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.
Bharasa Now Vs. Sukhdeo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.62
Suhrawardy, J.1. There were three persons accused in this case who were convicted by the Sub-Deputy Magistrate of Alipore under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, and the first accused was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 30 and the two other accused were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25 each. It was further ordered that out of the fine, if realised, Rs. 50 should be paid, to the complainant as costs and compensation under Section 545, Cr.P.C. The accused appealed to the Additional District Magistrate who without issuing notice upon, the complainant or upon the public prosecutor heard the appeal ex parte and set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused. The present Rule was obtained from this Court on the ground that the order of acquittal passed by the Court below should be set aside on the ground that the Additional District Magistrate acted illegally and without jurisdiction in not issuing a notice on the complainant.2. Under Section 422, Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court shall cause notice to...
Ashutosh Ganguly Vs. E.L. Watson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal149
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner should not be set aside on the grounds : (1) that the conviction under Section 102 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act is bad in law, (2) that the joint trial of the petitioner with Monmohan Bose is illegal and (3) that the identity of the petitioner is not established. As to the third ground it has not been seriously pressed nor is tken any substance in it. The other two grounds are, therefore, to be considered in connexion with the facts of this ease which are : that the petitioner along with one Monmohan Bose was placed on his trial before the Chief Presidency Magistrate for an offence under Section 1o2 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act on the allegation that the accused contracted debts of about Rs. 6,000, while they were undischarged insolvents, and was convicted of the offence and sentenced to three months' rigorous impriso...
Mabarek Fakir Vs. Bhuban Mohan Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.728
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiffs sued for a declaration of their title to and recovery of possession of a certain property. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs with the exception of plot No. 2 of the settlement map. Against this decree the defendant appealed, and the learned District Judge who heard the appeal held that it had not been brought in time and, therefore, was time-barred He further held that the appellant had not shown sufficient cause for admitling the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellant has appealed to this Court and he contends that the appeal was within time.2. Now, it would appear that the judgment in the case was delivered on the 27th of September, 1923. The decree was not actually signed until the 8th October. On the 9th of October, the Civil Courts closed for the annual vacation and they re-opened on the 12th November. The appeal was actually filed on the 10th December. A f...
Muktamala Dasi Vs. Ram Chandra De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal84,97Ind.Cas.879
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the Defendant No. 1 against a judgments' and decree of the Subordinate Judge-reversing those of the Munsif. The plaintiff brought the suit to set aside a decree which was passed ex parte against him in Money Suit No. 200 of 1916 on the ground of fraud. In that case, the present plaintiff was the defendant. He was, it appears, served with proper summons; but on the date of hearing, he failed to appear in Court and the result was that a decree was passed ex parte against him. The plaintiff alleges that the claim for rent against him in the previous suit was entirely false and the decree was obtained against him on perjured evidence. On these allegations, he-went to trial. Several issues were framed in the trial Court of which the 5th issue was this:Is the rent decree obtained by the Defendant No. 1 against the plaintiff fraudulent and one liable to be set aside2. In a careful judgment, the Munsif considered all the reported cases on the question as t...
Mahanta Bhagaban Das Vs. Bisweswar Nath Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal220
Mukerji, J.1. The facts which led to this litigation are these : The Defendant No. 1 is the putnidar. On the 24th May 1884 one Kalu Majhi executed in favour of the Defendant No. 1 a kabuliat by which a Sarasari Jama was sought to be created in respect of 275 bighas of land. Out of these 275 bighas 160 bighas were cultivated land for which a rental of Rs. 74 was fixed. The remaining 115 bighas were waste land for which no rent was assessed and it was provided in the document that the rent would be assessed therefor when the land would be brought under cultivation. On the 1st December 1888 Kalu sold this tenancy in respect of the 160 bighas to one Bishu Majhi and one Kanai Dhangor. Bishu and Kanai were recognized by the Defendant No. 1 as transferees in respect of the said 160 bighas and they thereafter sold to the plaintiff's father Giridhari the said tenancy by a conveyance dated the 4th May 1894. On the 16th February 1895 Giridhari got a conveyance from Kalu in respect of the remainin...
Mahanta Bhagaban Das, Shebait of Raghuram Deb Thakur Vs. Bisweswar Nat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.302
Mukerji, J.1. The facts which led to this litigation are these: The defendant No. 1 is the putnidar. On the 24th May, 1884, one Kalu Majhi executed in favour of the defendant No. 1 a kabuliyat by which a sarasari jama was sought to be created in respect of 275 bighas of land. Out of these 275 bighas 160 bighas were cultivated land for which a rental of Rs. 74 was fixed. The remaining 115 bighas were waste land for which no rent was assessed and it was provided in the document that the rent would be assessed therefor when the land would be brought under cultivation. On the 1st December, 1888, Kalu Bold this tenancy in respect of the 160 bighas to one Bishu Majhi and one Kanai Dhangor. Bishu and Kanai were recognized by the defendant No. 1 as transferees in respect of the said 160 bighas and they thereafter sold to the plaintiff's father Giridhari the said tenancy by a conveyance dated the 4th May, 1894. On the 16th February, 1895, Giridhari got a conveyance from Kalu in respect of the r...
Jiban Krishna Mullik Vs. Nirupama Gupta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1009,96Ind.Cas.846
Page, J.1. The suit in respect of which this appeal arises was brought by a putnidar against a se-putnidar for arrears of rent. The putnidar had created a durputni in favour of one Umesh Chandra Biswas under which Umesh became liable to pay-rent at the rate of Rs. 244 per annum. Subsequently, Umesh executed a document by which he created a seputni in favour of the defendants under which a jama of Rs. 344 was fixed, It was further provided that by virtue of the se-putni right you shall be in title and possession of the same and out of the settled se-putni jama of Rs. 344 you shall pay Rs. 244, dur-putni rent, to the putnidar and shall take the rent receipt in my name and you shall pay me the said, rent receipt and the remaining Rs. 100 as per kist in the schedule below.' It is unnecessary to consider the other provisions in the document creating the se-putni.2. The trial Court decreed the claim in parti. But the lower Appellate Court allowed an appeal by the defendant and dismissed the ...
Kunjolal Pal and anr. Vs. Idurali Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal82,97Ind.Cas.757
Cuming, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition brought by the plaintiffs in which they sought for the partition of a certain property on the allegation that they had purchased 10 annas odd gandas share in it. The property in question belonged to a Mahomedan family of whom the ancestor was one Hanif. The plaintiffs alleged that they had purchased the shares of two of the sons of Hanif, namely, Keshab and Sabdban. So far as regards the share of Sabdhan their case was that they obtained a decree against Sabdhan in 1918. In execution of this decree Sabdban's interest in the holding was sold and they themselves purchased it at the sale. This sale was duly confirmed on the 18th February 1919. With regard to Keshab's share, to which also this appeal relates, their case was that they purchased the share of Keshab from his heirs on the 19th September 1919. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' title. They denied that the plaintiffs had ever purchased the land. They further claimed ...
Mt. Asrufannessa Khatun and anr. Vs. Hem Chandra Chaudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal216
M.N. Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiffs title to and recovery of possession in respect of certain shares in a taluk hearing Towzi No. 328 of the Mymensingh Collectorate. The plaintiffs name was recorded in the finally published record of rights as the owner of 8 gandas 3 karas and 5 dantis. The Defendant No. 1 in the present suit thereupon instituted a suit under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for a correction to be made in the entry of the names of the owners of the taluk and alleged that she had 14 annas and odd share therein, and in the said suit she made one Jowhar Ali, who is Defendant No. 2 in the present suit, pro forma defendant, alleging that the said Jowhar Ali had one anna odd gandas share in the said taluq. The Defendant No. 1 was successful in the said proceedings. The plaintiff thereupon has instituted the present suit. In the suit as originally framed there were, besides the prayers for declaration of title and recover...
Asrafannessa Khatun and anr. Vs. Hem Chandra Chaudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.293
William Ewart Greaves, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title to and recovery of possession in respect of certain shares in a taluk bearing Towzi No. 328 of the Myrnensingh Collectorate. The plaintiff's name was recorded in the finally published Record of Rights as the owner of 8 gandas 3 karas, and 5, dantis. The defendant No. 1 in the present suit thereupon instituted a suit under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for a correction to be made in the entry of the names of the owners of the taluk and alleged that, she had 14-annas and odd share therein and in the said suit she made one Jowhar Ali who is defendant No. 2 in the present suit, pro forma defendant, alleging that the said Jowhar Ali had 1-anna odd gamiastshare in the said taluk. The defendant Nov I was successful in the said, proceedings. The plaintiff thereupon has instituted the present suit. In the suit as originally framed there were besides the prayers for declaration of title ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »