Kolkata Court February 1923 Judgments
Bhairabendra NaraIn Deb Vs. Udai NaraIn Deb and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal251
Chatterjea, J.1. The question involved in this Rule relates to security for costs, and arises in this way-The petitioner before us was the plaintiff No. 1 in a suit relating to succession to the Bijni Estate which is pending in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Alipore. The opposite party No. 1 was originally the plaintiff No 2 in the suit. The plaintiff No. 1 and the plaintiff No. 2 claimed the estate under different rights. It appears that there was an agreement between them that, in the event of success of the one, the other would participate in it. The suit was conducted jointly by both the plaintiffs until the 14th February 1922, when the plaintiff No. 2 transferred his interest to Prince Victor Nityendra Narain of Cooch Behar. Since then the two plaintiffs fell out. An application was made on behalf of Prince Victor Nityendra Narain to be substituted in place of the opposite party No. 1, which, however, was ultimately withdrawn. There were various other proceedings which need not ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhairabendra NaraIn Deb and ors. Vs. Udai NaraIn Deb and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.298
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. The question involved in this Rule relates to security for costs, and arises in this way.2. The petitioner before us was the plaintiff No. 1 in a suit relating to succession to the Bijni Estate which is pending in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Alipore. The opposite party No. 1 was originally the plaintiff No. 2 in the suit. The plaintiff No. 1 and the plaintiff No. 2 claimed the estate under different rights. It appears that there was an agreement between them that in the event of success of the one, the other would participate in it. The suit was conducted jointly by both the plaintiffs until the 14th February 1922 when the plaintiff No. 2 transferred his interest to Prince Victor Nityendra Narain of Cooch Behar. Since then the two plaintiffs fell out. An application was made on behalf of Prince Victor Nityendra Narain to be substituted in place o the opposite party No. 1, which, however, was ultimately withdrawn. There were various other proceedings which nee...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Pratab Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb Vs. Sri Raja Jagadish Chandra Deo Dh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.417
1. The subject-matter of the litigation, which has given rise to this Rule, is the Dhalbhum estate, described in these proceedings as an impartible raj subject to the operation of the Rule of lineal primogeniture among the members of a family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. Raja Satrughandeo Dhabal Deo, the last holder of the raj, died on the 1st March 1916. He was at that time a disqualified proprietor and his estate was under the management of the Encumbered Estates Act authorities. Upon his death, disputes broke out as to the succession to the raj. The plaintiff claimed the estate under a testamentary instrument executed by the decease so fa(sic) back as the 11th May 1905. The defendant claimed title as the next taker under the Hindu Law. There was the usual preliminary controversy in the matter of land registration before the Revenue Authorities. The Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner, and the Board of Revenue successively upheld the claim of the present petition...
Tag this Judgment!Sasi Kanta Acharjya Vs. Salim Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal624,74Ind.Cas.1001
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These appeals arise out of as many suits for rent at an enhanced rate on several grounds stated in the plaints. The Munsif made a partial decree in favour of the landlord, the plaintiff. On appeal by the defendants, the Subordinate Judge has dismissed the claim for enhancement on the ground that the suit for enhancement is not maintainable under the provisions of Section 109 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the landlord having made applications under Section 105 of the Act before the Revenue Officer, on the authority of the case of Abeda Khatun v. Majubali Chowdhury 59 Ind. Cas. 760 : 48 C. 157 : 24 C.W.N. 1020 : 33 C.L.J. 304. The learned Vakil for the appellant argues before us that there is a difference of opinion with regard to the construction of Section 109, and contends that the case of Abed a Khatun v. Majubali chowdhury 59 Ind. Cas. 760 : 48 C. 157 : 24 C.W.N. 1020 : 33 C.L.J. 304 is distinguishable from the present case and that the other cases relied on by him sup...
Tag this Judgment!Nursing Dass Kothari Vs. Chuttoolall Misser
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal641,74Ind.Cas.996
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is on appeal from the judgment f my learned brother Mr. Justice Buckland, who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with cost.2. The suit was brought for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that a certain agreement for the purchase of the land and premises No. 43, Burtolla Street Calcutta, is void and inoperative and to recover a sum of Rs. 36,000 with interest which the plaintiff had deposited as part payment of the purchase price.3. The date of the agreement in question was the 29th of November 1919. The defendant was a Receiver appointed in a certain suit by this Court, and he sold by auction the property in pursuance of an order of the Court. The plaintiff was the highest bidder, and purchased the property for Rs. 1,41,000 and made a deposit, as I have already said, of Rs. 36,000, Subsequently, the plaintiff discovered that a notice had been published tinder Section 63, Sub-section (2), of the Calcutta Improvement Act which affected these premises. ...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsi Telini Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal64
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an application by the petitioner, one Tulsi Telini, praying that this Court, under Section 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code, will stay execution of the sentence of imprisonment passed against her, until the petition, which she alleges she is about to present to His Majesty in Council, is disposed of. The application is really that the petitioner-may be admitted to bail pending the application to the Privy Council.2. It appears that the petitioner was charged, under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that he could not convict her on the charge of theft or of receiving stolen property. He then proceeded to say - 'But at the same time I have good reasons to suspect that the money and the ornaments, especially the ornaments, were stolen property. And as the accused has not given a satisfactory explanation of her possession of the same, I find her guilty under S...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsi Telini Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1923
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.362
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an application by the petitioner, one Tulsi Telini, praying that this Court, under Section 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code, will stay execution of the sentence of imprisonment passed against her, until the petition which she alleges she is about to present to His Majesty in Council is disposed of. The application is really that the petitioner may be admitted to bail pending the application to the Privy Council.2. It appears that the petitioner was charged under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that he could not convict her on the charge of theft or of receiving stolen property. He then proceeded to say: 'But at the same time I have good reasons to suspect that the money and the ornaments, especially the ornaments, were stolen property. And as the accused has not given satisfactory explanation of her possession of the same, I find her guilty unde...
Tag this Judgment!Prasanna Chandra Majumdar Vs. Upendra Nath Shaw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal658,75Ind.Cas.362
1. The petitioner in this case was convicted by the Deputy Magistrate of Bogra under Section 143, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. On appeal to the Sessions Judge of Pabna he upheld the conviction and sentence and further passed an order setting aside the order of acquittal of the offence under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, which had been passed by the Trying Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge had clearly no jurisdiction to set aside the acquittal of the petitioner when he upheld conviction under Section 143, Indian Penal Code. It was not a case of altering the conviction which was within his powers under Section 423, Criminal Procedure Code. We accordingly make this Rule absolute and set aside the order of the Sessions Judge so far as it sets aside the acquittal of the petitioner under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, by the Trying Magistrate....
Tag this Judgment!Nagendra Chandra Dhar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Cal717,76Ind.Cas.430
1. The appellant in this case has been convited of kidnapping a minor girl from the lawful guardianship of her mother and has been sentenced, under Section 363, Indian Penal Code, to three months' rigorous imprisonment. Sharasibala Ihar, the mother of the girl, is the young widow of one Bangsi Mohan Ihar. She was living in her husband's house with her daughter Mukta a girl of six or seven years and the accused Nagendra Caandra Dhar, the adopted son, of Bangsidar's cousin also lived in the same bari2. The case for the prosecution was that on the 29th April 11ast Nagendra asked Sharasibala to make over to him her ornaments and moveable property and also to transfer her husband's immovable property to him. Sarasibala refused and on this Nagendra assaulted her and drove her away from the house and at the same time forcibly detained her daughter Mukta and did not allow the girl to go With her mother. The accused set up the defence that Sharasibala had been guilty of misconduct with one Ramk...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Sahu Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.931
Newbould, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, on the charge of having been in dishonest possession of stolen property on the 7th December 1921. It appears that on that date several articles of property were found in the room occupied by the petitioner. In respect of some of them he was prosecuted and after being convicted under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, by the Trying Magistrate he was acquitted on appeal. He has now been tried and convicted in respect of other properties found in his possession on the same date. There was evidence that the different articles which were the subject of the charges in the two trials were stolen from different, persons, but there is no evidence that they were received at different times. The facts of the case cannot be distinguished from those of Queen-Empress v. Makhan 15 A. 317 : A.W.N. (1893) 101 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 919 which follows the decision of a Divisional Bench of this Court in Ishan Mu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »