Kolkata Court May 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.
Abdul Jabbar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal80,76Ind.Cas.1030
1. One of the grounds taken in the application on which this Rule was issued is that the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced by the refusal of the learned Magistrate to summon material witnesses on his behalf, namely, the Court Inspector, Babu Upendra Lal Roy and a Muktear, named Moulvi Fazul Rahman, On examination of the record, it appears that a petition for examination of the two witnesses was put in before the trying Magistrate. The trying Magistrates rejected the application, but did not re-cord as he was bound to, under Section 257, Criminal P.C., his grounds for rejection of his application. We are unable to say that the petitioner has not been prejudiced by the refusal of the Magistrate to examine these witnesses and in that view of the matter, we set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the matter be reheard after giving the petitioner a suitable opportunity for the examination of the two witnesses named above....
Annada Mohon Roy Chowdhury Vs. Kina Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.675
Buckland, J.1. These appeals have now to be disposed of finally after remand for a finding as to adverse possession. The learned District Judge has found not only that the defendants have air along been in possession since 1873, but also that their possession has been adverse as against the Government. This finding is challenged as not being justified by the facts. The suits not only had been fully heard when they came before us on second appeal on the previous occasion, but we also gave the parties permission to adduce further evidence, if so advised, and they have done so. The matter has been very fully considered and there are no grounds for interfering with the finding.2. On such finding a further point has been argued, as to the date from which adverse possession should be deemed to run. Article 144 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act provides that in a suit for possession of immoveable property the period of limitation shall be 12 years from the time when the possession o...
Priya Nath Basu and ors. Vs. Tara Chand Moral and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1923
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.1034
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of rent.2. The plaintiffs-appellants alleged that the defendants held a tenure consisting of 1752 bighas of land at a rent of Rs. 915-12-6 under them, and the rent for the years 1321 to 1324 was claimed in the suit.3. The main defence was that the tenure consisted of more than 2000 bighas of land, that the plaintiffs had let out about 600 bighas of land out of the lands of the defendants' tenure, to one Gobinda Mandal who had dispossessed the defendants from a portion of the tenure; that rent had also been realised on plaintiffs' behalf from some of the defendants' tenants on the land, and that the rent payable for the tenure should, therefore, be suspended. The Courts below have concurred in dismissing the suit, and the plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.4. Three contentions have been raised on behalf of the appellants. The first is that the Court below is in error in holding that the disputed land was included in the defendants' te...
Ahmed Ali Sardar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.537
1. The present Rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate of Tipperah to show cause why, pending the hearing of a Reference by the Sessions Judge of Tipperah under Section 123, Clause (2), of the Code of Criminal Procedure, bail should not be granted to the petitioners to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate.2. It appears that certain proceedings were taken against the petitioners under Section 110 of the Code andian order against the petitioners was made under Section 118, as the petitioners were unable to furnish the securities demanded. The proceedings were then laid before the Sessions Judge of Tippreah for orders under Section 123. The petitioners urge that, pending the hearing of the Reference under Section 123, Sub-section (2), they should be admitted to bail. The Sessions Judge was of opinion that, having regard to the provisions of Section 123, Sub-section (2), he had no power to admit the petitioners to bail.3. Now, the provisions of Section 498, Criminal Pro...
H.K. Bhedwar Vs. Rao Shahab C.S.R. Rao
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal111
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case a Rule was issued calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why the order dismissing the petitioner's complaint should not be set aside, and why further enquiry into the said complaint should not be made and process issued against the Opposite Party under Section 417. I.P.C., or such other or further order made as to this Court might seem fit and proper.2. The facts giving rise to the application on which the Rule was issued, are as follows : The petitioner is a licensed bookmaker of the Royal Calcutta Turf Club and has a permanent book for the season 1922-1923 within the first enclosure of the Calcutta Race Course. On the assurance of the Opposite Party, who is a Deputy Director of Commercial Intelligence, employed under the Government of India, that he would pay up his losses, if any, punctually on the settling day, the petitioner allowed the Opposite Party to take bets on credit on the 9th of December, 1922. The bets due to ...
Sashi Bhusan Hazra Vs. Kazi Abdulla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal328
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff who has been unsuccessful in both Courts.2. On 26th June, 1914, he bought the residuary share of Estate No. 1273 of the Burdwan Collectorate at a sale held under the provisions of Act XI (B.C.) of 1859. After his purchase he says that he obtained possession of all the land in the estate, but ha was prevented by the defendants-from taking possession of a tank known as the Rowta tank, and it was to obtain khas possession of this tank that the suit was instituted.3. The defendants pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation, and that it was bad for defect of parties and on the merits that the tank did not appertain to the-estate bought by the plaintiff, and that they had a lahkeraj right to it.4. It was conceded in the first Court that the plea of limitation could not be sustained. On other points the learned Munsif found that the whole of the western bank and part of the northern bank were not included within the estate bought b...
Emperor Vs. Bhubaneswar Nag
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal146
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a report by the learned District Judge of Dacca with regard to a Pleader of that Court.2. The learned District Judge arrived at the conclusion that the Pleader had been guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty and, accordingly, he made a recommendation that the Pleader should be suspended from practice. He made a further order that pending the orders of the High Court on his report the Pleader should be suspended from practise and he should deliver up his certificate.3. The material facts which it is necessary to mention are shortly as follows: One Niljan Bibi in August 1918, was appointed by the Court guardian of her minor sons and daughters and in respect of the minors' property she was directed to submit accounts. After much delay she submitted accounts; and, upon examination, it appeared that she had not accounted for a sum of Rs. 269 which it was alleged had been withdrawn from the Court on behalf of Niljan Bibi in her ...
Midnapore Zamindari Company Ltd. Vs. Jagat Chandra Dobey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal139
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs-landlords and the question raised is whether the tenure-holders have a right to cut trees from the land comprised in the tenure. As to the status of the tenure-holders, the findings of the lower Courts are that they are permanent tenure-holders at a fixed rate of rent. The correctness of these findings has been challenged, but in my opinion, without success. The pattah has been placed before us, and although it does not say specifically that the rent is fixed in perpetuity, it appears to convey that meaning and it contains nothing to convey a contrary impression. The Judge also points out that in the Record of Rights the tenure has been described as Mukarrari and he says that, in his judgment, the presumption has not been rebutted. I take it therefore, that the tenures are permanent and that the rate of rent is fixed. Then, the question is whether as Mukarrari tenure-holders the defendants have a right to cut trees. In the first...
O.S. Meah Vs. Durga Churn Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1923
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.456
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the first defendant, the purchaser at an auction-sale held under the provisions of Act XI of 1859.2. The estate sold was a residuary share bearing Touzi No. 2017 of the Chittagong Collectorate. The plaintiffs alleged that there were no arrears due from the estate and, granted that there were arrears, that the processes required by the Act were not duly served.3. The First Court decreed the suit in February 1918 on the ground that there was no arrear of revenue on account of which the sale could be held. The purchaser then preferred an application for review of judgment, and this was allowed on April 1918. Both sides adduced additional evidence, and then the learned Subordinate Judge held that there were arrears for which the estate could be sold, but that there was collusion between the appellant and one of plaintiffs co-sharers, and consequently he directed the appellant to re-convey the property to the plaintiffs.4. Then the defendant p...
Midnapore Zamindary Company, Limited Vs. Jagat Chandra Dobey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.990
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plantiffs landlords and the question raised is whether the tenure-holders have a right to cut trees from the land comprised in the tenure. As to the status of the tenure-holders, the findings of the lower-Courts are that they are permanent tenute-holders at a fixed rate of rent. The correctness of these findings has been challenged but, in my opinion, without success. The pattah has been placed before us and although it does not say specificially that the rent is fixed in perpetuity, it appears to convey that meaning and, it contains nothing to convey a contrary impression. The Judge also points out that in the Record of Rights the tenure has been described as Mukarrari and he says that, in his judgment, the presumption has not been rebutted. I take it therefore, that the tenures are permanent and that the rate of rent is fixed. Then, the question is whether as Mukarrari tenure-holders the defendants have a right to cut trees. In the first...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »