Kolkata Court July 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.
Emperor Vs. Miajan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal585,95Ind.Cas.61
Suhrawardy, J.1. In this case the accused were convicted under Sections 147, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. There was an appeal by the accused to the Sessions Judge of Hooghly, and the learned Judge passed an order similar to the one which we have considered in the other case(Revision Case No. 270 of 1925). An objection in this case was taken before him on the ground that there was no sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 360 of the Cr. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge gave effect to this contention and passed the following order: 'I have carefully considered the circumstance urged and in my considered opinion I hold that I have no other alternative but to allow the appeal. The conviction and sentences are set aside. As regards the expediency of a re-trial, I leave the matter to the learned District Magistrate, inasmuch as any opinion passed by me, one way or the other, would prejudice the result of a retrial.' When ...
Ramkumar Sewchand Roy Vs. Nanuram Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal510,94Ind.Cas.657
Page, J.1. This is a suit brought to recover money lent. The munim gomastha of the plaintiff firm gave evidence in support of the claim, but no evidence was adduced by the defendant in rebuttal. I am satisfied that the sums claimed as having been lent by the plaintiffs to the defendant were lent as alleged. The claim, how ever, is barred by limitation unless a payment of Rs. 1.000 alleged to have been made on behalf of the defendant on the 3rd October 1921 amounts to a part-payment within Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908, of the moneys due by the defendant to the plaintiffs in respect of the sums which had been lent. The munim gomastha of the plaintiffs stated that one Naitram Jajodia, who was a friend and purported to act as the agent of the defendant, sent this sum of Rs. 1,000 by a messenger who handed the money to the plaintiffs, and at the same time delivered to the plaintiffs a slip in the following form: 'To Ramkumar Sewchand Roy, 'Please accept compliments of Naitramjee. ...
Prasanna Kumar Ray Vs. Arun Chandra Singha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal656
Greaves, J.1. These appeals are appeals by the tenants in suits by their landlord, under the provisions of Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, claiming additional rent in respect of additional area. The Assistant Settlement Officer in the first Court decreed the suits and held that for measuring the additional lands a pole or nal of 16 cubits should be employed; the landlord appealed against the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer in so far as he decided that the pole or nal to be employed for measurement should be pole or nal of 16 cubits. The landlord's contention was that according to the true construction to be placed upon the dowl in the various suits the pole or nal to be employed was one of the 14 cubits and the Special Judge who heard the appeals has agreed with this contention. These appeals are directed against this decision and this is the only point which arises in these appeals. The Special Judge disposed of all these appeals by reference to a judgment which he...
Birendra Nath Chatterjee Vs. Umananda Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.998
Duval, J.1. In this case a Rule has been, obtained against an order of discharge of one Umananda Mukherjee who was placed on his trial under Sections 197, 420 and 404, Indian Penal Code. The charge against him was that he, knowing of the death of one Bhaba Sundari Debi, who died, on the 3rd January 1923, as her agent in respect of her Savings Bank account at Berhampur; withdrew on the 5th and 9th January 1923 in all Rs. 1,55,0 by signing two certificates to the effect that she was alive on those days. The Deputy Magistrate discharged the accused holding that Sections 420 and 401 did not apply because, as a matter of-fact, the accused was entitled to the money on the lady's death and Section 197 did not apply on the ground that the certificates given that the lady was alive and sane were not such certificates as were contemplated by Section 197, Indian Penal Code.2. After the discharge by the Deputy Magistrate the, case came up before the District Magistrate who agreed with the Deputy M...
Gopal Chandra Das and anr. Vs. Kumar Satya Bhanu Ghoshal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.963
Babington Newbould, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree in ejectment. The appeal is valued at Rs. 28-1-0. This valuation is made under the statutory provisions of the Suits Valuation Act and the Court Fees Act and in no way represents the real value of the property. I am told if the defendants succeeded in establishing their claim to a permanent right to the land in suit the value of the property would be no less than Rs. 20,000.2. The appellants before me are defendants Nos. 7 and 8 in the suit. The defendant No. 7 through his benamdar and son defendant No. 8 has purchased the tenancy interest of a holding which originally comprised two plots of land. One of these is about 14 cottahs in area situated on the east of Bridge Road Chetla and that is the plot which is the subject of the present suit. The other plot is to the west of the same Road and is about one cottah in area. The plaintiff served notices to quit on defendants Nos. 1 to 7 treating the tenancy as a tenancy-at-will.3. ...
Gopal Chandra Das and anr. Vs. Satya Bhanu Ghoshal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal634
Newbould, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree in ejectment. The appeal is valued at Rs. 28-1-0. This valuation is made under the statutory provisions of the Suits Valuation Act and the Court Fees Act and in no way represents the real value of the property. I am told if the defendants succeeded in establishing their claim to a permanent right to the land in suit the value of the property would be no less than Rs. 20,000.2. The appellants before me are Defendants Nos. 7 and 8 in the suit. The defendant No. 7 through his benamidar and son Defendant No. 8, has purchased the tenancy interest of a holding which originally comprised two plots of land. One of these is about 14 cottahs in area situated on the east of Bridge Road Chetla and that is the plot which is the subject of the present suit. The other plot is to the west of the same road and is about one cottah in area. The plaintiff served notices to quit on Defendants Nos. 1 to 7 treating the tenancy as a tenancy-at-will.3. The appe...
Kamini Kumar Roy and anr. Vs. Rajendra Nath Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal233,90Ind.Cas.432
1. The plaintiffs-petitioners during the hearing of their Suit No. 69 of 1924 in the Court of the Second Munsif of Chikandi applied for permission to withdraw from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. The Munsif allowed them to withdraw from the suit without permission to bring a fresh suit and directed the defendants to get their costs from the plaintiff. This order was passed in connection with two suits, but in this Rule we are only concerned with Suit No. 69 of 1924.2. That the Munsif's order was wrong is clear from the decision of the Bombay High Court in Mahant Biharidasji v. Parshottamdas Ramdas 32 B. 345 : 10 Bom. L.R. 293, As there pointed out, where the plaintiff does not desire to withdraw from the suit unless with liberty to bring a fresh suit, and the Court considers that such liberty should not be granted the proper course is simply to dismiss the application. On behalf of the opposite party in this Rule the same argument was urged as had been urged at the hearing...
Abdul Gani Bhuya Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal235,90Ind.Cas.537
Suhrawardy, J.1. The appellant Abdul Gani Bhuya has been convicted under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. He was tried with one Abdul Razak for offences under Sections 324,323 and 325, Indian Penal Code. The Jury unanimously found Abdul Razak not guilty and found the appellant guilty under Section 324, Indian Penal Code.2. On behalf of the appellant three points have been taken by the learned Vakil who appears for him relating to non-direction in the learned Judge's charge to the Jury. The first point is with regard to the admissibility of the depositions taken by the Magistrate. What happened in this case is that the case for the prosecution rested on the evidence of two alleged eye-witnesses to the occurrence Nawab-ud-Din and Wasiuddin and of another witness Madhu, a servant of the family, who had lodged the first information on hearing about the occurrence from one of the other witnesses. Before the Committing Magistrate they spoke ...
Adhar Chandra Mondal Executor to the Estate of Late Jatadhari Patra Vs ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal764,91Ind.Cas.656
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit brought by them, for recovery of arrears of rent for the year 1324 to 1327 B.S. at the rate of Rs. 48 2-1. The facts shortly, stated are these: It appears that the jote for which the rent is sued for, originally stood in the name of Khetu-boddya who died many years ago, how long ago we do not know. The defendant No. 1 is the son of Aizaddy who is the son of Khetuboddya. The other defendants are also the other heirs of the original tenant except one. The defence of the defendant No. 1, who alone contested the suit, was that the suit was not maintainable under the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of the Bengal Tenancy Act: and that the suit was bad for defect of parties, because Namuda, a daughter of the original tenant, was not a party. He also contended that the rent payable was not at the rate of Rs. 48-2-1 but was Rs. 46-2-7. Lastly the defendant claimed abatement of the rent.2. The Court of first instance...
Pitambarnath and ors. Vs. Bhairab Chandra Sinha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.878
Babington Newbould, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Tipperah reversing the decision of the Munsif, Fourth Court at Comilla. The plaintiffs who are the appellants before me brought a suit for declaration that their raiyati jama had been wrongly recorded in the Settlement Record of Rights as in ordinary raiyati holding instead of as a raiyati holding at fixed rent.2. The main point urged in this appeal is that the lower Appellate Court was wrong in law in stating what it was necessary for the plaintiffs to prove in order to establish the presumption that the holding had been held at a rent which had not been changed from the time of the Permanent Settlement. The lower Appellate Court held that having regard to the provisions of Section 115 of the Bengal Tenancy Act the presumption for which Clause (2) of Section 50 provides did not arise in the present case. He then went on to consider whether the ordinary presumption arose from the facts proved and deci...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »