Kolkata Court January 1923 Judgments
Saleh Abraham Vs. Manekji Cowasji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal57,75Ind.Cas.521
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Greaves.2. The learned Judge dismissed the suit.3. The suit was to recover vacant possession of the upper flat in No. 11, Bow Street, in the town of Calcutta, for mesne profits and for costs.4. The defence set out several allegations on which the defendant relied. The one which is material for the purposes of my judgment in effect was that the defendant was a tenant from May 1917 of the upper flat, that the standard rent had been fixed by the Controller of Bents, Calcutta, on the 30th May, 1921; that the defendant was continuing as tenant of the flat at the rent fixed by the Controller of Bents; that the defendant denied that the plaintiff required the premises for his own use and occupation as the residence of himself or his family; that he had paid rent regularly and was entitled to continue in occupation as such tenant. The standard rent referred to in the defence has been fixed ...
Tag this Judgment!Eusaf Ali Ahmad Khairaj and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal540,72Ind.Cas.68
1. The petitioners were convicted by a Magistrate of Second Class powers of offences punishable under Sections 147 and 342, Indian Penal Code. On appeal to the District Magistrate, that Court upheld the convictions and further passed an order requiring the nine petitioners to execute bonds under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code. But it has been held by this Court in Emperor v. Momin Malita [1908] 35 Cal. 434 that the Appellate Court cannot exercise the power given by Section 106(3), Criminal Procedure Code, where the conviction has not been by a Court specified in Sub-section (1). A Magistrate of Second Class powers is not included in the Courts named in Sub-section (1). We accordingly make this Rule absolute and set aside the order of the District Magistrate of Dinajpur, dated the 9th November 1922, directing the petitioners to execute bonds for keeping the peace under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code....
Tag this Judgment!Bhairabendra NaraIn Roy and anr. Vs. Rajendra NaraIn Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal45,74Ind.Cas.193
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for joint possession with the defendant of some lands. The facts lie within a narrow compass. The lands are said to have comprised an occupancy holding in the possession of a tenant, the landlords being both the plaintiffs and the defendant who are co-owners. The defendant brought a suit for his share of the rent against the tenant in occupation, obtained a decree, and, in execution of that decree, purchased the land himself and entered into possession in August 1901. The effect of the decree was merely that of a money decree and the defendant purchased only the right, title and interest of the tenant. The present suit was commenced on the 23rd of June 1917. It is found that the holding was a non-transferable occupancy holding which was purchased by the defendant. It is conceded that the defendant did not acquire any interest under Section 22, Sub-section (2), of the Bengal Tenancy Act, so as to entitle him ...
Tag this Judgment!Joymangal Singh and anr. Vs. Kanta Gope and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal444,72Ind.Cas.32
1. In this rule the Deputy Commissioner has been called on to show cause why the order passed under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, should not be set aside. The rule was issued on two grounds only. The first was, that the order is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, according to the settlement papers, the land in dispute is a joint property in which the petitioners were co-sharers. It appears that the dispute between the parties is as to the possession of certain land on which there are sal trees, and this land is situated in a jote in which the parties are co-sharers. But the first party claims the sole possession of the land about which the dispute has taken place and it has been found by the Magistrate that he was in sole possession of this land. That being so, the Court has jurisdiction to make an order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code.2. The second ground on which the rule was granted was, that the allegations of the first party do not show such a dispute as was lik...
Tag this Judgment!Sajani Kanta Roy and ors. Vs. Shamsher Ali Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal539
1. This Rule is directed against an order passed under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code, attaching the lands of a certain chur, the possession of which is disputed between the parties. The objection taken to the order is based on the fact that the Magistrate has found that both parties have erected huts on the chur and both parties have grown paddy on the chur for some length of time and cut fodder grass grown there. It is contended that on these findings the learned Magistrate ought not to have held that the disputed chur was not in possession of any of the parties. It is contended that he ought to have drawn up separate proceedings in respect of each plot of land and come to a definite finding as regards each of these plots.2. It appears to us that on the materials before him it was impossible for the Magistrate to have taken such a course. Our attention has been drawn to a map prepared by the Sub-Inspector. But this map is not drawn to scale, and it would be impossible on that i...
Tag this Judgment!JainuddIn and ors. Vs. Keramatulla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal641,71Ind.Cas.595
1. This Rule was granted calling on the District Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the order of the District Judge of Sylhet revoking the order of the Munsif granting sanction for the prosecution of the opposite parties should not be set aside and a rehearing of the appeal by the District Judge of Sylhet ordered.2. The Rule was granted on two grounds. The first of these was that the learned District Judge refused to hear the petitioners' Pleader before passing the order complained of. This ground has not been pressed at the hearing. The next ground was that on the facts and circumstances of the case the Court below ought to have upheld in the interest of the public and of justice the order of the learned Munsif. As the case has been argued, the ground that has been pressed is that in revoking the sanction the learned Judge wrongly held that the fact that the evidence was not strong enough for a successful criminal prosecution was sufficient ground for revoking the san...
Tag this Judgment!Mathura Nath Bhattacharjya Vs. Rajendra Kumar Basu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal641a,72Ind.Cas.79
1. This Rule is directed against an order of the District Judge of Faridpur remanding the case to the lower Court for reconsideration of an application for sanction to prosecute. The order of the District Judge is passed on fin application under Section 195(b), Cr.P. Code. As has been pointed out in the case on Budhu Lal v. Ghattu Gope (1917) 44 Cal. 816 the Judge acting under that section has no jurisdiction to remand a case to the subordinate Court for further enquiry. He must himself decide whether the sanction which was refused by the Munsif should be kranted, and he has power for this purpose to take evidence himself, but he has no power to remand the case for further enquiry by the Munsif. The Rule is also directed against the order of the District Judge assessing costs in this matter. The learned Vakil for the opposite party does not contest this portion of the Rule.2. The result is that the Rule is made absolute. The order of the District Judge dated the 23rd August, 1922, rema...
Tag this Judgment!Sajani Kanta Roy Alias Sajani Roy and ors. Vs. Shamsher Ali Sheikh and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1923
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.699
1. This Rule is directed against an order passed under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code, attaching the lands of a certain chur, the possession of which is disputed between the parties. The objection taken to the order is based on the fact that the Magistrate has found that both parties have erected huts on the chur and both parties have grown paddy on the chur for some length of time and cut fodder grass grown there. It is contended that on these findings the learned Magistrate ought not to have held that the disputed chur was not in possession of any of the parties. It is contended that he ought to have drawn up separate proceedings in respect of each plot of land and come to a definite finding as regards each of these plots.2. It appears to us that on the materials before him it was impossible for the Magistrate to have taken such a course. Our attention has been drawn to a map prepared by the Sub-Inspector. But this map is not drawn to scale and it would be impossible on that in...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of Calcutta Vs. the Calcutta Improvemnet Trust
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal85
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Greaves which was given with reference to a special case stated by the Board of the Calcutta Improvement Trust and the Calcutta Corporation under the provisions of Order 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. When the matter was before my learned brother there were several schemes for his consideration, but on the hearing of the appeal the argument has been limited to one scheme which is scheme IV-A, and the plan relating to it, is marked Exhibit D-3. The plots of land, to which this case relates, are situated between Kalighat New Road and Kalidas Patitandi Lane. The scheme was a street-scheme and the works comprised in the scheme are shown on the map Exhibit D-3. Part of the land, which lies between Kalighat New it Road and Kalidas Patitandi Lane, was required for making a new street running from Kalidas Patitandi Lane to Kalighat New Road; part of it was required for widening Kalighat New Road and p...
Tag this Judgment!Nirode Chandra Banerjee Vs. Profulla Chandra Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal421
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the pro forma defendants against what purports to be a consent decree in a suit to set aside a sale held under Regulation VIII of 1819. On the 21st May, 1920, the plaintiffs instituted the suit against the zemindars, the auction-purchaser, and two other persons, their co-sharers whom they described as pro forma defendants. On the 30th June 1921, the pro forma defendants, who were infants represented by their mother as their certificated guardian, applied to be transferred from the category of defendants to that of plaintiffs. No order was passed on this application. On the 27th September, 1921, the case was settled as between the plaintiffs and the auction-purchaser. At that stage the pro forma defendants renewed their application to be made co-plaintiffs. The Court refused the application and made a decree on the basis of the compromise between the plaintiffs and the auction-purchaser. As a result of the decree so made the suit was no doubt nominal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »