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.
Emperor Vs. Kabili Katoni
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.811
1.The accused Kabili Katoni has been found guilty by the unanimous verdict of the Jury of the murder of one Mangal Singh and has been sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge of the Assam Valley District. The case has come before us under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and there is also an appeal by the accused to this Court.2. It was argued that there had been such a misdirection by the learned Sessions Judge as vitiated the verdict of the Jury and that the accused was entitled to a new trial. The passage relied upon was that where the learned Judge was dealing with the burden which lay upon either side to prove such facts as they asserted. In this case' (he said) 'it is for Kabili to satisfy the Jury that he was ill treated by the Police or that inducements were offered,' On 12th September 1917, Kabili had made a detailed confession before a Magistrate. To that confession he adhered, with some slight differences and additions, before the Commit-ting Magistrate on 27th Se...
Prasanna Deb Raikat Vs. Darpa Narayan Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal458(1),44Ind.Cas.145
1. This is an appeal from two orders of the Subordinate Judge of Darjeeling both dated the 18th May 1917. It appears that the suit in which these orders were made was instituted by the plaintiff, the appellant before us, on the 23rd April 1917, to eject the defendants from certain lands on the footing that having been tenants under the plaintiff their tenancy had been determined by a notice to quit. On the 18th May 1917 the defendants filed written statements by which they confessed judgment. It further appears that the same defendants were the mortgagor defendants in a suit previously instituted by the mortgagee on his mortgage in 1916. In that suit the question arose whether a Receiver of the property should be appointed, a question which was decided in the affirmative. In the present suit, an application was made on behalf of the Receiver on the 21st May 1917, that he should be added as a party defendant. Meanwhile on the 18th May 1917, the day on which the written statement was fil...
Hazra Sardar and ors. Vs. Kunja Behari Nag Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal525,44Ind.Cas.161
Fletcher, J.1. This is a Rule obtained by the defendants calling on the opposite party, the plaintiff, to show cause why the judgment of this Court should not be re-viewed 'as regards the cross-objection.' By those words, when I issued the Rule, I meant on ground No. 9 specified in the application for review preferred to this Court. The case is a peculiar one. The present petitioners, the defendants, appealed to this Court against the preliminary decree granted by the Court of the District Judge of' the Twenty-four Perganahs. The appeal was argued by an experienced and learned Vakil and it was argued before the Court, it is not denied, as if it was a competent appeal which the Court was entitled to entertain. The Court was occupied, we are informed, for two days in Hearing the appeal and, after this, not a small portion of the Court's time, the petitioners' appeal failed. In that appeal the opposite party, the plaintiff, had preferred cross-objections and on hearing those cross-objecti...
Sarada Charan Basar and ors. Vs. Juro Ram Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.473
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of a decree for rent made under the provisions of Section 66 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The order for ejectment could, therefore, not be carried into effect until after the expiry of the 15 days allowed for payment by the second subsection of the section which we have cited. The decree was made on the 24th May. The order was drawn up and signed on the 31st May. The arrears should, therefore, have been paid on or before the 15th June. As a matter of fact the amount was not so paid into Court, and on the 5th August the decree-holder applied for execution. Notice was issued upon the judgment-debtor, and on the 7th September he appeared and applied for extension of time, it being his case that he had no notice of the decree and that no notice of the application in execution was served upon him. The first Court found no reason to extend the time and accordingly rejected his application. Against that order the tenant judgment-debtor prefe...
Sheikh Jahadali and ors. Vs. Srimati Ajimannessa Bibi and Sheikh Rajab ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.18
Richardson, J.1. This appeal turns upon a short point. The contest relates to certain property. The plaintiff in the suit Srimati Ajimannessa Bibi makes a title to the properly under a hiba-bil-ewaz dated the 28th Chaitra 1316 B.S. (April 1910) executed in her favour by her deceased husband Kebad Ali. The principal defendant, defendant No. 3, on the other hand claims to have purchased the property in the year 1901 at a Court sale held in execution of a decree obtained against' Kebad Ali. One of the questions which arose was, whether the property claimed by the plaintiff was identical with the lands specified in the sale-certificate issued to defendant No. 3. On this point the learned Munsif in the Trial Court makes the following statement in the course of his judgment: 'The learned Pleader for the plaintiff concedes in his argument that the land in suit is included in the' lands mentioned in the sale-certificate.' Now the learned Munsif is plainly speaking of an admission made by the p...
Manjanali Debi Vs. Kailash Nath Mitra, on His Death His Heir and Legal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal523(2),44Ind.Cas.24
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the original plaintiff (the appellant before us) for enhancement of rent of a certain holding. It appears that the tenancy was created by a pattah marked Exhibit A. According to that pattah it would seem that rent was fixed for the whole area within the boundaries specified, though that area may have been estimated at 40 bighas. If that is so, the plaintiff is not entitled to additional rent on account of excess area merely because the area within the boundaries is proved to be more or considerably more than 40 bighas. The question whether any land in respect of which additional rent is claimed lies outside the boundaries specified in the patth has apparently not been considered in the Courts below. If any part of the lands is outside the boundaries, the judgment leaves it open to the plaintiff in any future proceedings he may be advised to take to claim additional rent in respect thereof. With these observations the appeal is dismissed wi...
Baranashibasi Mukerjee and ors. Vs. Hari Krishna Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal523(1),44Ind.Cas.32
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover arrears of road cess in respect of certain rent free land held by the defendants within the plaintiffs' tenure. The defendants are the appellants. The only point with which we are now concerned is the plea taken by the defendants that the notice required by Section 54 of the Cess Act (Bengal Act IX of 1880) has not been published by the plaintiffs. In the Court of Appeal below the learned Subordinate Judge has found that as a matter of fact the notice in question has not been published. He has, however, come to the conclusion that the defendants are concluded on the ground of res judicata by the decree made in Suit No. 370 of 1908, which was also a suit for arrears of road cess between the same parties. In that suit, however, cesses were recovered in respect of the period from 1311 to 1314. Now the present claim is made under a re-valuation, which the learned Subordinate Judge says took place in the year 1907. It is difficult, therefore, t...
Purna Chandra Halder and ors. Vs. Kunja Behari Halder and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1030,46Ind.Cas.477
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This matter comes up before us on appeal and upon an application for revision under Section 115 of the Code under the following circumstances.2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for partition of certain moveable and immoveable properties on establishment of their right thereto. On the objection of the defendants, various issues were framed. The case was then referred to the arbitration of several persons on the 24th January 1916. That arbitration, however, fell through and on the 13th May 1916 on the joint application of the parties the suit was again referred to the arbitration of one Gopal Chandra Das, who was to decide all the issues in the case and to submit his award on or before the date fixed, that is, 8th June 1916. The time for submission of the award was extended from time to time. It appears from the order of the 8th July 1916 that the arbitrator did not submit his award nor apply for time. On the 11th July, however, the arbitrator applied for one week'...
Emperor Vs. Rajendra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.64
1. This case comes before us on a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Hooghly under Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code. On 23rd July 1917 the accused Rajendra Roy was committed for trial in the Court of Session on three charges of criminal misappropriation committed on different dates in the year 1915. In the Sessions Court on 1st October 1917, an additional charge was added of an offence under Section 210, Indian Penal Code, in respect of a sum which was connected with the first of the three charges of criminal misappropriation. At the trial the Jury disagreed, a majority of three being in favour of an acquittal. Disagreeing with that majority and thinking their verdict to be perverse, the Additional Sessions Judge has referred the matter to this Court. On reading the letter of reference it appears to us that there was in this case a misjoinder of charges. In that view, it is unnecessary to go into the merits of the case, as the only fair course will be to direct a retrial...
Emperor Vs. Asimoddi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.841
1. This is a somewhat peouliar case. Three persons Naimoddi, Asimoddi and Musti were placed upon their trial before the Sessions Judge of Dacca and a Jury on charges under Sections 465, 467 and 193, Indian Penal Code. The offence alleged against the accused was that, by personating Mir Baksha, the husband of one Sabjan and brother-in-law of the accused Naimmuddi before the Muhammadan Marriage Begistrar in Dacca, they had induced the Registrar to make an entry of the divorce of Sabjan by her husband Mir Baksha, to which entry they had affixed their thumb impressions and thereby made a false docnment within the meaning of Sections 463 and 464, Indian Penal Code. At the trial it appeared that the accused Mnsti, who was said to have been present in the Registrar's office, bad taken no active part in the proceeding, and he was accordingly acquitted by the Jury. Nothing more turns upon his share in the case. As to the othpr accused, in the case of Asimoddi, the Jury, by a majority of 3 to 2,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »