Kolkata Court December 1920 Judgments
Charu Chandra Mazumdar Vs. Chairman of the Municipality of Faridpur an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal782
Syed Shamsul Huda, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for declaration that he was a qualified voter under Section 15 of the Bengal Municipal Act and that the Chairman's conduct in removing his name from the voter's register was illegal and Without jurisdiction. There was also a prayer for an injunction. The First Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff and declared that the plaintiff was a qualified voter under Section 15 of the Bengal Municipal Act and was entitled to have his name entered in the register of voters but refused to declare that the whole election of the Municipal Commissioners was void and also dismissed the rest of the plaintiff's suit. There was an appeal by tie plaintiff and a cross-appeal by the defendant Chairman with the result that the who e suit was dismissed. The learned Vakil for the plaintiff-appellant argues that the plaintiff had established his right as a voter by showing that he was qualified to vote under Section 15 o...
Tag this Judgment!Rajani Kanta Roy Vs. Anadi Kinkar Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.711
1. This appeal arises out of certain execution proceedings taken in execution of a decree for arrears of rent. The decree holder seeks to realize the decretal amount by bringing to sale the homestead and two tanks belonging to the judgment-debtors. The judgment debtors contend that they must first proceed against the land in arrears. They base this contention upon the contents of a pattah, Exhibit 1. The decree has, however, been placed before us and we find that the terms of this pattah have not been embodied therein. The decree as it stands places no restriction on the right of the decree-holder to execute the decree in the manner in which any such decree may be executed.2. We, therefore, decree this appeal with costs in this Court and in both the Courts below and direst that the record be returned in order that the lower Court may proceed with the execution in the manner provided by law. We assess the hearing fee in this Court at one gold mohur, in the Court of the District Judge at...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Kumar Nag and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal625,61Ind.Cas.233
Beachcroft, J.1. The two petitioners before us have been ordered in a joint trial, by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Jamalpur, to give security for their good behaviour for one year on the finding that they were by habit thieves and burglars. The order was upheld on appeal by the District Magistrate. The matter came before this Court, when a re hearing of the appeal was directed, mainly on the grounds, that the Magistrate had not properly considered the question whether a joint trial of the petitioners was legal, and that he had improperly relied on the keeping of history sheets by the Police and on the fact that the Superintendent of Police had concluded that the case was not the result of party faction.2. The appeal was re-heard and the order of the Sub-Divisional officer upheld, with the result that the petitioners again came to this Court and obtained the present Rule on points which, in substance, amount to two, viz., that there was no legal evidence to establish association which ...
Tag this Judgment!Khetra Mohan Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal38,66Ind.Cas.662
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this referenda the material facts, which it is necessary for me to state for the purpose of my judgment, are set out at the beginning of the reference, and they are follows. On the 8th April 1919 the Munsif of Habigunj granted sanction under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code to Abbas Ali, the complainant, to prosecute the petitioner, Khetra Mohan Das, for offences under Sections 181 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution was not instituted till the 2nd January 1920, that is, after the expiry of the period of six months mentioned in Section 195 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code. As no order had been obtained from this Court to extend the time, the sanction must be deemed to have lapsed before that date. No objection, however, wag taken on behalf of the accused who pleaded guilty, and who was convicted under Section 181 of the Indian Penal code, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!CherakuddIn Vs. Ram Siraman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal235,62Ind.Cas.432
Walmsley, J.1. The plaintiff, who is now the appellant, brought his suit in the first instance in the Court of Small Causes. The Judge of that Court returned the plaint to him, on the ground that the suit was of a nature which was not triable by the Small Cause Court. The plaintiff then -went to the Civil Court and after trial the Munsif gave him a decree. The defendants then preferred an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge on appeal has held that the case was triable by the Small Cause Court and, therefore, could not be triad by the Civil Court. the result is that the plaintiff has been told by both Courts that it is the other Court that has jurisdiction to try his suit. Ho has now preferred this appeal against the Judge's order directing him to go to the Small Cause Court.2. On the question whether the suit was of such a nature that it could be tried by the Court of Small Causes, I think the learned Judge in the Court of Appeal was wrong, The acts alleged in the plaint s...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Jogendra Kishore Roy Chowdhury Vs. Sheikh NasimuddIn Sardar and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.623
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. The plaintiff's suit was brought against two defendants, claiming a certain sum jointly, from both as rent of the holding described in the plaint. The defence was that the jama covered more land than was included in the plaint and that there was a division of rent with the consent of the plaintiff between the two tenants, whereby the defendant No. 1 paid separately the rent for the land in his possession and defendant No. 2 in the same way paid rent separately for the land in his possession.2. The first Court came to the conclusion that the division of the holding between the two defendants with the consent of the landlord had not been proved. The Court was also of opinion that the holding covered more lands than were included in the plaint. In the result the first Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for a proportionate amount of the rent payable ...
Tag this Judgment!Narhndrala Lal Khan Vs. Tarubala Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal67,66Ind.Cas.209
1. This is an application by an Attorney under Rule 59, Chapter XXXVIII of the High Court Rules, for an order against his client for payment of the sums amounting to Rs. 531-14 0 allowed on taxation of four bills of costs in respect of non-contentions badness. It appears that the Attorney also anted for the client in several other proceedings, being certain execution oases in one of which a considerable sum of money was recovered by the Attorney and war pat into his hand on behalf of his client, Differences of opinion arose between the parties as to whether the particular or active lien of a Solicitor in respect of the sum of money 53 relieved was available for his costs in all or in only one of the execution matters, bat by an order obtained from Mr. Justice Buckland the Attorney has succeeded in having it declared that his particular or active lien extends to all these contentions proceedings,2. The main difficulty now is due to the fact that before the money in question was recieved...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Akub Ali and anr. Vs. Askar Ali Bepari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.305
Syed Shamsul Huda, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court, and this appeal arises out of a suit brought by them for possession of some plots of land on declaration of their title. In this appeal I am only concerned with plot No. 1 of the plaint. That plot is described in the plaint by boundaries and also by dag No. 21 of the Settlement khatian. When the suit was still pending in the first Court, an application was made by the plaintiffs to amend the plaint by adding dag No. 186 also in the disruption, on the ground that the boundaries given in the plaint which included the tank in suit and its banks were not identical with dag No. 21 only but included besides dag No. 21 lands of dag No. 186 also. This application was rejected as being too late. Subsequently the plaintiffs applied for amendment of the plaint by deletion of the dag number altogether and asked for a decree on the basis of the boundaries only. The learned, Munsif allowed the amendment of the plaint in tha...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Kahar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.61
Beachcroft, J.1. The petitioner before us was charged under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, for having instituted criminal proceeding, knowing them to be false, against one Bonomali, and was convicted by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months. He obtained this Rule from this Court against the Chief Presidency Magistrate, sailing upon him to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on him should not be set aside. It appears that he gave information on 14th December 1919, the effect of which was that there had been thefts in the houses of an Agarwala of Upper Chitpur Road and of a Marwari living in Atarwala, and that the properties stolen in these thefts might be found at the house of Bonomali at 17, Protap Ghose Lane, or at that of his mistress, at No. 7, Kaileshwar Lane. He also stated that one Mahboob was the thief. The Police made an enquiry and, in consequence of certain statements made by one Ram Charan, they got him also t...
Tag this Judgment!Batiram Keot Vs. Bhandaram Keot
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.652
1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 498, Indian Penal Code, for having entitled away the wife of the complainant. Four points have been taken before us, one of which has reference to sentence. The only two to which it is necessary to refer are, that there is no proof of the marriage, and that there is no proof that the petitioner knew or had reason to believe the woman to be the wife of the complainant. As regards the proof of the marriage, we find there are statements which, if believed, would be sufficient to prove the marriage because two witnesses speak of the giving of the woman in marriage; but, as regards the accused's knowledge that the woman was a married woman, there is no evidence on the record to justify that finding. The learned Judge says that it must be presumed that the accused, when he proposed to marry the woman, must have made enquiries about her and come to know that she was a married woman. We are not prepared to accept this view of the learned Judge. The...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »