Kolkata Court April 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.
Dinabandhu Banikya Vs. Hasan Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1928
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.325
Mallik, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order passed in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, by which the opposite party--the second party in that proceeding--was declared to be entitled to remain in possession of the land in dispute. The Rule was issued on two grounds only: (1) that the Magistrate was wrong in refusing an opportunity to the first party to examine one Babu Mon Mohan Ray Chowdhry as one of his witnesses and (2) that the Magistrate was wrong in law in refusing to examine nine witnesses for the first party who were present in Court and tendered for examination on the 3rd August, 1928.2. As regards the first ground, it appears that Babu Mon Mohan Ray Chowdhry was cited as a witness by the first party and processes were issued against him on as many as three occasions; first of all, on the 23rd March, then on the 25th April and, for the third time, on the 18th June 1928, it appears also that, when Babu Mon Mohan Ray Chowdhry in spite of all these p...
Suniti Sundari Devi Vs. Srikrishna Chakravarti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal514
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge dismissing the suit. The suit was brought by the plaintiff against several defendants. Her allegation against defendant 1 was that defendant 1 was the shebait of three idols, Krishna Jiu, Krishna Bay Jiu and Gopal Deb Thakur and the properties in suit were the debutter properties of these three idols. Allegations were made against defendant 1 for misconduct and plaintiff brings this suit, the first prayer of which was that defendant 1 be removed from his office of shebait. The second prayer is that she being in the line of shebaits be appointed shebait of these three Thakurs. There are various sets of other defendants in the suit. They are purchasers of various properties in private sales, sales in execution of decrees and otherwise of different portions of the properties in suit. These defendants have no connexion with each other. The prayer is that the properties have been wrongfully aliena...
Gour Chandra Das and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal14
Cuming, J.1. These are the appeals of of two persons Gour Chandra Das and Satish Chandra Dang. The two appellants were tried by a Special Tribunal appointed under Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1925 on charges under Section 120-B, I.P.C. of conspiring to commit offences punishable under Section 4-B and Section 5, Explosive Substances Act and also under Section 19-F, Indian Arms Act and also on substantive charges under the same sections and were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment on these charges.2. The facts of the case are briefly these: the police in consequence of certain information received searched the house of Gour Chandra Das at 191, Babudanga Eoad on the early morning on 27th August when certain articles which the prosecution contend were bombs and pistols were discovered. Gour Chandra made a statement as the result of which the house of Satish Chandra Dang at 15, Kaldanga lane was also searched and Satish Chandra Dang was arrested. Satish also made certain statem...
Kalyanee Debi Vs. Hari Mohan Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal574
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case an appeal is brought by the purchaser at a sale held in a mortgage suit. It appears that the appellant purchased the property that was put up for sale and thereafter, within thirty days from the sale, the. mortgagor judgment debtor applied under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C., to have the sale set aside on paying the amount due to the decree-holder mortgager and five per cent. compensation to the purchaser for the loss of the property. It appears that the auction purchaser thinks so highly of his bargain that he is not content with the five per cent and this appeal is brought to set aside or vary the order of Pearson, J. permitting Order 21, Rule 89, to take effect.2. The main difficulty arises by reason of the fact that that rule is framed in language, which though well adapted to mofussil practice, is not in terms applicable to the practice of the High Court on its original side as regards sales held in execution of mortgage decrees. The amount to be deposi...
Ashita Ranjan Bose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal339
Mukerji, J.1. This Rule has been issued to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed on him should not be set aside on ground 2 mentioned in the petition. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 161 read with Section 213, Act 6, 1901 (Assam Labour and Emigration Act) and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200. The order of conviction and sentence was passed, in the first instance, by a Magistrate at Dibrugarh, and the same has been confirmed on appeal by the Sessions Judge of the Assam Valley Districts. Ground 2 of the petition upon which this Bale has been issued runs in these words:For that the assumption of the learned Sessions Judge that a recruiting Sardar must accompany every batch of coolies and the imputation of the petitioner's guilty knowledge therefrom are wrong.2. There was a considerable amount of confusion in the, proceedings that took place in the Courts below in connexion with this case and a perusal of the record discloses cer...
Rai Charan Pal and anr. Vs. Jadu Nath Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal376
Mallik, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for khas possession of some land on establishment of the plaintiff's title thereto. The allegations on which the plaintiff brought the suit were that he bad obtained settlement of the land from two persons, Kanai and Dwijabar, by a patta in the year 1327 B.S. and that after he was in possession of the land for some time he was dispossessed by the defendants in the year 1330 B.S. The defence inter alia was that as Kanai and Dwijabar's interest in the land was that of a raiyat only the patta obtained by the plaintiff was void under the provisions of Section 85, Ben. Ten. Act, and that the defendants themselves had obtained a lease of the land from the widows of Kanai and Dwijabar in the year 1330 B.S. Both the lower Courts held in favour of the plaintiff and gave him a decree. The defendants have appealed to this Court.2. It appears that the plaintiff as well as the defendants claimed the land in suit under registered leases in contravention ...
Kailash Sundari Dasi and ors. Vs. Midnapur Zemindary Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal47
Suhrawardy, J.1. These appeals on behalf of the tenants arise out of proceedings under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, for settlement of fair and equitable rents under Section 30, Ben. Ten. Act, on the ground of rise in the price of staple food crops. The defence of the defendants was based upon many grounds with which we are not now concerned. The main ground on which these appeals have been pressed is with reference to the rate of rent on which enhancement has been allowed by the Court below under Section 30, Ben. Ten. Act. The plaintiffs' case is that the real rent payable by the tenants of the mouzah was at the rate of Re. 1 per bigha; but in consideration of the defendants cultivating indigo it was reduced to 10 annaper bigha. They accordingly claimed enhancement of rent under Section 30 on Re. 1 per bigha. The tenants said that they were liable to pay rent only at the rate of 10 annas per bigha and the enhancement, if any, should be allowed on that rent. The Assistant Settlement Offi...
Lakshmi Charan Majumdar Vs. Nabadwip Chandra Pandit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal437
Mitter, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal against the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Noakhali, dated 23rd June 1926, modifying a decision of the Munsif, Lakhipur, dated 25th August 1923. The suit in which this appeal arises was commenced by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 57-8-9 as arrears of rent together with cesses and interest for the years 1325 to 1328 B. S. in respect of a holding which the principal defendants hold under the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant was holding the disputed land at a jama of Es 7-15 a year. He states that the rights between the parties were created by a kabuliyat which was executed on 28th Chaitra 1293, and that the plaintiff did not realize through mistake the jama at the rate Rs. 7-15 a year but realized it at the rate of Rs. 5 a year. The defence of the defendant in substance was that the defendant was holding this jama at a fixed rental of Rs. 5 a year. This defence did not prevail with the Court of first in...
Gahar Ali Houladar Vs. Abdul Owahab Sikdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal361
Suhrawardy, J.1. The plaintiff and the defendant were cosharers in a certain taluk. The landlords of the taluk obtained a decree for rent and when the property was advertised for sale the plaintiff deposited the entire decretal amount in Court which was accepted by the Court and the landlords' decree was recorded as satisfied. The deposit was made by the plaintiff in Court on 4th February 1920, but the money was actually withdrawn by the decree-holders on 14th February 1920. The present suit for contribution by the plaintiff against his cosharer, the defendant, was instituted on 15th February 1923, the 14th February being a holiday. The question that arises in this case is whether the suit is in time. The Courts below have differed on this point, the lower appellate Court being of opinion that the period from which limitation should be reckoned is the date on which the decree-holder withdrew the amount, namely the 14th February 1920. In this view it held that the plaintiff's suit was n...
Kiran Chandra Roy and ors. Vs. Jagannath Banik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal472,114Ind.Cas.670
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The plaintiffs claimed rent for their 13 annas 4 pies share of a certain jama which they alleged consisted of ten plots of land and bore a rental of Rs. 11-6-0 per year as settled in a proceeding under Section 105, Ban. Ten. Act. Their case was that the rent due for their share was Rs. 9-7-8 per year. They claimed rent for the years 1326 to 1329 B Section at the said rate together with cesses and damages. The defence that was taken was of a two fold character. In the first place it was alleged that the rent of the jama in the 16 annaa share was Rs. 4-10-6 and that the rent due for the plaintiff's share was Rs. 3-14-1 per year. Nextly, it was contended that the jama consisted not of ten plots of land as alleged on behalf of the plaintiffs but of three plots only and that the remaining seven plots did not appertain to Mudafat Govindadas Bairagi which, according to the plaintiffs, was the mudafat to which the jama appertained, but t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »