Kolkata Court June 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.
Rai Chowdhury Satish Chandra Mustafi and anr. Vs. Abdul Majid Mahamad ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.780
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned Special Judge of Jalpaiguri, dated the 20th November 1916, ' affirming the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer of the same place. The only question is whether the learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below was right in holding that the landlords had not rebutted the presumption arising under Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The tenants have proved that their rent has been unchanged for over 50 years, and' the learned Judge remarks that it is exceedingly improbable in that view that the tenancy was originally a temporary one. 'What is relied on is this, that the word Sarasari appears in some rent receipts. The learned Judge states that the mere statement in some rent receipts that the holding is sarasari would not be, in his opinion, sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The learned Judge, in my opinion, was clearly entitled to come to tha...
Chandra Nath Mukerjee Minor by His Guardian, Sahib Krishna Roy Choudhu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.803
1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Burdwan and the East Indian Railway Company to show cause why the order of the District Magistrate directing the petitioner to remove an obstruction to a certain culvert should not be set aside. The order in question was passed under `Section 144,.Criminal Procedure Code, and a preliminary objection has been taken that as more than two months have expired since the order was passed, the order has spent itself and that this Court cannot now interfere.2. Our attention, however, has been drawn On behalf of the petitioner to the decision of this Court in the case of Chandra Kanta Kunjilal v. Emperor 36 Ind. Cas. 144 : 20 C.W.N. 981 : 17 Cr.L.J. 464 case an order under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, which had expired was set aside. The only difference, which we can see, so far as the present point is concerned, between that case and the present one is that in that case the petitioner had been prosecuted under Section 188 befor...
Hara Kumar Saha and anr. Vs. Ram Chandra Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal960,47Ind.Cas.943
Charles Chitty, J.I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which is about to be delivered by my learned brother and I agree that the appeal must fail. It may now be taken to be settled, so far as this Court is concerned, that mere forbearance to see is not sufficient proof of waiver on the part of he plaintiff. In this case the plaintiffs feeling that difficulty set up another case that in 1312, when default was first made, they had arranged with the defendants not to insist in the future on the clause in the bond, which provided that on failure of two instalments the whole amount would become due. To this contention there are two objections. The first is one of fact that no such arrangement was pleaded nor was it found by the Courts to have been actually made. What did take place was that in 1312 there was a default and a waiver of the plaintiffs' rights in respect of that default, with the result that further instalments were paid, the last instalment being that for Baisakh 1...
HafizuddIn Khan Vs. Mahammed Elim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.606
1. We are unable to accept this reference. We cannot agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the fact that there has been a conviction in one rioting case on a plea of guilty, is legally any bar to a conviction in a cross-case of rioting in connection with the same occurrence. The conviction on a plea of guilty did not amount to a finding by the Court that the accused who so pleaded, were not in exclusive possession of the land in dispute, nor was there any reason why the Magistrate who tried the subsequent case, should not convict the accused in the second case if he was satisfied on the evidence that they did commit the offence of rioting. The plea of guilty in the previous case was really no more than an admission and not a conclusive proof that that party was without possession. It was open to them to explain the circumstances under which they made that plea and if the Magistrate was satisfied with that explanation he was justified in ignoring that admission.2. Let th...
Edon Mollah and ors. Vs. Sheikh Badan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.859
1. This is an appeal arising out of a suit for khas possession brought by Sheikh Badan against the defendants, Edon Molla, Madan Molla, Mobarek Molla and Naban Molla. The question before the Court is whether the plaintiff or the defendants have the better title to the lands in suit. It is admitted that the proprietor of the land was one Sridhar Chatterjee. It is proved that in 1906 Sridhar Chatterjee gave a Miras lease to Sarat Kumar Mazumdar and Sasi Kumar Mazumdar. The defendants, in their written statement, pleaded that the Mazumdars were merely benamdars of Sridhar Chatterjee, but no issue was raised upon that point nor has it been decided by the lower Appellate Court. The Munsif found that there was not sufficient proof of benami. On 3rd Bysakh 1315 defendant No. 1 executed a kabuliyat in favour of Sarat Kumar Mazumdar for the lands in suit. On 22nd Bhadra 1315 one Kader executed a kabuliyat (Exhibit 3) in favour of Sarat Kumar Mazumdar and Sasi Kumar Mazumdar for certain other la...
Nandan Das Mahapatra Vs. Gajendra NaraIn Das Mahapatra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.650
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 3 against the decision of the learned Additional District Judge of Midnapore, dated the 7th June 1916, affirming the decision ' of the Officiating Subordinate Judge of the same place. The suit was brought for possession of a portion of a Khal on declaration of title. Three points have been raised in this appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge. The first point raised is as regards limitation. It is said that the learned Judge for the finding he arrived at on the question of limitation relied on evidence which was inadmissible under the terms of the Indian Evidence Act. There are two answers to that. The first answer is that the learned Judge was invited by the parties to give his decision on the evidence on the record and, in the grounds of appeal, no question was raised with reference to the two documents objected to. The learned Judge might not unreasonably suppose that no grounds of appeal having been...
Sukhu Kalwar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.657
1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 54(a) of the Calcutta Police Act, which provides that a person in possession of anything which there is reason to believe to have been stolen or fraudulently obtained shall be liable to punishment, if he fails to account for such possession. The preliminary condition which must be fulfilled before effect can be given to this section is that there must be reason to believe that the property found in the accused's possession was stolen property, The reasons given by the Magistrate for coming to this belief in the present case are stated in his judgment as follows:-- 'First, that this silver bar was found along with other articles alleged to have been stolen and claimed by a certain per-son, about which there was already a case under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, against the accused; secondly, that the accused was asked to produce the key of the box in which these articles were but he did not, and the box had to be broken open by the Po...
Chandra Moyi Chowdhurani Vs. Mr. C.B. Gregson and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.465
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned District Judge of Rajshabye, dated the 7th September 1916, affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge of the same place. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover possession of certain property on the ground that she had acquired it; alternatively, she prayed for a decree on the footing that she was the mortgagee of the property. The main point in the appeal turns on this: Is the plaintiff the mortgagee under the document or is she a purchaser? The document is called by the parties as kot kobala and the plaintiff states that she got this kot kobala executed to the following effect: The transfer, the ostensible sale in this kot kobala, was subject to the condition that, on payment being made within the month of Pous next, the sale should become void and that if, on the other hand, there was a failure to pay the money within the said time, the mortgagee should be entitled to bring the properties me...
Fazarali Mahaldar and ors. Vs. Poroo Mian and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.300
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs arising out of a suit brought to recover a plot of land measuring 1 bigha 14 cottahs. Plaintiffs were the landlords and they purchased the land in execution of a rent decree obtained by them against their tenant Bandia Bewa. It is said that Bandia Bewa had sold 5 cottahs of the land to defendant No. 2. The question is whether that creates an incumbrance which the purchasers would have to annul. ' The learned Subordinate Judge relied upon the case of Chundra Sakai v. Kalli Prosanno Chuckerbutty 23 C. 254 : 12 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 176 and held that it was an incumbrance. He also referred to the case of Jogeshwar Mozumdar v. Abed Mahomed Sirkar 3 C.W.N. 13. Those cases, however, have been distinguished in more recent cases. In Tmizuddin Khan v. Khoda Nawaz Khan 5 Ind. Cas. 116 : 11 C.L.J. 16 : 14 C.W.N. 229 the case last cited was distinguished and it was held that an incumbrance must imply a limitation of the rights of the tenant and not a total extinct...
AftabuddIn Vs. Prokash Chunder Soot and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.118
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 4 against the decision of the learned Additional District Judge of Comilla, dated the 23rd June 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of his share of the property mentioned in the plaint. His case was that his elder brother, while he was a minor, had made away with the property without any legal necessity. The defendant No.4 is the purchaser of the property in question. The first Court dismissed the suit. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has decreed it. He has found, first of all, that the evidence on the record does not establish a case of legal necessity and, secondly, that the so-called transfer by the elder brother was made when the said brother did not purport to act as the guardian of his minor brother and that it was not established that the elder brother was, in fact, the guardian, but that he was the manager of a joint Hindu family and apparently...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »