Kolkata Court August 1921 Judgments
Rahim Bux Paramanik and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.842
1. In this case, the seven petitioner's have been directed under the provisions of Section 113, Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Section 110 of the same Code, to furnish security for their good behaviour for a period of one year. These seven were tried along with three other persons, of whom two have been discharged and one has not joined either in the appeal to the lower Court or in making this application to this Court. The point taken in the Rule is that the joint trial of the petitioners was, in the circumstances of the case, bad in law. This point appears again to be based largely on the fact that, of the ten persons, who were jointly tried, eight, including six of the present petitioners, belong to one village, while the remaining two belong to a contiguous village. The fact, however, that all these accused persons do not some from one and the same village is not, in itself, sufficient for holding that they do not associate together and associate for the purpose of committin...
Tag this Judgment!Nogendra Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Rehan Ali Serang
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.440
No. 83.1. From the petition on which the present Rule was issued it appears that in the first week of last June there began a strike among the employees of the River Steam Navigation Company, at Barisal. In this strike, which it is understood still continues, the three petitioners joined.2. On the complaint of, or on information received from, one Rehan Ali whose services as a Serang had been secured by the Company, proceedings have now been taken against the petitioners and others on charges under Sections 506 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code. The case against them is pending in the Court of the Sadar Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Barisal: and the prayer of the petitioners is that their trial should take place in some district other than Bakarganj. They allege in substance that the District Magistrate and the Local Officers generally have identified, themselves with the interests of the Steamer Company and are doing their best 'to harass the strikers in any and every way.' They, theref...
Tag this Judgment!Rani Hemangini Debi and ors. Vs. Sarat Rundari Debya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal292,66Ind.Cas.882
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for attribution, which has been instituted by them as executors to the estate of the late Raja Jogendranath Ray of Natore. The case for the plaintiffs is that on the 19th September 1916, they satisfied a mortgage decree which was operative against the estate of their testator as also the properties of the defendants. They consequently pray for recovery of specified sums by way of contribution from different sets of defendants. The defendants repudiate the validity of the claim and also eon-tend that the plaint ill's are incompetent to maintain the action. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit on the preliminary point on two grounds, namely, first, that before the institution of the suit, the executorship of the plaintiffs must be deemed to have terminated when the heir at law of the deceased testator attained majority; and, secondly, that even if the executorship has not terminated, the plaintiffs, who are three out of four surviv...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Sasi Kanta Acharjya Bahadur Vs. Sandhya Moni Dasya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal236,65Ind.Cas.4
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Second Additional District Judge of Mymensingh; and, the suit was brought for the purpose of obtaining khas possession of the lands in dispute'.2. The defendant in one case was Brindaban Chandra De Sarkar, and the defendant in the other case was his wife; and, it has been found that she was a benamdar for her husband, and the two cases have been treated as if Brindaban was the occupier of both the pieces of land.3. The First Court dismissed the suit: and upon appeal to the lower Appellate Court, the decision of the First Court was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.4. The case raises a point of considerable interest, inasmuch as the Record of Rights, which was published in February 1918, described the character of the holding in each case as chandina, an expression which in this part of the district Was, apparently prior to the entry in the Record of Rights, unknown. There was considerable discussion as to ...
Tag this Judgment!Amarnath Bhattacharjee and Ors. Vs. Hon'ble Raja Hrishikesh Laha and O ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.829
1. This is an appeal by the tenants in a proceeding under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act for assessment of fair and equitable rent. The substantial question in controversy between the parties is whether the disputed land is held at a rent fixed in perpetuity The Court's below have answered this question in favour of the landlords.2. The status of the appellants must be determined by referenda to the contract of tenancy, which is embodied in a lease granted on the 27th December 1886. This document recites that on the 4th December 1863, a lease had been granted to the tenants in respect of 32 bighas 12 cottas and 8 chittaks of land at a rental of 2 annas per bigha, that the aggregate rent was Rs. 4 annas 5 per year, that in 1879 the village was surveyed by the landlord, with the result that the tenants were found in occupation of an area of 83 bighas 1 cotta and 13 chittaks, and that thereupon the additional area of 50 bighas 14 cottas 5 chittaks was assessed at Rs. 6 5 annas 10 gun...
Tag this Judgment!Hon'ble Raja Reshee Case Law Vs. Satish Chandra Paul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal123,64Ind.Cas.774
1. This is an appeal by the landlord in a proceeding under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, for enhancement of rent. The tenant pleaded that the rent was fixed in perpetuity, and this contention has been accepted by both the Courts below.2. On the present appeal, stress has been laid upon the observation of Sir James Colvile in Bamasoondery Dassyah v. Radhika Chowdhrain 13 M.I.A. 248 : 13 W.R.P.C. 11 : 4 B.L.R. P.C. 8 : 2 Suth. P.C.J. 293 : 2 Sar. P.C.J. 524 : 20 E. R.544 that a suit to enhance rent proceeds on the presumption that a Zemindar holding under the perpetual settlement has the right, from time to time, to raise the rents of all the rent paying lands within his Zemindary, according to the Purgannah or current rates, unless either he is precluded from the exercise of that right by a contract binding on him, or the lands in question can be brought within one of the exemptions recognised by Bengal Regulation VIII of 1793. Let it be conceded that the burden thus lies on th...
Tag this Judgment!Bama Charan Chakravarti and ors. Vs. Kishore Mohan Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.903
1. This appeal is directed against an order of dismissal made on an application under Order XXXIV, Rule 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure for a final decree in a mortgage suit. The preliminary decree was made on the 6th April 1910 and the mortgagor was thereby allowed six months to pay the amount, found due. The present application for final decree was presented on the 2nd October 1917. An objection was thereupon taken that the application was barred by limitation. The mortgagees decree-holders urged that they were entitled to the benefit of Section 20, Sub-section (2) of the Indian Limitation Act. The Courts below have overruled this contention and dismissed the application.2. The case for the mortgagees decree holders is that in 1912 the mortgagor agreed to transfer the equity of redemption to them in satisfaction of their dues under the mortgage decree, that in pursuance of this agreement they entered into possession of the mortgaged properties and that since then they have held pos...
Tag this Judgment!Rash Behari Gangully Vs. Shabharanjan Samaddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.1001
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract.2. It appears that there was an agreement between the members of the family to which Koilas, father of the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the plaintiff belonged, that if any one of them had to sell any portion of the family property, he must offer it for sale in the first instance to the other members of the family; in other words, there was a right of pre-emption given by the agreement. It was stipulated that the agreement would be binding upon the parties and their heirs.3. The Courts below have held that it was not a valid agreement which could be enforced; and the only question we have to consider is whether it was so.4. Now, a covenant for pre-emption which is unlimited in point of time is void on the ground that it is obnoxious to the rule against perpetuities. [See the eases of Sreemutty Tripoora Soonduree v. Juggur Nath Dutt 24 W.R. 321, Nobin Chandra Soot v. Nabab Ali Sarkar 5 C.W.N. 343, Kolathu v. Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Dulloo Singh and ors. Vs. the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.i. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal412,65Ind.Cas.570
1. This Rule is directed against an order by which the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Sealdah has granted to a responsible officer of Government sanction for the prosecution of the five petitioners on charges under Sections 204, 193, 471, and cognate sections, of the Indian Penal Code.2. The suit out of which the application arose was one brought by the first petitioner against one Lakhia Chamarin and her minor son, Biswa Nath, as the heirs and representative of Gajan Chamar and his wife, Ukia, to recover a sum of money said to be due on a hand note. In this suit Dukharan, the father of Biswanath represented his minor son, and the suit eventually terminated in a compromise by which the plaintiff gave up all claims against the defendants on the execution by Dukharan of a promissory-note for the sum of Rs. 200 in favour of the plaintiff. On the order-sheet the final order reads 'decreed on compromise,' but this is obviously a mistake, as, in view of the statements made in the petition...
Tag this Judgment!A.D. Pickford Vs. Rai Bahadur Janoki Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal763,70Ind.Cas.488
Rankin, J.1. In May 1919 the defendant and another person (since deceased) brought in this Court a suit against one Raja Mahendra Raj an Roy upon certain promissory-notes claiming some eight and a half lacs of rupees. The writ of summons was served, appearance was entered and on or about the 24th July the written statement was filed. Apart from orders for discovery, which were made at the end of July and begining of August, nothing seems to have happened in the suit until the 17th November. On that date the plaintiffs in the suit presented a petition to the Court for attachment before judgment, alleging that on the 1st September 1919 the defendant had obtained some 17 lacs of rupees upon mortgage of nearly all property for the purpose of paying off his debts and of paying off this debt in particular. The petition further alleged that the petitioner's debt had not yet been paid, that the defendant in the suit had still to his credit some 15 lacs of rupees with the Bank of Bengal and tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »