Kolkata Court March 1926 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.
Hari Dasi Devi Vs. Gadadar Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal992
Cuming, J.1. This Rule has been issued against an order of the learned District Judge of Nadia summarily dismissing the petitioner's appeal. It would appear that the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge against an order on an application under Order 21, Rule 90. The learned District Judge passed the following order: 'Record seen. Petitioner's pleader fully heard. I summarily dismiss this appeal.' Dr. Pal who has appeared for the petitioner, contends that Order 41, Rule 11 is governed by Order 41, Rule 31 and that the learned District Judge in dismissing the appeal under Order 41, Rule 11 is bound to observe the procedure described in Rule 31; that is to say, he must write a judgment which will contain the points for decision, the decision thereon, the reasons for the decision and where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied and the relief to which the appellant is entitled. Now, as far as I can see a Judge in dismissing an appeal under Rule 11 is not rel...
NasaruddIn Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal98
1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Mymensingh to show cause why the orders of the District Judge of Mymensingh, dated the 28th October 1925, and 11th November 1925, should not be set aside or such other or farther order made as to this Court may seam fit and proper on the ground that the District Judge had no, jurisdiction whatever to dismiss the appeal of the petitioners, under Section 123 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without looking into the record and considering the same. In order to understand the precise significance of the ground taken in this Rule, it will be necessary to set out briefly the facts giving rise to the appeal, the dismissal of which has led to the present application being made to us. The facts are as follows:It appears that the Additional Munsif, Sadar, in the district of Mymensingh, decreed a suit in, ejectment brought by Raja Jagat Kishora Acharya Chowdhry against the petitioner. Thereafter, the learned Munsif, at the instance of th...
Hari Bhusan Halder Vs. Sheikh Abdul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal54,97Ind.Cas.441
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits for possession of 8 annas share of different plots of land by partition on the allegation that these lands belonged to the plaintiff and the pro forma defendant in equal shares; that the pro forma defendant had granted leases of his 8-annas share in the lands in 1910 to the defendants in both these suits, that by virtue of these leases the defendants took possession of the entire lands. The plaintiff served upon them notice to quit his 8-annas share, but they did not pay any heed to that notice and wrongfully remained on the land.2. The defendants raised various picas which are not necessary to state in detail now. Several issues wore raised in the trial Court and that Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for khas possession, but only declared his title to 8-annas share and his right to recover rent from the defendants with regard to his 8-annas share on the basis of the leases granted by the pro forma defendant the plaintiff ap...
Jogendra Krishna Chaudhury Vs. Joy Shib Chaudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1172,96Ind.Cas.481
1. The facts of the case are that two co-sharers of a plot of land brought in 1909 a suit for declaration of title to two-ninths share of the same and for partition. The suit was decreed in 1915 and by the allotment made by the Commissioner appointed to effect the partition, the disputed plot of land fell to the share of the plaintiffs in that suit who are now-represented by the plaintiff of the present suit. In execution of that decree, the present plaintiff obtained possession through Court on the 24th of January, 1920, Subsequently on the 19th of January, 1921, ho instituted the present suit against the defendant for recovery of khas possession of the land in suit. It appears that in 1912, that is, during the pendency of the partition suit, one of the defendants let out the plot of land in suit to the defendant by way of a permanent lease. Several objections were taken by the defendant to the present suit but we are concerned with only one which was argued on his behalf. It was argu...
Dwarika Nath Misra Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.653
1. The accused has been convicted and sentenced on appeal by the Sessions Judge to a fine of one rupee and the few days imprisonment already suffered before the hearing of the appeal on the ground that he had an excess of a mixture of opium for smoking not allowed by the rules in his house at the time of its search.2. The facts appear to be that at the time of the search there were found 53 1/2 grains of opium, 52 grains of guli, i.e., an admixture of opium and guava leaves for smoking and 1 1/8 tolas of opium and water in a bottle. Under the rules a person is allowed to possess three tolas of ordinary opium and one tola of a smoking mixture. The Judge found that a technical offence has been committed as the so-called liquid opium plus the guli amounts to more than 1 tola and that these two are admixtures for smoking. As a matter of fact he had only 52 grains of guli in a form fit for smoking, and the only point is whether the mixture of opium and water to the extent of 1 1/8 tolas kep...
Ram Ranjan Roy and ors. Vs. Jayanti Lal Patra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal906,96Ind.Cas.11
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit for the enforcement of a registered mortgage bond. The suit was dismissed by both the Courts below and hence this appeal by the plaintiffs.2. The facts shortly stated are these: The defendant and his two brothers are Khiraji Brahmottardars of a fractional share in Mouza Kamalpur and Metheni. The first plaintiff and one Raghunath Laik, the predecessor in interest of the other plaintiffs, took a prospecting lease from the defendant and his two brothers of their underground rights in the lands of the two mouzas. Simultaneously, they advanced a sum of Rs. 1,000 to each of the three brothers, taking from each of them a mortgage as security for the loan. The prospecting lease originally executed was not registered for some reason or other, and a fresh one was drawn up on the 12fchof Bhadro and was registered. The prospecting lease that was registered admittedly contains the provisions of the one that was not regis...
Dharanidhar Bhandari Vs. Sreemati Hemangini Dei and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.625
Chakravarti, J. 1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 1 against a judgment of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Midnapur, dated the 18th July, 1923, confirming a decision of the Munsif, First Court, Tamluk. The facts which gave rise to this litigation shortly stated are these: One Kamani Samanta married one Monmohini and then during her lifetime married Hemangini Ramani and died about 10 years before the institution of the present suit. By a kobala dated May, 1919, Monmohini who is defendant No. 2 conveyed eight-annas share of two properties which admittedly belonged to her husband to Dharanidhar who is defendant No. 1 in the suit. Dharanidhar brought a suit for rent against defendant No. 3, a tenant of one of the two properties and in that suit he made both Hemangini and Monmohini party defendants. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit for rent but it was decreed on appeal by defendant No. 1 who was the plaintiff in that suit. The judgment of the Appellate Court is dated th...
Basaratulla Mean and ors. Vs. ReazuddIn Mean and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal773,96Ind.Cas.705
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which these two Rules, which were granted by my learned brothers Greaves and Panton, JJ., arise are briefly these: A certain property was mortgaged by the tenant, one Ganga Charan Sen. A mortgage decree was obtained. The petitioner is the assignee of this mortgage-decree. The mortgage-decree was obtained on the 19th July, 1922. The landlord of the tenant who had mortgaged the property obtained a rent-decree against the tenant for arrears of rent of the property. The property was sold in execution of the rent-decree on, 22nd November, 1924. The petitioner coming to know of this made an application on 20th January, 1925, under order XXI, Rule 90 to set aside the sale on the usual grounds. Notices were issued, and after various adjournments the case was fixed for 4th July, 1925. When the case was called on for hearing neither party was present and the Munsif dismissed the application. The petitioner then applied under Order IX, Rule 4 to the Munsi...
Pitambar Jana Vs. Damodar Gachait and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1077
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal raises a question relating to limitation and the law on the point may safely be said to be still in a nebulous state. It is necessary to state some facts on which the consideration of the question turns.2. The decree-holder (the appellant before us) obtained a preliminary decree upon a mortgage in his favour on the 29th May 1918. The judgment-debtor defendant appealed and his appeal was finally dismissed by this Court on the 18th May 1922. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court the plaintiff decree holder applied for and obtained the final decree on the 20th August 1920. As the decision of the High Court in the appeal against the preliminary decree by the defendant was pronounced subsequent to the final decree the plaintiff made an application for a fresh final decree, which application was dismissed on 25th August 1923 on the ground that the final decree had already been passed. On the same day, viz., the 25th August 1923, the plaintiff decree-hol...
Batasi Moni Dassi Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1163
1. The appellant before us Srimati Batasi Moni Dassi has been convicted by the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta under Section 46 of the Bengal Excise Act (Act 5, B.C., of 1909) for having sold cocaine and for being in possession of cocaine without a pass or license and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under each of the said two charges, the sentences to run consecutively.2. The trial commenced on the 5th February 1925 and did not terminate till the 10th November 1925. On the day the trial commenced, the case against the present appellant was split up into two parts, viz., one charge in respect of the sale of three ounces of cocaine, and the other in respect of possession of cocaine. The case relating to the sale of cocaine was ordered to be proceeded with and on the 3rd March 1925 the Magistrate passed an order to the effect that the case in respect of possession of cocaine would be taken up after the disposal of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »