Kolkata Court August 1926 Judgments
Kiran Chandra Roy and ors. Vs. Srinath Chakravarti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal210
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment of the Officiating Subordinate Judge of Faridpur, dated the 28th July 1924, reversing that of the Munsif of the 2nd Court at Bhanga, dated the 17th March 1924.2. The appellants brought the suit under Section 158 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for the assessment of fair and equitable rent for certain lands appertaining to their zemindari, Touzi No. 5557 of the Faridpur Collectorate in the possession of the defendants and also for arrears of rent for the years 1326 to 1329. In the course of a record-of-rights the lands in suit were recorded as brahmottar Prankrishna Bhattacharji liable to assessment with fair and equitable rent. The present claim of the plaintiffs was based on the said entry in the record-of rights.3. The defence of the Defendants Nos. 1 to 14 was that the lands in suit appertained to brahmottar Prankrishna Bhattacharji, that these lands were enjoyed as such by the grantee and his successors from befor...
Tag this Judgment!Moslem Sirkar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal516
Rankin, J.1. These are two Rules issued by this Court in a case arising in connexion with a forest called the Atia Pargana, a large tract of land in the district of Mymensingh, which is described as interspersed with jungles and trees between cultivations, and inhabited by 1,00,000 people. The Rule No. 599 is in respect of some seven persons who have been convicted under Sections 143, 224, 225 and also 225/114 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to divers terms oil imprisonment. These accused have been convicted, to put the matter shortly, for obstructing the forest officer by rescuing from his lawful custody certain persons whom he had apprehended on the ground that they were cutting gazari trees in, this forest; those trees having been reserved.2. The Second Rule No. 600 deals with three people, the people who were in the custody of the forest officer, and who have been convicted under Section 32 of the= Indian Forest Act, being Act VII of 1878, for cutting these gazari trees. It...
Tag this Judgment!King-emperor Vs. Monmotha Nath Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal199
Rankin, J.1. There are two matters before us. One is a Reference by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge of the 24-Perganahs. It appears that the learned Judge was trying a case in which all the seven accused were charged under Section 147 and also under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code but, in addition, three of them were also charged under Sections 326; 325 and 323.2. The case had been committed for trial. I may say at once that it does not appear to me that there was any illegality about the order of commitment. The committing Magistrate in his order has quite properly dealt with the question whether the accused should be committed for trial on a charge under Section 302 read with Section 149. In these circumstances his order of committal was perfectly good.3. The case began on the 4th of August and it was tried on the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and the 9th of August. Then, on the 10th a juror fell ill. On the 11th he was absent and the case was adjourned to t...
Tag this Judgment!Bechu Lal Kayastha Vs. Injured Lady
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal250
Rankin, J.1. The petitioner is a driver in the employ of the Calcutta Tramways Coy. Ltd. He has been convicted by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate tinder Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code for rash and negligent driving and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. Half of the fine has been ordered to be paid to a person injured by the negligence of the petitioner.2. The present Rule was issued on the sole ground that Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not complied with. The Magistrate in his explanation states that Section 342 was not complied with because the case was a summons case and cites the decisions of a Full Bench of the Madras High Court Ponnusamy Odayar v. Ramasamy Thathan A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 15 and Dharma Singh v. King-Emperor A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 30 for the view that Section 342 does not apply to a summons case whether it be tried summarily or in the ordinary way.3. In this Court convictions have in summons cases been set aside for failure to comply wi...
Tag this Judgment!Rani Shashi Mukhi Chaudhurani and ors. Vs. Sarat Chandra Chakravarty a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal327
Mukerji, J.1. This Rule relates to an order passed under Section 145,Criminal P.C., by a Deputy Magistrate of Faridpur. The proceedings were in respect of a chur about 2500 bighas in area in the river Padma, near the Goalundo Ghat railway station. There were three parties to the proceedings. The area has been divided into three portions, marked as Blocks A, B and 0 in the same map. Block A has been declared to be in possession of the first party, Block G of the second party and Block B of the third party. The second party have moved this Court and obtained this Rule.2. In order to deal with the contentions urged in support of this Rule it is necessary to state a few facts. The dispute relating to this chur has a long history at its back. For our present purposes id is not necessary to go beyond the 29th January 1925, when the Sub-Inspector of Goalundo Ghat thana visited the chur on information received about an apprehended breach of the peace. On that occasion the said Sub-Inspector pr...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Charu Bala Dasi and ors. Vs. Srimati Nihar Kumari Dasi and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal831
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 3 to 8 and arises out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title and for recovery of possession of certain land described in the schedule to the plaint with mesne profits. The facts shortly stated are these : Defendant 10 and one Surja were the owners of a jote consisting of 2 bighas 16 cottas of land. They sold it to defendant 9 on the 6th May 1910. Defendant 9 in his turn sold the land on the 11th December 1916, to the plaintiff with a condition that if the purchaser was ousted or otherwise deprived of the land the purchaser would be entitled to recover the amount paid as consideration with interest.2. Defendants 3 to 8 contended that they were tenants of the land in suit, which formed, according to them, part of a tenure of 22 bighas odd. They further alleged that defendant 10 and Surja held the land under them. It was further alleged that defendant 10 and Surja held the land through defendants 1 and 2. The Court of first ins...
Tag this Judgment!Rani Shashi Mukhi Debi Chaudhurani and ors. Vs. Sarat Chandra Chakrave ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.713
Mukerji, J.1. This Rule relates to an order passed under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, by a Deputy Magistrate of Faridpur. The proceedings were in respect of a chur about 2,500 bighas in area in the river Padma, near the Goalundo Ghat Railway Station. There were three parties to the proceedings. The area has been divided into three portions, marked as Blocks A B and C in the same map. Block A has been declared to be in possession of the first party, Block C of the second party and Block B of the third party. The second party have moved this Court and obtained this Rule.2. In order to deal with the contentions urged in support of this Rule it is necessary to state a few facts. The dispute relating to this chur has a long history at its back. For our present purposes it is not necessary to go beyond the 29th January, 1925, when the Sub Inspector of Goalundo Ghat Thana visited the chur on information received about an apprehended breach of the peace. On that, occasion the said Sub...
Tag this Judgment!Enatullah Vs. Sheikh Kowsher Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Cal1153
N.R. Chatterjee, Ag. C.J.1. The question referred to the Special Bench is whether under the Mahomedan Law one co-parcener has any right of pre-emption where another co-parcener happens to be the purchaser.2. The question was decided by a Full Bench of this Court in the negative in the case of Lalla Nowbut Lall v. Lalla Jewan Lall [1879] 4 Cal. 831. Since then the Allahabad High Court and a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court have taken the opposite view, and having regard to the original authorities on the point which were not placed before the Full Bench in Lalla Nowbut Lall's case [1879] 4 Cal. 831, a Division Bench of this Court was of opinion that the Full Bench decision should be reconsidered, and hence this reference to the Special Bench.3. In the case of Lalla Nowbut Lall v. Lalla Jewan Lall [1879] 4 Cal. 831. Garth, C.J., delivering the judgment of the Full Bench said:There appears to be no reason, either upon principle or authority, why the right of Shaffa should exist as betw...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Lionel Ashby Dunkley and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal389,101Ind.Cas.609
Greaves, J.1. This is an application for the appointment of a guardian of two minor boys. There are two applicants for guardianship, the mother and the paternal grandmother of the minors. The father of the minors died a short time ago and by his Will which bears the date the 28th May 1926, he appointed his mother Mary Wilfred Dunkley during her lifetime and after her death his trustee D. William Dunkley, to be the guardian of his minor sons Lionel Ashby and William Gregory Dunkley and certain sums of money are directed to be invested or deposited in the Imperial Bank of India for the benefit of the minor sons and the trustee is directed to pay to the testator's mother money from the Bank for maintaining and bringing up the minors in a suitable manner, and on attaining majority they are entitled to the balance of any money remaining in the Bank to their credit. It is not necessary I think, to go into many of the matters that are raised in the affidavits on both sides, either with regard...
Tag this Judgment!Mitchell and ors. Vs. Mcneill and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal518,103Ind.Cas.120
Greaves, J.1. This is an originating summons taken out by the administrator with the Will annexed of the estate of Donald Eraser Mackenzie, deceased, and by the executors of his Will which has been proved in England to determine a question which arises in the administration of his estate. The question is as to the liability of the estate to pay to McNeill & Co., a certain sum of money paid by them in circumstances which I will presently state. In my view the procedure by originating summons is not applicable to a contentious matter of this nature which is really a claim by McNeill & Co., to recover from the estate, the sum in question. The procedure should have been by suit but as ail parties agree to the matter being decided on originating summons I propose to decide it.2. The facts which I take from the plaint are not, I understand, in dispute. Donald Fraser Mackenzie died on the 14th June 1924. At the date of his death he was a partner in the firm of McNeill & Co., but on his death ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »