Kolkata Court June 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.
Purna Chandra Roy and ors. Vs. Mathura Mohan Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal210,70Ind.Cas.68
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of possession of four plots of land upon establishment of title thereto. The plaintiffs and the contesting defendants, along with many others, were proprietors of Mouza Kalipura. The disputed lands constituted the occupancy holding of a cultivator named Dhanu in that Mouza. On the 15th December 1901 Dhanu mortgaged the holding to the plaintiffs who belong to a family of Roys. The contesting defendants, who belong to a family of Sahas, subsequently acquired the right, title and interest of Dhanu at an execution sale. On the 13th December 1909 the Roys instituted a suit to enforce their security and included the Sahas in the category of defendants as purchasers of the equity of redemption. On the 12th August 1910 the mortgage suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance. On the 26th April 1911 the Subordinate Judge on appeal decreed the suit. The decree was executed in due course, and at the sale which followed, the Roys ...
Gulzari Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal164,71Ind.Cas.51
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a Rule granted by two of my learned brothers calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the conviction of, and the Sentence passed upon, the petitioner should not be set aside on the third ground mentioned in the petition. The third ground is, 'that the Magistrate did not apparently examine the accused under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, and the omission to do 90 is an illegality vitiating the conviction.'2. The accused was charged under Section 54A of the Police Act, and the property which he had in his possession, in respect of which this charge was made, was three bottles of French wine, which, the learned Magistrate in his explanation says, was valuable.3. The story of the prosecution apparently seems to be that the accused was arrested on information given by Mrs. Singh, whose servant he was. And after Mr. Singh and the Inspector of Police had been examined, the Magistrate, as appears from his explanation, asked the a...
Gunjar Mohammad and anr. Vs. Shuruz Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1922
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.451
Panton, J.1. This is a Rule directed against the convictions of the two petitioners under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. The convictions in question were in respect of a kabin nama purporting to have been executed by one of the petitioner, namely, Gunjar Mohammed and to have been witnessed by the other petitioner, Sunjar Mohammed.2. The learned Sessions Judge, to whom the case went on appeal, expressed the opinion, I have no doubt that the story of marriage is a, fiction and that Gunjar intended to make a claim to Aimona's property alleging mar riage and supporting his claim by means of the kabin'. Further on, the learned Judge in his judgment says: 'There can be no doubt that the kabin is a false document and admittedly Gunjar executed it.'3. For the petitioners, however, it is pointed out that although Gunjar may have had no business to execute this kabin-nama in favour of Aimona Bibi, who was not in fact his wife yet the document in question is not a fake document within the ...
Ramharicohakraverty and ors. Vs. Santosh Kumar Manna
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1922
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.461
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a Rule sailing upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the appeal should not be re heard on the first and second grounds mentioned in the petition.2. The first and second grounds are, that ' The learned District Magistrate's order dismissing the appeal summarily is not proper, ' and, ' That the proper disposal of; the appeal required at least an examination of the document, Exhibit A, and the same not having been done, the appeal has not been properly disposed of.'3. The petitioners were convicted and they appealed to the District Magistrate who dismissed the appeal summarily. Two of my learned brothers thought it desirable that the learned District Magistrate should show cause why the appeal should not be re-heard, The explanation which has been forwarded by the District Magistrate is as fellows: 'l should not be justified in taking up their Lordships' time over this trumpery case.' In my judgment this Rule should be made absolute. The learne...
Rajani Kanta Roy and ors. Vs. Raja Jyoti Prosad Singh Deo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1922
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.255
1. This appeal is against the final decree in a suit for partition of a Mouza, called Ismail.2. There is a preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal on the ground that the defendant No. 2, Rakhal, died and no substitution was made within time; that another defendant No. 41, Sibani Debya. also died and no substitution was made in time, and that the suit being one for partition the appeal cannot proceed.3. Rakhal died on the 24th May 1920. The application for substitution of his heirs was made on the 5th February 1921 and substitution was ordered to be made subject to objection at the hearing. It appears that Rakhal's interest was sold away in execution of a decree in 1918. On Rakhal's death, therefore, the interest was not in his heirs but devolved on a third party. It was re-purchased on the 23rd January 1921 by his heirs and they were brought on the record on the 5th May 1921 subject to objection at the hearing. The appellant was not bound to recognise the purchaser and could...
Jyoti Prokash Chatterjee and anr. Vs. Bagala Kanta Chodhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.822
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent on the basis of a kabuliyat executed by their predecessor on the 28th February 1913. The Trial Court held that the kabuliyat was not operative and that rent was recoverable only at the rate mentioned in a Settlement Record prepared under Section 112 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Court of Appeal below has held that the kabuliyat was operative inasmuch as the Settlement Record had been prepared without jurisdiction. The substantial question in controversy is, which of these conflicting views is correct.2. Section 112 of the Bengal Tenancy Act provides as follows:(1) The Local Government, with the previous sanction of the Governor-General in Council, may, on being satisfied that the exercise of the powers hereinafter mentioned is necessary in the interests of public order or of the local welfare, or that any landlord is demanding rents which have been illegally enhanced above those entered as payable in a Re...
Monmohini Das Gupta Vs. Basanta Kumar Das Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal458,69Ind.Cas.753
Thomas Richardson, J.1. This appeal must be dismissed. The present plaintiff, the appellant before us, claimed the disputed jote under a conveyance in her favour executed by the widow of a Muhammadan named Jahar Ali on her own behalf and as guardian of her minor son Ohad Ali. The holding had been sold by the landlord in execution of a degree for arrears of rent. The original plaintiffs, the mother and the son, brought the present suit to set aside the decree for rent and the sale held under that decree. The plaintiff having obtained the conveyance from the Widow-to which I have referred, was substituted on the record as plaintiff on the 11th December, 1916. The learned Subordinate Judge in the lower Appellate Court has held that she had no title to the share of the widow in the holding, because that share had been sold in execution of the decree for rent and there was no reason for setting aside the sale. As regards the share of the minor the learned Subordinate Judge has, as I underst...
Nowrang Singh Vs. Janardan Kisorlal Singh Deo and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.161
1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in a suit for recovery of minimum royalty and other dues under a mining lease granted by the predecessor of the plaintiffs on the 28th Septembers 1901. The suit was instituted on, the 6th July 1917 and the claim covered the period of six years between the 14th April 1911 and the 13th April 1917. The defendant resisted the claim substantially on two grounds, namely, first that he was entitled to abatement, inasmuch as six bighas out of the thirty-two bighas of coal land included in the lease had been acquired under the and Acquisition Act; and, secondly, that as his possession of the mine had been interrupted by Mayer & Co., who were lessees of an adjoining mine under a grant made by the predecessor of the plaintiffs on the 22nd April 1897, the entire rent was suspended. The Subordinate Judge gave effect to the first contention and overruled the second, with the result that, on the 30th April 1919, the claim was decreed in part. The present ap...
Asiatulla and ors. Vs. Denes Mohammed and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal152,70Ind.Cas.169
Suhrawardy, J.1. These two appeals have arisen out of suits for recovery of a portion of the amount of dower of the plaintiff's daughter under the following circumstances. Langina Bibi, the daughter of the plaintiff, died leaving as her heirs the plaintiff, her father and her husband, Asiatulla, defendant, the appellant before us. The dower was fixed at the marriage at Rs. 500. of which Rs. 300 was prompt and the balance Rs. 200 deferred. The two other defendants, who are the brothers of Asiatulla, the husband, stood surety for the sum of Rs. 100 out of the prompt portion of the dower. The plaintiff has, therefore, brought this suit for Rs. 200, being his eight-annas share in the dower, against the husband, Asiatulla, and for Rs. 50 in the other suit against the brothers. The defence was, that the lady died more than six years before the institution of the suit and hence the suit was barred by limitation. It was also pleaded that, on receipt of the sum of Rs. 100 the deceased lady had ...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Troilokhya Nath C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal194,72Ind.Cas.356
Lancelot Sanders, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, against a decision of a Sub-Deputy Magistrate, 3rd Class, of Ghatal, and the matter arises out of a prosecution, in which one Troilokhya Nath Chatterjee was the defendant, under Section 273(2) of the Bengal Municipal Act, which provides that, 'whoever, in a Municipality, without a license uses any place for any of the purposes specified in Section 261, or Section 263; or (uses any place as a kiln in contravention of the provisions of Section 262A) and so on, 'shall be liable, for every such offence, to a fine.' And the material part of Section 261 which is applicable to this case is as follows:Within such local limits as may be fixed by the Commissioners at a meeting, no place shall be used without a license from the Commissioners, which shall be renewable annually, for any of the following purposes, namely, as a tannery, slaughterhouse, or kiln for making bricks, pottery, tiles ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »