Kolkata Court March 1921 Judgments
Probodh Kumar Datta Vs. Mohim Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.1008
1. In this case we have heard in support of the Bale a Vakil of this Court, Mr. Narendra Kumar Bose, and in opposition to the Bale we have heard the accused in person. The charges that have been framed against the accused are, one charging him with misappropriation or breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 943-1-9, and the second head of charge is one charging him with dishonestly using as genuine a forged document, which purports to be a receipt or acquaintance, for the aforesaid sum of Rs. 943-1-9. This second charge, which is one under Section 471 read with Section 467 of the Code, is clearly triable only by the Court of Session. If the case is to go to the Sessions Court, it is clear that it should go there as a whole. We must, therefore, look upon these charges as charges improperly framed and we, therefore, direct that these charges be cancelled and that the learned Presidency Magistrate do now proceed in the manner provided in Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure,...
Tag this Judgment!Basanta Kumar Adak Vs. Radha Rani Dasi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal329,70Ind.Cas.735
1. This is an appeal against an order dismissing an application for execution. The decree-holder obtained a decree declaring his right to recover possession of certain, property subject to the right of the judgment-debtor to redeem on payment of a certain sum within six months of the date of the decree. Against that decree, the judgment-debtor appealed and the decree-holder filed a petition of cross-objection. Both the appeal and the cross-objection were dismissed and the decree of the First Court was confirmed. Then, within six months of the date of the appellate decree, but more than six months after the date of the original decree, the judgment-debtor paid into Court the sum necessary for the redemption. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether the lower Courts were right in holding that the judgment-debtor was in time. In our opinion, on the authority of the decisions of this Court, we must hold that this appeal must succeed. In the case or Bhola Nath Bhuttacha...
Tag this Judgment!Gagan Chandra Manna and anr. Vs. Nafar Chandra Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.124
1. This appeal arises out of an order in an execution proceeding. On the application of the purchasers of a non-transferable occupancy holding, the execution proceedings have been quashed. The only point of law that arises is whether the petitioners in those proceedings had locus standi Under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure. Both the lower Courts have concurrently found that they had such locus standi. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has found that the objectors have been for a long time paying rent marfat to the Zemindar and he holds, on this finding, that the case is clearly governed by the ruling in Arjun Das v. Gunendra Nath 27 Ind. Cas. 294 : 18 C.W.N. 1266 : 20 C.L.J. 341. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that that case is distinguishable in that it is nowhere stated that the petitioner in that case was paying rent as marfatdar. What was there found was that the rent was received from the petitioner after his purchase, though his name was not formall...
Tag this Judgment!Pochai Rai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.182
1. In this ease the five petitioners with whom we are now concerned have been required, under the provisions of Section 118, Criminal Procedure, to execute bonds in certain amounts for their good behaviour for the period of one year in each case. As regards two of the five, Pochai and Sriram Rai we are of opinion that the evidence in each of those two cases is sufficient and strong. No doubt the Magistrate was in error in thinking that entries made in the book spoken of as the Thana Village Grime Note Book are in themselves evidence. But disregarding that, the other evidence sufficiently corroborates the evidence of the approver, Gayaram's, who implicates these two petitioners as participators in dacoities.2. As regards the other three, Makhan Rai, Ratan Rai and Keshab Rai, they are all young men. Their relationship with one or other of the other persons bound down appears to have been taken by the Magistrate as sufficient corroboration of Gayaram's evidence. He himself speaks of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Nogendra Nath Bera and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.654
1. In this case the judgment of the Appellate Court leaves it doubtful whether the learned Magistrate addressed his mind to the first question in the case and came to his own independent conclusion thereon, or whether he relied merely upon the conclusion arrived at by the Trying Court, How, where and by whom the injuries upon the complainant were accused was a matter in which the Appellate Court was beund to come to definite findings of its own. It is also not clear that the Appellate Court has sufficiently considered the plea that accused were acting in the exercise of the right of private defence. Apart from a Head Constable, who was no witness to the occurrence, the accused did not adduce any evidence of their own, but it was for the consideration of the Appeal late Court whether by the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses they had elected matters which might go to support that defense. We desire, however, to make it clear that we are not to be understood as saying that a ...
Tag this Judgment!Midnapur Zemindary Co., Ltd. Vs. Kumar Naresh NaraIn Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal345,65Ind.Cas.833
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has culminated in this appeal is a tract of land, 1,700 bighas in area, formed by the recession of the river, Padma. The case for the plaintiff was that the disputed land was re formation in situ of an estate wherein he had a share of 5-annas 16 gundas 2 kara and 2 krant. He alleged that, although his title to the property was declared in a previous litigation and he was placed in possession in execution of the degree made therein he was subsequently dispossessed by virtue of an order made under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He consequently, asked for declaration of his title as well as a decree for possession and mesne profits. The contesting defendants resisted the claim on a variety of grounds, namely first, that the Court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the litigation; secondly, that whatever title of the plaintiff might be, he could have no cause of action till the expiry of the Settlem...
Tag this Judgment!Amarendra Krishna Dutt and ors. Vs. Monimunjary Debl
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal148,66Ind.Cas.586
1. In this case at the conclusion of the evidence and the argument, I gave judgment upon the footing that the deceased had, daring his lifetime, transferred certain shares to the defendant, Sreemati Monimunjary Dabi. At the trial, it was a common assumption of both sides, that if the widow could show that the deceased had executed in her favour a certain transfer deed, and had made over the same to her she would be entitled to succeed. Mr. H. D. Boss, for the plaintiff, after my judgment had been given, asked me to re-hear argument upon the case in view of the fast that subsequent consideration had induced him to think that this assumption was wrong. Rather than have the rights of the parties determined according to any other principles than those of law, I assented to having the matter re-opened in argument before me. Now I am quite clear on the fasts of this case that the gift, which the deceased intended of these shares, was intended by him to take effect by way of transfer, and tha...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Charusila Dasi and anr. Vs. Srimati Mrinalini Dasi and Srimati ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.531
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by two of the defendants in a suit instituted by the reversionary heirs to the estate of one Brojo Mohan Pan who died in the year 1900. Brojo Mohan left a widow Jadumani (the first defendant) and five daughters, three of whom Mrinalini, Urmila and Rukhyabala were the plaintiffs in the Court below. The other two daughters Gharushila and Nirmola were the second and the fourth defendants respectively; the third defendant Radha-shyam is the husband of Gharushila. The second plaintiff Urmila died during the pendency of the suit in the lower Court; the third plaintiff Bakhyabala has died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court. Consequently, the only respondent in the appeal is the first plaintiff Mrinalini.2. The plaintiffs asked for a declaration that the disputed properties, which were arranged in five schedules, formed part of the estate of their father. The lands included in the first three schedules stand in the name of Gharushila and a...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra Sirkar Vs. Mohim Chandra Guha Der Barua
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal604,68Ind.Cas.600
1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: The appeal arises cut of orders passed in execution proceedings. On the 23rd of February 1918 the Munsif before whom the application was pending passed an order directing a Commissioner to be appointed and further directing that the costs of the application would be borne by the decree holder. Ther, on the 4th of May 1918, after the Commissioner had delivered possession, an order was passed on, the following terms: 'case disposed of with costs to the decree-holder,' Against this order an application for review was made which was disposed of by Order No. 25, dated the 7th of September 1918. By that order, another Munsif who succeeded the one who had passed the former orders held that Order No. 16, dated the 4th of May 1918, above referred to, had been passed through oversight. He granted the review and directed that the portion of the said Order No. 16 dated the 4th May 1918, relating to costs should stand cancelled....
Tag this Judgment!Gobordhone Das Deora Vs. Doolichand Sethia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.210
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. The Rule in this case was obtained by one Gobordhone Das Deora, who alleged in his petition that he is the son of Hari Bux Daora, the proprietor of the firm of Hari Bux Gobordhan Das.2. The proceedings, in respect of which the Rule was granted, were begun by a complaint by several tenants of certain premises, No. 46, Strand Road, calcutta, against their (landlord or landlords Hari Bux-Gobordhan) Das under Section 20 of the calcutta Rent Act, 1920, on the ground that the landlords I had wilfully discontinued the supply of unfiltered water to the urinals and privies in the premises by disconnecting the inlet and outlet pipes of the reserve tanks and by removing a force pump which was attached to the vertical inlet pipe and had thereby disturbed the easements annexed to the premises.3. The Rant Controller accorded 'sanction to the prosecution of the defendant landlord Hari Bax Gobordhan under Section 20 of the calcutta Rent Act.'4. The President of the Tribunal ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »