Kolkata Court July 1920 Judgments
Mukbul Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.133
1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted under Section 9, Clause (c), of the Opium Act, 1878, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs. 100.2. The petitioner is a boatman who plies Shampan in the river Karnafully in Chitta-gong. On the date of occurrence he plied his boat and took over one Abdul Rashid, a resident of Halishahar, who is a Lascar of the steamship Minhla to the said steamer which was to start the next morning for Rangoon at 9 A.M. The Excise Officers, who had received information that opium would be smuggled by the crew of the steamer, kept watch and at 2 o'clook in the night, the boat which was plied by the petitioner was seized by them. Thereupon, Abdul Rashid threw out a bundle into the khal, which was subsequently recovered and found to contain 4 seers of opium. Both Abdul Rashid and the petitioner were tried under Section 9, Clause (c), of the Opium Act. The former was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine o...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Lal Dhar Administrator to the Estate of the Late Mohendra Nath ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.791
1. The question for consideration in this case is, whether the Criminal Court can take cognizance of an alleged offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against an Administrator appointed under the Probate Act, without the sanction of the Civil Court, when such Administrator he submitted his accounts to the Court,2. It appears that the petitioner was appointed Administrator to the estate of his deceased brother by the High Court in its original jurisdiction on the 30th August 1905, the administration being limited until either of the two minor sons of the deceased, on attaining majority, would apply for a grant of Letters of Administration to himself, The elder minor attained his majority in 1913 and upon his application the High Court in its testamentary and antedate jurisdiction, ordered the petitioner to file an inventory and account of the estate and effects of the deceased. Subsequently, on his failure to comply the petitioner was arrested by an order of the High Court i...
Tag this Judgment!Karim Sheikh and ors. Vs. Afajuddi Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal330,64Ind.Cas.805
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title. The subject-matter of the litigation is a chur thrown up in the river Pasar in the District of Khulna. The case for the plaintiff was that he had obtained settlement from the superior landlord and had been wrongfully dispossessed by the defendants, The defendants pleaded that they had a good title by accretion. The Courts below have decreed the suit and overruled the defence on the ground that although when the chur began to form, the defendants had a right by accretion, they lost it, because they never claimed it, and allowed the plaintiff to occupy the land. In our opinion, this view is erroneous in law and the decree made by the District Judge cannot be supported.2. Section 4 of Regulation XI of 1825 shows that when land is gained by gradual accession, whether from the recess of a river or of the sea, it forthwith becomes an increment t...
Tag this Judgment!Balaram Guria and on His Death His Heir and Legal Representative Sanka ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.298
Asutosh Mookerjee, Actg. C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title. The land belonged to one Bhagirath Majhi, who left four sons, Gangadhar, Baikuntha, Lakhan and Jharu, Baikuntha and Jharu left the ancestral home and went to reside in a different village. The plaintiffs claim title by purchase from the representatives of Baikuntha and Jharu. The defendant' claim title by purchase from the representatives of the other two brothers. The substantial question in controversy between the parties is, whether the title of Baikuntha and Jharu was extinguished by adverse possession on behalf of their brothers. The Court of first instance found that adverse possession had not been established, and decreed the suit. The Subordinate Judge has taken a different view, and has dismissed the suit. The Subordinate Judge has found that Baikuntha and Jharu removed to another village; that the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs ...
Tag this Judgment!Haripada Ghose and ors. Vs. Nirod Krishna Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal383,61Ind.Cas.687
1. This an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recover of possession of land on declaration of title. The subject matter of the litigation was held by the plaintiffs as tenants under the principal defendants. In 1911 two of the plaintiff who were at the time infants, represented by their mother as guardian-ad-litem, brought a suit for recovery of arrears of rent against the tenant in actual occupation of the land The tenant pleaded that the superior and lords of the plaintiffs, that is, the present principal defendants, had collected rent from him. Thereupon the superior lands I made parties to the rent suit. A compromise was subsequently made between the tenant-defendant and the superior land lords defendants. The result of the compromise was that the land for which the plaintiffs had claimed rent, was surrendered by them to their superior landlords who gave them other lands in exchange. The exchange was accomplished in fast, the plaintiffs took possession of the lands given to the...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Chandra Dutta Vs. Girindra Chandra Chaudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal403,60Ind.Cas.797
1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the proceedings against the petiticnee should not be quashed, or why a farther inquiry should not be made into the petition of compromise.2. It appears that the opposite party, who is a Pleader of the Thakurgaon Munsif Court in the Dinajpur District, brought a case for defamation against the petitioner, who is a Muktear's clerk. The parties, however, came to an amicable settlement and a petition of compromise was filed in the case in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate before whom the case was pending. The petitioner denied that he had defamed the opposite party and said that, if any such defamatory words had reached the ears of the opposite party, the same were absolutely false, that the petitioner was sorry for it and tendered his sincere apology to the opposite party, The opposite party stated in the same petition that the accused having admitted that the defamatory words that he h...
Tag this Judgment!Sadat Ali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.826
1. The case must go bask for re-hearing of the appeal.2. The case was one under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code. Fifty-four witnesses were examined for the procreation and 56 for the defense. The learned Magistrate no doubt says that 'the Sub-Divisional Officer was right in his conclusion that all the four accused had the reputation of being burglars and thieves.' In an earlier passage the learned Magistrate referred to the finding of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and observed: 'He believed in the evidence of about 20 witnesses for prosecution and found that it was not balanced and far less outweighed by the defence evidence.'3. The question, however, was not whether the evidence for the defense outweighed the evidence for the prosecution but whether the evidence for the prosecution was sufficient to establish the case against the petitioner and we think that the learned Magistrate ought to have some to a more definite finding.4. The case is, therefore, sent bask to the learned Di...
Tag this Judgment!Shew Khelaon Ram Kalwar Vs. Nayan Bepari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.431
1. This is a Rule calling upon the Deputy Commissioner of Lakhimpore and the opposite party to show cause why the order dropping proceedings under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, should not be set aside and the case proceeded with according to law.2. The opposite party has appeared to show cause.3. The petitioner before as complained against the opposite party that a hide godown belonging to him was causing a great nuisance in the locality and prayed that it might be directed to be removed. The learned Magistrate thereupon made a conditional order under Section 133. The opposite party was served with notice to show cause and he showed cause. Thereupon the Deputy Commissioner directed the Assistant Commissioner to make an inquiry at his own convenience and report. On receiving the report of the latter, the Deputy Commissioner made the following order: 'Read the Assistant Commissioner's report. This shows that there is no ground for an order under Section 133, Criminal procedure Co...
Tag this Judgment!Nepal Bagdi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.671
1. This is raferenoe by the learned Sessions Judge of Burdwan recommending that the conviction of the accused under Section 457 read with Section 380,Indian Penal Code, and the sentence of rigorons imprisonment for three months passed upon him be set aside on the ground that he was not allowed to summon witnesses for the prosecution to cross-examine them.2. It appears that the witnesses for the prosecution were not cross-examined before the petitioner was called upon to enter upon his defense; he was tried summarily. But in trials under Chapter XXII, the procedure prescribed for warrant liases shall be followed in warrant cases. This was a warrant case. The accused, therefore, waa entitled to have process issued for compelling the attendance of witnesses for the prosecution for cross-examination and he applied accordingly to the trying Magistrate. The application was refused and the accused convicted and went (sic.) stated above.3. The conviction and sentence passed upon him are accord...
Tag this Judgment!Mrigendra Nath Saha and ors. Vs. Krishna Chandra Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal355,61Ind.Cas.201
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for ejectment. In 1915 the plaintiffs sued the defendants for arrears of rent for the years 1319 and 1320 on the allegation that they were their tenants. The Trial contract held that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established, and decreed the suit. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge reversed that decision, as he came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant. This judgment was pronounced on the 31st August 1915. On the 23rd September 1916 the plaintiff instituted the present suit to eject the defendants, on the basis of the decision in the previous suit that the defendants were not their tenants. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit, although he has held that the title of the plaintiffs had been established. We are of opinion that the decree made by the Subordinate Judge can...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »