Kolkata Court February 1929 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.
Profulla Chandra Basu and anr. Vs. Kshetra Lal Sinha Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal417
Cuming, J.1. These three appeals arise out of three suits in which the plaintiffs sought for a declaration that certain lands were held by them rent free under the defendant as the defendant landlord had wrongly got these lands recorded in the Record-of-Rights as liable to pay rent and then fraudulently got rent assessed for them under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act. The plaintiffs also asked for confirmation of their possession and also for an injunction restraining the defendant from executing any decree for rent which he might obtain in certain rent suits which he had brought against them.2. The first Court decreed the suits holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration that the lands were lakhiraj lands. That Court also confirmed their possession and issued permanent injunction on defendant 1 restraining him from realizing in execution the amounts of the decrees which he had obtained for rents for these lands. The defendant appealed to the District Court. The learned Subor...
G.V. Raman and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal593
Suhrawardy, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta committing the accused to the sessions. The ground on which we are invited to quash the commitment is that the petitioners were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution. In order to understand the ground upon which this revision application is based, it is necessary to state the facts. The accused were charged under Sections 420 and 120-B, I.P.C. The case against one of the persons who were originally placed on trial was withdrawn under Section 494, Criminal P.C., end he was examined as the first witness in the case. In the course of the examination of this witness the learned Magistrate intimated that on the completion of the evidence he would commit the accused to the sessions. The learned Counsel appearing for the accused then asked for permission to reserve cross-examination at that stage and to cross-examine at a later stage. The petitioners in ...
Rajabala Dasi Vs. Jai Chand Lal Babu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal251
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge refusing to set aside an ex parte decree. On the date fixed for the hearing of the lease the plaintiff was ready. The defendant prayed for time and produced a medical certificate in support of the allegation that he was ill. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the defendant was guilty of repeated laches on various grounds and rejected the (defendant's petition but at the same time allowed five days time to the defendant to produce his witnesses. The plaintiff's evidence was taken on that very day. Instead, however, of waiting for five days in order to enable the defendant to produce his witnesses as directed, by him, the Subordinate Judge made an ex parte decree on that very day. This appears to be wrong in form. As to the illness of the defendant on the day when he made his application, there is no doubt, as the Subordinate Judge himself says that he accepts the eviden...
Prasanna Kumar Saha Vs. Dhirendra Lal Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal790
1. In this case the order of the Subordinate Judge appears to us to be wrong. He has applied the provisions of Section 60-A, Court of Wards Act, in holding that the interest of the judgment-debtor in the property attached is not saleable. Section 60-A, however, refers to debts incurred by a ward. The judgment-debtor in this case is not a ward of Court. The Court of Wards was appointed the common manager under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act by the District Judge. That does not render all the cosharers of the property wards of Court so as to disqualify them from incurring debts or selling their interest in the property in question. As every cosharer is entitled to sell his interest a creditor of such cosharer is entitled to sell his property in execution of his decree against him.2. The order of the Subordinate Judge is set aside and the case remitted to the Court below for proceeding with the execution. The appellant is entitled to his costs as against the respondent, which we...
Prosanna Kumar Saha Vs. Dhirendra Lal Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.320
1. In this case the order of the Subordinate Judge appears to us to be wrong. He has applied the provisions of Section 60 A of the Court of Wards Act in holding that the interest of the judgment-debtor in the property attached is not saleable. Section 60 A, however, refers to debts incurred by a ward. The judgement-debtor in this case is not a Ward of Court. The Court of Wards was appointed the common manager under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act by the District Judge. That does not render all the co-sharers of the property wards of Court so as to disqualify them from incurring debts or selling their interest in the property in question. As every co-sharer is entitled to sell his interest, a 'creditor of such co sharer is entitled to sell his property in execution of his decree against him.2. The order of the Subordinate Judge is set aside and the case remitted to the Court below for proceeding with the execution. The appellant is entitled to his costs as against the responden...
The Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Jnanendra Nat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.301
Mukerji, J.1. Accused No. 1 Jnanendra Nath Ghosh alias Jnan Ghoshwas convicted under Section 493, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to be detained till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and the accused No. 2 was convicted under Sections 4 93-109, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50, or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. They were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid by an Additional Sessions Judge of the 24-Parganas on the 5th June, 1928. The Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs then moved this Court for enhancement of the sentences passed upon the said two accused persons and originally the Rule was issued as against both of them to show cause why their sentences should not be enhanced Subsequently it was mentioned to the Court that the accused No. 2 could not be found and upon that the Rule as against accused No. 1 only was allowed to be proceeded...
Chandi Charan Law Vs. Lal Bewa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal385
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit to recover possession of a tank with its banks on declaration of the plaintiff's title therein. The suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below.2. The tank and its banks were recorded in the Record-of-Rights, eight annas, as held by defendant 1 in Niskar right and the remaining eight annas, as held by defendants 2 to 50 in different tenure rights under the plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted a suit under Section 106, Ben. Ten. Act for correction of the entry in so far as it related to the former eight annas, alleging that it was his mal property but failed therein. He then instituted the present suit alleging as regards the former half that it is not the niskar property of defendant 1 but is part of his own mal property, and as regards the latter half that defendants 2 to 50 have no concern with or rights to the same.3. The Courts below have held that the decision in the suit under Section 106, Ben. Ten. Act operates as a bar to the present ...
Amar Chandra Chakravarty Vs. Sarodamoyee Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal787
1. These two appeals have been preferred by defendants 1 and 2, respectively from a decree of the Additional District Judge of Howrah, confirming a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, First Court, of that place. The suit was one for partition and for some other reliefs with which we are no longer concerned. The claim for partition was based on the following allegations : - One Ganesh Chandra Chakravarty was the father of the plaintiff, defendant 1 and defendant 2's husband Prosanna. The properties in suit belonged to Ganesh and he during his lifetime desired to give one-third share thereof to the plaintiff who was her daughter but being unable to carry out this wish, directed his sons, namely Prosanna and defendant 1 to do so after his death, that in accordance with this direction Prosanna, the eldest son, during the minority of defendant 1, and for himself and as guardian of defendant 1, made a gift of a one-third share of the properties to the plaintiff. Defendant 3 is a purchase...
Hari Mohan Mondal Vs. Gour Mohan Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal253
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued for ejectment on the footing that the plaintiff had raiyati right in some 88 bighas and that the defendant was an under-raiyat under him who had been served with notice under Section 49, Bengal Tenancy Act, and had not given up possession when the notice took effect. The defence of the defendant is that he is not an under-raiyat because the plaintiff is a tenure-holder and is not a raiyat. Accordingly it has to be decided whether the plaintiff's holding of 88 bighas is or is not a tenure. If it is, then the defendant is clearly a raiyat and these proceedings in ejectment are not effective as against him.2. The Court of the Munsiff took the view that the plaintiff's case was made out. It held that the plaintiff was shown to be a raiyat and that consequently the defendant was an under-raiyat. The Additional Subordinate Judge of Rajshaye, on appeal, took another view holding in particular that there was a presumption against the plaintiff und...
Nagendra Nath Ray Vs. Basanta Das Bairagya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal392
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal is by a defendant against whom a suit for damages for malicious prosecution was dismissed by the Court of first instance, but has been decreed on appeal.2. The Munsif held that there was no prosecution, far less any at the instance of the defendant, that there was reasonable and probable cause on the part of the defendant, and that there, was no malice. The Subordinate Judge has held just the contrary on all these points.3. The facts, which are more or less undisputed, are the following : There was a theft in the defendant's house on the night of 28th July 1922. He informed the police on the next day about the theft, which was committed by cutting a sindh; gave a detailed list of the articles stolen, together with their value, the aggregate coming up to Rs. 556 and odd; stated that the steel trunks and boxes in which the articles were contained were found in the latter part of the night in the village itself; and also stated that he suspected the plaintiff in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »