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.
Mokshud Mandal and ors. Vs. Khedu Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal669
1.This appeal has arisen out of a suit which was instituted by the plantiff for khas possession, on declaration of his title. The allegations in the, plaint were that the land in suit formerly belonged to one, Demon, Sheikh that by successive transfers it eventually came to belong to the plaintiff and he was in possession of it till he was dispossessed by the defendants. The defence was that the holding was a non-transferable occupancy holding and the plaintiff acquired no title by his purchase, nor was he in possession thereof. Two of the defendants were minors, whose natural guardian did not appear though served with summons, and through some mistake on the part of the officers of the Court the matter was not put up before the Court for proper orders and the plaintiff being unaware of the fact that the natural guardian had not appeared did not take steps to have a guardian appointed by the Court. The trial Court overruled the defence on the merits and finding the facts in plaintiff's...
T.C. Chowdhury and Bros. Vs. Girindra Mohan Neogi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.636
Page, J.1. I have taken time to consider this case which is not free from difficulty. In May, 1927, the first defendant purchased from the plaintiffs a quantity of corrugated iron sheets for the sum of Rs. 6,689-11-6. The defendant Neogi forthwith paid Rs. 250 part of the price, and instructed the plaintiffs to forward the goods by rail to Khulna. The goods were duly sent to Khulna in two consignments: on the 1st June, and 8th June, 1927. On the 6th June, the plaintiffs, by letter, gave the following instructions to the defendant Bank in respect of the first consignment:No. 1883Calcutta, 6th June, 1927.ToThe Manager,National Bank of India, Ltd., Calcutta.Dear Sir,We beg to request you to be good enough to realize the amount of Rs. 2,675-10-6 from our dealer Mr. G.M. Neogi of Khulna through the Khulna Union Bank, Limited, as advised by him, against Railway Receipt No. 171 of 1st June, 1927, as usual. We are enclosing herewith the above-mentioned Railway Receipt, our bill No. 5341 in dup...
Suraj Mia Vs. D. Tullock
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.31
Graham, J.1. This Rule was issued in connection with certain proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer of Habiganj in the District of Sylhet. Those proceedings related to a large tract of land comprising about 11,000 acres, part of which consisted of Tea gardens and part of forest lands. TWO parties claimed possession of these lands, namely, the Baraoora Tea Company through Mr. D. Tullock of Rashidpur Tea Estate, first party, and one Suraj Mia, alias Abdul Rahaman Choudhury and 27 other persons being the second party. Included among the second party there were some Tipras and the present Rule was issued in the interest of five of those Tipras. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate made a very elaborate and careful enquiry and on a consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the first party was in possession of the disputed land and made an order accordingly. Thereafter some of the second ...
Khondkar Mahammad Saleh and ors. Vs. Chandra Kumar Mukherji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.201
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the original defendant mortgagor in a suit brought on a mortgage, which was executed in 1902, in favour of the father of the present respondent, one Aswini Kumar Mukerji. The due date under the bond for payment of the mortgage-money was 12th April, 1904. The original mortgagee died in December, 1905, leaving his son, the present respondent, his only heir, who was then a minor A suit was brought on the mortgage in 1906 and a preliminary decree was passed on the 30th November, 1906. An order absolute was made under the repealed provisions of the Transfer of Property Act on the 7th January, 1907. In the suit, the plaintiff, who was represented by his guardian ad litem, prayed, amongst other things, that in case the entire amount of the mortgage be not fully satisfied by the sale of the mortgaged properties, then the balance might be realised from the defendant's other moveables and irnmove-ables as well as from his person. According to the usual pract...
In Re: Shib Charan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal150,121Ind.Cas.687
Lort-Williams, J.1. In my opinion, the law on this point is not sufficiently clear and definite to induce me to discharge this caveat.2. The next reversioner is an old man of 70 who has stated in writing that he has no expectation of surviving the young widow for whose benefit the will was made and that he has no expectation, therefore, of personally inheriting the property and that, because he wants peace of mind in the closing period of his life, he is not disposed to take any action in the matter, but is quite willing to surrender whatever rights he has in favour of the caveator, his brothers and cousins. In these circumstances, I think I am justified in applying the rule laid down in Rani Anand Kunwar v. Court of Wards [1880] 6 Cal. 764. At p. 772, Sir R. Collier says:Their Lordships are of opinion that although a suit of this nature may be brought by a contingent reversionary heir, yet that, as a general rule, it must be brought by the presumptive reversionary heir, - that is to s...
Satya Ranjan Bakhshi and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal220,121Ind.Cas.682
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the appellants have been convicted on a charge of sedition under Section 124-A, I.P.C., in connexion with an article which appeared in the issue of 20th May 1928, of a Calcutta daily newspaper-published in Bengali and called the 'Banglar Katha.' The translation of the article is before us and it is headed 'Barbarism in the Garb of Gentlemanliness.' We have to read the article solely from the point of view of seeing whether we are satisfied by the internal evidence of the article itself that as a fact the writing or publication of the article was a successful or unsuccessful attempt to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in British India. It does seem to me that, for the purpose of the present question, from the words used by the writer it is necessary to go into an analysis of the phrase:The Government established by law in British India.2. Since the case of Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadkar Tilak [1...
Wahed Ali Akon Vs. SarajuddIn Ukih
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal332,122Ind.Cas.298
Mukerji, J.1. This rule has been issued to show cause why an order passed by Mr. S.C. Guha, Magistrate, 2nd Class, of Munshiganj, on the petitioner to pay Rs. 50 as compensation to the accused in a case in which the petitioner was the complainant should not be set aside upon ground 1 stated in the petition. Ground 1 in the petition is in these words: For that in the absence of any finding to the effect that the case was a false and frivolous or vexatious one recorded by the trying Magistrate after reviewing the cause shown, the order under Section 250, Criminal P.C, is not warranted in law and it is liable to be set aside.2. The facts are these: The Magistrate in the last paragraph of his judgment by which he discharged the accused, persons and made the order complained of in this rule observed as follows:Considering the whole facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced I find that the case is false and it is vexatious at the same time. I accordingly find that there ar...
Port Canning and Land Improvement Co. Ltd. Vs. Asiruddy Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal334
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs the Port Canning and Land Improvement Company Ltd. in a suit instituted by them against the defendants for arrears of rent for the years 1319 to 1330 B.S. It appears that the plaintiff company served upon the defendants who were non-occupancy raiyats an agreement demanding a certain enhanced rent, The defendants did not agree to the enhancement. The plaintiffs consequently had to institute against the defendants proceedings under Section 46, Ben. Ten. Act, so far back as 28th March 1913. The Court of first instance which tried the suit dismissed the plaintiff's claim. On appeal, the lower appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Court of first instance. The matter was then carried in second appeal to the High Court and the High Court remanded the suit on 24th July 1919 for determining what the fair and equitable rent in respect of the holding would be. On 28th September 1921, the Munsiff determined the fair and equitable rent in resp...
Sadagar Chaudhuri Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal406
Mukerji J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 65, Port Rules framed under the Calcutta Port Act 3 (B.C.) of 1890 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days. 2. The grounds on which this Rule has been pressed are that the petitioner was not examined by the Magistrate after the examination of the prosecution witnesses and no memorandum of the examination of the petitioner was kept by the Magistrate. The records have been destroyed but the learned Magistrate has stated in his explanation that he did examine the petitioner under Section 342, Criminal P.C. This explanation must be accepted and the only question is whether the failure to keep a memorandum of the statement of the petitioner can be held to have-vitiated the trial. The entry in the column of the form provided for making a record of the plea and the examination-of the accused is 'Denies.'3. Now Section 370, Criminal P.C. itself does not say how the particulars are ...
S.A. Hamid Vs. Sudhir Mohan Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal730
ORDERMukerji, J.1. The petitioner is the District Traffic Superintendent on the Eastern Bengal Railway at Dacca. He has been convicted under Section 342, I. P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15.2. The finding of fact on which his conviction is based is that the complainant Sudhir Mohan Ghose and a companion of his. two school boys, were caught by the petitioner near the overbridge on the platform of the Mymensingh Railway Station and then taken to the exit gate and made over to ticket collector there. What followed after this is of no use so far as the questions before me are concerned. What preceded the event is relevant from the point of view of both the parties and the finding on that question, therefore, has also to be examined. The defence case was that the petitioner noticed the complainant amongst 5 or 6 persons proceeding towards the exit gate, and when he challenged the complainant he understood the latter to say in reply that he had no ticket, and as a train had just be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »