Kolkata Court January 1923 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.
Promotha Nath Mukhopadhya Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal470,71Ind.Cas.792
Rankin, J.1. In my opinion, this case must be disposed of on the footing that there has not been a compliance by the Magistrate with the provisions of Section 342 of the Criminal. Procedure Code.2. According to the order-sheet, the accused were property called upon to plead. That was on the 14th March 1922, and at that time they stated that they pleaded not guilty and also that they would both file written statements. The duty of the Magistrate under Section 342 is not in question at that stage. It arises when the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined, cross-examined and re-examined and, according to the order-sheet, that process was completed on the 12th April 1922, on which date the case was adjourned until the 25th for the purpose of the accused entering on their defence. It is quite clear that the promise to file written statements made at the time of the plea in no way exonerates or exempts the Court from examining the accused at a later stage as required by Section 342...
Giridhar Sarkar and ors. Vs. Harish Chandra Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.328
1. The facts of the present case can be distinguished from the facts of the case cited by the learned Sessions Judge in his letter of reference, namely, the case of Deputy Legal Remembrancer v. Mir Sarwar Jan 6 C.W.N. 845. In that case the warrant signed by the Serishtadar did not show on the face of it that the Serishtadar had signed in the exercise of the authority delegated to him by the Judge. But here we find that the Serishtadar who signed the warrant purported to make that signature 'by order.' We think, therefore, that the presumption under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act can be applied to the present case, and we hold that the statement that appeared in the face of the warrant that the Serishtadar signed 'by order' can be presumed to be true, and that we should hold, in the absence of anything to suggest the contrary, that he was actually the officer appointed by the Court to sign processes as required by Clause 2 of Rule 24, Order XXI, Civil Procedure Code.2. We accordingl...
Narendra Lal Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Benode Behari Sadhukhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal143
1. This is an appeal by the Plaintiff's landlords in a proceeding instituted by them under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for settlement of a fair and equitable rent by way of enhancement of the existing rent of the disputed holding. The defendant has been entered as an occupancy raiyat in the record-of-rights. But in answer to the claim for enhancement of rent he contended that he had the status of a raiyat at a fixed rate. In support of this position he produced rent-receipts to show that he had held the tenancy at the same rate for more than 20 years. The settlement officer held that inasmuch as he was an occupancy raiyat he was not entitled to the benefit of the presumption formulated in Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. On appeal, the Special Judge held that although the defendant might be an occupancy raiyat, he was entitled to the benefit of the presumption mentioned in Section 50. The Special Judge then considered the rent-receipts, and although receipts for twenty c...
Annada Kumar Das Gupta Vs. Dwarka Nath Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal152
1. This is an appeal by the Plaintiff in a suit for possession upon establishment of title. The disputed land belonged to the father of the Plaintiff and passed to him by right of inheritance when his father died. On the 22nd May, 1909, when the Plaintiff was still an infant, his mother granted a permanent lease of the subject-matter of the litigation to the Defendants. On the 20th July 1918, the Plaintiff instituted the present suit to eject the Defendants on the ground that the lease was unauthorised. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. Upon appeal that decision has been reversed by the Subordinate Judge.2. We have examined the lease and we find that it was granted by the lady on the assumption that she was the proprietor in possession, competent to deal with the property. There can be no dispute that this was not the true state of facts. As the Defendant has stated in the written statement, a document was first drawn up which purported to transfer the property to the Defen...
Ananda Kumar Das Gupta Vs. Dwark Nath Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1923
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.1017
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for possession upon establishment of title. The disputed land belonged to the father of the plaintiff and passed to him by right of inheritance when his father died. On the 22nd May 1909, when the plaintiff was still an infant, his mother granted a permanent lease of the subject-matter of the litigation to the defendants. On the 20th July 1918, the plaintiff instituted the present suit to eject the defendants on the ground that the lease was unauthorised. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. Upon appeal that decision has been reversed by the Subordinate Judge.2. We have examined the lease and we find that it was granted by the lady on the assumption that she was the proprietor in possession, competent to deal with the property. There can be no dispute that this was not the true state of facts. As the defendant has stated in the written statement, a document was first drawn up which purported to transfer the property to the defend...
Pramatha Nath Sen Gupta Vs. Sheikh Abdul Aziz Meah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal436,75Ind.Cas.443
Rankin, J.1. This is a second appeal brought by the plaintiff who acted as a Commissioner in a partition suit which was referred to arbitration under the Second Schedule of the Code. It appears that an arbitrator having been appointed certain petitions were made to the arbitrator including one by the plaintiff in the suit asking that, in respect of a certain property, there should be a local enquiry. On the 8th March 1915 the Court having appointed the arbitrator to determine all the matters in difference between the parties in the suit empowered him to dispose of all the petitions filed before him including the plaintiff's petition for. the appointment of a Pleader Commissioner. The order gave the arbitrator power to appoint 'whomsoever he likes' and directed the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 100 at present as Commissioner's fees etc., within seven days. The plaintiff deposited Rs. 100 in terms of that order ana the plaintiff in the present suit was appointed Commissioner under that order....
Anil Kumar Biswas and ors. Vs. Rash Mohan Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal245,81Ind.Cas.29
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of the Plaintiff's title to the land in dispute on the allegation that it was included in a separate estate which was allotted to his predecessor-in-title upon a partition of the parent estate between him, the contesting Defendants and certain other co-sharers. It was further alleged that the disputed land was shown in the partition map as having been allotted to his predecessor-in-title, that the latter had obtained possession of the land in accordance with the map : that the Plaintiff and his predecessor-in-title had been in possession by receipt of rent from tenant, and that, as the contesting Defendants Nos. 5 to 7 were attempting to prevent the tenant from paying the rent to the Plaintiff, he brought this suit for declaration of his title and for confirmation of possession.2. The main defence was that the land in dispute was allotted to the Defendants' taluk on partition according to the partition papers.3. The Court of first ins...
Satish Chandra Addya Vs. Firm Raj NaraIn Pakhira and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal436
1. These two appeals arise out of proceedings under the Provincial Insolvency Act2. An application was made by one of the creditors for declaring the debtors (who are four out of five members of a firm the fifth being a minor), insolvent. Some of the other creditors opposed the application on various grounds the learned District Judge dismissed the application on several grounds. After the application had been disposed of, four of the debtors made an application for being declared insolvents. This also was rejected by the Court below on the ground, among others, that they had not proved their inability to pay their debts. These two appeals are against these two orders. We propose to deal first of all with Miscellaneous Appeal No. 378 of 1922 which deals with applications of the four debtors to be declared insolvents.3. It appears that one of the debtors, Rasik La, was examlined and he stated that the debts amounted to over Bs. 1,06,600 and that they were unable to pay their debts; and ...
Sita Sundari Barmani and anr. Vs. Barada Prosad Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal636,83Ind.Cas.319
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for arrears of rent the claim is based on a kabuliyat which, the defendants contend, was obtained by undue influence. This defence has been negatived. As regards one of the two defendants the additional defence has been urged that the kabuliyat does not bind him, as it was executed by his mother, when she was the administration of the estate of his father, without the permission of the District Judge under Section 90 of the Probate and Administration Act. In our opinion that provision is of no assistance to the appellants. Section 90, no doubt, makes it obligatory upon the administratrix to obtain the sanction of the Court if a lease for more than five years is granted, but non-compliance with this provision does not invalidate the transaction, which becomes merely voidable and not void. If the party prejudicially affected thereby seeks relief, the Court will assist him only on equitable terms of reimbursement. The principle applicable t...
Dino Nath Sikdar and ors. Vs. Anadi Krishna Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal854,83Ind.Cas.873
1. This is an appeal by the Defendants in a suit instituted by their landlords for the correction of an entry made in a record-of-rights regarding their status. The record-of-rights was finally published on the 29th May 1914. On the 27th August 1914, the landlords instituted a suit under Section 108 for the correction of the entry. On the 9th March 1915 they were permitted to withdraw the suit under Section 106 with liberty reserved to them to institute a fresh suit if not barred. They did not institute a fresh suit under Section 106; on the other hand on the 27th March 1915 they instituted the present suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge for precisely the same relief as that claimed by them in the suit under Section 106. We have compared the claim as set out in the present plaint with that in the suit under Section 106, and we have found that they are expressed in identical language. The prayer is for correction of an entry in the record-of-rights regarding the status of the Def...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »