Kolkata Court January 1928 Judgments
M. Barnard Vs. G.H. Barnard
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal657
Costello, J.1. This is a petition by Margaret Barnard praying for a dissolution of her marriage with the respondent George Henry Barnard on the ground of his adultery with a woman unknown on 17th November 1927. The petitioner was married to the respondent on 18fch October 1917 according to the rights of the Christian Church at the Wesleyan Churoh at Jhansi. At the time of the marriage the respondent was domiciled in England and before her marriage the petitioner was also domiciled in England and after the marriage they retained their English domicile. It was duly averred in the petition that the respondent at the time of the presentation of the petition was domiciled in England. It may therefore be taken that when this petition was filed both the parties to the marriage were domiciled in England. Both the parties to the marriage profess the Christian religion. It appears from the evidence of the petitioner that after her marriage she and the respondent lived and cohabited together firs...
Tag this Judgment!Haripada Saha and ors. Vs. Debnath Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal749,110Ind.Cas.427
1. On first reading the judgment it seemed that the Subordinate Judge passed his order under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to make an order of remand when the trial in the first Court is altogether misconceived The trial Court after rejecting the report of the commissioner ought to have in the circumstances stated by the Subordinate Judge issued a fresh commission for the purpose of local investigation. There is, however, one difficulty in maintaining the order as it has been made, and that is this, the Munsif decided all the issues including the question of limitation. The Subordinate Judge does not say anything with regard to the question of limitation. He set aside the whole-judgment simply because of the unsatisfactory way in which the trial Court dealt with the matter of local investigation. It appears to us that he was wrong in setting aside the whole judgment including the finding with regard to the question of limitation upon that ground.2. We, therefore, set aside the...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mukherjee Vs. Manager, Harun Tar Mohammed and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal484
1. This rule was granted, against the order of acquittal under Section 245, Criminal P.C., passed by the-Deputy Magistrate of Howrah. On 27th August 1927, a complaint was made under the orders of the Chairman of the Howrah Municipality against the Manager of Messrs. Tar Mahomed and Company for using, or permitting to be used, certain premises for the purpose of storing molasses without obtaining a license. The charge was in respect of an offence under Sections 466(d), 574, Municipal Act (Act 3 of 1899), and the prosecution was under that Act. The order of acquittal was made on a preliminary objection taken and upheld, that the prosecution did not; lie, inasmnch as, though the provisions of Sections 466, and 574 of the Act in question. had been extended to Howrah by a notification under Act 3 of 1899, that Act had been repealed and re-enacted by the Calcutta Municipal Act (Act 3 of 1923), and no fresh notification had been issued extending any part of the new Act to Howrah.2. It is cont...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Nath Kamilya Vs. Khetra Mohan Bera and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal593
Cuming, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for contribution. A mortgage was executed by one Joy Jana, father of defendant 8, in 1305 in respect of a certain property. Portions of this property were sold at various times to various persona among them being plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. The mortgagee brought a suit for the realization of the money and the property was put to sale. The plaintiff deposited the mortgage money, saved the property and brought this suit for contribution.2. The defendants adduced various pleas in defence. The first Court decreed the suit for various amounts against defendants 1 to 6. On appeal to the District Court it was held that the suit was barred by limitation, that the suit was bad for nonjoinder of one Akhil Seal and, that further there was no evidence to show the value of the different pieces of land, and so the plaintiff could not succeed. That Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court. The respond...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Nandan Das Mahapatra and ors. Vs. Banamali Charan Pati and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal709
Cuming, J.1. The facts of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen are these:The plaintiff sued the defendant for what he described as dasturat. He stated that the defendant's predecessors were in possession of mouza Maisagote with Mehal Padima, by right of purchase from the plaintiff's predecessor. That he and his predecessor had been realizing amicably and by suit in an annual sum of Rs. 28-12-6 as dasturat and cesses from the predecessors of the defendants and the defendants in respect of the said mauza. The defendants had not paid the amount and hence the suit.2. The defendants admitted that they were in possession by purchase and that they never agreed to pay for ever any dasturat to the plaintiff. This dasturat forming a separate amount was realized from the tenants in addition to the rent they had to pay. That amount was paid to Sashimukhi during her lifetime and her successors had no right to get the same, nothing now being realized from these tenants and that as the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Subhas Chandra Bose Vs. R. Knight and Sons and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal69,113Ind.Cas.834
Rankin, C.J.1. The plaintiff Subhas Chandra Bose sues the defendants who are the proprietors and editor of the Statesman newspaper for damages for libel contained in their issue of 26th November 1924. The words complained of are part of a leading article of which the main subject matter is a speach made by the Earl of Lytton when Governor of Bengal at Maldah on the 24th of that month. This speech had been published in extenso in the issue of the 25th and no complaint is made on that publication.2. In the previous month, namely on 25th October 1924, the Governor-General under Section 72, Government of India Act, made and promulgated an ordinance to supplement the ordinary Criminal Law in Bengal. This among other provisions gave power to the Local Government in certain circumstances to arrest persons whom it believed to be guilty of certain crimes and to commit them to jail or to intern them without trial. Under this ordinance and under the provisions of Regulation 3 of 1818 a considerab...
Tag this Judgment!Kalisaran Chakrabarty Vs. Bijoy Gobindo Chakrabarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.435
Cuming, J.This appeal arises out of a suit for contribution. The plaintiff in the suit is a co-sharer of the defendants. Hiscase was that the superior landlord sued him and the defendants for rent for the years 1319 to 1322 and obtained a decree and he satisfied the decree. He, therefore, sued the defendants who were his co-sharers for contribution. The main defence was that the defendants had been kept out of possession of their share of the property during the period covered by the rent-decree which the plaintiff had satisfied and hence they were not liable to contribution. The primary Court decreed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal, the learned District Judge found that so far as regards the years 1319 and 1320, the plaintiff had kept the defendants out of possession and so he was not entitled to any contribution. We decreed the defendant's appeal. Against this decision the plaintiff appeals to this Court and there is a cross-objection on behalf of the defendants with regard to the re...
Tag this Judgment!Titan Pramanik and ors. Vs. Chintan Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal96
Chotzner, J.1. The petitioners in this case were tried before the Sub-Deputy Magistrate of Bogra on charges under Sections 147 and 325, I.P.C. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused persons under the former section but convicted them under Section 325, I.P.C. and passed sentences upon them. Against this conviction, there was an appeal to-District Magistrate. While the appeal was pending it appears that the parties made up their differences and an application was filed before the Court praying that the matter might be allowed to be compromised. This application was rejected and it is against this order of rejection that the present rule was granted. Having regard to the fact that there was an acquittal on the charge under Section 147, I.P.C. and to the circumstances set out in the petition, notwithstanding that the occurrence bore more or less a serious aspect, we see no good ground for withholding our consent to the compromise; The offence is a compoundable one. We accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Sarada Charan Sen and anr. Vs. Banka Behari Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal474,108Ind.Cas.584
1. Two objections have been taken to the decree made for mesne profits by the Court below. The first is that the lands with regard to Chak No. 8 and Chak No. 20 were in the possession of tenants and mesne profits should be calculated on the rent basis instead of on the basis taken by the Subordinate Judge that the defendants were in khas possession. The Subordinate Judge says in his judgment that no evidence was given before him and the commission was silent as to the fact whether the defendants had been in khas possession or in possession of the lands decreed to the plaintiffs through tenants. As a matter of fact it has been pointed out on behalf of the appellants that in the schedule attached to the commissioner's report he says that some lands are in the possession of tenants. No evidence, however, was given before the Court, but evidence apparently was adduced before the commissioner that certain lands were in the possession of tenants That, however, does not exonerate the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Haran Chandra Saha and anr. Vs. Behari Lal Bhumia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal560
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiffs for eject meat of defendants 1 and 2 from the lands in suit on the allegation that the holding was abandoned by the former tenants and the defendants as transferees from them of the holding which is a non transferable one are liable to be ejected. The plaintiffs were cosharer landlords with some other persons in respect of a holding within more than one estate. The original tenants Kokai and Mehar Ali transferred to the defendants appellants a portion of the holding comprising settlement plots 189 and 190 of mauza Kedarpur appertaining to Estate No. 4054 and the defendants were in possession of that portion of the holding. Subsequently there was a partition of this estate under the Estates Partition Act among the cosharer landlords of the holding. The disputed plots fell to the saham of the plaintiffs alone. Thereupon the plaintiffs claimed ejectment of the defendants on the ground that they were trespassers being the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »