Kolkata Court June 1921 Judgments
Rajeswari Dasi and anr. Vs. PulIn Behary Mittra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.647
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title to and recovery of khas possession of certain plots of land comprised in the homestead of the defendants and for ijmali possession of certain other plots. There was a farther prayer for demolition of some buildings standing on those plots.2. The main defence was that the defendants Nos. 3 to 6 who are the co sharers of the plaintiffs had granted a lease in respect of their share to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and that they bad been in possession of them as tenants on payment of rent.3. The Court of first instance found that the plaintiffs were benamdars of one Kali Gopal, defendant No. 7 in the suit, and upon the evidence the learned Munsif held that the defendants had right to hold the land as tenants and dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge modified the decree of the Court of first instance.4. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred this appeal and the plaintiffs have preferred cross objec...
Tag this Judgment!Gouri NaraIn Barua Vs. Tilbikram Chetri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal531,65Ind.Cas.1004
1. This Rule is directed against an order convicting the petitioner of an offence punishable under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of 100 rupees or in default two months' further rigorous imprisonment.2. On the findings arrived at by the lower Court this conviction cannot be upheld. The case appears to be one in which, as stated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, both parties have adduced false or partly false evidence. But before the petitioner can be convicted it in necessary that the Court should be satisfied that the charge framed against him has been established. The charge as finally framed was that, on the 8th December 1919, being entrusted with certain property Rs. 666 belonging to the complainant he has committed criminal breach of trust. This sum of 666 rupees was money paid for 9 maunds of ghee supplied to a certain buyer. But it is found by the lower Appellate Court that it has not been proved beyond ...
Tag this Judgment!BepIn Krishna Ray and ors. Vs. Jogeshwar Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal730,66Ind.Cas.345
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. The subject matter of the litigation which has culminated in this appeal is a share of an estate which bore Tauzi No. 93 on the revenue roll of the Collector of Hughli about the middle of the last century and was held by two proprietors, Ramsundar Bose and Harachandra Bose. The amount of revenue originally payable was fixed at Rs. 2,998 1-10; this was subsequently reduced to Rs. 2,971-1-11 when part of the estate was acquired for public purposes under the Land Acquisition Act. On the 29th September 1864, upon an application made under Section 10 of Act XI, 1859, the share of Harachandra Bose which amounted to 8 as. 16 gds. of the entire estate (treated as 16 as.) was formed into a separate account and was described in the books of the Collector as Tauzi No. 93A with proportionate amount of revenue payable fixed at Rs. 1,648-15-5. Thenceforward Tauzi No. 93 became what is termed the residuary share and included only a 7 as. 4 gds. share of the original estate whi...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Kisor De Vs. Nagendrabala Chaudhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal435,66Ind.Cas.694
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the seventh defendant in a suit on a mortgage-bond executed by the first six defendants in favour of the plaintiff on the 13th February 1915 to secure a loan of Rs. 12,000 which was made re payable on the 12th April 1516 and was to carry interest at nine-and-a-half percent per annum with half yearly rests. The right, title and interest of the mortgagors in the hypothecated property was sold in execution of a decree for money at the instance of one of their creditors an I was purchased by the seventh defendant on the 20th June 1916 in the name of his son in law, the eighth defendant, who executed a release in his favour on the 25th January 1917. The mortgagee instituted the present suit on the 20th February It 18 for realisation of the mortgage dues and joined as defendants the mortgagors as also the purchasers of the equity of redemption.2. The mortgagors did not enter appearance, and the claim was resisted by the seventh defendant alone who...
Tag this Judgment!Harihar Das and ors. Vs. Krishnadhan Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.625
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from entering a garden alleged to belong to the plaintiff and for the value of fruits appropriated by the defendant.2. The defence was that the property did not belong to the plaintiff alone, that, the property was held by the defendant as a tenant but that if he was not a tenant, he had been in possession of it for more than 12 years and acquired a statutory title.3. The Court of first instance held that defendant had acquired the right of a tenant by possession for 12 years and dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge disallowed the prayer for perpetual injunction but gave a decree to the plaintiff for damages.4. The defendants have appealed to this Court.5. The learned Subordinate Judge says that the defendants asserted their right as tenants for the first time in their written statement in 1907, which was within 12 years of the suit, and, therefore, could not have acquired a ...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. Sarkar Vs. the Howrah Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.575
1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted of an offence under the Calcutta Municipal Act and this Rule has been granted on one ground only, that the prosecution is barred by Section 631 of the Calcutta Municipal Act.2. The petitioner was prosecuted on a complaint dated the 11th May 1920. The complaint alleges that the accused has about the 5th September 1919 committed an offence under Section 574/466 of Act III B.C. of 1899 or Bye-law by keeping and using an unlicensed workshop at 23 and 24, Nilmoney Mullick Lane, for manufacturing articles of iron for the purpose of trade. Section 631 of the Act, omitting portions irrelevant to the present ease, provides that no person shall be liable to punishment for his act, unless the complaint of such offence is made before the Magistrate within three months next after the commission of such offence. Therefore, on the face of it this complaint of an offence committed on the 5th September 1919, and laid on the 11th May 1920, was barred und...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Mohan Sinha Vs. Kartick Chandra Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.857
1. The petitioner before us applied for rateable distribution under Section 73, Civil Procedure Code. That was disallowed and thereupon the petitioner obtained this Rule.2. It appears that the opposite-party obtained a decree against the judgment debtor and in execution of that decree in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia, certain properties were sold. One of the properties was purchased by the decree holder for Rs. 3,600 and a third party purchased another property. The sale took place on the 22nd November 1920. The decree holder applied for and obtained permission to bid at the sale. He then applied that the purchase--money and the amount due under the decree might be set off against one another under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 72. The Court ordered that the matter would be taken up on the 9th December. On the 30th November the petitioner informed the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia that he had applied for execution of the decree (obtained by him against the j...
Tag this Judgment!Paresh Nath Pal Choudhury and ors. Vs. Ismail Sordar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.993
1. The question involved in the appeal is whether the application for execution of a decree is barred by limitation.2. The decree was one for rent and the amount for which it was passed was less than RS. 500. It was dated the 27th January 1916. The present application for execution was made on the 28th March 1919, i.e., more than three years from the date of the decree. The decree holder, however, relied upon certain acknowledgments of liability within three years of the date of the decree, and the Court of first instance held that such acknowledgments saved limitation.3. On appeal the learned District Judge held that Section 19 of the Limitation Act was inapplicable to the case, as it was a decree for rent which is governed by the special limitation prescribed by Article 6, Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act.4. There is no doubt that under Article 6, Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the period of limitation is three years from the date of the decree, and Section 184 of that...
Tag this Judgment!Keramat Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.829
1. This is a Rule calling upon the Deputy Commissioner of Cachar to show cause why his order, forbidding the petitioner to enter the precincts of the Court as being a tout, should not be set aside.2. It does not appear that there were proper proceedings under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act. The petitioner, however, was allowed to adduce evidence, and the question for consideration was whether he is tout.3. A tout is defined in Section 3 of the Legal Practitioners Act as meaning a person who procures the employment in any legal business of any legal practitioner in consideration of any remuneration moving from such practitioner, or proposes to a legal practitioner to procure his employment in any legal business in consideration of such remuneration. All that the evidence in the case shows, is that the petitioner looks after people's cases and writes petitions for them. We do not think that looking after people's cases and writing petitions for them makes one a tout. It must b...
Tag this Judgment!Saraj Kumar Acharji Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Umed Ali Howladar and ors. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal251,63Ind.Cas.954
1. This appeal arises out Suit No. 134 brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that the lands in dispute form part of their nimhowla Asaruddi within howla Haris Chandra situate in the patni of the defendants Nos. 8 or 9, and for recovery of possession of the said lands. The Plaintiffs alleged that they let out the lands for one year to a subtenant in 1321, but the defendants having obstructed then in taking possession, he surrendered the lands to the plaintiffs. The main defence was that the lands were not included in the plaintiffs' nimhowla but we khas lands of the patinidar, that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 109 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and was also barred by limitation. The Courts below have concurred in decreeing the suit.2. The first contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 109 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It appears that the plaintiffs brought a suit under Section 106 of Bengal Tenancy Act, but wi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »