Kolkata Court May 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.
Sheik Alijan and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal679,103Ind.Cas.846
1. In this case three accused persons were put on their trial under charges under Sections 394 and 397, I.P.C., before the Assistant Sessions Judge of Alipur sitting with a jury. The jury brought in a majority verdict of 3 : 2, finding the accused guilty under Section 394, I.P.C., i.e., of robbery and causing hurt. The first two accused have been sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and the third accused against whom a previous charge for theft had been proved has been sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. He has also been directed to report to the police any change of address under Section 565, Criminal P.C., for a period of two years after the expiry of the term of imprisonment.2. The case for the prosecution is that the accused persons persuaded one Satis Chandra Biswas to meet them and go to see a tank for the purpose of dealing in fish, He borrowed some money from one Surajballi, went with his partner Jiban Krishna Das and met the accused at the Beliaghata stat...
Adar Mani Namasundrani and anr. Vs. Purna Chandra Malagi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.704
B.B. Ghose, J.1. In this case, the question is whether the lower Appellate Court had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an order passed by the Munsif refusing to restore an application made by the judgment-debtor opposite party under Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C., which was dismissed for default. The contention on behali of the judgment-debtor opposite party is that there was such jurisdiction as is held in some of the reported cases in this Court. But, in my opinion, the matter is concluded bv authority. The case of Thakur Prasad v. Fakirulla 22 I.A. 44 : 17 A. 106 : 5 M.L.J. 3 : 6 Sar. P.C.J. 526 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.D.) 393 (P.C) is against such a contention. I have been a party to several decisions in which the ruling referred to above has been applied and it has been held that in such case no appeal is allowed under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (c), C.P.C. The cases have again been considered in the case of Basaratullah Mean v. Reazuddin Mean 96 Ind. Cas. 705 : 30 C.W.N. 570 : A.I.R. 1926 C...
Jogesh Chandra Roy Vs. Asaba Khatun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal41
Greaves, J.1. These appeals are by the plaintiff from a decision of the District Judge of Chittagong which reverses a decision of the Munsiff of the first Court of the same place. In the year 1851 one Har Chandra Roy let out certain lands by way of a grant which was in the nature of a putni lease to one Ramjoy Khansama. The lease contained a provision that the lessee would give back to the lessor if so required such portions of the land as he required. Ramjoy in the year 1862 executed in favour of one Cliunnn Misfcry a Kaimi Estemrari Mokurari raiyati lease of these lands. This contained a similar provision to that contained in the head lease as to giving back any lands required by the lessor. The present plaintiff is the successor in interest of Har Chandra Roy. He wanted back some of the lands in dispute for the purpose of a market and a College and he sued the successor in interest of Ramjoy for a reconveyance of the lands which he required. Eventually Ramjoy's predecessor or rather...
Satish Chandra Das Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal311,101Ind.Cas.581
Buckland, J.1. This matter comes before ma for trial of one issue. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff who was an officer in the Bengal Police Service for damages for wrongful dismissal. It is unnecessary to deal with the various allegations in the plaint at this stage. The defence was taken that the plaint disclosed no cause of action but the plaintiff relied on certain regulations, an aspect of the matter with which I dealt when I directed that an issue should be tried. The issue of which I directed a trial is as follows:Does the plaint disclose any cause of action by reason of any regulation having the force of law and providing for the ground or manner in which the plaintiff could be dismissed.2. Under Section 96(b) of the Government of India Act, 1915, it is provided that subject to the provisions of the Act and of the rules made thereunder every person, in the Civil Service of the Crown of India, holds office during His Majesty's pleasure but no person in that service may be...
Shambo Chandra De and ors. Vs. Kartick Chunder Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal11,97Ind.Cas.845
Mukerji, J.1. After giving pedigree his Lordship proceeded. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he is entitled to receive; the rent of a patni to the extent of 8 annas from the defendant. The facts are not disputed. The patni mehal belonged to Rashbehary Chodhury, and on his death was inherited by his sons Sadananda and Bankubehary in equal shares. Sadananda's 8 annnas share was inherited by his sons Nimai and Badan, each having a 4 annas share. Badan's 4 annas share was inherited, on his death, by his daughters Nityamoyee and Kritarthamoyee, and on the death of the former her interest passed on to the latter. Nimai's 4 annas share passed on his death, to his widow Pearymoyee, and on the latter's death to Haridas, son of Kritarthamoyee. Kritarthamoyee and. Haridas leased the 8 annas patni right to defendant. Haridas died leaving a widow, Kirandasi, who is also dead, and Kritarthamoyee died after her. The plaintiff's case is that on the death of Kritarthamoyee he has inherited the...
Rakhalraj Banerjee Vs. Ranjan Bagtani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal87,97Ind.Cas.979
1. This Rule arises out of an application made by the plaintiff under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and is directed against an order of the Munsif of Jungipore returning a plaint to the plaintiff petitioner for presentation in the proper Court in the District of Santhal Perganas. The facts briefly stated are these : The defendant executed a hand-note in favour of the plaintiff in the District of Santhal Perganas where he resides. The plaintiff instituted the present suit for the money due on the hand-note in the Court of the Munsif of Jangipur in the District of Murshidabad exercising Small Cause powers on the allegation that there was an oral agreement between the parties to re-pay the loan at Raghunathgunge in the District of Murshidabad and within the jurisdiction of the Jundipore Court. The learned Munsif, on the objection taken by the defendant in his written statement that the proper Court where the suit should have been instituted was the Court in the Santh...
Mrs. Alice Maud and anr. Vs. J.C. Galstaun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal114
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this rule has arisen are these : The opposite party one J.C. Galstaun brought a suit in 1923 against the present petitioners and certain other persons with regard to a certain house No. 229, Lower Circular Iioad. The present petitioners who are Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, alone contested the suit. The petitioners wore the sub-tenants of one Mussa Ariff Bham, who it was alleged, was the tenant of J.C. Galstaun. The suit was heard and was decreed by Mr. Mohendra Nafch Mukhuti, Subordinate Judge of Alipur, on the 29th June 1925. Almost immediately after the decision of the suit this officer was transferred and the decree when drawn up was signed by another Judge Mr. Asu-tosh Pal. who succeeded Mr. Mukhuti. The material portion of the judgment of Mr. Mukhuti which forms the concluding portion of the learned Judge's judgment with which we are now concerned in the present Rule is as follows:Ordered accordingly that the suit be decreed in part with...
Haridas Majumdar Vs. Golam MahiuddIn Faruqi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal256
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Reference by two of my learned brothers in certain second appeals.2. The appeals were divided by the learned Judge into three groups, and it was the third group of appeals, to which the questions, which were referred, related.3. The questions were as follows; (i) whether a co-sharer collecting his own shares of the rent separately from the other co-sharer or co-sharers is a joint landlord within the meaning of Section 188 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and (ii) whether such a co-sharer is entitled to make an application under Section 105 of the Act.4. The proceedings were initiated by the landlord under Section 105 of Bengal Tenancy Act and it appeals from the judgment of the Assistant Settlement Officer that it was an admitted fact that the shares of the entire talk passed into the hands of the plaintiff's predecessor gradually by sale.5. The judgment of the learned Special Judge of Tippera with regard to this point was as follows:The plaintiff is sixteen annas...
Secretary of State Vs. Rai Radha Kanta Aich and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal924
Sanderson, C.J.1. In this matter two of my learned brothers referred the following question to the Full Bench, namely:Whether a suit to contest an order of the Board of Revenue under Section 6 of Act IX of 1847, declaring the liability of the lands, claimed as part of a permanently settled estate, to assessment of revenue, is barred by the one year's rule of limitation laid down in Section 24, Reg. II of 1819.2. The learned senior Government Pleader, who appeared for the Secretary of State for India in Council, stated that he did not feel himself able to contest the correctness of the decision, which was given by a Division Bench of this Court, in Peary Lal Roy Chowdhury v. Secretary of State : AIR1924Cal913 .3. The result, therefore, is that the answer to the question, which has been referred to this Court, must be that the suit is not barred by the one year's rule of limitation laid down in Section 24 of Reg. II of 1819.Chatterjea, J.4. I agree.Rankin, J.5. I agree.Suhrawardy, J.6. I...
Kessoram Poddar and Co. Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1928Cal74
Chotzner, J.agreed upon and that these tick marks indicated that he had bought the goods so ticked. Thereafter, when he wanted delivery of the goods purchased, he would send a delivery order through his office requiring the seller to deliver the goods at the Narcaldanga depot or at such other place as might be specified in the order, but owing to the congested state of the depots months often elapsed before such delivery orders were issued. He would also purchase goods by what was popularly known as a 'commandeering' order. It appears that under the rules framed under the Defence of India Act, certain classes of goods such as corrugated iron sheets, galvanized plates, barbed wire and the like, could not be sold by merchants except under license from Government and when a commandeering order was issued, the goods had to the delivered at such places as were specified therein. Such an order could only be signed by the Controller of Munitions himself. In such cases the price of such goods ...