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.
Samserali Hazi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal563,94Ind.Cas.736
1. The only point raised for the purpose of this appeal is that the provisions of Section 360 of the Cr. P.C. have not been complied with. It appears on the allegations made by the appellants, as well as from the explanation submitted by the Trying Judge together with the affidavit sworn by the Sessions clerk, that the witnesses were examined one after another until the midday adjournment, when their depositions were read over to them during the interval: and the depositions of the witnesses examined one after another in the afternoon were similarly read over to them in the afternoon after the close of the day. In Abdul (Bari) Mullick v. Emperor 92 Ind. Cas. 887 : 42 C.L.J. 585 : A.I.R. 1926 Cal. 157 : 27 Cr.L.J. 375 we have held that the evidence of a witness must be read over to him after it is completed, and before the examination of another witness is started; and we have further held in that case that the reading over of the depositions of witnesses at the close of the day is not ...
Siteswar Roy and anr. Vs. Tepua Barman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal589,92Ind.Cas.908
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for declaration of their right to a share in the properties in suit and for possession after partition by metes and bounds. The properties in suit-are certain jamas and the plaintiffs claimed a 3/4th share in those properties. The defence of the defendants was that they were the owners of the jotes and were in exclusive possession thereof for a very long time without any connection whatsoever with the plaintiffs.2. The facts shortly stated are these: It appears that one Janaki died leaving three sons Dhir Nath, Asinath and Kalinath. Dhirnath had four sons, namely, Kachu, Tepu, Fulchan and Fedhu. The plaintiffs are the sons of Kachu and the other two-sons of Dhirnath, namely, Tepu and Fulchan. The defendants are the sons of Fedhu who according to them was adopted by Asinath.3. The plaintiffs case as presented in the first Court was that they were in possession of their share in the j...
Kabatulla and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1241
1. This appeal is by three appellants, who have been convicted under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment each, with the direction under Section 565, Criminal Procedure Code, to notify the address to the police in case 'of accused No. 1. Four jurors found the accused guilty under Section 395, while the fifth juror found them guilty under Section 412, Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge has accepted the verdict of the majority of the jury and convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. In appeal several grounds have been taken pointing to the misdirections alleged to have vitiated the learned Judge's charge to the jury. It is enough for our present purpose to refer to only one of them. The evidence, it appears, rested mainly upon the recovery of the stolen articles from the possession of the accused. With regard to the explanation of the law on this head the learned Judge made the following observation: 'The law regarding finding of prop...
Prafulla Kamini Roy Vs. Bhabani Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal1018
Walmsley, J.1. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed for reasons which need not toe stated, and we are now concerned only with the defendants' cross-objection.2. The necessary facts are as follows: there were two brothers, Prasanna Nath Roy and Bhabani Nath Roy. Theformer died in 1871, leaving a widow named Shyamrangini, who is still alive. She succeeded to a Hindu widow's estate in respect of the property left by her husband.3. On April. 26, 1915, she executed a deed of gift in favour of the defendant Taranath Roy by which she transferred to him one of the items of property described In Schedule 'Ga' to the plaint. In July 1917 she executed a second document, in favour of her husband's brother, Bhabani, by which she relinquished all her rights to him as reversioner. On his side he paid her a considerable sum in cash and undertook to make a monthly payment for the rest of her natural life. On the strength of this document Bhabani as plaintiff wants to eject Taranath from ...
Ahmed Ali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal224,90Ind.Cas.534
1. The present appellants have been convicted on the unanimous verdict of the Jury--the appellant No. 1 Ahmed Ali under Sections 193 and 467/109, Indian Penal Code--appellant No. 2 Sayadutulla Khan under Section 193 read with Section 109 and under Section 467. Indian Penal Code, and appellant No. 3 Yusuf under Section 193 read with Section 109 and Section 467 read with Section 109. They have been sentenced under the earlier of these sections to rigorous imprisonment for three years and under the latter section to rigorous imprisonment for five years, the sentences running concurrently. I may observe that the Jury returned also an alternative verdict of guilty under Section 465/109, 465, 465/109 respectively against these appellants. The case against them was that they were concerned in the preparation of a certain borga kabuliyat which recites that the appellant Ahmed took a sub-lease from the appellant Yusuf of certain land which Yusuf, according to the recital, held under the landlor...
Kabatulla and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.542
1. This appeal is by three appellants who have been convicted under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment each, with the direction under Section 565, Cr. P.C., to notify the address to the Police in case of accused No. 1. Four jurors found the accused guilty under Section 395 while the 5th juror found them guilty under Section 412, Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge has accepted the verdict of the majority of the Jury and convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. In appeal several grounds have been taken pointing to the misdirections alleged to have vitiated the learned Judge's charge to the Jury. It is enough for our present purpose to refer to only one of them. The evidence, it appears, rested mainly upon the recovery of the stolen articles from the possession of the accused. With regard to the explanation of the law on this head the learned Judge made the following observation: 'The law regarding finding of property is this, that i...
Joynal Karikar Vs. Mulluk Chand Mullick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal509,91Ind.Cas.287
1. This is an appeal by the defendant against a decision of the Fourth Subordinate Judge of Dacca, affirming a decision of the Second Munsif of Manickgunj.2. The facts are as follows: The suit was brought by the plaintiff-respondent for the possession of certain land. The first Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff but on appeal the case was remanded to the first Court in order that the plaintiff should have an opportunity of adducing evidence with regard to a certain kobala Ex. 4 in the suit. Now, it appears that at the time of the remand the defendant objected to this kobala going in evidence. But eventually by consent of both parties the case was remanded to the lower Court for a de novo trial so as to enable the plaintiff, if he could, to show that Ex. 4 was admissible under the provisions of Clause (3) of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. The remand order further provided that both parties should be allowed to adduce fresh evidence. The first Court after the remand...
Prafulla Kamini Roy Wondow of Taranath Roy Vs. Bhabani Nath Roy and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.897
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed for reasons which need, not be stated, and we are now concerned only with the defendant's cross-objection.2. The necessary facts are as follows. There were two brothers Prasanna Nath Rai and Bhabani Nath Rai. The former died in 1871, leaving a widow named Shyamrangini, who is still alive. She succeeded to a Hindu widow's estate in respect of the property left by her husband.3. On April 26, 1915, she executed, a deed of gift in favour of the defendant Tara Nath Rai by which she transferred to him one of the items of property described in Schedule ga to the plaint. In July 1917 she executed a second document, in favour of her husband's brother, Bhabani, by which she relinquished all her rights to him as reversioner. On his side he paid her a considerable sum in cash and undertook to make a monthly payment for the rest of her natural life. On the strength of this document Bhabani as plaintiff wants to eject Tara Nath ...
Jagadish Chandra Mukerji Vs. Rasik Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal666,96Ind.Cas.753
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain lands on declaration of the plaintiff's right to khas possession. These lands were previously in the occupation of a tenant named Adu Baroi under the owner Bhabani who died leaving his daughter, Joy Durga, as his heir. After that one Mati Lal purchased the holding of Adu in execution of a mortgage-decree in 1900. Joy Durga brought a suit against Mati Lal at an enhanced rate of rent. This suit was compromised between the parties. Under the term of the compromise the rent was enhanced and it was declared that Mati would have a permanent and transferable right in the land.2. In the year 1910 Mati sub-let the land to defendants Nos. 2 and 3. In 1916 Mati sold the land to defendant No. 1. The plaintiff who succeeded to the landlord's interest in the property on the death of his mother Joy Durga in 1902 has brought,this suit for ejectment on the ground that Mati had no transferable interest. Both the Cour...
Pecha Mandal and Vs. Bhairabendra Narayana Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal541,91Ind.Cas.846
1. These two appeals arise out of suits which were heard together in both the lower Courts. The lower Appellate Court in describing the suits states that they are suits for the rent of different arreas of land and also that in both suits the plaintiffs claim Compensation for, the use and occupation of excess land.2. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that suits for compensation for use and occupation of land are of the nature of suits for damages which are triable in a Court of Small Causes and that the Munsif has not jurisdiction to deal with this part of the claim. Though it would seem that the plaint has not been well drafted the suits were in effect and were treated not as suits for damages for occupation of the excess land but as suits for assessment and realization of rent for the excess land. The decree granted by the Munsif and confirmed by the lower Appellate Court is clearly a decree in which the total rent has been assessed on the total areas of excess land in each s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »