Kolkata Court January 1921 Judgments
Suraj Mull Agarwalla Vs. Emperor on the Complaint of the Assam Railway ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.517
1. This rule directed against an order made or purporting to be made under the provisions of Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code. The order was made by the Deputy Commissioner of Lakhimpur, on the 16th October of last year and was made at the instance of the Administration of a Railway, known as the Debru Sadiya Railway. It appears that at a station, known as Tin Sukhia, the Down Home Signal and the Down Outer Signal are plated on a curve in the Railway line and within this bend or curve has been built by the petitioner before us a masonry building which, by reason of the bend or curve, obstructs the view of the Home Signal from the Distant Signal. The order complained of by the petitioner directs him to remove this building in so far as it so obstructs the view of the one Signal from the other.2. It has been found on evidence, and has not been disputed before us, that the building in question which wag completed some time in March last year is built on land which has been in the poss...
Tag this Judgment!Jnanendra Nath Singha Roy and ors. Vs. Srimati Bhuboneswari Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal350,63Ind.Cas.1004
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. These appeals are directed against a decree in a suit instituted by a darpatnidar against a sepatnidar for recovery of arrears of rant for the years 1322, 1323 and 1324. The defendants urged that they were entitled to a deduction of Rs. 1,989 5-6, desposited by them in Court on the 15th June 1915 in order to satisfy a decree for arrears of rent obtained by the patnidar against the darpatnidar. The Subordinate Judge has given effect to this contention and has decreed the suit in part. The defendants have appealed on the ground that they should have been allowed interest on the sum deposited by them at the rata of 12 per cent. per annum as provided in Clause (a) of Sub-section 1 of Section 171 of tin Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff has appealed on the ground that the Subordinate Judge should not have allowed the deduction claimed unless it was established that when the desposit was made, the sepatnidar was himself not in arrears. In our opinion the contention of...
Tag this Judgment!Mohendra Bhumij and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal347,66Ind.Cas.69
Beecrcroft, J.1. The petitioners before us were directed to give security for their good beheaviour under Section 118, Criminal Procedure Code, by Mr. Mannooch, the Additional District Magistrate of Midnapore. Mr. Mannooch had been duly appointed, under Section 10 (2), Criminal Procedure Code, to be Additional District Magistrate with all the powers of a District Magistrate under the Code. The petitioners appealed to the District Magistrate who refused to hear the appeals on the ground that they lay to the Sessions Judge. The petitioners then obtained the present rule calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why he should not hear the appeals.2. There is no question that the District Magistrate was mistaken in saying that an appeal lay to the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge, of course, has no appellate powers in the case of a person ordered to give security for good behaviour. The only appellate authority is the District Magistrate. The question is, whether Section 403, Crim...
Tag this Judgment!Biseswar Roy Chowdhury and on His Death, His Legal Representative Raje ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal424,62Ind.Cas.49
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for enhancement of rent of an osta-nim-howla.2. It appears that the defendant, who is the talukdar, granted a howla lease in respect of the disputed land in favour of one Kalam Mridha at a rent of Rs. 232 annas 8 on the 10th Sraban 1299 B.S. This howla interest was purchased in 1300 by the plaintiff and he thus became howladar under the defendant who is the talukdar. Simultaneously with the sale by Kalam Mridha of the howla interest to the plaintiff, an osat nim howla was granted by the plaintiff to Kalam Mridha at a rent of Rs. 272 annas 8. This osat nim-howla interest was transferred by Kalam to defendant and it is said that on the same day the defendant granted a mirash ijara in favour of Kalam at a rent of Rs. 275 annas 8. This was on the 20th Chaitra 1302. In 1897, the defendant as talukdar brought a suit for enhancement of rent of the howla against the plaintiff and the rent was enhanced from Rs. 232 annas 8 to Rs. 482 annas 6. The plaintiff ha...
Tag this Judgment!Sukumar Chatterjee Vs. MufizuddIn Ahmed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal561,61Ind.Cas.839
Beachcroft, J.1. On the 14th September a Sub-inspector of the Calcutta Police presented a written charge to the Second Presidency Magistrate charging eight persona with offenses under Sections 404 and 404/120B, Indian Penal Code. The complaint was in these terms: 'All the accused persons are charged with dishonestly misappropriating in converting to their own use on or about the 28th and 29th August 1920 at Jorabagan gold and silver ornaments, viz., gold leoklaces, gold churies, gold makris, gold mals and silver ret, silver mats, etc., and cash money, etc, totaling to the value of about Rs. 3,000, knowing that such properties were in the possession of deceased Bhairabi Dassi of 72/2, Nimtolla Ghat Street at the time of her decrease and have not time been in the possession of any person legally entitled to such possession. Section 404 Indian Penal Code. All the accused are further charged with the offence of criminal conspiracy on or about the aforesaid time and plane for committing the...
Tag this Judgment!Joy NaraIn Gole Vs. Mangobinda Bera
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.210
1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a mortgage bond. What was secured was 8 bishes of paddy. The Courts below held that the period of limitation applicable in such a case is six years. That view, in face of the Full Bench decision in Ram Chand Sur v. Iswar Chandra Giri 61 Ind. Cas. 539 : 32 C.L.J. 278 : 25 C.W.N. 57 (F.B.), cannot be supported. The period of limitation is 12 years as laid down in Article 132 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. To decide other questions arising it might be found necessary to have a remand to the first Court. But the learned Vakil appearing for the appellant, rather than have the case remanded, prefers to accept the decree as made in the Court of first instance. To this also the learned Vakil appearing for the respondent consents.2. In the result the decree of the Additional District Judge is set aside and the decree of the Court of first instance is restored with full costs in this Court and in the Court of first appeal. Period of grace three mo...
Tag this Judgment!Purna Chandra Das and anr. Vs. Joy Lal Payada
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.756
Teunon, J.1. In this case the facts are as follows:--Certain parsons, spoken of as the Kundu Babus, are the holders of a permanent tenure. Under tham was a raiyat of the name of Deb Nath or Deb Narain Ghose. Under Deb Nath again was an under-raiyat of the name of Khiroda, whose interest was purchased by the present defendant in 1897. In execution of a decree for arrears of rent against Deb Nath the Kundu Babus bought the holding in 1903. They settled the holding with one Bacharam in 1905 and again with Baaharam's sons in 1912. Meanwhile the defendant remained in possession and he has continued in possession until the present day. Becharam's sons brought their suit in the year 1917, in order to eject the defendant as their under-raiyat and after service of notice to quit under the provisions of Section 49(b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The lease granted by Deb Nath to Khiroda was a permanent lease and not having been granted with the landlord's consent, was void as against the Kundu Babu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›