Kolkata Court August 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.
Emperor Vs. Ali Mirza
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal265
Page, J.1. In order to determine what charges shall be left to the jury it is incumbent upon me to construe Sections 397 and 398 of the Indian Penal Code. I think that it is desirable that I should state what, in my opinion, is the meaning of these sections, not only because of the general importance of the question, but also because there is no decision as to the construction of either of these sections by the Calcutta High Court, while there have been conflicting decisions in other High Courts in India.2. The issue is whether in Sections 397 and 398 the words 'the offender' and 'such offender' refer to all persons who combine to commit the specified offences, or whether they refer to those persons only who are proved actually to have 'used', or to have been 'armed with,' deadly weapons.3. The former view received the support of the Allahabad High Court in 1899 in the case of the Queen-Empress v. Mahabir Tiwari (1899) I.L.R. 21 All. 263. The decision in that case was followed in two c...
Emperor Vs. Ali Mirza and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.800
Page, J.1. In order to determine what charges shall be left to the Jury, it is incumbent, upon me to construe Sections 397 and 398 of the Indian Penal Code. I think that it is desirable that I should state what, in my opinion, is, the meaning of these sections, not only because of the general importance of the question, but also because there is no decision as to the construction of either of these sections by the Calcutta High Court while there have been conflicting decisions in other High Courts in India.2. The issue is whether in Sections 397 and 398 the words 'the offender' and 'such offender' refer to all personp who combine to commit the specified offences, or whether they refer to those persons only who are proved actually to have 'used,' or to have been 'armed with,' deadly, weapons.3. The former view received the support of the Allahabad High Court in 1899 in the case of the Queen-Empress v. Mahabir Tiwari 21 A. 263; A.W.N. (1899) 76 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 876. The decision in t...
Jogeshwar Mahata and ors. Vs. Jhapal Santal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal638
1. The question involved in this appeal is whether a sale held in contravention of the provisions of the Bengal Act, II of 1918, is merely an irregular sale or a nullity.2. The appellant obtained a decree for money against the respondent who is an aboriginal residing in the District of Mindnapur to which the Act applies and in execution of the decree put up his tenure to sale and purchased it himself on the 20th August, 1920. An application was made to set aside the sale on the 13th January, 1922. It was far beyond the period prescribed by Article 166 of the Limitation Act or even Article 12 of the Limitation Act. The Courts below having come to the conclusion that the sale was a nullity, overruled the objection of limitation and set aside the sale.3. The decree-holders have appealed to this Court, and it is contended that the sale was not a nullity, and that the provisions of the Act having been made for the benefit of a particular class of persons and not for the general public, the ...
Joggeswar Mahata Vs. Jhapal Santal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal224
Chatterjea and Panton, JJ.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether a sale held in contravention of the provisions of Bengal Act II of 1918 is merely an irregular sale or a nullity.2. The appellant obtained a decree for money against the respondent who is an aboriginal residing in the District of Midnapore, to which the Act applies, and in execution of the decrees put up his tenure to sale and purchased it himself on the 20th August, 1920. An application was made to set aside the sale on the 13th January, 1922. It was far beyond the period prescribed by Article 166 of the Limitation Act or even Article 12 of the Limitation Act. The Courts below, having come to the conclusion that the sale was a nullity, over-ruled the objection of limitation and set aside the sale.3. The decree-holders have appealed to this Court and it is contended that the sale was not a nullity and that the provisions of the Act having been made for the benefit of a particular class of persons and not for t...
Joggeswar Mahata and ors. Vs. Jhapal Santal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1923
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.848
1. The question involved in this appeal is whether a sale held in contravention of the provisions of the Bengal Act II of 1918 is merely an irregular sale or a nullity.2. The appellant obtained a decree for money against the respondent who is an aboriginal residing in the District of Midnapore, to which the Act applies, and in execution of the decrees put up his tenure to sale and purchased it himself on the 20th August 1920. An application was made to set aside the sale on the 13th January 1922. It was far beyond the period prescribed by Article 166 of the Limitation Act or even Article 12 of the Limitation Act. The Courts below, having come to the conclusion that the sale was a nullity, overruled the objection of limitation and set aside the sale.3. The decree-holders have appealed to this Court and it is contended that the sale was not a nullity and that the provisions of the Act having been made for the benefit of a particular class of persons and not for the general public, the re...
Amrita Sundari Debi and ors. Vs. Munshi SerajuddIn Amed Chowdhury and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal620
1. The subject-matter of this litigation is a large tract of alluvial land formed in the bed of the river Ganges, also called Kirtinasha, in the District of Faridpur. The plaintiffs claim the land as included within village Bhaga. The defendants claim the land as comprised within village Sakhipura. The present suit was commenced on the 26th September, 1907, and terminated in the trial Court on the 25th April, 1910, with a partial decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants thereupon appealed to this Court. On the 31st July, 1914, the appeal was allowed and the decree of the Subordinate Judge was discharged. It was declared that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of such portion of the disputed lands as lay within the thak boundaries of the property known as Bhaga char, char Datali and char Lasti. The case was remanded to the Subordinate Judge in order that the thak boundaries of the chars mentioned might be relaid by a Commissioner who would be free to take evidence to d...
Syed Abdul Alim Abed Vs. BadaruddIn Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal757
1. This is an appeal under Section 3 of the Calcutta Improvement Appeals Act, 1911, from the decision of the President of the Tribunal pronounced under Section 77(1), (6) of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911. This section provides that for the purpose of determining the award to be made by the Tribunal under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, questions relating to the determination of the persons, to whom compensation is payable or the apportionment of compensation may be tried and decided, in the absence of the Assessors, if the President of the Tribunal considers their presence unnecessary, and when so tried and decided, the decision of the President shall be deemed to be the decision of the Tribunal.2. In the case before us, a portion of premises No. 13 Panditia Road was acquired by the Calcutta Improvement Trust by a declaration issued on the 16th November, 1920, under the Land Acquisition Act. A sum of Rs. 46,200-8-10 was awarded by the Collector on account of the land, structures, ...
Tara Prasanna Chongdar Vs. Nrisingha Moorari Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal216
Mookerjee and Chotzner, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for the reversal of a sale held tinder the Patni Regulation of 1819. The appeal raises an important question of law, namely, whether a suit instituted under Section 14 of Regulation VIII of 1819 for the reversal of a patni sale is a suit to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed within the meaning of Article 17 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act of 1870.2. The patni in suit was brought to sale under the provisions of the Regulation on the 15th May 1919 when the third defendant became the purchaser. He defaulted in the payment of rent, with the result that the patni was brought to sale again on the 15th May 1920 when the first two defendants, the sons of the third defendant, became the purchasers, The fourth defendant is the original patnidar, and the remaining four defendants are the zemindars. The plaintiff, who is the darpatnidar, instituted this suit on the 16th June, 1920, for ...
Taraprasanna Chongdar Vs. Nrisinha Murari Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.763
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for the reversal of a sale held under the Patni Regulation of 1819. The appeal raises an important question of law, namely, whether a suit instituted under Section 14 of Regulation VIII of 1819 for the reversal of a patni sale is a suit to obtain a declaratory deftree where no consequential relief is prayed, within the meaning of Article 17 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act of 1870.2. The patni in suit was brought to Sale under the provisions of the Regulation on the 15th May 1919, when the third defendant became the purchaser. He defaulted in the payment of rent, with the result that the patni was brought to sale again on the 15th May 1920, when the first two defendants, the sons of the third defendant, became the purchasers. The fourth defendant is the original patnidar, and the remaining four defendants are the zemindars. The plaintiff, who is the durpatnidar instituted this suit on the 16th June 1920, for the reversal of the second...
Rani Amrita Sundari Debi and ors. Vs. Munshi SerajuddIn Ahmed Choudhur ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1923
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.755
1. The subject-matter of this litigation is a large tract of alluvial land formed in the bed of the river Ganges, also called Kirtinasha, in the District of Faridpur. The plaintiffs claim the land as included within village Bhaga. The defendents claim the land as comprised within village Sakhipura. The present suit was commenced on the 26th September 1907 and terminated in the Trial Court on the 25th April 1910 with a partial decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants thereupon appealed to this Court. On the 31st July 1914 the appeal was allowed and the decree of the Subordinate Judge was discharged. It was declared that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of such portion of the disputed lands as lay within the thak boundaries of the property known as Bhaga char, char Datali and char Lasti. The case was remanded to the Subordinate Judge in order that' the thak boundaries of the chars mentioned might be relaid by a Commissioner who would be free to take evidence to determ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »