Kolkata Court January 1918 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.
Chand Tarafdar Vs. Shamsher Fakir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.328
1. In this case the petitioner Chand Tarafdar was charged under Sections 147 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code before a Bench of two Honorary Magistrates exercising 3rd Class powers. The two Magistrates differed in opinion and the case was under Rule 6 referred back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. He did not try the case de novo but heard arguments and passed judgment convicting the accused under Sections 147 and 324, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to six months' rigorous imprisonment. The accused appealed and his appeal was heard by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge of Mymensingh. He held, on the authority of Ulfat Sheikh v. Emperor 21 Ind.Cas. 1004 : 18 C.W.N. 394 : 19 C.L.J. 92 : 14 Cr. L.J. 684 that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction, and that the case should have been decided by the casting vote of the Chairman of the Bench of Honorary Magistrates, though at the same time he pointed out that no Chairman appeared to have been chosen. He accordingly set aside ...
Srimati Neamatun Nessa Bibi, Wife of HasinuddIn Nazir Vs. Golam Pancha ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1075,45Ind.Cas.601
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Howrah dated the 24th May 1915. The plaintiff is a Muhammadan lady. She brought the suit claiming partition of a 2-annas share in the property which she said she Was entitled to. The parties are relations The plaintiff claimed her title Under a document called a heba bil ewaz, that is, a gift for consideration. The document bore date the 26th Bysakh 1303. It was Court below executed by her late father-in law Sujanddin Nazir, who also registered it. There is no doubt about the execution and the registration of the document. The reason why the document was given is stated to be this. The plaintiff married in Bysakh 1302 the defendant No. 1, who was the only son of Sujauddin. The dower was stipulated, according to the Muhammadan marriage register, to be a sum of Rs. 10,000 Rs. 5,000 being prompt and Rs. 5,000 deferred. Only a sum of Rs. 500 was paid at the time of the marr...
Nando Lal Ganguli Vs. Khetra Mohan Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.331
1. An application was made to the President of the Tribunal constituted under the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911, for sanction to prosecute one Khetra Mohan Ghose for giving false evidence before the President of the Tribunal in two apportionment cases. The President held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application, on the ground that the Tribunal was not a Court within the meaning of Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code. Against that decision the applicant obtained this Rule, and Khetra Mohan Bose has appeared by Pleader and shown cause against it. The opinion of the President appears to be based upon the decision in Hari v. Secretary of State 27 B. 424 : 5 Bom. L.R. 431 where it was held that the Bombay Tribunal was not a Court but merely a body of arbitrators not subject to the supervision of the High Court. It was no doubt on account of this decision that Act XIV of 1904 was passed by the Imperial Legislative Council. In the case of Calcutta the Tribunal is constituted...
Gnanendra Kumar Rai Chowdhury Vs. Sree Sree Shayama Sunder Jen and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.553
1. This appeal arises out of certain proceedings in execution. The decree in question being a rent-decree was obtained against certain persons as shebaits of a certain Thakor on the 28th November 1911. The application for execution was made on the 23rd November 1914. On its face the application was one in accordance with law. Later, on objection taken by the judgment-debtors it was discovered that against the properties specified in the list furnished under Order XXI, Rule 13, proceedings could not be taken and accordingly on the 14th January 1915 the decree-holder made an application to the Court requesting the Court to accept a further list of properties and praying that execution should proceed by attachment and sale of those properties. It has been held by the first Appellate Court that the application haying been admitted and registered the proposed amendment could not be accepted and that it would be necessary for the decree-holder to make a fresh application in execution. Incomi...
Srimati Sukumari Debi Vs. Kalipada Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.13
Teunon, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a partition suit, No. 1913 being preferred by the plaintiff and No. 1957 by defendants Nos. 2 and 3, The question in the former is whether the appellant is entitled to her share (1/4 th) in plot No. 1 of the schedule to the plaint, being a plot of Bhadrason or homestead measuring some 1 1/2 bighas in area, and the question in the latter appeal is whether she is entitled to the same share in the ancestral house of 3 rooms standing on the said plot.2. The plot appertains to Taluk No. 2510 and the contention of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 is that by a hobalas dated 7th Asar 1315, the plaintiff sold to one Satish Chandra Bhattacharjee (the son of plaintiff's father-in-law's sister) her interest in this Taluk and, therefore, in the Plot now in question. The plaintiff on the other hand says that the Bhadrason and the Bhadrason Bati were excluded from the sale which covered only the agricultural lands.3. In the Court of first appeal the case proceeded o...
Makunda Lal Kundu and ors. Vs. Priya Nath Moitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1082,45Ind.Cas.657
1. In this appeal it appears that in a suit for sale of certain mortgaged properties a preliminary decree was made on the 31st August 1911. The date for payment was the 12th February 1912.2. On the 31st September 1911 the judgment-debtor applied for permission to appeal as a pauper and this application was finally dismissed on the 6th of June 1913.3. Meanwhile one of the decree holders, Gopi Nath Kundu, had died on the 10th April 1913, and at the instance of the judgment-debtor, then appellant, the surviving decree-holders, who are the six brothers of Gopi Nath, were placed on the record as his legal representatives and the proceedings continued against them.4. The judgment-debtor's appeal having been dismissed, the surviving decree-holders, on their own behalf and as representatives of the deceased Gopi Nath, applied on the 30th June 1914 for a final decree for sale in terms of Order XXXIV, Rule 5, Sub-rule (2). After issue of notice upon the judgment debtor a final decree was made on...
Midnapore Zemindary Co., Limited Vs. Dina Nath Sahu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.712
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of a rent decree and the question for determination is whether an application for execution of the decree, is or is not out of time. An application for execution of a rent decree must be made within the period limited by Clause (6) of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act. For the present purpose that period is 3 years from the date of the decree, which was made on the 14th June 1911. The relevant dates are as follows; The first application for execution was made on the 6th March 1914; on the 25th April of the same year the property of the judgment-debtor was sold by the Court. On the 23rd June following the judgment-debtor applied to have the sale set aside and on the 16th September the sale was set aside. On the 28th September the Court made this order: Sale set aside, decree-holder taking no further steps, case dismissed for default.' The decree-holder appealed from the order setting aside the sale. It does not appear whether th...
Rudra Narayan Jana Vs. Naba Kumar Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.156
Teunon, J.1. In this appeal it appears that on a previous application to this Court by the judgment-debtor-appellant it was directed by an order, dated 19th December 1916, that on the decree holder furnishing security to the extent of Rs. 50,000 in immoveable property the decree-holder should be at liberty to proceed with execution.2. The present appeal by the judgment-debtor is directed against an order accepting the proffered security and directing delivery of possession to the decree-holder of the property forming the subject-matter of the decree. A preliminary objection is taken that against this order no appeal lies and in support of this contention we have been referred to the cases reported as Saraswati Barmonya v. Moti Barmonya 20 Ind. Cas. 72 : 41 C. 160 : 17 C.W.N. 1240; Srinivas Prosad Singh v. Kesho Prosad Singh 12 Ind. Cas. 745 : 14 C.L.J. 489 and to the decision of this Court in Appeal from Order No. 5 of 1916. But these cases in fact show that though against the interloc...
Pran Krishna Bhaduri Vs. Keshab Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1055,45Ind.Cas.604
Richardson, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Hooghly made under Section 4 of the Partition Act (IV of 1893) in the course of a suit for partition, Under Section 8 of the Act such an order must be deemed to be a decree within the meaning of Section 2, Code of Civil Procedure, so that an appeal lies therefrom to this Court, The property in question is a small property about 15 cottahs in area. There are some buildings upon it and a part of the area is occupied by a tank. The property was originally joint property belonging to three brothers. On the 9th October 1911 one of the three brothers (defendant No. 1 in the suit) sold his one-third share to the plaintiff, a stranger to the family. The suit for partition was instituted by the plaintiff on the 27th February 1913 and the preliminary decree was made on the 20th November 1913. Then a Commissioner was appointed, who made a plan and carried out a division of the property which was subsequently adop...
The Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Sreemati Hemangini Dassi Widow of Broj ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.413
1. In this case the petitioner is the Chairman of the Calcutta Corporation. He sued in the Small Cause Court at Sealdah to recover the sum of Rs. 325, being the cost of certain work done by him upon premises No. 45, Karaya Bazar Road, under the provisions of Section 597 (2) of the Calcutta Municipal Act. The defendants in the suit were the two co-owners who hold, it appears, equal undivided shares in the property in question. One of those did not appear. The second appeared and pleaded that there had been no service upon her of the notice issued under the provisions of Section 299 of the Act. The learned Small Cause Court Judge gave effect to this contention and dismissed the suit as against her and decreed the suit against defendant No. 1, upon whom notice had been admittedly served, to the extent of half the claim. Thereupon at the instance of the Chairman of the Corporation this Rule was issued upon both the defendants calling upon them to show cause why the claim of the plaintiff, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »