Rule 57 of Order XXI of the Code, to cancel the attachment effected by the petitioner. The execution case was discontinued, not by reason of default on the part of the decree-holder, ...
AzimuddIn Ahmed and anr. Vs. AlauddIn Bhimya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.153
Teunon, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs who is the opposite party before us, has obtained a decree against the defendants for recovery of possession of a certain plot of land under the provisions of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The findings of the Munsif were that the plaintiff was in fact dispossessed by the defendants sometime in Falgoon 1322, that is to say, sometime in February 1916, and that the dispossession was otherwise than in due course of law. Bat it next appears that with reference to the same plot of land there were proceedings under the provisions of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Those proceedings were instituted on the 16th March 1916, and the final order in the said proceedings made on the 31st March 1916 was in favour of the defendants. It also appears that after or simultaneously with the initiation of the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, there was an order of attachment made under the provisions of the 4th Sub-clause ...
Charu Chandra Bhattacharjee and anr. Vs. Karam Buxa Sikdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.812
1. This Rule has been granted in connection with a suit for recovery of money due on a bond. On the 28th June 1911 the defendant borrowed from the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 80 which was to carry interest at two per cent per mensem with annual rests. The bond provided that 'Whenever any sum might be paid by the debtor to the creditor, the debtor would get an entry made on the back of the bond, of payment against the interest, and, after the interest had been satisfied, of payment against the principal to the extent of the surplus.' On the 11th May 1912, the debtor paid Rs. 14-6-0, and an entry to this effect was made on the back of the bond. There were two similar payments subsequently, namely, Rs. 16 on the 2nd February 1914 and Rs. 60 on the 11th May 1915. This suit was instituted on the 2nd January 1917 for recovery of Rs. 55 as then due on the bond. The defendant pleaded that the. Claim had been satisfied in full and in the alternative, that if anything was due, the claim was barred b...
Nilkantha Rai Vs. Gosta Behari Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.249
1. This Rule raises a question of the relative rights of two rival decree-holders to participate in the sale-proceeds of the property of their common judgment-debtor. The petitioner obtained a decree for money against his judgment debtor in the Court of the Subordinate Judge on the 17th March 1916. At his instance, writ of attachment was issued and served. A claimant appeared on the scene, but his objection was over-ruled. The claimant then sued for cancellation of the order and obtained an injunction restraining the petitioner from proceeding with execution of his decree till the suit had been decided. The Subordinate Judge thereupon stayed the sale and proceeded to dismiss the execution case. It appears to have been erroneously assumed that the effect of this order was, under Rule 57 of Order XXI of the Code, to cancel the attachment effected by the petitioner. The execution case was discontinued, not by reason of default on the part of the decree-holder, but at the instance of an un...
Amzad Ali Sikdar and ors. Vs. NaimuddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.583
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants in order to recover rent at the rate of 200 aris of paddy a year for two years, 1273 and 1274 of the Maghi era.2. The only question before us is, what is the amount of rent annually payable. It appears that originally there was a kabuliyat between the parties. But that kabuliyat for some reason or other which is not explained is not before us. Though the reason has not been explained, it would appear that neither party is anxious that the Court should examine the kabuliyat. In a previous suit which was brought also for two years of rent and was decided on the 24th August 1911, this question, what is the amount of rent annually payable, was distinctly put in issue and was finally decided between the parties. The parties and the holding being the same, on the authorities in this Court of which it is necessary to cite only two namely, Prabhu Narain Singh v. Sundar Pandey 16 Ind. Cas. 447: 16 C. L. J. 41, and Kali Kum...
Sita Nath Saha Bonik Vs. Madan Mohon Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.22
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against an order of the learned first Subordinate Judge of Sylhet, dated the 7th September 1915. The appeal is a novel one. So far as I know, there is no authority to support the case. The appeal arises out of what is called an execution ease and the execution case is in a suit to enforce a mortgage. That means that there has open an execution case in a mortgage suit with regard to the final decree and, under the terms of the law in the country, the form of the decree passed in a mortgage suit is a statutory form which the Court must pass when the plaintiff succeeds in the mortgage suit. In this case, the decree provides that the property shall be brought to sale The judgment debtor now comes and asks that the property shall not be brought to sale, and the reason for which he says he does not want the property to be brought to sale is that in some other suit in which several other creditors sued him, he got a Receiver appointed of...
Chandi Charan Girl and ors. Vs. Gadadhar Prodhan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.177
Chitty, J.1. In this case the petitioners Chandi Charan Giri and Gajendra Barik applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer of Contai, exercising the powers of a Collector, for appraisement of produce under Section 69 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In those proceedings the officer deputed to hold a local enquiry reported that the petitioners bad made use of forged receipts. On this report the Sub-Divisional Officer refused their application, and at the instance of their opponents granted sanction for their prosecution under Sections 471 and 209, Indian Penal Code. From that order the petitioners appealed to the Commissioner of the Burdwan Division. The Commissioner held that he had no jurisdiction and that the Court to which the Sub-Divisional Officer's Court was subordinate was that of the District Judge of Midnapore under Section 195 (7) (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners then applied to the District Judge, but he threw out their application on the ground that he had no jurisd...
Gagan Chand Naskar Vs. Peary Mohan Naskar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.723
1. In this case no question of jurisdiction arises bat it would appear that the Magistrate has made a slip in declaring the possession of the whole 237 1/2 bighas, i.e., three chalet, to be with the second party. The second party consisted of 11 persons, 8 of whom filed written statements. From those written statements it would appear that they claimed 172 bighas 6 kanals 2 chattaks between them, each tenant giving the boundaries of the Area which he held. It also appears from the learned Magistrate's order that, although the proceedings commenced with regard to the whole 237 1/2 bighas, Gaganchand Naskar had won over some of the old tenants to his side and they had executed new kabuliyats in his favour. As to the precise area covered by those kabuliyats there is nothing before us to show, but it would appear that the second party were in possession not of the whole 237 1/2 bighas, but of 172 odd bighas as shown in their various written statements. We think that the case should go back...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »