Kolkata Court February 1932 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.
Abdul Kader and anr. Vs. Abdul Kasim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal459,137Ind.Cas.872
Patterson, J.1. 'While not admitting the correctness of the findings of the lower appellate Court to the effect that the land which is the subject of the case is a graveyard, that the complainant's father and aunt were buried in the so-called graveyard, and that certain structures had been erected over their graves, Mr. Talukdar has directed his main argument on behalf of the petitioners against the findings of the lower appellate Court to the effect that the petitioners damaged the structures referred to above, that they did so with the knowledge that the complainant's feelings were likely to be wounded thereby, and that in damaging the said structures with such knowledge the petitioners committed an offence under Section 297, I. P. C.2. The lower appellate Court has come to a clear finding to the effect that it had been established beyond doubt that the petitioner damaged the structures in question, but it has not discussed the evidence on which this finding is based, the reason give...
(Sheikh) Bhotali Vs. (Sheikh) Kalu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal856
Patterson, J.1. Although the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate who heard the appeal does not directly conflict with the provisions of Section 423, Criminal P. C., it was nevertheless contrary to the practice of the Courts, which is that if the parties are to be heard at all they must be heard in each others' presence, and further that if the respondent is heard the appellant shall have a right to reply. It may further be pointed out that these departures from the ordinary practice would not have taken place if the Magistrate had complied with the provisions of Section 366 read with Section 424, Criminal P. C,, and had pronounced judgment either immediately after the hearing of the appeal or at some subsequent time after notice had been given to the parties or to their pleaders.2. The procedure followed offended against the principles governing the manner in which criminal appeals should be heard to such an extent as to render it unnecessary for this Court to consider whether...
Sree Sree Jagannath Jew Thakur and ors. Vs. Ananta Adhikary and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Cal44
C.C. Ghose, J.1. The facts involved in this appeal, shortly stated are as follows: The plaintiffs are certain idols established many years ago by the predecessor-in-interest of the present shebait Raja Narasingh Malla Ugal Sanda Deb. He is a ward under the Court of Wards and is represented by the Manager, Khagendra Nath Banerji. On behalf of the idols the case as formulated in the Court of first instance was that defendants 1 to 6 were pujaris of the said idols, and have been so for a long period, that in fact many years ago the ancestor of defendants 1 to 6 was appointed priest or pujari of the said idols, that certain properties were made over to the said ancestor in order that he should meet the daily and occasional expenses of the worship of the idols out of the usufruct of the properties and that there should be no wages or salary attached to his office as pujari but that he should be able to remunerate himself out of the said usufruct and would generally act under the supervision...
Mahammad Mehar Talukdar and ors. Vs. Rash Behari Majumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal561
Mallik, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of some lands after giving the defendant a right to redeem if he chooses. What happened in the case was this. Defendant 7 mortgaged a jama of Rs. 7-3-0 to the plaintiff's predecessor on 23rd February 1909. The jama was held under several landlords. There was a partition among these landlords with the result that a part of the jama with a rental of Rs. 5-3 0, fell to the share of some of the landlords while the rest with a rental of Rs. 2 fell to the share of the others. The landlords, to whose share had fallen the part of the jama with the rental of Rs. 5-3-0 brought a suit for rent against defendant 7, obtained a decree, and when in execution of that decree the jama of Rs. 5-3-0 was put up to sale, it was purchased by the contesting defendant. This was on 22nd May 1919. On 5th September 1921, the plaintiff applied under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C., to have this sale set aside. The sale was sat aside by the first Court on ...
Bogis Mangati Vs. Applama
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal866,140Ind.Cas.876
Patterson, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of maintenance passed under Section 488, Criminal P.C. The only question for determination is whether the learned Magistrate was right in holding that the marriage of the petitioner to the opposite party had been proved. It is clear from the evidence that the parties had lived together as man and wife for many years, and it appears that, in a passport issued to the opposite party some eight years ago, she was described as the wife of the petitioner. There is also the evidence of the landlord of the house in which the parties lived for many years as man and wife, to the effect that the petitioner had stated to him that he had been married to the opposite party in nika form, while witness Kali says that, if there was any marriage between the parties, it was a nika marriage. The petitioner's first statement before' the Magistrate was merely to, the effect that he did not marry the opposite party in the usual form, though his subsequen...
Harekrishna Datta Vs. Gourhari Setna Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal894
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the superior interest in the holding with which we are concerned belonged originally, as regards 8 annas, to defendants 2 and 3 in the present suit and the other 8-annas belonged to defendants 4 and 5. The tenant was defendant 6. Defendants 4 and 5 granted a mourasi mukarrari settlements of their 8-annas to defendant 1 in the present suit and he, in 1920, by Suit No. 1453 of 1920, sued the tenant for rent, making defendants 2 and 3--the other 8-annas sharers--parties to the suit. He obtained a decree on 7th January 1924, and proceeded to sell in execution and purchased the property in execution on 22nd April 1924. The plaintiff in the present suit is a purchaser from the other 8-annas cosharers--defendants 2 and 3--and, after his purchase in 1925, he brought a suit (No. 937 of 1925) against the tenant, making defendant 1 a party, as being a cosharer landlord. We are informed and we may take it, that the suit was intended to be framed under Section 148-A, Ben...
Giribala Dasi Vs. Dwarka Nath Mistri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal715
Mallik, J.1. The suit that has given rise to the present appeal was one for recovery of possession of some lands on declaration of the plaintiff's title thereto. The allegations on which the plaintiff instituted the suit were briefly these: The plaintiffs brother, defendant 15, is the proprietor of the lands, and one Kalai and some other persons! held the lands under defendant 15. Defendant 15 obtained a rent decree in respect of the property and in execution of that decree purchased the lands himself. Thereafter in July 1922 defendant 15 made a verbal settlement of the lands with the plaintiff. Thenceforth the plaintiff was in possession by settling! the lands with some bargadars until she was resisted in her possession. The plaintiff therefore based her claim on verbal settlement obtained from defendant 15, her brother. The defence inter alia was that there was no settlement obtained by the plaintiff as alleged by her in support of her claim. The Court of first instance gave a decree...
Sukumar Majumdar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal867a
Jack, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 33, Bengal Emergency Powers Ordinance 11 of 1931. It appears in this case, sentence of four years' imprisonment was passed by the Special Magistrate, in which case an appeal lies to the Special tribunal constituted for the area in which the offence was tried. Under the proviso to Clause (1), Section 33, where no Special tribunal has been so constituted, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Sessions. An appeal hag therefore been made in the present case to this Court. In the case of Emperor v. Harendra Chandra Chakravarty : AIR1925Cal384 it was held that the High Court exercising Original Criminal Jurisdiction is not a Sessions Court within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the circumstances, this appeal must be rejected for want of jurisdiction, leaving it to the appellant to take such steps as he may be advised to take in the matter, as it appears that it was intended that there should be an appeal. Had the sentence been over four...
Banamali Patra and anr. Vs. Arjun Sen and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal730,140Ind.Cas.198
1. This is an appeal from an order dismissing an application of the appellants to be appointed guardians of the person and property of two minor girls, Karunamani and Radhika. There were two brothers Ram Son and Sham Sen. The objectors, Arjun and Bhim, are the two sons of Earn who is alive. The girls are the daughters of one Narsingha, son of Sham. According to the appelllant's case Sham before his death had separated from Ram in mess and property in Falgun 1325 and Narsingh while possessing his properties separately died in Aghrayan 1333 and thereafter died his widow Surjamani. Appellant 1 Bana-mali Patra is brother of Surjamani, and appellant 2 Hagur Dutta is the husband of Karunamoyi to whom she was married after her father's death. Karunamani was born in 1328 and Radhika in 1332. The appellants applied to be jointly appointed guardians of the person and the properties of the minors. In the application it was stated that thedistant agnates of the minors wore appropriating the minors...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Daulatram Mudi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Cal390
Panckridge, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 417, Criminal P. C., by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, acting on the instructions of the Government of Assam, asking that the appellate order of acquittal be set aside and that the order of conviction made by the trial Court be restored or that such further or other order may be passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.2. It appears that the respondent was granted a lease of a certain Government Cane mahal. This document is dated 15th August 1925 and is for three years terminating on 30th June 1928. The consideration for the grant was a sum of Rs. 14,100 to be paid by six equal instalments on dates given in the lease. There is a covenant for payment and also a provision that for breach of any of the conditions of the lease it shall at the discretion of the Conservator of Forests, Eastern Circle, Assam, be liable to be cancelled. Clause 5 of the lease provides that no cane purchased or otherwise obtai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »