Kolkata Court April 1922 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Khetramani Dasi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal539,71Ind.Cas.232
Walmsley, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 373, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. The girl in this case is Ranibala Dasi, who, according to the Police Surgeon, was about sixteen years old on December 2, 1921, when he gave evidence.2. The first question that arises is, whether the appellant obtained, possession of her. It is suggested that she bought her, but there is no evidence of this. It is conceded, however, that the girl has been with the appellant for several years. In cross-examination some questions, were, put suggesting that the appellant was the mother of the girl, but the appellant in the course of her very lengthy written statement, made no such assertion. The, only possible conclusion is, that the girl is not the daughter of the appellant, and that the appellant obtained possession of her some ten years ago, as set out in the charge.3. The next and most important question is the intention or knowledge of the ap...
Kristopada Roy and ors. Vs. Chaitanya Charan Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal274,69Ind.Cas.530
Walmsley, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. Their suit was for establishment of their title as against; defendants Sob. 6 to 11, and for recovery of khas posses-ion as against the tenant-defendants Nos. 1 to 5, They lost in the First Court, and on appeal they succeeded in part, they now prefer this appeal in regard to the part of their; claim that has been disallowed.2. The property in suit is two-thirds of a plot measuring 10 bighas 16 kattas. This portion was bought by one Syama Charan Mokerjee in 1273 B. S, he died leaving two sons, Akhoy and Abhoy. They together mortgaged it to Jiban Krishna Boy, father of plaintiffs Nos, 1,2 and 3, and of defendant No. 12, and grandfather of plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5, The mortgage was dated; 1297. Jiban got a degree on the mortgage, in 1896, and bought the mortgaged property in execution on January l2, 1897.3. Meanwhile Abinas, the predecessor of defendants Nos. 8 to 11, had obtained a decree against Abhoy alone, and bought the interest of Abh...
Sarat Chandra Vs. Monorama Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal181,68Ind.Cas.295
1. In this case there is both an appeal and a cross objection. The First Court dismissed the suit and the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit in part, that is, as against the defendant who was described as principal defendant No. 1 and dismissed the suit as against the rest. Against this dismissal against the rest of the (sic)fendants the cross objection is directed. The question to be decided in this appeal is whether there was or was not, a sale of the entire holding. If there was a sale of the entire holding then there is no question as to the landlord's right to khas possession. That is the decision which has been adopted by the Subordinate Judge.2. It has been contended before us that we are bound by his finding on of this question as being one of fast. We do not think in the circumstances of this case that it tan be considered as a finding only of fast. The document which conveyed the property conveyed only 15 annas of it. In my opinion the Subordinate Judge was in error in holdin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›