Kolkata Court June 1921 Judgments
Ghisu Lal Agarwalla and anr. Vs. Todermall Agarwalla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1921
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.539
Richardson, J.1. This Rule raises a question under Section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. On the 7th August 1920 the petitioner filed an application for the execution of a decree for money which he had obtained against Hazarimul Toddi, the opposite party No. 3, referred to hereafter as the judgment-debtor.3. Meanwhile, in another suit brought against the judgment-debtor by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, certain property belonging to him had, under Order XXXVIII, been attached before judgment and then released on the petitioner furnishing security for the sum of Rs. 250, representing the amount of the claim in the suit and costs. Two persons stood as sureties for the judgment-debtor for the payment of that amount.4. On the 30th July 1920 the opposite parties Nos. 1, and 2 obtained la decree. On the 4th August they applied for execution and on the 7th August 1920 the, sureties deposited the amount of Rs. 250 in Court.5. The petitioner's application for execution was also made on the...
Tag this Judgment!Gurudas Biswas Vs. Srimati Thakamani Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.476
1. This appeal and the Rule connected with it arise out of proceedings under Section 47 and Order XXI, Rule 90, of the Civil Procedure Code under the following circumstances.2. It appears that one-half of the properties which are the subject-matter of the proceedings were mortgaged to the appellant, and the other half to one Shama Charan Biswas. The appellant purchased the one-half mortgaged to him in execution of his mortgage decree for Rs. 4,000 on the 10th January 1905 and obtained symbolical possession in 1907. The other half was purchased by the other mortgagee.3. The properties were comprised in a jote, and the landlord brought a suit for rent against the original tenant, the mortgagor, on the 11th February 1905, i.e., about a month after the appellant's purchase. The rent suit was decreed on the 31st March 1905, and the jote was sold in execution of the decree on the 11th April 1905 and purchased by the decree-holder for Rs. 185.4. There was a partition suit between the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman of the Municipal Commissioners of Jalpaiguri Municipality ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.649
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.Nos. 2816 and 2817 of 1916.1. These two appeals are directed against the decrees of the lower Appellate Court, made in affirmance of the decrees of the Trial Court, in two suits instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents to contest the legality of the assessment of personal tax and latrine fee on them by the Commissioners of the Jalpaiguri Municipality. The plaintiffs are two Companies, the Jalpaiguri Tea Co. and the Chuniajhora Tea Co., which have their registered offices within the Municipal limits of the Town of Jalpaiguri. The defendant Municipality in exercise of statutory powers (under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884) assessed on the plaintiffs at the last general assessment a personal tax of Rs. 84 each per annum under Section 85(a) and a latrine fee of Rs. 7 3 0 each per annum under Section 86(f). These are the assessments challenged in the two litigations. Section 85 provides that the Commissioners may impose within the limits of the Municipality one or other...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Marwari and ors. Vs. Chandni Bibi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal163,67Ind.Cas.31
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. The subject matter of the litigation which has resulted in this appeal consists of two parcels of land situated in the Town of Raniganj. The plaintiffs claim an one-fourth share of a leasehold interest in the land created by the Bengal Coal Company, the admitted landlords. The contesting defendants deny the alleged title of the plaintiffs and claim an independent right in themselves in the entire property. The Subordinate Judge has found in favour of the plaintiffs, on the question of title; he has also held that such title was in subsistence at the date of the commencement of the suit and had not been extinguished by adverse possession on the part of the defendants. In this view, the Trial Court has made a decree, for possession upon declaration of title and has further directed partition by metes and bounds. On the present appeal, the decree of the Subordinate Judge has been assailed substantially on two grounds, namely, first, that the plaintiffs have failed ...
Tag this Judgment!Bibi Jinjira Khatun and ors. Vs. Mahomed Fakirulla Mea and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal429,67Ind.Cas.77
Ashutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the first two defendants in a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for a declaration that a wakf executed by the late Mahomed Elahi Buksh Sarkar on the 31st January 1915 is valid, that the first plaintiff is the duly appointed mutwalli thereof and that no title accrued to the seventh defendant under the conveyance executed in his favour by the first six defendants on the 11th April, 1916. The defendants resisted the claim upon every conceivable ground; the chief objections are indicated in the following three issues:6. Was Elahi Buksh Sarkar at the date of execution of the wakfnama suffering from death-illness? Was he physically and mentally incapable of executing the wakfnama when it is alleged to have been executed? Did Elahi Buksh Sarkar execute the wakfnama, if at all, with his free consent and with that of his hem?7. Did Elahi Buksh Sarkar belong to Shafi sect of Muhammadan? If so, is the alleged wakf valid?8. Is the wakfnama propounded b...
Tag this Judgment!Mohendra NaraIn Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.822
1. This Rule arises out of proceedings taken under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The conditional order made under that section is in these terms: Emperor v. Mohendra Narain Roy Chowdhuri : Dakhina Ranjan Roy Choudhuri Ramesh Chandra Roy Chouduri. Whereas it appears to me from the petition filed by the public of Barisal Town that the sale of cattle in a cattle market, owned by the above named persons and situated on the east of the Chak Bazar in a congested part of the Barisal Town where cattle is taken through narrow and congested lanes, causes obstruction and inconvenience to the public and is a source of danger to human life, and whereas it appears to me that such a nuisance should be removed, I hereby direct that the said persons do remove the nuisance by closing the said cattle market within a week or to show cause on 17th September 1920 why the said nuisance should not be removed.'3. Cause was shown against this order. But no evidence was led in support of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Mahammad Khan and ors. Vs. Sheikh Maharaj Bepari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal781,64Ind.Cas.266
1. The first contention raised in this case is that in coming to the conclusion that Sundari Bewa had an 8-annas share in the property, the Court was wrong in relying upon the deposition of Arjun Teor (defendant No. 13) given hy him in a previous suit. It is contended that such evidence is admissible only under Section 33 of the Evidence Act or for impeaching the credit of a witness under Section 155, in which case it cannot be used as a substantive evidence.2. It was pointed out, however, by Sir Richard Couch, C.J., in Sooian Bibee v. Achmut Ali 14 B.L.R. (App.) 3 at p. 5 : 21 W.R. 414. that 'Section 33 does not apply to the deposition of a witness in a former suit when the witness is himself a defendant in the subsequent suit and the deposition is sought to be used against him, not as evidence given between the parties one of whom called him as a witness, but as a statement made by him which would be evidence against him whether he made it as a witness or on any other occasion. It is...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Annada Mohan Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.287
1. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 84 and the plaintiff No. 35 are proprietors of the permanently settled revenue paying estates Nos, 1763 and 1764 respactively on the revenue roll of the Bakarganj C(sic)torate. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 34 are also lessees of the estate No. 1764 under a patta from the thirty-fifth plaintiff. The two estates together constitute the Zamindari of Pargana Dakhin Sahabazpur, Estate No. 1763 and the lease-hold are, in the management of a Manager under the Court of Wards and this suit is brought by him on behalf of the plaintiff,? Nos, I to 34 and by the plaintiff No. 35. The subject-matter of this suit are two island churs at present known by the names of Char Botham and Chur Harikishore and certain lands described in schedule A to the plaint. The question is, are these lands re-formations of, the plaintiff's permanently settled estates as the plaintiffs allege, or are the two churs new formations in a navigable river and the; other lands ascretions to the permanen...
Tag this Judgment!Sarbeswar Patra Vs. Maharaja Sir Bijoy Chand Mahatap and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.986
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Bankura.2. The suit was brought for a declaration of the plaintiff's jote title in certain land, for recovery of possession thereof and for Rs. 15 as the price of paddy alleged to have been wrongfully taken by the defendant No. 1. The learned Judge stated the respective cases as follows:The plaintiff's case id that in Mouzah Chuamasina he held 11 bighas of land with occupancy rights at a jama of Rs. 5. This jama was held formerly by him under the malik, Hriday Nath Sarkar; after his death under his son, Asutosh Sarcar, and then under Ashu's vendee, Haridas Chaudhury. Out of these 11 bighas, 5 bighas form the subject of the suit, The plaintiff alleges that he was in possession of the disputed land through his bhag chasi, defendant No. 2, and got his share of naon paddy of 1 bigha in 1323 and that his share of the heot paddy grown on the remaining 4 bighas was stocked in...
Tag this Judgment!Fakir Chandra De and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal556(1),76Ind.Cas.392
1. The three petitioners have been convicted of an off nee punishable under Section 452, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50 ach. The first petitioner, Fakir, has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a further fine of Rs. 1002. The Rule was issued calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction under Section 452 should not be altered to one under Section 448, why the conviction of Fakir under Section 379 should be not be set aside, and why the sentence of imprisonment passed on the petitioners should not be modified or altered Neither the Trying Magistrate nor the learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal have given their reasons for holding that Section 452, Indian Penal Code, is applicable to the facts of the present case. On the findings there can be no doubt that house treaspass was committed, since it is found that the three accused entered the v...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »