Kolkata Court August 1924 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.
Harendra Nath Saha and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal161,84Ind.Cas.451
Chotzner, J.1. The appellant in Appeal No. 185 is Harendra Nath Saha alias Bechu.2. The appellants in Appeal No. 186 are Dhirendra Nath Biswas, Bhola Nath Rai, and Lal Gopal Rai alias Khoka.3. They have been convicted under Section 395, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to nine years' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of the 24-Pargannas in agreement with the unanimous verdict of the jury.4. The appellants had already been convicted on the same charges but on appeal to this Court the sentences were set aside and a re-trial was directed.5. The dacoity was committed in the early hours of the morning of the 8th June 1922, in the house of Nandalal Nandi at Balliaghata in the suburbs of Calcutta and money and jewellery of considerable value was stolen. Nandalal and his wife Manoda were the only people in the house that night. After the dacoits had left, the neighbours were called and one of them reported the crime to the police. On the morning of the 11th, upon in...
Pran Mohan Das and ors. Vs. Hari Mohan Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal856,85Ind.Cas.799
Chakravarti, J.1. This second appeal by the defendants Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for the recovery of possession of a brick built house. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif but has been decreed on appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge. The facts are shortly these :-The house in question admittedly belonged to the plaintiff and was also admittedly in possession of the defendant No. 2 and her husband, until it was sold by defendant No. 2 to the defendants Nos. 3 to 5 by a registered kobala in 1916. The plaintiff's ease is that ha permitted defendant No. 2, his daughter and her husband to occupy the house as a matter of favour and their possession was permissive and as they have sold the house to the defendants Nos. 3 to 5 he has brought this suit for recovery of possession of the house with mesne profits. The defence of the defendant No. 2 was that the plaintiff promised to make a gift of the house to the defendant No. 2 as her dower at th...
Loke Nath Saha and ors. Vs. Radha Gobinda Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.765
1. This miscellaneous appeal and the four revision cases (Nos. 120 to 122 and 147 of 1922) arc directed against the same order. The plaintiff who is the respondent in the appeal and opposite party in the revision cases brought a suit for partition. It was dismissed by the Trial Court: but on appeal it was decreed by this Court and the case sent back to the lower Court with the direction that partition be made of the property. On the receipt of the order of this Court the Subordinate Judge passed the preliminary decree on the 5th September 1921 fixing the shares of the parties. A Commissioner was appointed to effect the partition according to the following directions: 'The Commissioner will partition the suit lands without interfering as far as possible with the possession of the parties. Out of the lands to be partitioned those lands which are necessary to remain in the joint possession of the parties shall remain joint. The Commissioner will consider about the separate partition of th...
Pran Mohan Das Vs. Hari Mohan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal425
Chakravarti, J.1. This second appeal by the defendants Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 arises out of a suit brought by the plantiff for the recovery of possession of a brick-built house. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif but has been decreed on appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge. The facts are shortly these:---The house in question admittedly belonged to the plaintiff and was admittedly in possession of the defendant No. 2 and her husband, until it was sold by defendant No. 2 to the defendants Nos 3 to 5 by a registered kobala in 1916. The plaintiff's case is that he permitted Defendant No.2, his daughter, and her husband to occupy the house as a matter of favour and their possession was permissive and as they have sold the house to the defendants Nos. 3 to 5 he has brought this suit for recovery of possession of the house with mesne profits. The defence of the defendant No. 2 was that the plaintiff promised to make a gift of the house to the defendant No. 2 as her dower at the time ...
T.C.S. Martindale Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal14,84Ind.Cas.1041
Walmsley, J.1. The appellant T.C.S. Martindale was committed for trial by a Presidency Magistrate and tried at the High Court Sessions before Mr. Justice Pearson, on three charges relating to forgery, and one charge of cheating. We are told that the majority of the jurors consisted of Europeans; but that result was achieved by process of challenging, and not as a consequence of the provisions contained in Section 275 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He was found guilty on all the charges, by a verdict of seven to two on the forgery charge, and unanimously on the charge of cheating. He was sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to run concurrently.2. Some time later, the Chief Justice was moved to appoint a Bench to hear his application for leave to appeal. The matter was referred to the Criminal Bench (then consisting of Newbould and B.B. Ghose, JJ.,) and leave was granted under Section 449 (1) (c), one of the new clauses added by last year's amendi...
Sarada Prosad Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Rai Mohan Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal819,85Ind.Cas.629
Suhrawardy, J.1. The facts of this case are that the defendants had brought a suit against the plaintiffs and several others in respect of a fishery. During the progress of the suit an agent of the defendants approached the plaintiffs' Pleader and proposed that if the plaintiffs' men could give a certain information to the defendants with regard to a previous suit which would enable the defendants to win their case against the defendants in their suit, they would not execute the decree they would thus obtain in that suit as against the plaintiffs in the present suit; and would further give them a miras patta for 2 1/2 annas share of the fishery. These terms were agreed to by plaintiffs and the Pleader received certain information from the plaintiffs, the defendants obtained a copy of the judgment in Suit No. 13 of 1893 and with the help of it won the aforesaid suit being Suit No. 64 of 1910 which was instituted against the present plaintiffs and others. The present plaintiffs did not a...
Martindale Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal347
Walmsley, J.1. The appellant, T. C. S. Martindale, was committed for trial by a Presidency Magistrate and tried at the High Court Sessions before Mr. Justice Pearson, on three charges relating to forgery, and one charge of cheating. We are told that the majority of the jurors consisted of Europeans, but that result was achieved by process of challenging, and not as a consequence of the provisions contained in Section 275 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He was found guilty on all the charges; by a verdict of seven to two on the forgery charges, and unanimously on the charge of cheating. He was sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment on each charge; the sentences to ran concurrently.2. Some time later, the Chief Justice was moved to appoint a Bench to hear his application for leave to appeal. The matter was referred to the Criminal Bench (then consisting of Newbould and B. B. Ghose JJ.) and leave was granted, under Section 449 (1) (c), one of the new clauses added by last year's Am...
Prodyot Kumar Tagore Vs. Bal Gobinda Ditchit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal518a
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for a declaration that the status of defendant in respect of a certain tenure is not that of a permanent tenure-holder as recorded in the record-of-rights. It appears that within certain boundaries there are four tenures held by the defendant under the plaintiff. The first is known as Khode jote comprising 397 bighas: the second as Fasal jote comprising 747 bighas; the third tenure is a small Chukani jote bearing a rental of Re. 1-5-6; and the fourth is another small Fasal jote bearing a rental of Rs. 12-7-6. In the record-of-righta the first tenure is recorded as permanent, the other three tenures being recorded as non-permanent. The plaintiff has brought a suit for declaration that the first tenure, namely the Khode jote, is also non-permanent as the other tenures. Both the Courts below have held against the plaintiff on the ground of limitation as also on the merits.2. In appeal the learned Advocate-General, who appears for the appella...
Kumar Birendra Chandra Singha Bahadur and ors. Vs. Tulsi Charan Ghose ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.657
1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings which originally were instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly. The predecessor of the present decree-holders (appellants) obtained a rent-decree in respect of a putni against the predecessor of the present judgment-debtors on the 10th August 1909 for Rs. 19,000. Several infructuous proceedings towards execution of these decrees were made to which we need not refer and in 1914 the decree was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Howrah for execution. In that Court on the application of the decree-holder in Execution Case No. 1 of 1914, the defaulting tenure was advertised for sale. The judgment-debtors preferred some objections to the execution which were disallowed. They preferred an appeal to this Court and applied for stay of the sale pending the hearing of the, same. The order of this Court was that the sale should be stayed on the judgment-debtors obtaining certain persons to stand as sureties for...
Alimuddi Naskar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal341
Walmsley, J.1. There are two appeals before us and a Reference under Section 374, Cr. P.C. The circumstances are as follows: It is said that the accused had a quarrel with the family of one Momrez and that one night they went to his house and pet fire to the hut in which Momrez and his two wives and some children were sleeping: the inmates of this hut were not allowed to escape and they were all burned to death. In other huts Intaz and Bibijan were sleeping and they were also killed.2. The Committing Magistrate framed charges under Section 120-B read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code and under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and Section 436, Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge made charges in the charge under Section 120-B read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The jury was unanimous in finding all the accused guilty on all the charges. The Judge agreed with the verdict and sentenced two of the men to death, and the others to transportation for life. Hence the two appeals and the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »