Kolkata Court June 1921 Judgments
Nearam Kachari and anr. Vs. Ardaram Kachari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal558,64Ind.Cas.145
1. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants in this case, sued to recover possession of the properties in suit as the sister's sons of one Manik Cachari, The defendant, who was in possession of the property, professed to hold it on behalf of the sister of Manik's wife.2. The Court of first instance found that the sister's son in the absence of agnates is an heir among the Cacharies and decreed the suit. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge reversed that decree and dismissed the suit.3. The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.4. The learned Subordinate Judge, we think, was in error in considering that the point for determination in the case was whether a sister's son is an heir in preference to a daughter according to the Cachari custom. It is true that the plaintiff in his plaint stated that, the sister's son excluded the widow and the daughter. But both the widow and the daughter of Manik had died before this suit was instituted, and if, as found by the Court of first instance, t...
Tag this Judgment!Harjibandas Gordhandas Vs. Bhagwandas Pursram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal390,69Ind.Cas.236
Rankin, J.1. In this case an application is made to set aside the ex parte decree and the ground of the application is that the writ of summons was not duly served, it being farther alleged on the part of the applicant that the institution of the suit did not come to her notice or to the notice of the persons acting for her until the decree had been passed.2. The suit is against a firm in its firm name. The allegation of the applicant is, first of all, that the business carried on under the name or style of Bhugwandas Pursram was a business of which her husband during his life-time was the sole possessor. She says that before this action was brought she herself merely carried on that business for the purpose of collecting outstandings and that in point of fact the firm, if it can be correctly called a firm, had ceased to carry on business as such some considerable time ago. What the facts are as to that in this case it is quite impossible for one to determine upon the cross-contradicti...
Tag this Judgment!Ashotosh Dutt Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal458,68Ind.Cas.413
1. This Rule is directed again 51 an order of tie Magistrate of Alipore convicting the petitioner, Ashotosh Dutt, under Section 379, Indian Penal Cede.2. The point in this Rule in whether a certain statement made by the appellant was admissible in evidence having repaid to the provisions of Section 24 of the Evidence Act. The complainants story is that after the theft be went home and told his brothers what had happened and they decided that the best chance to get back the money was to get hold of the appellant coon and make him give it up so that they did not inform the Police. When they found the appellant he told them that if they did not beat him he would tell them where the money was and eventually gave them certain information. The learned Sessions Judge held that Section 24 wan not admissible, because the persons to whom the statement was made had no authority over the appellant. But it is settled law that the words 'person in authority' in Section 24 include the prosecutor.3. A...
Tag this Judgment!Johar Mull Bhutra and ors. Vs. Bhupendra Nath Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1921
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.108
Ashutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent of a tract of homestead land. The rent is claimed at the rate of Rs. 7-6 annas 12 1/2 gandas per annum for the years 1318 to 1320 B S, and for the first nine months of the year 1321 It is not disputed that Sri Narain Santra, Jagan Nath Santra, Raj Narain Santra and Deb Narain Santra were owners of the disputed land in equal shares. There is also no controversy that the contesting defendants held the land as tenants under the Santras at the rate of rent mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiffs claim to have derived title from the Santras, as to one halt of the property, under a conveyance dated the 3rd August 1911, and as to the ether half, under a permanent lease dated the 15th February 1907. The defendants resisted the claim on a three-fold ground, namely, first, that the alleged title of the plaintiffs as purchasers was inoperative, because the interest of their vendors had passed aw...
Tag this Judgment!Probhat Chandra Biswas Vs. Gopal Chandra Mukherji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal398,69Ind.Cas.981
1. This appeal arises out of a partition suit. The suit wag decreed, and the defendant No. 1 alone appealed. There were nice defendants in the suit. learned Judge held that the questions raised in the appeal could not be decided in the absence of the other eight defendants. The defendant No, 1 thereupon asked the Appellate Court to add the other eight defendants as parties to the appeal under Order XLI, Rule 33. The learned Judge refused to do so on the ground that the powers given to an Appellate Court under Order XLI, Rule 33, were not intended to be applicable in a partition suit and accordingly dismissed the suit. The defendant No. 1 has appealed to this Court.2. We are unable to hold that the Appellate Court has no power to exercise the powers conferred upon it by Order XLI, Rule 33, in partition suits. There is no restriction of the powers as to any class of suits under that rule. Whether in any particular case the power should be exercised is one in the discretion of the Appella...
Tag this Judgment!i.J. Cohen Vs. S.E. Hottinger
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal380,69Ind.Cas.988
Rankin, J. 1. In this case I am sorry for Mr. Hottinger. I am afraid it is quite impossible for me to do anything to assist him and I am brand to say that his difficulties are due to the rather reckless method in which he has managed this part of his affairs. He was a tenant under an agreement for a year to Mr. Cohen before the Rent Act came into force, and in May 1920, that period had expired, and be was holding over as a monthly tenant upon the terms of the original agreement. The terms of the original agreement are, rent at Rs. 70, payable, as I understand, in advance on the 1st day of each month.2. The Rent Act came into force on the 5th May 1920 and Mr. Hottinger appears to have paid the contractual rent in fall for the month of May. After that he made up his mind to pay the amount of rent allowable under the Rent Act and no more. Prima facie under the Rant Act [see Section 2(1)] the amount of rent allowed would be the amount that was paid for the premises on the 1st day of Novemb...
Tag this Judgment!Arjan Biswas and ors. Vs. Abdul Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal774,64Ind.Cas.513
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for compensation on the ground of improper attachment of the plaintiff's goods (paddy and jute), damage to goods while under attachment and conversion of some of the goods. Compensation was also claimed on amount of fall in the market rate of goods while under attachment and for costs incurred in getting the goods released from attachment.2. The Court below has dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Article 29 of the Limitation Act.3. That Article provides one year's limitation for a suit for compensation for wrongful seizure of moveable property under legal process. In order to bring the case under that Article, it must be shown that the seizure was wrongful under legal process. 4. In the present case the writ was issued by the Court and prima facie it was not a wrongful seizure. The writ was not without jurisdiction as the Court had jurisdiction over the subject-matter : nor was the writ executed against a person wh...
Tag this Judgment!Bithaldas Chandak Vs. Lalbehari Dutt and Sons
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal391,68Ind.Cas.361
Rankin, J.1. In this case there must be a degree for ejectment. The suit was brought for ejectment on the 3rd February 1920, and it appears, and, indeed, it is admitted, that the plaintiff on the 12th August 1919 tock an assignment from Luehminatain Sadani for a term granted by an Indenture bearing date the 20th September 19.8 and made between the Archbishop of Caleutta and Lushminerain Sadani. The defendant firm Messrs. Lalbshari Datt and Sons had been in ocaupation of two rooms in the premises for sometime before. Luchminarain Sadani was granted his lease. Lushminarain Sadani raised the rent to Rs. 175 par month. After the plaintiff took an assignment of the term the defendants paid that rent to the plaintiff and took two recepts for the month of August and the month of September 1919. They began to fall into arrears from the month of October 1919 and, in point of fast, they paid no rent at all until the time when, in June of this year, 1921, they paid into the lands of the Rent Cont...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Balaram Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1921
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.685
1. This case comes before us on reference under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the Officiating Sessions Judge of Jessore. The accused, Balaram Das, was charged with having committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder by causing the death of one Surendra Nath Das. The Jury unanimously found the accused not guilty. The learned Sessions Judge is clearly of opinion that to accept the verdict of the Jury would cause a failure of justice, and that the accused has committed the offence punishable under the first part of Section 304, Indian Penal Code. We have considered the entire evidence and have given due weight to the opinions of the learned Sessions Judge and the Jury, and we hold that on the evidence the accused's guilt has been clearly proved.2. Before referring to the evidence, it is necessary to consider the point of law which arises with respect to an important part of it, the statement made by the deceased as to the cause of his death. The date of the all...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Reed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1921
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.630
Buckland, J.1. I know of no authority, nor has any been advanced for the proposition that it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to call a witness who he has reason to believe would give false evidence. In stating my opinion I cannot do better than adopt the language of a former Chief Justice of the High Court at Allahabad when be said in Queen-Empress v. Durga 16 A. 84 : A.W.N. (1894) 7 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 55. (F.B.): 'It cannot be the duty of a Public Prosecutor acting on behalf of the Government and the country to call or put into the witness box for cross-examination a witness whom be believes to be a false or unnecessary witness.' The learned Standing Counsel has refused to call Mr. Grant on the ground that he believes him to be a false witness. In the former trial Mr, Grant was called by the Court and cross examined by both sides. He was not examined as a witness for the Crown, in which case other considerations would have arisen, and in the circumstances I decline to interfere...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »