Kolkata Court March 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.
Jati Mali and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal765
C.C. Ghose, J.1. The appellants before us were charged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge of the Twenty-four Parganas and a jury under Sections 366 and 376, I.P.C. They were convicted on an unanimous verdict of the jury under the said sections and sentenced each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 376, I.P.C. and for three years under Section 366, I.P.C., the sentences to run concurrently.2. The short facts are as follows : On the night of 25th April 1928, it appears that Uttami Dassi's husband was absent from home and so also was his brother. Taking advantage of that fact, 8 or 10 persons including the present accused are alleged to have entered the house of Uttami Dassi and forcibly carried her off. They also attempted to seize Uttami's sister, but the latter managed to run away. It is further alleged that these men took Uttami to the bank of the river near by, threatened her that she would be put to death beat her and forcibly ravished her and then...
Adwaita Das Bairagi and ors. Vs. Lalit Mohan Mohanti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.412
Cuming, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition after declaration of the plaintiff's title to an eight annas share in the properties m suit. The properties in dispute belonged to one Raj Kumar Banerji. The defendant No. 1 is the son of Raj Kumar by his wife the defendant No. 2. The plaintiff claimed an eight annas share being a son of Raj Kumar by another wife. The defendants resisted the plaintiff's claim on the ground that he was not a legitimate son of Raj Kumar and hence he was not his heir. The first Court held that the plaintiff's mother was not a legally married wife of Raj Kumar and hence the plaintiff was not an heir of Raj Kumar; and on these findings he dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court and the learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was a legitimate son of Raj Kumar, that Raj Kumar and the plaintiff's mother had been legally married according to the rites of the Bairagi sect and hence he was entitled to an eight annas sha...
Murad Biswas Vs. Basti Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal449,122Ind.Cas.547
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiff for ejecting the defendant from a plot of land on the allegation that the defendant was holding the same as under-raiyat and that notice had been served on the defendant determining his tenancy. The prayers in the plaint were for declaration of the plaintiff's raiyati and for recovery of khas possession. The defendant besides contending that no notice was served upon him asserted that he was a cosharer with the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below. The defendant has then preferred the present appeal.2. The contention that has been urged in the appeal relates to the question of res judicata. Both the Courts below have held that the question as to whether the defendant is a cosharer of the plaintiff or an under-raiyat under him is barred by res judicata by reason of a previous decision between the parties. The contention that has been urged in connation with ...
(Dewan) Abdul Alim Vs. Amatul Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal308
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 against the final decree made by the Court below with reference to mesne profits. The plaintiffs brought a suit for recovery of immovable properties with mesne profits included in four schedules attached to their plaint. The suit for the properties included in Schedules 1, 2 and 3 was dismissed. The plaintiffs obtained a decree for the properties included in Schedule 4. This decree is dated 31st March 1908. The defendants did not appeal against that decree but the plaintiffs appealed against that portion of the claim which was dismissed by the trial Court to the High Court that is, with reference to the properties included in Schedules 1, 2 and 3. That appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 25th June 1912. The plaintiffs preferred a further appeal to the Privy Council which was also dismissed on 20th January 1920. The plaintiffs then sought for execution of the decree with regard to the properties in the fourth schedule to the plaint...
Bimalacharan Batabyal Vs. Trustees for the Indian Museum
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal404
Costello, J.1. This is a suit brought by Bimalacharan Batabyal against the Trustees of the Indian Museum, in which the plaintiff is claiming a very large sum of money, which is said to represent an amount which he would have earned during the unexpired period of his service with the defendants and to be in the nature of commutation of the pension to which he would have been entitled had he completed his service with the defendants.2. The plaintiff was employed by the defendants as their head clerk and it is not disputed, and indeed it appears quite definitely from the service book, that his service with the defendants was of an entirely satisfactory character. The plaintiff was formerly employed under the Geological Survey of India and at that time it may be that he was in the position of a Government servant, but subsequently, upon his own application, he was taken into the service of the defendants and became a clerk to the Trustees of the Indian Museum on 14th February 1917, at a sa...
Mukunda Patre Vs. Purusattam Shah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal479a
1. This rule was issued calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why an order of the 4th Presidency Magistrate, Northern Division, Calcutta, discharging the accused Purusattam Shah (now the opposite party) under Section 253, Criminal P.C., should not be set aside. The grounds on which the order is assailed are that the complainant was not examined and that the learned Magistrate ought not to have passed his order of discharge upon his own personal knowledge and certain matters which do not appear on the record; and that he ought to have held that a prima facie case was made out. In the explanation of the learned Magistrate he admits that there was an error of law inasmuch as the complainant was not examined and upon this ground alone the rule should be made absolute because it is clear that the complainant was entitled to have his evidence recorded. The Magistrate then goes on to observe that inasmuch as the prosecution witnesses 3 and 4 had bee...
Kedarnath Sikdar and ors. Vs. Bijoy Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal751
Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the District Magistrate of Jessore dated 10th November 1928 setting aside an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 144, Criminal P.C. and directing him to draw up proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C. This Rule was issued upon the ground that the learned District Magistrate was wholly in error in directing the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to draw up proceedings under Section 145. In my opinion, the ground upon which this Rule was issued, so far as it goes, is correct. Under Section 144(4), Criminal P.C. the District Magistrate is entitled to set aside the order made by a subordinate Magistrate. But there is no provision in the law that he can order a subordinate Magistrate to draw up proceedings under any other section. The revisional powers exercised by the Courts below are much restricted and do not extend to the wide powers given to this Court under Section 439 which have been made co-extensive...
Kedar Nath Sikdar and ors. Vs. Bijoy Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.647
Zahhadur Rahim Zahid Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the District Magistrate of Jessore, dated the 10th November, 1928, setting aside an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, and directing him to draw up proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. This Rule was issued upon the ground that the learned District Magistrate was wholly in error in directing the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to draw up a proceeding under Section 145. In my opinion, the ground upon which this Rule was issued, so far as it goes, is correct. Under Section 144 (4), Criminal Procedure Code, the District Magistrate is entitled to set aside the order made by a Subordinate Magistrate. But there is no provision in the law that he can order a Subordinate Magistrate to draw up proceedings under any other section. The revisional powers exercised by the Courts below are much restricted and do not extend to the wide powers given to...
Ashutosh Nandi and anr. Vs. Kundal Kamini Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal814
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by a purchaser of a holding in execution of a rent decree. It appears that there was a litigation between respondents 1 and 2, and respondents 3 and 4 as to the title to the property in question. When they were litigating with regard to the property, the landlord, respondent 3, brought a suit for rent and obtained a decree against respondent 4 who was said to be his recorded tenant. In execution of that decree, the holding was sold and purchased by the appellant. The title suit between the respondents was decreed in favour of respondent 2 and dismissed as regards respondent 1 in the trial Court. There were two appeals against that decree and ultimately the title to the property was found in favour of both respondents 1 and 2. The proceeding out of which this appeal arises was instituted by respondents 1 and 2 under Section 144, Civil P.C. for recovery of possession of the property which was purchased by the appellant in execution of the rent decree.2....
Baikuntha Chandra Nag and ors. Vs. Chandra Nath Bandopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal190
1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted so far back as the year 1920. When originally instituted it was a simple suit in which the plaintiffs asked for khas possession of an 8 auuas share of some lands on the ground that the plaintiffs were 8 annas patnidars and one Ram Charan Mandal who held the lands under them in non-transferable occupancy right at an annual jama of Rs. 3 made an unauthorized sale thereof in favour of the defendants and abandoned possession in their favour. The lands were described in the plaint as survey plots 1320 and 1348 and a half of survey plot 1321. The defendants pleaded that Ram Charan had permanent and transferable rights to the lands and that they themselves had acquired rights of occupancy having been recognized by the plaintiffs' predecessors and also by the plaintiffs themselves.2. The trial Court held that Ram Charan had no permanent or transferable rights and that the defendants had not been recognized by the plaintiffs or thei...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »