Kolkata Court June 1922 Judgments
Ajit Singh Vs. Bhagabati Charan Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal491,70Ind.Cas.370
1. This is an application by the infant representative of the sole appellant in an appeal from original decree for leave to prosecute the appeal. The appellant died on the 19th November 1920. Thereupon the right accrued to the legal representative of the deceased to apply under Rule 3 of Order XXII of the Code read with Rule 11, subject to the penalty that, if such application was not made within the time limited by law, the appeal would abate under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 3. On the date of the death of the original appellant, Art 176 of the First Schedule to the limitation Act of 1908 provided that an application under that rule could be made within six months from the death of the deceased appellant; in other words, the requisite application could be made on or before the 19th May 1921. In the interval, before the expiry of this period, Act XXVI of 1920, called 'The Indian Limitation and the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1920,' was passed by the Indian Legislative Council and rec...
Tag this Judgment!BepIn Krishna Roy and ors. Vs. Priyabrata Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal387,71Ind.Cas.371
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an application by defendant No. 8 for a certificate that this is a fit case for appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.2. The original suit was a mortgage suit in respect of a certain property which was described as Touzi No. 93, and the applicant, as I understand, was not a party to it. When the decree had been obtained and indeed, as I understand, when the property had been brought to sale, it was alleged by the mortgagee that there had been a mistake in the description of the property, and, consequently, in the mortgage-decree the property had been wrongly described as Touzi No. 93. The mortgagor had, we are informed, a share in Touzi No. 93 and a 2-annas 4-gandas share in Touzi No. 93A. The result was that the present suit was instituted and the defendant No. 8 was made a party, it being alleged by the plaintiff that, after the date of the mortgage, the defendant No. 8 had purchased the mortgagee's share in Touzi No. 93A with full k...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Mohammad Ismaid Vs. Munshi Barkat Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal483,71Ind.Cas.506
Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule was issued against an order passed under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Asansol, on the 2nd of May 1922. The grounds upon, which the Rule was issued are ground Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 of the petition of motion, namely, that the order of the Magistrate was without jurisdiction and that Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, was not intended to authorize a Magistrate to stop prayers in a mosque in the manner done in this case. It appears that the petitioner is the Mutwalli of a mosque in Raniganj Kasaipara, by virtue of a waqfnama executed by his grandfather. The petitioner appointed Hafez Abdus Sobhan as the Pesh Imam, or the leader of the prayers, in the mosque some time ago. The men of the locality followed his leadership for a number of years, but having as alleged subsequently discovered that he used to lend money on interest, they refused to read their prayers with him. The matter went so far as to necessitate the inte...
Tag this Judgment!Jatindra Mohan Chakravarti and ors. Vs. Bijoy Chand Mahatab
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal396
Ghose, J.1. These two appeals are by the defendants, and they arise out of two suits brought by the plaintiff for possession of certain lands on the ground that the defendants had been in possession of these lands adversely to the putnidars of the mahals to which these lands appertain for over twelve years. It is alleged that the putnis were created in 1849, The plaintiff purchased these two mahals which are named Monoharpur and Bankati in execution of a rent-decree in May 1905. The plaintiff is the Zamindar. The plaintiff I says that the defendants are incumbrancers on the lands, and he purchased the mahals with power to annul all incumbrances under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. There are two sets of the defendants. The first set alleged that these lands are their brahmotter granted to them by a former Raja of Bishanpur in the year 1754, and they gave a permanent lease of these lands in 1843 to the second set of defendants who claim as cultivators. The plaintiff alleges th...
Tag this Judgment!Jatindra Mohan Chakravarti and ors. Vs. Sir Bojoy Chand Mahatab
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.284
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These two appeals are by the defendants and they arise out of two suits brought by the plaintiff for possession of certain lauds on the ground that the defendants had been in possession of these lands adversely to the putnidars of the mahals to which these lands appertain for over twelve years. It is alleged that the putnis were created in 1849. The plaintiff purchased these two mahals which are named Mono-harpur and Bankati in execution of a rent-decree in May 1905. The plaintiff is the Zemindar. The plaintiff saysthat the defendants are incumbrancers on the lands and he purchased the mahals with power to annul all incumbrances under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. There are two sets of the defendants. The first set alleged that these lands are their brahmotter granted to them by a former Raja of Bishanpur in the year 1754 and they gave a permanent lease of these lands in 1843 to the second set of defendants who claim as cultivators. The plaintiff alleges th...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Gahur Sikdar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.124
Walmsley, J.1. The three appellants were all charged under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, and there were separate charges, against Abdul Gohur under Sections 372, 109, Indian Penal Code., against Erfan under Section 373, Indian Penal Code, and against Sarojini tinder Section 372, Indian Penal Code. They were found guilty on all the counts, and the learned Judge sentenced Abdul Gohur to three years rigorous imprisonment, and the other two to Tour years rigorous imprisonment each, all under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, but did not pass any separate sentences on the other charges.2. The girl in the case is Sukhoda, the daughter of Sarojini, and briefly stated the story is that Sarojini took her to Abdul Gohur's house and afterwards made her over to Erfan for purposes of cohabitation. The defence is that the woman became a Mussalman, and that Erfan wanted to warry the girl.3. So far as the charges under Sections 572 and 373, Indian Penal Code, are concerned, the age of the girl is an e...
Tag this Judgment!Mahammad Oziullah Vs. Beni Madhab Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.239
Walmsley, J.1. The petitioner has been placed on his trial upon a charge under Section 294A of the Indian Penal Code.2. The Police reported the facts upon which the charge is based, and Mr. Burrows, as Additional District Magistrate, submitted a report to Government for the purpose of obtaining the sanction required by Section 196, Criminal Procedure Code, and the authority was conveyed in a letter issued from the Chief Secretary's Office, and signed by Mr. A. Cassells for Chief Secretary. A Police Officer then made a complaint to Mr. Burrows, and the petitioner was summoned. On the day fixed for hearing Mr. Burrows transferred the case to another Magistrate.3. On these facts two objections are based. The first is that Mr. Burrows was not competent to take cognizance of the case at all, because he had taken a part in initiating the proceedings. The second is that the authority is defective because the letter is signed by Mr. Cassells, and not by the Chief Secretary himself.4. I cannot ...
Tag this Judgment!ReajuddIn Patwari and ors. Vs. Syed Abdul Jobbar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal445,69Ind.Cas.504
Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for ejectment of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from certain lands on the allegation that he is entitled to possession of those lands by virtue of an ijara lease obtained from the eight annas proprietor in 1318 B.S. The defendants, who are the appellants in this Court, were the dar ijaradars of the village in which the lands are situate from the year 1866 and their dar ijara lease terminated some time in the year 1910. During the period they were in possession of the village as dar ijaradars they entered into occupation of the lands in suit and after the termination of the lease they continued in possession of these lands, and the plaintiff alleged that they held these lands without any title and are, therefore, liable to ejectment as these lands are included within his eight annas share of the ijara. The defendants amongst other things pleaded that they were entitled to hold these lands as raiyats and were not l...
Tag this Judgment!Prosanna Kumar Chakerbutty and anr. Vs. Jotindra Nath Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal398,71Ind.Cas.1054
1. This appeal is against an order dismissing an application for execution of a decree on the ground that the date of disposal of two previous applications for execution as also certain cross-decrees obtained by the judgment-debtor against the decree-holder were not mentioned in the application.2. It appears that the present application for execution was made on the 12th January, 1920, No defect in the application was noticed at the time and the Court directed it to be registered. Subsequently, on the 17th July, 1920, the Court held upon the objection raised by the judgment-debtor that the application for execution did not comply with the requirements of Order 21, Rule 11, as stated above.3. There is no doubt that material defects would vitiate an application for execution and the question, therefore, is whether there were material defects in the application.4. Now, so far as the dates of disposal of the two previous applications are concerned, it appears that the date of disposal of t...
Tag this Judgment!Tinkori Pathak Vs. Ram Gopal Pathak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal8,70Ind.Cas.663
1. The litigation which has culminated in this appeal is the result of a dispute in respect of the right to irrigate two fields with water drawn from an adjoining tank. The tank is described in schedule 'ka' attached to the plaint, while the two fields are comprised within boundaries set out in schedules 'kha' and 'ga' attached to the respectively. The plaintiff's claimed a right to irrigate the fields, as they and their predecessors had done from time immemorial. The defendant, who is the proprietor of the village, is the landlord of the plaintiffs and the owner of the tank. He denied that the fields had been irrigated from time immemorial, and further pleaded that the alleged user, even if established, could confer on the plaintiff's a right enforceable against their landlord, specially as for many years past the tank had been in the occupation of other tenants. As regards the field in schedule 'ga' he took the further defence that the right of irrigation, even if it ever existed in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »