Kolkata Court April 1921 Judgments
Madhab Charan Das and anr. Vs. Rajani Mohon Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.583
1. The question involved in this case is whether the transaction between the parties was a sale out and out with a condition for re purchase, or a mortgage by conditional sale.2. It appears that two brothers, Ram Govinda and Krishna Govinda, had each 8 annas share in certain properties, and each of them was indebted to one Labanya to the extent of Rs. 200. Ram Govinda executed a kobala in favour of Labanya in respect of his 8-annas share. Krishna Govinda similarly executed a kobala in respect of his 8-annas share to the latter. Subsequently Labanya's mother sold the entire 16 annas property to the predecessor of the defendant in 1294 under Exhibit 2, and there the vendor described the purchase of Labanya as being under a kat. The defendant also obtained conveyance from Krishna Govinda of the equity of redemption with regard to his 8-annas share. Having regard to these and other circumstances which will be presently noticed, the Court below came to the conclusion that the transaction wa...
Tag this Judgment!Ashutosh Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.513
1. In this case the accused before as has been directed, under the provisions of Section 110, read with Section 118, Criminal Procedure Code, to executes a bond of Rupees 200, with two sureties each in like amount, to be of good behaviour for one year, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the same period. The allegation against him was that he was by habit a receiver of stolen properties knowing the same to be stolen.2. We have been taken over a considerable portion of the record, and we cannot but come to the conclusion that the trial or enquiry in the present case has been vitiated by the admission of much inadmissible evidence; for instance, a person of the name of Gayaram, who says that he and sertain others committed docoity at a place sailed Hirabiti, save evidence to the effect that he had made over the ornaments stolen in the course of that dacoity to the accrued That, of course, is admissible. He was further permitted to say that he heard from certain other persons t...
Tag this Judgment!Surjya NaraIn Chowdhury Vs. Kunja Behary Mal and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal66,66Ind.Cas.909
1. Rule No. 664 of 1920. This rule is directed against an order of District Judge of Bankura setting aside an order of the Munsif of Khatra granting an application for review. One Kanta Mal obtained a preliminary mortgage decree on 14th June 1916 against defendant No. 1, the mortgagor, and defendant No. 2 a subsequent transferee who is the petitioner in this Rule. Kanta admittedly died on 8th February 1917. On 18th November 1918 Kanta Mal's sons applied for a final decree in that mortgage suit, On 21st December 1918 they applied for substitution of their names as plaintiffs in the place of Kanta Mal. This application was allowed without notice to either defendant and on 25th January 1919 a final mortgage-decree was passed. On 24th February 1919 the defendant No, 2 applied for a review of that mortgage decree and that application was allowed. Then the sons of Kanta Mal appealed from that order granting the review. That appeal was successful and the present rule is directed against the o...
Tag this Judgment!Murari Chandra De and ors. Vs. Dina Nath Chandra Didya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.845
1. We think that this case must go back to the lower Appellate Court for a re-hearing of the appeal.2. The plaintiff sued for recovery of possession of the disputed land on declaration of his title thereto. His allegation was that he had let out the property to the defendant and was in possession by receipt of rent from him, but that in a rent-suit the defendant having denied the plaintiff's title, the rent-suit was dismissed. This suit was thereupon brought for establishing his title.3. Now the Court below has held that as the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant in the rent-suit, it must be held that the appellant (sic) had been holding the land as a trespasser and farther that the plaintiff was not entitled to prove that the defendant was a tenant under him. The learned Subordinate Judge has evidently held that the plaintiff is precluded from showing that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the defendant.4. It...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Prasanna Sen Vs. Shaudi Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.481
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of the disputed land on establishment of the plaintiff's title thereto. The facts of the case as found by the Courts below are that the lands in suit belonged to one Asrabi Bibi, She made a gift of a portion of them to one Gendu by a registered instrument and a verbal gift of the rest to defendant No. 1 and 'caused the same to be recorded in her (defendant No. 1's) name.' At the time of the settlement, they were so recorded. It appears that before Asrabi made a gift of the lands in dispute to Gendu and defendant No. 1, she had mortgaged them to some persons who were in possession of the lands at the time of the verbal gift to defendant No. 1.2. The validity of the gift to Gendu was conceded by the plaintiff in the Court below and is not questioned before us, The plaintiff, however, contends that the oral gift to defendant No. 1 is invalid according to Muhammadan Law, inasmuch as the lands were in the possession of the mortgagees at t...
Tag this Judgment!Gour Mohun Mullick Vs. Sm. Noyan Manjuri Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal172,69Ind.Cas.915
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by one Gour Mohun Mullick, one of the defendants in the suit, from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Rankin whereby he dismissed an application which had been made by the appellant. It arises in connection with litigation in respect of Gopal Lall Seal's estate, which, it is said, has occupied much time of this Court; and it is only necessary for me to mention that there was a settlement in this Court arrived at on the 4th of April 1919 and a consent-decree passed in a Suit No. 1223 of 1917 in which Gour Mohan Mullick and others were plaintiffs and Srimati Noyan Manjuri Dassi and others were defendants. The present suit is a suit by Srimati Noyan Manjuri Dassi--a person of unsonnd mind--by her grandmother, Srimati Brindarani Dassi, against Kanto Mohun Mullick, Gour Mohun Mullick (who is the appellant in this appeal) and others; and the object of the suit is to obtain a declaration that the consent-decree to which I have referred, is not b...
Tag this Judgment!Janaki Nath Sinha Roy Vs. Sir Bejoy Chand Mahtab Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal596,64Ind.Cas.315
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money paid by him to the defendant as putni rent on the 14th October 1910.2. It appears that the plaintiff purchased the putni at a sale held under Regulation VIII of 1819 on the 14th May 1908. The putnidar instituted a suit for cancellation of the sale, which was decreed on the 28th May 1910. The Zemindar defendant thereupon preferred an appeal, which was ultimately dismissed on the 2nd May 1912. In the interval, on the 14th October 1910, that is, after the Court of first instance had directed cancellation of the sale, the plaintiff paid rent to the defendant to prevent farther sale under the Regulation. The present suit, which was instituted on the 14th February 1916, has been dismissed by the District Judge as barred be limitation. We are of opinion that this view cannot be successfully challenged.3. The appellant has argued that he is entitled to a deduction of the time which was occupied ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Mohan Das Mandal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1921
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.992
1. This is a Reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Rangpur under the provisions of Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code. As is pointed out by the learned Judge, the complaint discloses or alleges the commission of an offence, in the case of oat least on of the accused, punishable under Section 144, Indian Penal Code. There is nothing it is further pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge, to indicate that in. so far as the number of persons was concerned the case was in any way exaggerated. It follows that the case now before us was not triable summarily.2. We must, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence against which this reference has been made and direct that the two accused before us be now retried under the regular procedure. The re-trial will take place in the Court of a Magistrate other than the Magistrate in whose Court the conviction now set aside was had such Magistrate to be nominated by the District Magistrate.3. The fine, if paid, will now be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›