Kolkata Court May 1925 Judgments

Karimannessa Bibi Vs. Hamedulla Alias Raja and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.218

Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is directed against a decision of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Trust Tribunal in a dispute about the apportionment of some compensation money.2. Premises No. 32, Durga Road have been acquired by the Trust. The Collector's valuation has not been accepted by those who appear to be the owners, and before making the valuation the President has decided the principles on which the compensation when it is fixed will be apportioned.3. The former owner was Muhammad Tayeb; he had a wife named Sarifannessa; he died in November 1895, leaving a widow, five sons and three daughters. The claimant No. 4 is the appellant, and she is one of the daughters. Her claim as to the share that would ordinarily be hers is resisted on the ground that Muhammad Tayeb made a waqf of the property a few months before his death. The question, therefore, that the President had decide was whether the waqf was (sic) not. He held that it was valid, and it is against that decision tha...

Emperor Vs. Mohit Kumar Mukerjee and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.993

Page, J.1. At the Fifth Criminal Sessions of the High Court for 1924, Mohit Kumar Mukerjee, Bankim Chandra Ghose and Surendra Nath Shaha were tried before me under Sections 120B and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on a charge of conspiring dishonestly or fraudulently to use as genuine a certain receipt for Rs. 50,000, when they knew or had reason to believe that the receipt was a forged document, in consequence of which conspiracy the said document was so, used as aforesaid. The receipt in question pur ported to acknowledge the. payment of a., sum of Rs. 50,000 as salami in respect of a sub-lease of certain mining rights in lands of which the firm of Dickie & Co. were the lessees. Dickie and Co. became insol vent, and in the course of the insolvency proceedings the Official Assignee becalne aware of a claim which had been preferred by the accused Bankim and Suren that the accused Mohit, as one of the partners of Dickie & Co., had executed in their favour a sub-lease of the said mining rig...

Dwijendra Nath Mullick and anr. Vs. Gopiram Govindaram

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.200

Hugh Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendants and the question that it raises is whether the agreement on which the suit is based was opposed to public policy2. The first defendant Dwijendra was employed by the plaintiff firm, and on 3rd March 1919, he was sent to the Bank to cash a cheque for Rs. 30,000. He cashed the cheque and then went to the Police with the story that the money had been stolen from him. This story was found to be untrue and he was arrested. Friends of the family went to a Solicitor Mr. Akhoy Kumar Bose, and through his efforts it was arranged that the plaintiff firm would agree to the prosecution being given up, if they received Rs. 15,000 in cash and a mortgage for a sum of Rs. 5,000. This mortgage was executed by Dwijendra and his brother Rajendra and it is the document upon which the suit is based. The plaintiffs on their side carried out the terms of the arrangement: they signed a petition to the Commissioner of Police asking that the prosecut...

Dwijendra Nath Mullick and anr. Vs. Gopiram Gobindram

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1926Cal59

Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendants and the question that it raises is whether the agreement on which the suit is based was opposed to public policy.2. The first defendant, Dwijendra was employed by the plaintiff firm, and on 3rd March 1919, he was sent to the bank to cash a cheque for Rs. 30,000. He cashed the cheque and then went to the police with the story that the money had been stolen from him. This story was found to be untrue and he was arrested. Friends of the family went to a solicitor, Mr. Akhoy Kumar Bose, and through his efforts it was arranged that the plaintiff firm would agree to the prosecution being given up, if they received Rs. 15,000 in cash and a mortgage for a sum of Rs. 5,000. This, mortgage was executed by Dwijendra and his brother Rajendra, and it is the document upon which the suit is based. The plaintiffs, on their side carried out the terms of the arrangement; they signed a petition to the Commissioner of Police, asking that the prosec...

Karimannessa Bibi Vs. Hamedulla and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is directed against a decision of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Trust Tribunal in a dispute about the apportionment of some compensation money.2. Premises No. 32, Durga Road have been acquired by the Trust. The Collector's valuation has not been accepted by those who appear to be the owners, and before making the valuation the President has decided the principles on which the compensation when it is fixed will be apportioned.3. The former owner was Muhammad Tayeb; he had a wife named Sarifannessa; he died in November 1895, leaving a widow, five sons and three daughters. The Claimant No. 4 is the appellant, and she is one of the daughters. Her claim as to the share that would ordinarily be hers is resisted on the ground that Muhammad Tayeb made a waqf of the property a few months before his death. The question, therefore, that the president had to decide was whether the waqf was valid or not. He held that it was valid, and it is against that decisi...

Santosh Kumar Roy and ors. Vs. Rakhal Chandra Hazra and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1927Cal174,94Ind.Cas.740,94Ind.Cas.740

1. The plaintiffs who are the appellants before us brought a suit for khas possession of what they alleged to be a non-transferable occupancy holding. It is unnecessary to state all the facts of this case since it is conceded that the suit must fail if we hold that the holding was transferable and there was a valid transfer to the principal defendant.2. It is not disputed that the holding has been held at an unchanged rate of Rs. 9-6 for more than 20 years. It is contended, however, that the lower Court, was wrong in applying the presumption under Clause (2) of Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act in the present case. So far as that argument goes it appears to us to be sound. It seems hardly necessary to {quote authorities in support of the proposition that Sub-section 2 of Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, has no application in suits. which are not suits under that Act but are suits under the general law for ejectment of an alleged trespasser. We may cite, however, the case of Jag...

Sir Wasif Ali Mirza, Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad Vs. Saradindu NaraIn ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1925Cal953

1. This appeal is by the defendant. It arises out of a suit brought for declaration of the plaintiffs' title to the chuck in suit and for recovery of possession thereof. Both the Courts below have found against the defendant and in this appeal three points have been raised. The first is that on a proper construction of the solenama between the parties it ought to have been held that this land was outside the partition and was the property of the defendant. The chuck in question appears to be resumed chakran land appertaining to Mouzah Bistupur, a mouzah hold separately by the defendant. But in the finally published record-of-rights it was recorded as a part of the joint mouzahs. In 1910 the defendant applied to the Collector for partition of the mouzahs held joint under Touzis Nos. 253 and 254 under the Estates Partition Act. In 1915 a solenama was filed setting the terms of the partition between the parties, and under that partition the mouzah containing the chuck in suit fell to she ...

Nagendra Nath Roy and ors. Vs. Jugal Kishore Roy and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1925Cal1097,90Ind.Cas.281

Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for contribution instituted on the allegation that the plaintiff and the defendants who are governed by the Mitakshara law were the lessees of a colliery named the Palashdiha colliery: that the landlords obtained a decree for arrears of rent in respect of the said colliery and brought to sale another colliery named the Lachipur colliery belonging to them in execution of the said decree, that the father of the appellants, that Is to say, the Defendant No. 1. Ashutosh Roy, purchased the same in the name of his son Nagendra Nath Roy, the first appellant, that the plaintiffs mother, as guardian of the plaintiff, in order to save the property deposited Rs. 3,771-0-6 with the permission of the Court and had the sale set aside, and that therefore the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount, together with costs of the deposit and interest amounting in ail to Rs. 6,081-8-6.2. The Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who are the father and the uncle of ...

W.R.T. Forbes Vs. Mahammad Ali Haidar Khan and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1925Cal1246,90Ind.Cas.308

Walmsley, J.1. This case comes before us on a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Sylhet under the provisions of Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code:2. In a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate declared the first party to be in possession of the disputed land, by an order dated March 25, 1924. The learned Judge recommends that this order be set aside on the ground that the Magistrate, after making a local enquiry, did not record a Memorandum of the relevant facts, which he observed. The rule which requires such a memorandum to be made was enacted by Act XVIII of 1923, and is contained in Section 539 B of the Code as it is after amendment. It does not, however, introduce any new principle, for this Court had often laid down that a memorandum should be prepared, so that both sides to an enquiry or trial might know what the Magistrate during his enquiry had noticed or failed to notice.3. It is the form of the rule that creates difficult...

Bibi Jabeda Khatun and anr. Vs. Syed Mahommad Mozaffar Ali Musani and ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.781

Ewart Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 1-4 against a decision of the Officiating Subordinate Judge of Dinajpur.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was originally instituted by the Receiver of a wakf estate for a declaration that the father of the defendants had no right to enjoy the property in suit which consisted of 1440 bighas of nishkar land, at a permanent and invariable rent, for a declaration that neither Syed Sadaruddin-Al-Musari or any other mutwalli of the wakf estate had any right to permanently settle the land in suit and that if Syed Sadaruddin had so settled it, the plaintiff is not bound by the settlement and asked that it should be set aside, that the defendants might be ejected and the plaintiff given khas possession and a decree for mesne profits. There was an alternative prayer for enhancement of rent if a decree for ejectment was not passed.3. The plaintiff became mutwalli of the wakf subsequent to the institution of the suit in the year 13...