Kolkata Court January 1925 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.
Ananta Kumar Saha and Amanda Chandra Saha Vs. Sadhu Charan Saha Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal234,87Ind.Cas.751
1. In M.A. Nos. 354 and 355 of 1924. These two appeals are really covered by the same state of facts. The appeal that has been argued before us is Appeal No, 354 but the judgment which I am about to deliver will apply equally to Appeal No. 355.2. The appeal is against an order of adjudication passed by the District Judge of Faridpur on the 13th August 1924. A petition was presented by the respondent in respect of two debts, first of all, a decree for Rs. 5,700 which was a consent-decree passed on the 11th January 1923 and secondly, an instalment bond for Rs. 6,400 dated the 24th January 1923. The acts of insolvency alleged in the petition were the removal of articles from the debtor's house so as to protect them from the creditors and secondly, the transfer of immoveable properties by the debtors to sortie other person who was. a relative of the debtor's wife within two or three days of the presentation of the petition. The Court has found the debts established and the acts of insolven...
Mahamad Kamel Vs. Ahmad Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1030,87Ind.Cas.746
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a mortgage-suit. He obtained a preliminary decree against all the defendants except Defendants Nos. 7 to 9 on the 14th November 1914. The period of grace was fixed at one month from that date. Thereafter one of the defendants (19ka) applied on the 12th April 1918 for a re-hearing of the suit under Order 9, Rule 13. On the 10th August 1918 the ex parte decree against defendants (19ka) was set aside and the suit restored so far as he was concerned. The suit against Defendant No. (19ka) was eventually decreed on the 12th March 1919 as he did not appear at the hearing. But before this, on the 6th November 1918, the plaintiff bad applied under Section 115, C.P.C., to have the entire decree set aside against the other defendants also on the ground that the mortgage decree was indivisible, and the same could not be set aside against 19ka alone. This application was rejected. On the 15th April 1919 the plaintiff applied to have the final d...
Abdul Azahar Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Collector of Backergunj
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1168,87Ind.Cas.815
Mukerji, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the District Judge of Backergunj refusing to restore the management of a certain estate named Mehal Khontakhali to the co-owners under the provisions of Section 99 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. There was an application made by one or some of the co-owners with regard to this estate in the year 1903 under the provisions of Section 93 of the Bengal Tenancy Act in consequence of which the learned District Judge appointed a common manager in respect thereof, and afterwards it was placed under the management of the Court of Wards. The present application was made on behalf of the co-owners and the two material facts upon which this application was based were, firstly, that the co-owners had settled amongst them-selves the dispute that had been in existence from before; and, secondly, that the costs of the management of the estate had become very heavy and that the co-owners were, as a matter of fact, satisfactorily managing another estate...
Bama Charan Kar and ors. Vs. Pyari Mohan Gantam and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1925
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.581
Mukerji, J.1. These four appeals arise out of as many suits instituted by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of certain lands upon declaration that the plaintiffs have got zemindari right therein and that the defendants have no tenure appertaining thereto.2. Pargana Kotalipara bore Touzi No. 4515 of the Faridpur Collectorate. This estate was partitioned by the Collector under the Estates Partition Act into 28 sahams, and each saham was formed into a separate estate bearing a separate number. The plaintiff in one of the suits is the owner of 16-annas of one of the separate estates, and the plaintiffs in the other three suits are entitled to shares in some of the other separate estates. The plaintiffs seek to eject the defendants in these suits, in three of which the other co sharers of these separate estates have been made pro forma defendants, on the ground that the principal defendants hold the lands under certain fictitious tenures which they have managed, to get recorded in t...
Adiladdi and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1925
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.840
1. In this case the appellants take objection to the conviction and sentence on the ground that the depositions of some witnesses were not read over to them in the presence of the accused or their Pleader as provided for in Section 360, Cr. P.C. A further objection has been taken that the depositions of some of the witnesses before the Committing Magistrate as soon, as they were completed were read over to the witnesses by the Bench Clerk and their signature taken while the Court was recording the examination of other witnesses in the case. This procedure is not warranted by the law, and it is not a compliance with the provisions of Section 360 Cr. P.C. A point might be raised whether under such circumstances the commitment should be quashed or not. It is not necessary for us to decide the question in this particular case, as we find that the conviction and sentence cannot stand on the ground that in the Court of Sessions the provisions of Section 360, Cr. P.C., had not been complied w...
Amur Krishna De Vs. Rajendra Kumar De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1205
Suhrawardy, J.1. The suit which gave rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff for recovery of khas possession of the land of the site of a but described in the schedule to the plaint after establishment of the plaintiff's raiyati title to it. The plaintiff's ease is that the property in suit is included within a holding which belonged to Tarini Charan, the father of the respondent. He died leaving a widow, Raj Kumari, and a son, the present respondent. The mother and the son jointly executed a deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff on the 21st Baisakh 1324, and it was agreed there-under that the hub would be removed by the defendants within 15 days. They having failed to do so, the plaintiff instituted the present suit against both Raj Kumari and Rajendra, the respondent. After the institution of the suit Raj Kumari died and Raj Kumari was the sole defendant on the record as the heir and successor of his father. The first Court gave a decree to the plaintiff holding that the r...
Meser Bepari and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1925
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.920
1. In this appeal the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has succeeded on preliminary point and it is not necessary to deal with the facts. It is contended that the trial was vitiated owing to the failure of the learned Sessions Judge to comply with the provisions of Section 342 and Section 364, Cr.P.C. As regards non-compliance with Section 342 the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants is in a form which this Court has more than once taken serious objection. The statement in the affidavit is as follows: 'That during the trial before the Court of Session at the close of the prosecution case and before the accused were called on to enter upon their defence the accused were not examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C.' This statement leaves in doubt v whether the accused were examined at all or whether they were examined but not at the right stage of the trial, or whether they were examined at the right stage of the trial, and it is contended that that examination was not in c...
Manujendra Dutt Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Jnan Ranjan Somaddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1925
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.818
Ewart Greaves, J.1. The question which arises on this Rule arises in the following manner. The petitioners before us who were plaintiffs in the suit brought a suit for accounts. On the 24th June a preliminary decree for accounts was passed in favour of the plaintiffs. The original defendant the father of the opposite parties appealed against the decree of the 24th June 1920 and on the 30th November in that year the District Judge made an order staying further proceedings pending the hearing of the appeal. The original defendant, the father of the opposite parties died on the 25th September 1921 and on the 21st February 1922 the fact of his death was brought to the notice of the Court. It is stated that the plaintiffs were not represented in those proceedings and that, accordingly, they could not come to know of the death at that time. On the 21st February 1922 an order was made that the appeal had abated and on the 3rd March 1922 the appeal was dismissed. On the 20th April 1923 records...
Amar Krishna De Vs. Rajendra Kumar De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1925
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.790
Suhrawardy, J.1. The suit which gave rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff for recovery of khas possession of the land of the site of a hut described in the schedule to the plaint after establishment of the plaintiff's raiyati title to it. The plaintiff's case is that the property in suit is included within a holding which belonged to Tarini Charan the father of the respondent. He died leaving a widow Raj Kumari and a son the present respondent. The mother and the son jointly executed a deed of sale in- favour of the plaintiff on the 21st Baisakh 1324, and it was agreed thereunder that the hut would be removed by the defendants within 15 days. They having failed to do so the plaintiff instituted the' present suit against both Raj Kumari and Rajendra the respondent. After the institution of the suit Raj Kumari died and Raj Kumar was the sole defendant on the record as the heir and successor of his father. The First Court gave a decree to the plaintiff holding that the respond...
Messer Bepari and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal430
1. In this appeal the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has succeeded on a preliminary point and it is unnecessary to deal with the facts. It is contended that the trial was vitiated owing to the failure of the learned Sessions Judge to comply with the provisions of Section 342 and Section 364, Criminal P.C. As regards non-compliance with Section 342 the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants is in a form to which the Court has more than once taken serious objection. The statement in the affidavit is as follows: 'That during the trial before the Court of Sessions at the close of the prosecution case and before the accused were called on to enter upon their defence the accused were not examined under Section 342, Criminal P.C.' This statement leaves in doubt whether the accused were examined at all or whether they were examined but not at the right stage of the trial, or whether they were examined at the right stage of the trial; and it is contended that that examination...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »