Kolkata Court January 1926 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Garib Hari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal742,94Ind.Cas.365
1. This is a Reference by the Second Additional Sessions Judge of Burdwan under the provisions of Section 307, Cr. P.C. The accused Garib Hari was tried for an offence under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, for having caused the death of one Kiranbala Harini who is said to have been his mistress and to have been in his keeping for a number of years. The prosecution case is that on the day of the alleged occurrence there was a quarrel of some sort between the accused and the deceased and that on account of the provocation which the accused received in the course of the quarrel he struck her with a knife, the result of which was that she died. The Jury brought in a unanimous verdict of not guilty and the learned Judge being of opinion that that verdict should not be accepted but that the accused should be convicted under Section 335, Indian Penal Code, has made this Reference to us.2. The learned Judge in his letter of reference has very clearly and carefully set out the different items o...
Tag this Judgment!Benode Behary Saha Vs. Rai Sundari Dassya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1926
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.588
1. This Rule was obtained on an application for revision of an order passed by the District Judge of Rungpur, under Section 115 of the C.P.C. The order was passed by the Judge under the provisions of the Succession of Property Protection Act XIX of 1841 directing that the curator appointed under that Act should make over certain properties to one Rai Sundari Dassya.2. The facts are these. One Purna Chandra Saha died in 1899. He left a Will under the provisions of which amongst other things it was directed that his widow should remain in possession of the properties for her life. Certain annuities were given to his mother, the opposite party before us, and his grandmother. The widow Sarada Sundari was given authority to adopt a son and it was provided that if she died without making any adoption all the properties left by the testator should vest in two idols and that by the income of the properties the debsheba of the idols should be performed and if there was any surplus left that wou...
Tag this Judgment!Suckchand Das Vs. Giridhari Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.1016
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of the lands in suit on establishment of the plaintiff's title thereto. The facts are various and complicated but for the purposes of the present appeal they may be shortly stated as follows: Priyanath Das (brother of the plaintiff) was the original tenant in respect of the land in suit under the Burdwan Raj. In 1901 the Maharaja obtained a rent-decree against him and the holding was sold in execution of that decree and purchased by the Raj in 1903. In 1904 and 190-5 the Raj let out the holding on an yearly tenancy to one Kailash. In 1907 a lease was granted to him of this land for an indefinite period. In 1906 Priyanath brought a suit against the Maharaja for establishment of title and other reliefs but it was dismissed. In 1908 there were proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C., between Kailash and Priyanath which terminated in favour of Kailash. In 1907 a suit was brought by two women Bhairabi and Brindabati...
Tag this Judgment!Gholam Sidhique Khan and ors. Vs. Jogendra Nath Mitra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal916,96Ind.Cas.199
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against a decree of the District Judge of Midnapur affirming that of the Subordinate Judge. The suit was for declaration of the plaintiffs' right to a two third share in the land in suit on which the defendant has put up a pucca substantial structure and for possession by demolishing the same. The plaintiffs' case was that the disputed plot is part of a maurashi mokarrari jote of 8 bighas standing in the name of their brother Raghunath Mitter. This jote was purchased out of the joint fund of the brothers being the profits of a joint milk business in Bhowanipur at Kharagpur in the District of Midnapur. The defence so far as it is necessary to state here was that the property belonged exclusively to Raghu Nath and that the defendant was a bona fide purchaser. The trial Court in the view that the family was a joint Hindu family, raised the presumption in favour of the property being the joint family property and holding that the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Prosanna Ray Vs. Prem Chand Mahapatra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1062,95Ind.Cas.853
1. This appeal is by the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for enforcing two mortgage-deeds with reference to the property in question. The deeds were executed by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants Nos. 3 to 6 were made parties on the allegation that they were not interested in the equity of redemption by reason of their subsequent purchase of the mortgaged properties. Defendant No. 4 really contests the suit. His contention is that he was an auction-purchaser of the property in schedule 'Go,' in execution of a certificate issued for recovery of rent under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act and having purchased the property with the right to annul all incumbrances, he served a notice under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and thereby the mortgage on the property purchased by him had been annulled. The Munsif passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff against all the defendants including the property purchased by defendant No, 4. The defend...
Tag this Judgment!C.E. Stuart Vs. D.A.C. Stuart
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal864,96Ind.Cas.932
Page, J.1. The decree in this suit is brought before the Court for confirmation. The District Judge of the 24-Parganas granted the petitioner a divorce upon the grounds of adultery and cruelty. The issue which falls for determination is whether there is sufficient evidence of cruelty to justify the passing of the decree. The allegation that the respondent had committed adultery with a Mrs. Newton was admitted, and, although the petitioner afterwards condoned this adultery by cohabitation with her husband, it is well settled that condoned adultery is revived by the commission of a later matrimonial offence: Palmer v. Palmer (1860) 2 Sw. & Tr. 61 : 29 L.J. Mat. 124 : 2 L.T. 363 : 8 W.R. 504 : 164 E.R. 914, Thompson v. Thompson 15 Ind. Cas. 886 : 39 C. 395. Now in order to justify a decree separating the parties a mensa et there upon the ground of cruelty, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to prove violence or ill-treatment 'endangering or at least threatening the life or person or heal...
Tag this Judgment!Manindra Chandra Ray Chaudhury and anr. Vs. Suniti Bala Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1006,95Ind.Cas.632
1. This appeal which arises out of one stage of a certain case has a long history behind it. It is only-necessary to state certain relevant facts in order to appreciate the question which has been raised before us. One Suniti Bala Debi, the respondent before us, executed a mortgage in favour of her step mother named Dhara Sundari and Sarajini on the 5th March 1907. Dhara Sundari brought a suit for her share of the mortgage-money on the 25th March 1909. That suit was defended by the mortgagor Suniti Bala on various grounds. The Subordinate Judge passed a decree in favour of Dhara Sundari. On 'appeal by Suniti Bala this Court set aside the decree while maintaining the finding of the Trial Court with regard to the validity of the mortgage. This Court remanded the case for amendment of the plaint and after amendment for making a proper decree on the mortgage for the entire mortgage-money. Suniti Bala preferred an appeal to the Privy Council and the decision of the High Court wag affirmed b...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Nathkar Vs. Sudhir Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.838
1. This is a Rule which was granted by my learned brother Mr. Justice Chakravarti calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Second Munsif of Tamluk allowing a certain deposit to be made under Section 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act should not be set aside.2. The facts would appear to be these: The applicant who has obtained this Rule is the landlord. He obtained a decree against the opposite party No. 4 for a sum of Rs. 257-13-0 on the 28th July 1921. The amount not being paid, the landlord tried to execute the decree and the 17th of March 1925 was fixed for the sale. Previous to this property being put up to sale, the opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 applied to deposit the decretal amount under Section 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The application was opposed by the landlord on the ground that the opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were not entitled to make the deposit.3. The learned Munsif found that the opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were co-sharers of the ju...
Tag this Judgment!Basant Lal and ors. Vs. Purna Chandra Banerji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1117
Cuming, J.1. This rule was granted by myself and by my learned brother Mr. Justice Mukherji to show cause why that portion of the order of the learned Small Cause Court Judge by which he ordered the defendant to pay Rs. 2-14-0 as damages should not be set aside. The facts would appear to be these--the opposite party, the landlord, sued the present petitioner, the tenant, for rent. The rent was decreed and the tenant was further ordered to pay Rs. 2-14-0 by was of damages.2. In support of this rule the learned vakil contends that he is not liable to pay damages for his failure to pay the rent in due time. He contends that this case does not fall under the Interest Act because there was no written agreement under which the money was payable and secondly, that there was no demand in writing to pay the money. He further contends that when it does not fall under Section 73 of the Contract Act, there is no law under which he could be made to pay this Rs. 2-14-0.3. Dr. Kanjilal has appeared t...
Tag this Judgment!National Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. Gyan Ranjan Bhattacharya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal299
Greaves, J.1. In this appeal the defendant company appeals against a judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Ghose decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 5,160-13-4 together with interest and costs. The suit was brought on a Hundi dated the 24th September 1923 which is in these terms:Ninety days after sight without grace we promise to pay Babu G.R. Bhattacharjee or order the sum of rupees ten thousand only for value received.2. It is signed for and on behalf of the National Coal Co. Ltd., J.N. Mookerjee Managing director, and accepted as due on 22nd December 1923, by the same gentleman, J.N. Mookerjee. The learned Judge in the Court below has found first that there was presentation to the company; and I think he was entitled to so find, having regard to the affidavit of Srimani which is an exhibit in the case; secondly he has found that the plaintiff paid to the company through J.N. Mookerjee a sum of Rs. 5,000 which was claimed in the suit; thirdly, that the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »