Kolkata Court April 1926 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Umed Sheikh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.867
1. The appellants in this case have been convicted under Section 201, Indian, Penal Code, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment--appellant No. 1 to one year, appellants Nos. 4 and 6 to six months and appellants Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to three months each. The charge was under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, for the murder of one Tamij and in the alternative under Section 201, Indian Penal Code, for concealing or disposing of the evidence of commission of that offence. The Jury unanimously found the accused not guilty under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, but found them guilty under Section 201, Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge, though he convicted them under Section 201, Indian Penal Code, was doubtful as to what was the real act committed by them on the deceased and in awarding punishment to the accused he assumed that they caused grievous hurt under grave and sudden provocation and accordingly awarded apparently lenient sentences on the accused.2. In this appeal two points have...
Bhaniram Rathi Vs. Ambica Charan Hazra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal21,97Ind.Cas.731
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal arises are these : Defendant No. 1 brought a suit in the Small Cause Court against Defendants Nos. 2 to 6. He applied for attachment before judgment and the properties now in suit were attached. The Defendant No. 1 proceeded to sell the properties in suit in execution of the decree he obtained in his suit.2. The plaintiff in this suit tendered a claim which was disallowed and hence this suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The defence seems to have been that the sale to the plaintiff was a sham transaction. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's suit in full on the 4th March 1919. An application for review of judgment was then made. The basis of the application was that plaintiff was a man of straw which fact the defendant had tried to prove in the trial. He had now discovered some new and important evidence which he could not have discovered during or before the trial. This application was he...
Abdul Alim Vs. Abdul Hafez and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal89,97Ind.Cas.838
Cuming, J.1. This appeal which is by the judgment-debtor arises out of certain execution proceedings. The facts are these : The plaintiff brought a suit for the recovery of certain properties which were described in four schedules. He obtained a decree on 31st March 1908, so far as regards the properties in Schedule IV. His claim for the properties in Schedules I, II, III was dismissed. Against that portion of the decree by which his claim was dismissed, he appealed first to this Court and then to the Privy Council. He was equally unsuccessful in both Courts. The order of the Privy Council dismissing his appeal is dated 22nd January 1920.2. There was no appeal by either party regarding the Schedule IV properties. The decree-holder then on 8th December 1922, applied for execution of the decree so far as Schedule IV properties were concerned. The judgment-debtor objected that the decree could not be executed now as it was barred by limitation. He contended that limitation began to run fr...
Purna Chandra Kundu and ors. Vs. Manobini Devi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal156
Greaves, J.1. This Rule was issued calling on the opposite party to show cause why a certain order of the Munsif of the 11th March 1926, dismissing an application on the ground that it was not maintainable under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P.C., should not be set aside or varied on the ground that the petitioners were entitled to maintain the application on the facts set out in the Munsif's order. The facts are as follows:The petitioners commenced a title suit impeaching a sale in which the landlord decree-holder had purchased the land and they asked for confirmation of their possession. In that suit the petitioners applied for an injunction restraing delivery of the land to the decree-holder. Owing to the laches of the clerks in the Munsif's office the injunction order was not shown to the clerk who issued the writ of possession, so the writ of possession was issued and symbolical possession was delivered to the decree-holder in due course. The decree-holder took actua...
Subal Chandra Kar and anr. Vs. Jatindra Mohan Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal175
Rankin, J.1. This is an appeal by two defendants in a suit against the Receiver, Mr. B.N. Mitter, and the ground of their controversy with the Receiver is that they say that he has improperly dealt with certain portions of the premises under his management; has failed 'to exercise reasonable diligence for the recovery of certain rents in respect of certain premises; has failed to let them out and has been guilty of breach of his duty. The matter came before Mr. Justice Buckland upon a summons in Chambers and that summons was supported by a somewhat lengthy petition.2. It appears that the application was not made in connexion with any accounts which the Receiver had filed or which were in course of being passed in Chambers of the Court under Ch. 21 of the Original Side Rules. It came on, therefore, as an independent motion or summons, and the learned Judge took the view that the ruling of Mr. Justice Sale in the case of Coomar Sattya Sankar Ghosal v. Ranee Golapmonee Debee [1900] 5 C.W....
Rasik Moral Minor by His Next Friend Sashi Bhusan Mandal Vs. Kumar Jyo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1106,97Ind.Cas.614
Cuming, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Additional District Judge of Khulna rejecting an application for re hearing of an appeal under Order XLI, Rule 21, C.P.C. It would appear that the present petitioner and his brothers were respondents in a certain appeal, the petitioner who was a minor being represented in the appeal by a guardian ad litem appointed by the Court. The appeal was duly heard and was decreed against the respondents. The present petitioner then moved the Court and asked that the appeal should be re-heard on the ground that no notice had been served upon him, the petitioner. The learned Judge has found and the fact has not been controverted that notice was duly served upon the guardian ad litem of the petitioner in the case, and he, therefore, refused the application for re-hearing.2. The petitioner, a minor, has appealed to this Court and Mr. Sen contends on his behalf that it is necessary that notice should be served not only on the guardian ad ...
Sarada Kanta Sen Gupta and anr. Vs. NabIn Chandra Sen Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal39
Page, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought to recover khas possession of certain homestead land. The land in question for many years had been in the possession of one Tilak Das under a howla of which the plaintiffs possessed twelve annas and the pro forma defendant a four annas share. The defence to the suit was that the appellants-defendants in the suit had purchased the interest of Tilak Das in the land which was set out in, and controlled by, a kabuliyat executed by Tilak Das on the 24th Falgoon 1308, that is in the year 1901.2. The lower Court has found as a fact that the kabuliyat of 1901 was a document merely confirmatory of a pre-existing tenancy, and did not create a fresh tenancy. The learned advocate for the appellants has urged that this finding of fact cannot stand because there was no evidence on the record upon which the Judge could have based the conclusion that the kabuliyat merely confirmed a prior tenancy. This point, however, has not been raised ...
Ram Chandra Acharjee Vs. Aditya Chandra Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1051,97Ind.Cas.353
1. This Rule was issued against an order passed by the Deputy Magistrate of Faridpur under Section 147, Cr.P.C. on two grounds : (1) That the learned Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in drawing up proceedings under Section 147, Cr.P.C., after having ordered issue of notice upon the second party under Section 107, Cr.P.C. (2) that the learned Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in drawing up a proceeding under Section 147, Cr.P.C., because more than three months had expired between the date of the alleged obstruction on the 14th February, 1925, and the date of the institution of the proceeding on the 3rd August, 1925. We have heard the parties on the second ground mentioned above, as, if that is decided in favour of the petitioner, it will not be necessary to enquire into the first ground. A petition was filed by the first party on the 14th February complaining of obstruction of a pathway by the second party. On the 15th February, 1925, on that 'petition the Magistrate passed the...
Sarda Kanta Sen Gupta and anr. Vs. NabIn Chandra Sen Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.817
Page, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought to recover khas possession of certain homestead land. The land in question for many years had been in the possession of one Tilak Das under a howla of which the plaintiffs possessed 12-annas and the pro forma defendant a 4-annas share.2. The defence to the suit was that the appellants defendants in the suit had purchased the interest of Tilak Das in the land which was set out in, and controlled by, a kabuliyat executed by Tilak. Das on the 24th Falgoon 1308 that is in the year 1901.3. The lower Court has found as a fact that the kabuliyat of 1901 was a document merely confirmatory of a pre existing tenancy, and did not create a fresh tenancy. Thelearned Advocate for the appellants has urged that this finding of fact cannot stand because there was no evidence on the record upon which the Judge could have based the conclusion that the kabuliyat merely confirmed a prior tenancy. This point, however, has not been raised in the...
Naibulla (Nayabulla) Shaikh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.990
Suhrawardy, J.1. The accused Naib-ulla and three others hare been found unanimously by the Jury guilty under Section 304 (Part II), Indian Penal Code, and convicted and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment each.2. The case for the prosecution is that the deceased Mona Mandal was called out of his house late at night by Naibulla and was subsequently assaulted by these four persons so violently that he died in consequence of it a few hours later. The only evidence against the accused is the extra judicial statement of the deceased made before his death to several men who have been examined in the case. In that statement he said that he was called from his house about midnight by Naibulla and was assaulted by the four accused with fists and kicks. With regard to the motive there is not much of evidence against Naibulla; but it is suggested that the deceased had reprimanded his wife for giving a seer of rice to her mother who is the wife of Naibulla. There is no mention of this ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »