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.
Nalinakshya Ghosal Vs. Raghunath Ghosal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal754,85Ind.Cas.662
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 18th March, 1921, dismissing the suit. The suit was one for an account and for partition and the main ground upon which the Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit was that there had been a previous partition and that as to certain properties which had been acquired out of joint funds subsequent to the previous partition there could be no decree for partition in the present suit as ail the joint properties had not been included. The Subordinate Judge held that there was a further bar to the suit as the plaintiff was not in possession of any of the joint properties and that as the suit was one for partition and not for recovery of possession and partition the plaintiff could get no relief in the present suit.2. The material facts are as follows: One Kenaram Ghosal had by his wife Hara Sundari, five sons Madhu Sudan, Hari Nath, Troilakhya, Raghu Nath and Nabin Gopal and a daugh...
AsiruddIn Mondol Vs. Latifunnessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1176,85Ind.Cas.763
Chuckerbutty, J.1. This is an appeal by the Defendant No. 1 against a preliminary decree in a suit for partition of immovable properties and the plaintiffs have filed cross-objections against the decree in so far as it has dismissed the plaintiffs' claim with respect to certain items of the claim. The following genealogical table [vide P. 1177] will be of help in understanding the relations between the parties and the basis of their respective shares claimed in the disputed properties.2. Basir, it appears, died in the year 1885 and left his mother, three widows and a large family by two of them as his heirs. The third widow, Rahimannessa, was childless. The present suit relates to the property left by Basir who it appears, was a substantial cultivator and left considerable properties both moveable and immovable. His two daughters by his wife Gofurennessa are Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and the husband of a deceased daughter by the same wife is the Plaintiff No. 3.3. The Defendant No. 1 is ...
AlimaddIn Naskar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal253
Walmsley, J.1. There are two appeals before us, and a reference under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The circumstances are as follows. It is said that the accused had a quarrel with the family of one Momrej, and that one night they went to his house and set fire to the hat in which Momrej 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 Entaz and Bibijan were sleeping, and they were also killed.2. The Committing Magistrate framed charges under Section 120B, read with Section 302, of the Penal Code, and under Section 302 of the Penal Code, and Section 436 of the Penal Code. The learned Judge made changes in the charge under Section 120B read with Section 302 of the 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 ...
AlimuddIn Naskar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.231
Hugh 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 set 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 120B read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code and under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and Section 436, Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge made changes in the charge under Section 120B 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 t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›