Kolkata Court April 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.
Hurrybux Deora Vs. Johurmull Bhotoria and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal796
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the appeal has been set down for hearing on a preliminary point. In 1911 the plaintiff executed a mortgage of the suit lands to the defendants whom he put in possession and empowered to realize rents from the tenants. In 1915, the plaintiff claimed to redeem the mortgage. There was a dispute as to the amount due thereunder and on 11th February 1916 the plaintiff filed his suit for redemption of the mortgage and possession of property. It appears that under an order made on 17th March 1916, the plaintiff paid to the defendants Rs. 43,000 and the defendants made over possession of the property to the plaintiff. On 17th May 1922, it was referred to the Assistant Referee to take the mortgage account on the basis of wilful default and neglect and after protracted proceedings before the Assistant Referee, he reported that the defendants were liable to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 38,918. The defendants filed exceptions to this report and ultimately Page, J. allowed ce...
Fulbash Sheikh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal448
1. The accused in this case Fulbash Sheikh has been convicted under Section 395, I.P.C., and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. There are two other accused but their appeals have been summarily rejected.2. The short point that has been pressed upon our attention by Mr. Lalit Mohan Sanyal is that evidence which was clearly inadmissible has been admitted in this case and that that being so there has been misdirection.3. It is not necessary to set out the facts at length. It appears that at the time of the search it was found that the accused Fulbash's wife was wearing certain ornaments. The ornaments are not of much value and were very ordinary ones. The prosecution alleged that these ornaments had been stolen during the progress of the dacoity. Fulbash and his wife on being questioned about these ornaments stated that they belonged to Fulbash's wife, that they had always been worn by Fulbash's wife, that they had not been stolen during the progress of ...
Bipul Behari Chakravarty Vs. Nikhil Chandra Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal566
Mitter, J.1. This rule which was obtained on behalf of the plaintiff relates to a suit in which the plaintiff claimed mesne profits for the years 1332 to 1334 B.S. a period subsequent to the period when ha obtained a decree for khas possession in title Suit No. 102 of 1921 brought by him in the Munsif's Court at Brahmanbaria. His case is that he took delivery of possession of the land decreed to him in that suit on 25th February 1923 which corresponds to 12 Falgoon 1334 B.S. He. consequently asks for recovery of mesne profits from 1332 up to 1334 Falgoon the date of his taking possession. The defendants took a preliminary objection that the claim for mesne profits was barred by Section 11, Civil P.C., as there was a prayer in the previous suit for future mesne profits and as the decree in that suit No. 102 of 1924 was silent with regard to future mesne profits it must be held that the claim was disallowed. This preliminary objection prevailed with the Small Cause Court Judge who tried ...
Rajaram Majhi Vs. Panchanan Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal762
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge of Hooghly, under Section 438, Criminal P.C. recommending that an order passed against the complainant Rajaram Majhi under Section 250, Criminal P.C. should be set aside and the said complainant should be summoned and an opportunity given to him to show cause why compensation should not be ordered.2. In order to appreciate the confusion that has arisen and in consequence of which this reference has been made it is necessary to state the facts quite shortly. Rajaram Majhi was the complainant in a case which be had instituted against one Panchanan Ghose for an offence under Section 420, I.P.C. On 21st July 1928 which was a Saturday, the accused Panchanan was acquitted and if anything is clear in this case it is this that on the acquittal of Panchanan as aforesaid the trial Magistrate Mr. Basanta Kumar Banerji recorded an order which ran in these words:Complainant to show cause why he should not pay the accused the su...
Muktakeshi Dasi Vs. Manilal Jana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal579
Suhrawardy, J.1. The facts leading to this litigation are that the plaintiff brought a suit against the defendants in 1916 for rent in respect of several plots, including plot 5, which is involved in the present suit. The defendants in that suit admitted their liability for rent, but averred that they held plot 5 not under the plaintiff but under a third party, the Satkhira Babus. That suit for rent was decreed. But the defendants' plea that plot 5 did not form part of the holding under the plaintiff prevailed. That judgment was pronounced in 1918. In 1923 the present suit was brought by the plaintiff for declaration of his title to and recovery of possession of the land, which was plot 5 in the rent suit. Subsequently, the plaintiff gave up his claim for khas possession, but asked the Court, under Section 157, Ben. Ten. Act, to settle fair and equitable rent in respect of it. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the question of title, holding that the plaintiff had failed...
Nalini Bhusan Roy and ors. Vs. Hiralal Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal225
1. The suit but of which this appeal has arisen was one for declaration of title and recovery of possession with mesne profits. The claim for mesne profits was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to institute a separate suit therefor. The prayers for declaration of title and recovery of possession were granted by the decree of the trial Court which has been upheld on appeal by the District Judge. The defendants have preferred this appeal.2. The lands in suit together with other lands constituted the ryoti holding of one Ramratan Sil. Ramratan had a son named Koilas (who died during the lifetime of Ramratan leaving a widow named Nityabasi and a daughter named Brajabasi, who married one Bansi), and a daughter named Tirthabasi (who had two sons, Monmohan and Sanatan). Defendant 1 alleging that she had purchased the suit lands from Koilash's heirs dispossessed Monmohan and Sanatan in 1323 B.S. The plaintiffs purchased the lands from Monmohan and Sanatan and instituted a suit for declarati...
Matabbar Molla Vs. Golam Panjaton
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal486
1. This rule is directed against an order whereby a conditional order under Section 133, Criminal P.C., was made absolute. The rule was issued on ground 2 alone of the petition and that ground was that the procedure as laid down under Sections 139-A and 137, Criminal P.C., had not been followed. It appears that a notice was at first served on the petitioner to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under Section 283, I.P.C., and the petitioner, on the notice being served on him, appeared and showed cause. Thereupon, proceedings were drawn up against him under Section 133 of the Code and, when the petitioner appeared and showed cause by saying that his objection was the same as contained in his first petition, the learned Magistrate proceeded to enquire into the matter whether there had been any obstruction and, having come to the], finding that there had been an obstruction, made the conditional order absolute. The procedure followed by the learned Magistrate was, in our opinion cl...
PulIn Krishna Roy Vs. Nanda Lal Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal544
Rankin, C.J.1.In this case it appears that there were two mortgagees each of whom appears to have lent a sum of Rs. 12,500 on the security and the plaintiff Nanda Lal Roy brought the suit for enforcement of his mortgage. He impleaded as defendant his co-mortgagee Pulin Krishna Roy on the allegation that he had asked him to join as a plaintiff, but that he refused, to do so. The co-mortgagee in his written statement appears to have admitted that he was asked to join as plaintiff, but that for various reasons he refused to do so. The suit was not contested before the learned Judge and the mortgage was proved. Thereupon the learned Judge considered the question as to costs against the absent mortgagor. He considered the English case of Davenport v. James [1848] 7 Hare 249 and came to the conclusion that that case was an unsatisfactory authority as it did not give the reasons for its decision and would not apply to the present case because he thought that the co-mortgagee should have reaso...
Sham Lal Khettry Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal781
Suhrawardy, J.1. In this revision application the petitioner has asked us to set aside the order of demolition of the boundary walls constructed by him in his premises passed by the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta. The facts are that sometime in 1911 the petitioner obtained sanction to build a house and according to it he constructed the present house with boundary walls 10 feet high. Recently he raised the height of the boundary walls in order to secure the privacy of his premises to 18 feet. This he did without obtaining sanction from the Corporation. A notice was therefore served upon him under Section 363, Calcutta Municipal Act (Ben. Act 3 of 1923) and the case started against him resulted in the order complained of.2. 'Building' was not defined in the previous Act of 1899, but a definition has now been added by the Act of 1923. According to that definition a wall other than a boundary wall and not exceeding 10 feet in height is a building: and under the provisions of the Act, sa...
PulIn Krishna Ray Vs. Nanda Lal Ray and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.211
George Claus Rankin, C.J.1. In this case it appears that there were two mortgagees each of whom appears to have lent a sum of Rs. 12,500 on the security and the plaintiff Nanda Lal Ray brought the suit for enforcement of his mortgage. He impleaded as defendant his co mortgagee Pulin Krishna Ray on the allegation that he had asked him to join as a plaintiff but that he refused to do so. The co mortgagee in his written statement appears to have admitted that he was asked to join as plaintiff but that for various reasons he refused to do so. The suit was not contested before the learned Judge and the mortgage was proved. Thereupon the learned Judge considered the question as to costs against the absent mortgagor. He considered the English case of Davenport v. James (1817) 7 Hare 249 : 12 Jur. 827 : 68 E.R. 102 : 82 R.R. 98 and came to the conclusion that that case was an unsatisfactory authority as it did not give the reasons for its decision and would not apply to the present case becaus...