Kolkata Court May 1928 Judgments
Ram Narayan Sarora and ors. Vs. Parswanath Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal516,114Ind.Cas.785
1. These are eight rules issued by this Court calling on the District Magistrate and also on the opposite parties to show cause why the order complained of, namely, that of the Deputy Magistrate of Serajgunge, dated 11th November 1927, discharging the accused under Section 253, Criminal P.C., should not be set aside or such other order made as to this Court might seem fit and proper.2. The facts involved in these eight rules are the same and they may be conveniently disposed of by one judgment.3. The petitioners are eight different taxpayers within the Serajgunge Municipality. The opposite party No. 1 is the Chairman of the Municipality, the opposite party No. 2 is the Warrant Bailiff and the opposite party No. 3 is the Tax Collector. They are the accused in these cases. The case for the prosecution is that the Chairman of the Municipality in direct contravention of the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act realized certain arrears of taxes and costs by the issue of distress warrants ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prosad Maitra Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal569
1. In this case, the complaint was dismissed under Section 203, Criminal P.C. Subsequently, the matter went before the learned Sessions Judge and he was of opinion that the complaint should not have been disposed of under Section 203, Criminal P.C., without the complainant been examined on oath. It appears, however, that the complainant was not present in Court on any of the dates on which the matter came before the Magistrate. Therefore, the Magistrate had no opportunity whatsoever of examining the complainant on oath. It was the business of the complainant to be present in Court if he desired to have his statement taken on oath. As already stated he not being present in Court the matter was disposed of by the Magistrate under Section 203, Criminal P.C. In a case like this, where the complainant does not choose to be present, he cannot be heard afterwards to say that the matter should be sent back to the Magistrate for further enquiry. In this view of the matter the order made by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanak Prova Debi and ors. Vs. Dhirendra Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal861,118Ind.Cas.337
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtors against the order of the District Judge affirming the decision of the Munsiff rejecting their application that the execution of the decree is barred by limitation.2. The only question in this case is whether an application made by one of two joint decree-holders for execution of the joint-decree with reference to his share of the interest awarded to him under the decree keeps alive the decree for subsequent execution. In this case the decree for costs was made by the trial Court severally in favour of the respondents. The judgment-debtors who were the plaintiffs in that case appealed and on their appeal, the appellate Court awarded costs to the respondents in this case jointly. In 1917 within three years of the date of the decree both the two sets of decree-holders separately applied for execution of the decree to the extent of what each considered to be his separate interest. It does not appear that any objection was takes on ...
Tag this Judgment!Durganath Bhattacharjya and ors. Vs. Harkishore Chakrabarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal218
Suhrawardy, J.1. This appeal by defendants 1 to 5 arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of some lands which the plaintiffs claim as appertaining to Taluk No. 164 purchased by them at a rent sale in 1906. The facts of this complicated litigation may shortly be given. Under the Maharaja of Tipperah there was a taluk No. 164 standing in the name of one Jay Narain Sarma and called after his name taluk Jay Narain Sarma. This Jay Narain had also a niskar called niskar Jay Narain Sarmar Jay Narain Sarma left two sons Sib Prosad and Ram Gobinda. Sib Prosad had also acquired an agat taluk called agat Sib Prosad Taluk Ram Keshab. Agat taluk has been explained by the learned) Judge in his judgment as meaning:A specific block of land carved out of a taluk. The owner of an agat need not enter into direct relations with its superior landlords, but he pays the proportion of the rent due from him in respect of agat to the owner of the taluk. On failure to pay this due proportion the owner of...
Tag this Judgment!Rahimuddi Vs. Chadam and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal768,117Ind.Cas.686
1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 in a suit which was for a declaration of the plaintiff's title as an occupancy raiyat to certain land and for recovery of possession. The superior interest of the occupancy holding is held at present by defendant 1 who acquired it from his wife some time in the month, of May 1923. Defendant 2, the wife of defendant 1, purchased that interest from the previous holder, Hari Mohan, by a conveyance dated 23rd October 1922. One Kuti Molla was the raiyat in occupation of the land at the time of the purchase of the superior interest by defendant 2. Kuti Molla having defaulted in the payment of rent Hari Mohan had instituted against him a suit for arrears' of rent and had obtained a decree. This, decree was put into execution by Hari Mohan after the date of the sale of the superior interest to defendant 2 and in execution of the decree Hari Mohan had caused the tenancy to be brought to sale on the 25th April 1923, The plaintiff was the purchaser at that sale...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Saheb Nagendra Nath Vasu Vs. Kshiradar Ruidas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.575
1. In this appeal the only question raised is that the learned lower Appellate Court has misplaced the onus upon the plaintiff in the circumstances of this case. The plaintiff claims to be a raiyat and he served notice of ejectment under Section 49, Bengal Tenancy Act, upon the defendants as under- raiyats. The defendants claimed that they were raiyats and could not be ejected by notice under Section 49, Bengal Tenancy Act. The trial Court found upon the evidence that the plaintiff was a raiyat and that the defendants were under-raiyats and were liable to be ejected. The lower Appellate Court on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was a tenure holder and, therefore, could not eject the defendants who were raiyats. The learned Subordinate Judge has observed in his judgment that the onus was misplaced by the first Court upon the defendants to prove that they were raiyats. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the view of law taken by the...
Tag this Judgment!Sarat Chandra Mitra Vs. Charusila Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal794
Page, J.1. The decision in this case involves the solution of the problem whether a Hindu widow can dispose by will of income of property that she has inherited from her husband. Two issues fall to be determined:(i) Did the testatrix possess testamentary capacity to dispose of the property in suit under her will?(ii) Did she dispose of such property under the will that she executed?2. The first issue raises a question of law of some nicety, and of general interest to the Hindu community; the second issue depends on the construction of the will.3. I have had the advantage of an exhaustive argument upon the relevant authorities, but in India there is a divergence of opinion upon this subject, and it cannot be pretended, I think, that in the Privy Council the views which have been expressed by the Judicial Committee from time to time are all consistent or can wholly be reconciled.4. Indeed, in 1826, Lord Gifford is reported to have observed in Cossinauth Bysack v. Hurro Soondery Dossee [1...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Chandra Bhowmik Vs. Pabna Dhana Bhandar Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal722,117Ind.Cas.552
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court Pabna, setting aside a revenue sale. The facts are these : There was an estate touzi 10. Defendants 2 to 11 who are the respondents in this Court opened a separate account No. 10/6 They mortgaged their interest in this separate account along with some other poperty to the plaintiff company who are respondents along with the other defendant. It is not necessary to state in detail the provisions of the mortgage-deed. A suit was brought on the mortgage by the plaintiff company which was Suit No. 125 of 1918. They obtain a decree and a sale proclamation was issued in execution of their mortgage decree by the Subordinate Judge on 2nd October 1923. The property was sold and purchased by the plaintiff company on 19th November 1923. Eight applications were made by the several judgment-debtors for setting aside the sale. There was default in payment of the revenue of the esta...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Bengal Vs. Nasar Darzi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal62
1. This is an appeal by the Local Government against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Dacca dated 3rd September 1927, acquitting the accused who are five in number of charges under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149, I.P.C. From what is stated below it will be seen that this is a most extraordinary case and it requires the interference of this Court.2. The accused were tried before Mr. Waight, the Additional Sessions Judge of Dacca and a jury of charges under the sections referred to above.3. The case for the prosecution briefly stated was as follows:That on 20th Chaitra last corresponding to 3rd April 1927 at about half an hour before sunset one Naibali was returning home from a hat accompanied by P.W. 3 Nazamali, P.W. 4. Reazali, P.W. 5. Mahi and P.W. 7. Jinnat; that when they arrived at a spot south of the house of the accused Nasar and Ansar, Naibali was attacked by these persons who were armed with lathis and a spear and also by the accused Gyasuddin and Khawajuddin an...
Tag this Judgment!Sthira Hari Bhattacharjee Vs. Sasadhar Karmakar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal515,117Ind.Cas.854
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for rent. The plaintiff claims rent at the rate of Rs. 16 a year. The defence is that the jama is Rs. 5-2-5 gandas. In the trial Court the suit was decreed. The lower appellate Court held that the presumption of correctness of the Record-of-Rights, which is in favour of the plaintiff, had been rebutted and decreed the suit at the rate admitted by the defendants. The plaintiff appeals. The point in this appeal is whether the lower appellate Court was justified in holding that the presumption of correctness of the Record-of-Rights had been fully rebutted. In coming to his decision the learned Subordinate Judge has relied on a cess-return Ex. 4. It appears that this was filed by the plaintiff as there was an issue whether he got his name registered and lodged cess-return. In Ex. 4 the rate of rent mentioned is Rs. 5-2 5 gandas. The learned Subordinate Judge thinks that under Section 20, Clause (b), Cess Act, the plaintiff is pr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »