Kolkata Court December 1928 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.
Monmatha Nath Dutt and ors. Vs. Matilal Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1928
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.220
B.B. Ghose, J.1. These two appeals are by the defendants against the final decree made by the Subordinate Judge of Khulna assessing the amount of mesne profits in two suits brought by the vendor of the present respondents. The suits were instituted in 1908 by one Nag for recovery of possession of certain lands and for mesne profits from Assar 1314 till the date of the suits and also subsequent mesne profits till the date of recovery of possession. The suits were originally brought in the Munsif's Court : then they were re filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge as the Munsif found that the value of the subject-matter of the suits was beyond his jurisdiction. During the pendency of the suite, the original plaintiff executed a conveyance in favour of the present respondents on the 10th December, 1911, and the contesting respondents were substituted for the original plaintiff. They carried on the suits and obtained decrees in the trial Court. There were appeals to the District Judge a...
Newaj Ali Molla Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1928
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.368
1. The foundation of the petitioner's contention in this case is the proposition that the word 'person' in Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure includes the accused concerned in the case in respect of which investigation is being held under Chap. XIV of the Code. It is well-known that so far as this matter is concerned the decisions are not uniform. There are difficulties in accepting either view; but having given the matter all the consideration that we can, we are inclined to follow the decision of this Court in the case of Azimaddy v. Emperor : AIR1927Cal17 in which it has been held that the section applies to witnesses and not to the accused under trial. This being our opinion, the Rule must be discharged. The petitioner, if on bail, must surrender and serve out the rest of his sentence....
Bistupada Bera Vs. Srinath Chandra Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal258
Suhrawardy, J.1. The facts of this ease are that one Adarmani held the tenure in suit under the landlord defendant 1. The plaintiffs' case that the heirs of Adarmani sold the tenure to the plaintiffs and defendant 2, the conveyance being obtained in the name of defendant 2 alone. Thereafter the landlord obtained a decree for rent against Adarmani's heirs and defendant 2 and in execution of the decree purchased the tenure himself. The plaintiffs thereupon brought the present suit for a declaration of their two-thirds right in the tenure. Defendant 1 contended that the disputed land was purchased by defendant 2 alone and not by the plaintiffs and defendant 2 as alleged in the plaint. Both the Courts below have passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The decision of the lower appellate Court is based on the finding that after the purchase of the tenure the plaintiffs and defendant 2 went to defendant 1 to have themselves recorded as tenants, but he did not acknowledge any one as tena...
Eakubali Pandit Vs. Muhammad Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal450,122Ind.Cas.550
Mitter, J.1. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff, now appellant, to eject the defendants on the allegation that defendants are under-raiyats on whom notice to quit had been served under Section 49(b), Ben. Ten. Act and whose tenancy had been determined by such notice. The defence of the defendants, now respondents, is (i) that notice had not been properly served on the defendants; (ii) that they have acquired a right of occupancy by custom and are not liable to be ejected.2. The Munsif held after a careful examination of the evidence that the service of notice to quit which was served on the defendants through Court in April 1920, had been satisfactorily established and points out that one of the defendants, Muhammad Ali does not come forward to depose that no notice was served on him. The Munsif refers to the entry in the Record-of-Rights in favour of the defendant to the effect that though under-raiyats the defendants have acquired a right of occupan...
Satyabhama De Vs. Jatindra Mohan Deb and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal269
1. This appeal is by defendant 9 in a partition suit. The facts are that the plaintiffs brought a suit for partition of a dwelling house and some agricultural lands. In the plaint they prayed that if their share was not allowed in the dwelling house they might be allowed a proportionate parcel of the agricultural lands in lieu of their share. The appellant did not appear at the earlier stages of the suit but her husband defendant 10 appeared and filed a written statement in which he said that the plaintiffs' share in the dwelling house might be valued and defendant 10 be allowed to purchase it, he being a member of an undivided family. In view of the pleadings the preliminary decree, which was passed on 5th December 1921, directed that the plaintiffs could not get any share in the dwelling house but they should get a share in the lands of the value of the share they had purchased in the property. On the same day namely 5th December 1921, defendants 14 to 19, who are respondents in this...
Anil Krista Das Vs. Badam Santra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal175
1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 406/75, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Es. 35.2. The two grounds upon which this Rule was issued are (1) that the proceedings are illegal as the Sub-Divisional Officer issued summons against the petitioner without examining the complainant under Section 200, Criminal P.C.; and (2) that the trial was bad involving as it did ofences committed on five distinct dates3. As regards the first of these grounds it it true that the Court which issued summons against the petitioner did not examine the complainant Badam Santra before issuing such process, but this defect in our opinion amounts only to an irregularity which cannot be held to have vitiated the trial in the absence of any prejudice having been caused to the petitioner. We find also that the said complainant Badam Santra has been examined as a witness for the prosecution in the case itself. As regards the second groun...
Madhab Gobinda Ray Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal826,121Ind.Cas.572
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by claimant No. 5 against the award of the District Judge in a matter of land acquisition by which the learned District Judge varied the award of the Collector by increasing it to the extent of about Es. 4,000. The land acquired is about 4 bighas in area which was divided in two plots by the Collector. Both the plots were divided into two belts and the total amount awarded by the Collector with the statutory allowance came up to Bs. 5,669-15-8. Before the Collector, the claimant asked for plot No. 2 at the rate of Bs. 7,000 per bigha and plot No. 3 at the rate of Bs. 5,000 per 'bigha, together with compensation for loss and damage to business to the extent of Rs. 10,000, altogether Rs. 39,775. In his application for reference, the claimant only claimed the same amount in a lump without specifying the amount he claimed separately, either as value of the land or for loss of business. The land acquired with other lands was purchased by the claimant by a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›