Kolkata Court June 1923 Judgments
Ambika Prosad Dass Vs. Annada Prosad Dass and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1928Cal250
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a declaratory suit.2. The subject-matter of the litigation originally belonged to one Digambar Das who made a testamentary disposition on the day of his death, which took place on the 5th July 1888. He left two widows Bindubashini and Birajmohini and two sons, one by each wife namely, Annada Prosad by his first wife Bindubashini; and Ambika Prosad hy his second wife Biraj Mohini. In the litigation Annada is the plaintiff and Ambika is a defendant.3. The will was proved in due course and in 1893 a suit was instituted by Annada Prosad on the original side of this Courts for construction of the will and for partition of the estate. The preliminary decree was made on the 25th June 1894. The commissioner submitted his report on 13th August 1898, which was confirmed on the 7th September 1898.4. It appears that Annada Prosad had in the meantime mortgaged his interest in the estate of his father, with the result that his right, title and in...
Tag this Judgment!Pran Gopal Goswami and ors. Vs. Chandra Mohan Chakrabarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Cal619,95Ind.Cas.777
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of the properties in dispute on establishment of the plaintiffs' title thereto, and for other reliefs.2. The plaintiffs' case is that the properties belonged to one Golap Lal, and one Nobin Kishore was the adopted son of Golap. Nobin Kishore had no child of his own. In 1274 he left for Brindaban to reside there. Before leaving for Brindaban he executed a deed (Angikarpatra) dated the 14th March 1868 by which he made over the management of his estate to two of his disciples Gour Gobinda and Joy Chandra, and gave his wife Jadumani authority to adopt 5 sons in succession. He returned from Brindaban in 1869, and on the 27th November 1869 Gour Gobinda and Joy Chandra by a deed gave up the properties to Nobin Kishore. Nobin died in 1870, and about 15 years afterwards, on the 14th August 1885 Nobin's widow Jadumani adopted one Ram Krishna. The adopted son lived for about 5 years after the adoption and died in 1890. Jadumani died o...
Tag this Judgment!Binode Behari Nath Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal392
Ghose, J.1. The facts of this case have been set out in the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver, and it is, therefore, unnecessary for me-to refer to the same again. I have gone through the entire record, and I am satisfied that there are no merits whatsoever in the petitioner's case.2. A point has been taken that, inasmuch as the petitioner was not examined under the provisions of Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, such an omission has vitiated the entire proceedings. I am not prepared to extend the principle of the case of Mazahar Ali v. Emperor 71 Ind. Cas. 662 : 50 C. 223 : 36 C.L.J. 417 : 27 C.W.N. 99 : 24 Cr. L.J. 198; (1923) A.I.R. (C.) 196 to inquiries under the provisions of Section 110. As far as I can see from the record, the petitioner has not been prejudiced in any way by the omission to examine him under the provisions of Section 342, and I agree that to send the case back in order that the Magistrate might formally question him under the provis...
Tag this Judgment!Burn and Co. Ltd. Vs. H.H. Thakur Sahib Shree Lakhdirjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal427
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants from the judgment of my learned brother Rankin, J., whereby he made a decree in favour of the plaintiff for damages for breach of contract.2. My learned brother, in the judgment which he is about to deliver, has set out the material facts, which in this case are to be gathered from the correspondence, and it is, therefore, not necessary for me to deal with them in detail.3. By the contract the defendants undertook to manufacture and deliver 50 waggons. The terms of payment were that the plaintiff should advance of the price with the order; 1/3 was to be paid when the wheels were attached to the under-frames and the remaining s on receipt of the waggons and after their erection.4. In accordance with these terms a cheque for Rs. 30,833, representing the first instalment, was sent by the plaintiff to the defendants on the 20th February, 1915.5. By a letter, dated the 25th October, 1916, the defendants submitted a bill for Rs. 30,833, r...
Tag this Judgment!Burn and Co., Ltd. Vs. H.H. Thakur Shaheb Sree Lukhdirjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1923
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.260
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants from the judgment of. my learned brother Rankin, J., whereby he made a decree in favour of the plaintiff for damages, for, breach of contract.2. My learned brother, in the judgment which he is about to deliver, has set out the material facts which in this case are to be gathered from the--correspondences: and it is, therefore, not necessary for me to deal with them in detail.3. By the contract the defendants under-topic to manufacture and deliver 50 waggons. The terms of payment were that the plaintiff should advance one-third of the price with the order; one-third was to be paid when the wheels were attached to the under-frames and the remaining one-third on receipt of the waggons and after their erection - In accordance with these terms a-cheque, for Rs. 30,833, representing first instalment, was sent by the plaintiff to the defendants on the 20th February 1915.4. By a letter, dated the 25th October 1916, the defendants s...
Tag this Judgment!Brindarani Dassya and anr. Vs. Narendra Nath Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1928Cal229
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for arrears of rent. The plaintiff claims rent from the defendants at the rate of Rs. 4,794-4-6, annually with cesses and damages in respect of two years (Bhadra 1324 to Bhadra 1326). The defendants resist the claim on the ground, amongst others, that the payments made by them from time to time wiped out the debt. The Subordinate Judge has overruled this contention and decreed the suit in part. On the present appeal the defendants have argued that the Subordinate Judge has not really investigated the points urged in defence.2. It is admitted that the defendants hold 19 distinct tenancies under the plaintiff and that from time to time they paid to the plaintiff Rs. 61,889 on account of rent and cesses. The defendants urge that this sum has wiped out all the arrears due in respect of all the 19 tenancies held by them. The plaintiff contends, on the other hand, that he has applied the sums paid in satisfaction of the arrears du...
Tag this Judgment!Dakshina Ranjan Ghose Vs. Omar Chand Oswal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal145,75Ind.Cas.173
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant from the judgment of the learned Second Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh.2. The suit was brought by one Omar Chand Oswal, who was a trader of the Dharmakura Bazar against the Sub-Inspector of Police of the Islampur Thana, to recover the sum of Rs. 75 which, it was alleged, the defendant had extorted from the plaintiff by placing the plaintiff under a wrongful arrest and taking him to the Thana and detaining him there for more than an hour.3. There was a further claim for Rs. 50 which was claimed as damages for the alleged wrongful arrest.4. The two points which the learned Vakil, who appeared for the appellant, has taken are, first that the defendant was a public officer and in executing the arrest of the plaintiff he was purporting to act in his official capacity, and that consequently by reason of the provisions of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure the plaintiff could not institute this suit until the expiration of two...
Tag this Judgment!Kushai Malic Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal389
1. The appellants before us are four in number, and they were tried before the learned Sessions Judge of Faridpur and a jury, along with one Mokhoda alias Kuti Peshakar, on charges under Sections 366, 368 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code. The jury found the four appellants guilty of offences punishable under sections 366 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code, and they found the accused, Mokhoda alias Kuti, guilty of offences punishable under Sections 366 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, agreeing with the verdict of the jury, has sentenced the four appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code; the sentences to run concurrently.2. The case for the prosecution was as follows. One Mahomed Jonab Ali married one Najibunnessa in the nika form at Dacca about 18 months ago. They lived together at Doyarampur. On the 25th June, 1922, ...
Tag this Judgment!Kushai Malik and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.906
1. The appellants before as are four in number, and they were tried before the learned Sessions Judge of Faridpur and a Jury, along with one Mokhoda alias Kuti Peshakar, on charges under Sections 366, 368 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code. The Jury found the four appellants guilty of offences punishable under Sections 366 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code, and they found the accused, Mokhoda alias Kuti, guilty of offences punishable under Sections 366 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, agreeing with the verdict of the Jury, has sentenced the four appellants, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code the sentences to run concurrently.2. The case for the prosecution was as follows: One Mohomed Jonab Ali married one Najibunnessa in the nika form at Dacca about 18 months ago. They lived together at Doyarampur. On the 25th June, 1922, t...
Tag this Judgment!Jnanendra Nath Dutt and ors. Vs. Nasea Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal991,83Ind.Cas.948
Rankin, J.1. In this case the appellants take exception to the decree on the ground that on the 2nd February, 1921, the suit was compromised and that on the 2nd March, 1921, they drew attention of the lower appellate Court to the allegation of a compromise by their petition filed on the 2nd March. The petition is before me; and it certainly is not a formal petition one which sets out the compromise and prays that the compromise may be recorded and the suit decreed on compromise. What happened was that on the 2nd March the appeal was adjourned till the 10th March for the appellant to state what she had to state with regard to the plaintiff s allegation. On the 10th March the appellant filed a petition stating in effect that the plaintiff's allegation was untrue and explaining by a different explanation the circumstances under which the sum of Rs. 510 had been paid to the plaintiffs. The order-sheet sets out the fact of that petition and then says this: 'Inform pleader for the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »