Kolkata Court July 1925 Judgments
Nirmal Chandra De Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Cal265
1. In this case the accused Nirmal Chandra De alias H.K. Roy has been convicted under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act read with Sections 120B and 116, I.P.C., and sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment. The case for the prosecution, shortly put, is that the Accused Nos. 3 and 4 (who is the present appellant) entered into a conspiracy to possess firearms and ammunition and negotiated with Accused No. 2, a Chinaman, for the purchase of some eight pistols and ammunition. There were several meetings between the second accused, and the third and the fourth accused but the actual sale, for some reason or other, did not take place. Some portion of the price was advanced to the second accused but further negotiations broke off because either they could not come to terms or that the accused persons expected some people to come from outside and take delivery of the pistols but they did not come in time. The evidence in the case mainly consists of police officers and spies. In a case like t...
Tag this Judgment!Taraprosad Saw Vs. Madhu Sudan Giri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal283,91Ind.Cas.12
Chakravarti, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the reversionary heir of one Govinda Giri on the death of his widow Kausalya in the year 1916 for a declaration that the defendant No. 1 had acquired no title by his purchase at, the sale in execution of a mortgage-decree against the widow.2. The facts shortly stated are these. One Govinda Giri died in the year of 1868 sonless leaving a widow Kausalya; she lived with Govinda's cousin Tulsaram who was her next reversioner, in her husband's house but Tulsaram drove her away from her house in the year 1891, She brought a suit against Khirode grandson of Tulsa ram and recovered a decree for the share of the land which was left by her husband, and it appears that in that suit she was assisted by the present plaintiff and his brothers who were the sister's sons of Govinda.3. In execution of a decree for mesne profits, against Khirode she purchased Khirode's half share in 1896, and was since then in possession of the en...
Tag this Judgment!Binod Kumar Ray Chaudhury and ors. Vs. Ram Kishore Mistry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.686
Ewart Greaves, J.Missing Page 687Operation, has not passed into their possession, I think that this appeal must succeed and that the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in holding as he has done that there must be a total suspension of rent.2. We accordingly set aside the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge but there are other questions to which the learned Subordinate Judge refers in his judgment and a decision of which is necessary before the plaintiffs' claim for rent can succeed. We accordingly send back matter to the learned Subordinate Judge in order that he may dispose of the other questions referred to in his judgment which were left open by him at the time the case was before him. The learned Subordinate Judge and after deciding these questions he will finally dispose of the appeal.3. We think that the plaintiffs who have succeeded here are entitled to the costs of this appeal. The other costs including the costs of the further hearing before the learned Subordinat...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdhani Muchi Vs. Khakshardas Tati and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal677,92Ind.Cas.1031
Chakravarti, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant before me. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought for a declaration of a right of way and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from causing any obstruction to the plaintiff's use of the pathway. The defendants denied the plaintiff's right as claimed.2. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. The plaintiff then applied for a review of the judgment of the learned Munsif. Notice was issued upon the defendants to show cause why the review should not be admitted. On the application of the defendant the application for review was taken up before the date fixed for the hearing in the notice, and was ultimately dismissed. I ought to have stated that the application for review was based upon the ground of discovery of fresh evidence. After the application for review was dismissed the plaintiff filed an appeal to the District Judge against the original judgment of the Munsif dismissing the suit. The learned J...
Tag this Judgment!Surman Shaikh Kazi Vs. Nafar Chandra Pal Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal517,91Ind.Cas.748
Chakravarti, J.1. This second appeal is by the defendant and arises out of a suit for rent brought by the plaintiff for a period commencing from 1321 down to 1324 at the rate of Rs. 25-12-5 gandas annually and also for cesses. The suit was based upon a kabuliyat executed by the defendant on the 25th November 1910.2. The defence of the defendant was that Forong the father of the defendant who was the original tenant left a widow and also a daughter who were alive and that as the widow and the daughter had not been made parties to the suit, the suit for rent was not maintainable. The defendant further pleaded that the kabuliyat was vitiated by fraud and collusion. The defendant also pleaded tender of the rent which was not accepted. Defendant further pleaded that before the kabuliyat was executed the rent paid by his father was at the rate of Rs. 22-14-10 gandas and that the rent was paid at that rate.3. The Court of first instance found that the kabuliyat was vitiated by fraud and, ther...
Tag this Judgment!Taramonee Choudhurani and ors. Vs. Sheikh Elim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal582,92Ind.Cas.714
Chakravarti, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal by the plaintiffs arises was for recovery of rent. The plaintiffs, claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 13-4 per annum as was settled in proceedings under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defence of the defendants was that the rent payable was at the rate of Rs. 4-13 a year. They denied that there was any proceeding under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act land also stated that if any order under Section 105 was obtained in secret it was not binding upon them.2. The only issue raised in the case was 'Can the plaintiffs recover rent at the rate of Rs. 13-4'. No issue was raised as to the validity or otherwise of the proceedings under Section 105 at all.3. The Court of first instance found that there was no fraud as regards the proceedings under Section 105 and held that the defendant was bound by the order under Section 105 which showed that the rent settled was Rs. 13-4 per annum. The first Court further found that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sripati Dutta and ors. Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal593
Graham, J.1. This appeal is directed against on order of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan removing a Receiver, who had been appointed in a suit (No. 142 of 1923) for declaration of title and partition of certain moveable and immovable properties.2. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondents that no appeal lies, and it becomes necessary to deal with this first. So far as this Court is concerned the question appears to be one of first impression. At all events no case has been brought to our notice in which this particular point has been decided. It is contended that Rule 1(s) of Order 43 of the Civil P.C., under which alone an appeal can lie, has no application, inasmuch as Rule 1(1)(a) of Order 40 refers only to appointment of a Receiver and is silent as to his removal. It is argued that, as the Civil P.C. nowhere expressly provides a right of appeal against an order removing or dismissing a Receiver, an intention to provide for such appeal ought not to be read...
Tag this Judgment!Jagat Chandra Bhattacharyya and ors. Vs. Gunny Hajee Ahmed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal271,91Ind.Cas.824
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Jagat Chandra Bhattacharyya, Jogesh Chandra Bhattacharyya and Jyotish Chandra Bhattacharyya, who were sued as representatives of Kush Chandra Bhattacharyya: and, the appeal is against an order of my learned brother Mr. Justice C.C. Ghose, which was delivered on the 24th of August 1924.2. The suit was based on a hundi for Rs. 2,009 drawn by the firm of Kush Chandra Bhattacharyya, carrying on business in Calcutta, in favour of the plaintiff and dated the 24th of February 1921.3. The facts which it is necessary for me to state for the purpose of my judgment are as follows:Kush Chandra Bhattacharyya started the firm of Kush Chandra Bhattacharyya & Co. in 1907--the other partners were Anukul Chandra Bhattacharyya, Atul Krishna Bhattacharyya and one Raj Krishna Sinha and the firm carried on business in Calcutta.4. In 1914, Kush Chandra Bhattacharyya became a lunatic, and the business, as far as I know, was managed by the other partners.5. It wa...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas James Henry Arnup Vs. Kedar Nath Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1017
Sanderson, C.J.1. This Rule was granted by my learned brother, Mr. Justice Panton, and me, calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the conviction of, and the sentence passed on, the petitioner should not be set aside on grounds Nos. 1, 8 and 9 stated in the petition.2. The petitioner was convicted by an Honorary Presidency Magistrate for assault under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. The decision was given on the 23rd of March 1925.3. The petitioner is a sergeant in the Calcutta Police attached to the Kumartoli outpost and the assault is alleged to have been committed on the 19th of February 1924.4. The case for the complainant, Kedar Nath Ghose, who is a taxi-cab driver shortly stated, was as follows: He was driving a taxi-cab near a tea-shop in Ahiritola Street when some person from the tea-shop summoned him to stop. He stopped, and the man who called him asked him to wait two or three minutes wh...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Nath Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Moheshata Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal533,91Ind.Cas.649
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued for khas possession of 4 bighas pi land on the ground that the tenant who transferred them had no transferable interest in them and the transferees were mere trespassers.2. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant No, 3, Haridas Ghose, held as under raiyati under her in respect of the land in suit and had no transferable interest in it. The defendant No. 3 executed two mortgages in respect of these lands, one in favour of defendant No. 7 and the other in favour of defendant No. 8. Their united mortgages covered the whole of the lands in suit. Both these persons sued on, their mortgages and obtained decrees and purchased the lands. Hence the plaintiff contended that the defendant No. 3, the original raiyat, had abandoned the lands and that she was entitled to re-entry. The defendant's case was that the plaintiff was not a raiyat but a tenure-holder, that he was a raiyat at a fixed rate of rent and further...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »