Kolkata Court February 1926 Judgments
Anath Bandhu Dutta and anr. Vs. Aisali Namadas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1076,97Ind.Cas.188
1. This is an appeal against an order of remand made by the Subordinate Judge after reversing the decision of the Munsif decreeing a partition of certain properties. The plaintiffs appealed to this Court.2. The facts found are that the plaintiffs purchased a non-transferable occupancy holding from the tenant in possession. After their purchase they were recognised by the landlord owning 15-annas 12-gandas share, but the defendant who was landlord to the extent of 8-gandas share did not recognize the purchase and the defendant dispossessed the plaintiffs from a certain area of land within the jote. The plaintiffs, therefore, brought a suit against the defendant for possession of the lands from which they had been dispossessed and obtained a decree for joint possession to the extent of their share of these lands. On the basis of that decree the plaintiffs brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, for partition only of those lands which formed the subject-matter of the previou...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Samir Vs. Sajidar Rahman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal95
1. In this matter what has happened is this. The accused, Sajidar Bahman, made a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police on the 18th February 1925, charging the petitioner and others with having, on the 16th February 1925, in front of the Registration Office on the north side of the Government House, snatched away two Government currency notes for Rs. 1,000 each. The police submitted a report on the 2nd March 1925, but the accused, Sajidar Rahman, not having been found in Calcutta, the Deputy Commissioner of Police ordered, on the 2nd April 1925, that the petition should be filed. On the 9th April the petitioner filed a complaint against the accused, Sajidar Rahman, under Section 211, I.P.C., for having falsely and maliciously filed the said complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police. The Chief Presidency Magistrate issued process against Sajidar Rahman on the 4th May 1925. Thereupon Sajidar Rahman appeared and laid a complaint against the petitioner, on the 10th Jun...
Tag this Judgment!Ah Soi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.469
1. In this case the accused Ah Soi, who is a Ghinaman, was tried before the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge of the 24 Parganas and a Jury on the charges under Sections 302 and 301, Indian Penal Code. The Jury found him guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, and thereafter the learned Judge sentenced him to transportation for life.2. It appears from the record before us that the trial in this case has been conducted in a way which is highly irregular. Indeed the irregularity is of such & nature as to, border on illegality and having regard to the facts stated below we have no further alternative but to set aside the conviction of and sentence passed on the accused.2. It appears that a Chinaman named Lewis acted as an interpreter in this case. From a very early stage of the investigation by the Police this Chinaman named Lewis had interested himself on behalf of the prosecution. The charge against the accused was that he had murdered his elder broth...
Tag this Judgment!Rahini Nandan Chaudhuri and ors. Vs. Jadunandan Chaudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.73
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs arising out of a suit for establishment of fishery lights and for perpetual injunction. The following diagram will show the subject-matter of controversy in this suit:Pakuria Raikan Dighi.3 2Pirgunje.1 Malda Bandaguat.2. Parts 1 and 2 are in the bed of a navigable river Mabananda and No. 3 is a rivulet emerging from it. This suit relates to parts 1 and 3.3. The present suit is a stage, let us hope the last, in a long drawn litigation dating from 1860. In that year the Government resumed under Act II of 1819 a portion of the jalkar over the river and its branches In 1861 Prasanna Kumar Boral, plaintiffs' predecessor, brought a suit against the Government in which he claimed his jalkar right on those waters. Defendants' predecessor, Alam Saha intervened and, assert' ed his raiyatan or raiyati rights but no order was passed on his application though the jama was reduced on that consideration.4. The suit was compromised between Prasanna and...
Tag this Judgment!Prafulla Kamini Ray Widow of Late Tara Nath Ray Vs. Birendra Nath Ray ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.236
N.R. Chatterjea, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Letters Patent against a decision of Mr. Justice Page.2. The suit out of which the appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent for a declaration of title to and recovery of possession of certain properties which originally belonged to ona Guru Charan Ray. Guru Charan died in 1871 leaving a childless widow Sham Rangini, and, she came into possession of the zemindari putni, and other properties left by her husband in her right as a Hindu widow. She acquired certain jotes out of the income of the estate in her hands and built a house upon the jot& land acquired by her. In 1915, she granted an ijara of the zemindari and the putni properties to her husband's agnatic cousin Tara Nath Ray, now represented by his widow Profulla Kamini Ray the present appellant. About the same time she executed a deed of gift by which she conveyed to him the dwelling house which she had erected on the jote land. In the deed it...
Tag this Judgment!Braja Mohun Das Adhikari Vs. Gaya Prosad Karan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.265
1. In the suit from which this appeal arises the plaintiffs sought to establish their title to the eastern half of the Cadastral Survey Dag No. 5/48. Their case is that the defendant and one Padrna Lochan Das were brothers, that on partition the land in suit was allotted to Padma Lochan who mortgaged it to plaintiffs' father and being unable to redeem finally-sold it to him. The defendant, on the other hand, contends that the land in suit was allotted to him on partition. The Record of Rights is in favour of the defendant. The onus that lies upon the plaintiffs becomes heavier on account of this entry in the record. Both the Courts have passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The lower Appellate Court was not satisfied in the evidence on either side that there was any partition. It thereupon proceeded to decide the question by subsequent possession of the land in suit. In considering the evidence it relied mainly upon certain documents between strangers to the suit, viz., Exs. 5 t...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Chandra Kundu Vs. Bhusan Chandra Kundu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1190,97Ind.Cas.690
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this' appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued for partition of a certain tank under the provisions of Act IV of 1893. The plaintiff was the 14-annas co-sharer and the defendant was the 2-annas residue co-sharer. The plaintiff asked that he might be allowed to buy up the defendant's 2-annas share at a valuation by the Court or in the alternative the properly should be sold to the highest bidder and the proceeds distributed amongst the co-sharers. The defendant under Section 3 of the Partition Act prayed for a valuation of the plaintiff's share and for leave to buy up the said share at the valuation fixed by the Court.2. The trial Court held that the defendant was entitled to buy the share of the plaintiff and he valued the plaintiff's share at Rs. 1,400. On appeal the learned District Judge on a consideration of the case of Debendra Nath Bhattacharjee v. Hari Das Bhattacharjee 7 Ind. Cas. 844, 13 C.L.J. 322 : 15 C.W.N. 552, and on a consideration of th...
Tag this Judgment!Akhoy Kumar Talukdar and ors. Vs. Surendra Lal Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal957,96Ind.Cas.378
1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 1 against a judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge of Dacca, reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of that place. The facts are as follows: The defendants obtained a money decree against certain persons on the 30th May, 1917. The plaintiffs' father also obtained a money decree against the same judgment-debtors on the 3rd October, 1917. Both the defendants and the plaintiffs' father applied for execution of their decrees. The plaintiffs' father made an application for rateable distribution of the assets tinder Section 73 of the C.P.C. on the 9th October, 1917. Then the plaintiffs' father died on the 18th February, 1918. The property which was attached in execution of the defendants' decree was sold on the 9th March 1918 and it appears that the decree-holder was allowed to set off the purchase-money against the decretal amount. The present plaintiffs made an application for substitution in the place of their deceased father in...
Tag this Judgment!Brojo Mohan Das Adhikari Vs. Gaya Prosad Karan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal948
Suhrawardy, J.1. In the suit from which this appeal arises the plaintiffs sought to establish their title to the eastern half of the cadastral survey Dag No. 5/48. Their case is that the defendant and one Padmalochan Das were brothers, that on partition the land in suit was allotted to Padmalochan who mortgaged it to plaintiffs' father and being unable to redeem finally sold it to him. The defendant, on the other hand, contends that the land in suit was allotted to him on partition. The record-of-rights is in favour of the defendant. The onus that lies upon the plaintiffs becomes heavier on account of this entry in the record. Both the Courts have passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The lower appellate Court was not satisfied in the evidence on either side that there was any partition. It thereupon proceeded to decide the question by subsequent possession of the land in suit. In considering the evidence it relied mainly upon certain documents between strangers to the suit, viz...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Kamini Mayi Debi Vs. Bhusan Chandra Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1193,97Ind.Cas.692
Suhrawapdy, J.1. This appeal arises out of a proceeding taken under the Guardians and Wards Act before the Additional District Judge of Howrah. The minor is a girl of 11 years of the name of Rani Moni Dasi, a child widow. The applicant is the father of the girl and the objector (the present appellant) is her mother-in-law. The father applied to be appointed guardian of the person and property of the minor under Act VIII of 1830. An objection was filed on behalf of the appellant. On the 29th April, 1924, a petition was presented on behalf of the objector asking for further adjournment on the ground of her illness. The learned Judge thereupon passed the following order: 'It is unsupported by affidavit or medical certificates and she has already had 6 adjournments after filing hsr objection. I decline to grant any further adjournment. No. one appears. Case will be disposed of ex parte. On filing of necessary affidavits to-day ordered that petitioner be and hereby appointed guardian of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »