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.
Sm. Afiran Bibi Vs. Narimtulla Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal666
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Dinajpur dated 29th July 1926 which affirmed a decision of the Munsif of the same district dated 28th November 1924. The plaintiff instituted the suit for a declaration of her title to and recovery of possession of the suit lands on the allegation that on 25th Baisakh 1319 B.S. the plaintiff purchased from her mother the suit lands for a sum of Rs. 299. Plaintiff further stated that her husband Amir and pro-forma defendant 2, Aswini, are step-brothers and that Aswini mortgaged the suit properties with defendant 1 who got a decree on the mortgage bond and took possession of the disputed lands through Court and afterwards reaped the paddy grown by the plaintiff on the disputed lands in the month of Agrahayan prior to the institution of the suit. Plaintiff stated that this gives rise to the cause of action for this suit.2. The defence of the defendant 1 in substance was that the plaintiff's mothe...
Mokbul Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal690,114Ind.Cas.793
1. The appellant Mokbul Khan was found guilty under Section 325 by a unanimous verdict of the Jury and the learned Sessions Judge of Pabna agreeing with this verdict has sentenced the appellant to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200. The facts briefly are these : The appellant and his brother Mansur had an altercation with the complainant about an exchange of labour. One Pro-dhan Babu Khan came to arbitrate. Mokbul and Mansur began to beat complainant. Poiz Bepari protested. Mokbul struck him on the head with a lathi and Mansur on the side. He fell down and shortly expired. Defence was that the case was entirely false. In order to understand Mr. Chowdhury's point a few more facts are necessary. The occurrence took place at night. The only witness as to what happened is the complainant Mahajan and the case of the prosecution depends on the belief or disbelief of his evidence and also of the witnesses to whom it is alleged he stated what had occurred immediately or shor...
Brojo Gopal Roy Burman Vs. Amar Chandra Bhattacharya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal214,114Ind.Cas.88
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case a second appeal was presented out of time and the appellants (respondents before us) obtained a rule calling upon their opponents to show cause why the appeal should not be registered though filed out of time. The case made was that there had been a miscalculation of the time by the vakil acting in the matter of the presentation of the second appeal and that, in the circumstances, this amounted to a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5, Limitation Act. The rule came on for hearing before C.C. Ghose, J., and Buckland, J., who differed in opinion. Buckland, J., would have discharged the rule but C.C. Ghose, J., being the senior Judge, made the rule absolute and permitted the appeal to be filed and registered. From this order an appeal has been taken under Clause 15, Letters Patent, and at the hearing before us the competence of this appeal has been objected to on the ground that the decision of C.C. Ghose, J., was not a judgment within the meaning ...
Digambar Suthar and ors. Vs. Suajan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal233
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of possession after declaration of title to the lands of Schedule 2 of the plaint. These lands form a part of plot 1, Schedule 1, of the plaint. One Balaram Aeharjya, the predecessors of defendants 5 to 8 executed, a simple mortgage of the lands of Schedule 1 in favour of one Krishna Mangal Sen, the predecessors of defendants 11 to 13, on 10th November 1893. In December 1893 the said Balaram Aeharjya executed a usufractuary mortgage of the lands in suit in favour of the predecessors of defendants 1 to 4 and thereafter in June 1894 sold the said lands to them. In 1900 Krishna. Mangal Sen sued on his mortgage. In that suit defendants 1 to 4 or their predecessor were not parties. Krishna Mangal obtained a decree on 19th January 1901, which was made absolute on 31st November 1903. At the execution sale that followed the father of defendants 9 and 10 purchased the lands of Schedule 1 on 8th Jun...
Bidu Bhusan Das Majumdar and ors. Vs. Ghenu Nasya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal531
Mitter, J.1. In these two appeals by the plaintiffs landlords, the only question which has been raised is as to whether Courts below were right in refusing to grant the plaintiffs a decree at the enhanced rate, because the enhancement contravened the provisions of Section 29, Ban. Ten. Act. In the suit out of which S. A. 2314 has arisen, the enhancement is 9/80th of a pie and in the suit out of which S. A. 2315 has arisen, the enhancement is 3/16th of a pie. It is argued by Mr. Sanyal the learned advocate who has appeared for the plaintiffs appellants that the enhancement is so small that it might be disregarded, having regard to the well-known maxim of law De minim is non curat lex. It is argued that the enhancement is so small that it is not capable of realization and that, consequently, for all practical purposes, the enhancement must be regarded as falling within the limits of two annas in the rupee. I have already stated that in the two cases respectively the enhancement exceeds t...
Lachira Vs. Rameswar Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Cal781
1. This rule is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of 24. Parganahs dated 11th February 1928 directing the valuations mentioned by the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor of the property to fee sold to be inserted in the sale proclamation. The property intended to be sold is a mill of the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder valued it at Rs. 4,24,000. The judgment-debtor's case was that it was at different times estimated by experts and that its present value was Rs. 14,00,000. This matter came up before the learned Subordinate Judge when he passed the following order:The petitioner Lasmiram examined him self and none else. The decree-holder did not examine any witness. The valuation. as given by the decree-holder is Rs. 4,24,000. The valuation, given by the judgment-debtor is Rs. 14,00,000. Without making any elaborate euquiry into the valuation which cannot be made without a good deal of trouble and expense it is deemed proper that the valuation given by both parti...
izazuddIn Alias Iza Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.602
George Glaus Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the accused Iza or Izazuddin has been acquitted by the verdict of four Jurors out of five on charges under Section 366 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., upon the charge of having on the 18th of December, 1926, abducted a Hindu Brahmin widow Hemlata and kidnapped her from lawful custody.2. The facts are that on the night in question, according to the evidence of the mother, the girl wanted to go outside the house for the purpose of relieving 'nature and that the mother went with her. According to one version of the story both of them went outside to relieve nature. The mother's story is that when the girl had finished she was seized by hands and feet by two men--the accused Iza and one Sriram, and they carried her off then and there, that she awoke the members of the house-hold and certain neighbours and that Girindra and a servant and some one else gave chase. The story of Girindra is that three men were seen running into Iza's house. Acco...
Emperor Vs. Nagar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal287
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case nine accused persons were tried before a jury and the Sessions Judge on charges under Sections 399 and 402, I.P.C., that is to say, making preparations to commit dacoity and assembling for the purpose of committing the dacoity. Of a jury of five all thought that accused 3 and 8 were not guilty but the verdict acquitting the other seven accused was by a majority of four as against one. The learned Sessions Judge has made this reference thinking that all the accused should be convicted.2. The story for the prosecution is that one Monohar Ali prosecution witness 22 who was notoriously a bad character, told the police that a dacoity was about to be committed and that the people were going to assemble in the house of one Sabdar. Thereupon the police got an armed force and went to this man's house at the time of the 'preparation of the dacoity. When they went there they found a number of torches and other articles, on the strength of which it is said that these pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›