Kolkata Court November 1921 Judgments
Palan Meah, Tahsildar Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.669
1. The suit, in sO far as the prayer kha is concerned, is barred by the provisions of Section 104H of the Bengal Tenancy Act, inasmuch as it relates to an entry of rent settled under Sections 104A to 104F. But the plaintiff applied for amendment of the plaint in the court of first instance by striking out the prayer kha. The plaintiff also wanted to strike out the prayer for a declaration that the record in the names of defendants Nos. 2 to 5 in respect of the land of Schedule (kha) was unjust and illegal. If these amendments were allowed, the only prayer left would be a declaration that the defendants Nos, 2 to 5 had no right to the land and that the land was included in the plaintiff's ryati: that would be a suit within the purview of Section 111A and we do not see why the plaintiff should not be allowed to proceed with the suit so framed. In the case Rajani Kanta Mookerjee v. Secretary of State for India 47 Ind. Cas. 820 : 45 C. 645. 651 it was held that the plaintiff is entitled to...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Pramanik and ors. Vs. Damu Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1921
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.998
1. This Rule was issued on two grounds. The first is that the Trying Magistrate did not comply with the provisions of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This point is, I think, established, and following the ruling in Emperor v. Fernandez 59 Ind. Cas. 129 : 45 B. 672 : 22 Bom. L.R. 1040 : 22 Cr.L.J. 17 and the case in the Patna High Court in Mitraj it Singh v. Emperor 63 Ind. Cas. 825 : 2 P.L.T. 520 : (1922) Pat. 7 : 6 P.L.J. 644 : (1922) A.I.R. (Pat.) 158 : 22 Cr.L.J. 697, the proper course for us to follow is to set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioners and remit the cae to the Trial Court in order that the provisions of Section 342 of the Code may be followed and the fatter disposed of in accordance with law.2. The second ground is that the charges framed against the accused are defectives. This is not a matter on which I should be disposed to interefere, I there were no other defects in the case. But as the case must be remitted on the first ground, I thi...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Saran Roy Vs. Shoshi Bhusan Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.594
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract.2. The plaintiff's case is, that it was agreed that the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2, together, would sell a 2-annas share of a tank and an entire plot of land to the plaintiff. A further agreement was set up, viz., that if the defendant No. 2 did not consent to sell his share, the defendant No. 1 would sell his own moiety share.3. The defendant No. 2, it is found, had never agreed to sell his share. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance of the contract.4. The only question raised before us is, whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the contract so far as the share of the defendant No. 1 was concerned.5. In the present case, there was no agreement by defendant No. 1 to sell on behalf of defendant No. 2. He did not profess to have any authority to do so and there was no contract that he would sell the propert...
Tag this Judgment!isof Ali and ors. Vs. Kasim Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1921
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.152
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for foreclosure pi a mortgage by conditional sale.2. A preliminary decree for foreclosure was passed on the 5th October 1917 and six months time was allowed, i.e. up to the 5th April 1918 Before the date fixed for payment the mortgagor sold the property to one Lakhi Charan Sana on the 19th March 1918. It is said that this Lakhi Charan attempted to deposit the decretal amount but that it was refused. On the 9th April 1918 the decree-holder applied to make the decree in the foreclosure suit final and notice were ordered to be issued on that day on the defendants fixing he 1st May 1918 as the date for passing the final decree. Before the final decree was passed, the defendants-mortgagors on the 15th April made an application to the Court to pay off the decretal amount and also asked for in extension of time for the money to be paid. On the 1st May 1918 the Court held that the defendant could not get the permission to deposit and that the time for Paymen...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaj Kishore Khanna Vs. Kiran Shashi Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal407,69Ind.Cas.820
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case a preliminary point has been taken that no appeal lies. On the 9th of May 1920, the plaintiff did not appear and the suit, was dismissed for want of prosecution : and, on the 15th of, July, 192l, my learned brother. Mr. Justice Greaves, made an order, as he describes it in his Judgment restoring the suit, I assume that that order was made under Order IX, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, and as appears from the terms of the order, the order of the 9th of May was set aside, and the suit was restored to the General List of Suits of this Court upon terms which were therein stated. The appeal is against the order of the 15th of July 1921, whereby the order of the 9th of May was set aside.2. The learned Counsel for the respondent sited to us a case which was decided by my learned brother Mr. Justice Woodroffe and myself in March 1919, Johuri Mull Jhoon-jhoowtalla v. Ram Kumar Chowdhuri, Appeal against Original Decree No. 5 of 1919, (tin-reported), in whic...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Salim and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal107,69Ind.Cas.145
1. The eight appellants and two others were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge of Chittagong and a Special Jury on a charge of criminal conspiracy of other offences under the Indian Penal Code against each of them individually. One of these ten accused, Makbul Ahmed, was acquitted of all the charges framed against him. Eight of the remainder were convicted on the general charge of conspiracy under Section 120B/420, Indian Penal Code, including one Ahmed Kabir who has since died. The second appellant, Ahmed Mia, was acquitted on this charge. All accused except Maqbul Ahmed were convicted on one or more of the charges framed against them individually. In some cases the verdict was nnanimous and in others by a majority of three to two. The appellant, Abdul Salim, has been sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment under sections 120B/420, Indian Penal Code. The appellant, Ahmed Salim, has been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under sections 420/109, Indian Penal Co...
Tag this Judgment!Hajari Sonar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-08-1921
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.247
1. The accused petitioner was tried on a charge of breaking open the khirki door of one Ram Lakhan Sonar to commit theft of property to the value of Rs. 30-4-0 when caught red-handed and thereby of committing an offence punishable under Section 457, Indian Penal Code. The finding of the Trial Magistrate and also of the Appellate Court is that the prosecution has failed to establish that theft was the object with which the accused entered into the complainant's house. They have both held that he came to the complainant's house to carry on an intrigue with his wife, and, following the decisions of this Court in the casts of Koilash Chandra Chakrabarty v. Queen-Empress 16 C. 657 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 434, Balmakand Ram v. Ghansumram 22 C. 291 : 11 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 262 and Premanundo Shaha v. Brindaban Chung 22 C. 994 11 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 660, they have convicted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 456, Indian Penal Code.2. Though it cannot be laid down as a general rule that...
Tag this Judgment!Joy Chandra Chakraburtty Vs. Srijut Kumar Arun Chandra Sinha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-05-1921
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.241
1. This appeal arises out of a decision of the Special Judge under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act holding that the tenure in the occupation of the defendant is liable to enhancement of rent on the ground that when the tenure was first created rent was fixed at a certain amount per drone without any reference to the area let out. It appears that in 1323 B.S. one Baidya Nath Chukraburty executed a katuliyat in favour of the then landlord in which he mentions that he has purchased a taluk standing in the came of Kamdeb Chakraburty and petitions the landlord to remove the name of Kamdeb from his sherista end to insert the name of the petitioner for which he executes a fresh kabuliyat. The terms of the kabuliyat are that the tenant agrees to pay to the landlord at a certain rate per drone of the arable land and to long as the lands are not measured the tenant will pay rent at the old rate which, however, is not mentioned in the document. In 1216 the widow of Badiya Nath files a petit...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sadhu Charan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal409,77Ind.Cas.993
1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Pabna and Bogra. The accused, Sadhu Charan Das, was put on his trial on the charge of having committed murder by causing the death of Dasi Sundari Dasya, his wife. Be was also charged w-the having; committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and also with having caused grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon to the said Dai Sundari Dasya. The Jury by a majority of three to two found the accused not guilty on all the charges. The learned Sessions Judge being dearly of the opinion that it was necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the ,High Court has forwarded the record with a recommendation that the accused should be convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The main facts of the case are as follows: On the night of the 13th of April last the accord Sadhu Charan and his wife, Dasi Sundari, slept together in the northern room of their house. At 6 A.M., in the following morning, their servant, K...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›