Kolkata Court March 1932 Judgments

Saroj Kumar Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1932Cal474

Panckridge, J.1. The appellants in this case are three out of five young men who have been tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Backerganj and a jury of five persons. The appellants, together with one Noni Gopal Sen Gupta, were charged with an offence punishable under Section 19 (f), Arms Act, and, together with Noni Gopal Sen Gupta and Sudhir Ranjan Chakrabarti, of offences punishable under Sections 399 and 395/120-B, I. P. C. Accepting the majority verdict of the jury the Sessions Judge has convicted Saroj Kumar Chakravarty under Section 19 (f), Arms Act, and Sections 392/120-B, I. P. C., and sentenced him to concurrent terms of 3 and 2 1/2 years' rigorous imprisonment. He has convicted Manmatha Nath Das and Narendra Nath Sen under Sections 392/120-B, I. P. C, only and sentenced them to 2 and 2 1/2 years' rigorous imprisonment respectively. The appellants were acquitted on the other charges and the two persons charged with them on all the charges.2. The prosecution case is sot out ...

Nagendra Chandra De and ors. Vs. Har Kumar De

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1932Cal514,137Ind.Cas.311

C.C. Ghose, J.1. The questions arising in this Letters Patent appeal were not considered necessary for determination by the learned Judge in this Court as he was of opinion, for the reasons stated by him in his judgment, that the appeal to this Court was incompetent in-asmuch as defendant 4 Debendra Chandra l)e who was a minor had not been properly represented in the appeal. The defect, such as it was, has now been removed and at the hearing before us steps were taken to have the said minor defendant properly represented by a guardian ad litem.2. The appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of khas possession on declaration of plaintiff's title and for annulment of certain encumbrances in respect of two dags, namely, dags Nos. 39 and 34. The plaintiff alleged that he had purchased a Noabad taluk being taluk Jinnat Ali at a sale for arrears of revenue and that as such purchaser, ho was entitled to khas possession of the two dags in question by cancellation of encumbrances under the prov...

Daulatraj Vs. Kalicharan Ghosh

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1933Cal19

ORDERLort-Williams, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the plaintiff for an order that the execution of certain orders, dated 16th July and 10th September 1931, for costs be stayed until the disposal of the suit. These were interlocutory orders. Mistakes in procedure had been made by the plaintiff, and he was ordered to pay the costs of the applications necessitated by his mistakes.2. I have no doubt that according to the English practice in the King's Bench Division, as inherited from the Common law Divisions, the practice has always prevailed of having no taxation of costs till the termination of the action. This practice did not apply in the Court of appeal. I have already dealt with the point in the case of Kedarnath Bhutra v. Johormull Bhutra : AIR1930Cal465 . To the decisions cited in that judgment I would add the case of Phillips v. Phillips [1879] 5 QBD 60. In this case it was asserted by counsel that such was the practice in the Common Law Divisions, and this was not dis...

Kanku Sardar and anr. Vs. Shafijaddi and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1932Cal870

Mitter, J.1. The suit in which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs, now appellants, for recovery of khas possession of the lands in suit after ejecting defendants therefrom. There is also a prayer for recovery of Rs. 64-6-0 as rent from defendant 1. Plaintiffs found their claim on the allegations that defendant 1 holds a kolekarsa under the plaintiffs and that she had been served with a notice to quit under Section 49, Ben. Ten. Act, on 6th April 1926 and as she did not give up possession the present suit had been instituted.2. The main defence to the suit is that plaintiff is a tenure-holder and defendants have got a karsa right in the disputed land and they are not liable to be ejected. The Munsif in a judgment which does not seem to me to be very satisfactory found that the plaintiffs' interest bad been recorded as niskar chakran and the interest of the defendants as kolekarsa in the Settlement Record and that there was no evidence to rebut the presumption arising from ...

Asharam Agarwalla Vs. Umesh Chandra Bhowmik

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1933Cal316

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decree for sale passed in a suit for enforcement of a mortgage the amount secured by which was payable in instalments. The bond was for a principal amount of Rs. 7,500 and was dated 30th Aswin 1327=16th October 1920. The first instalment was payable in Chaitra 1327 and in default of payment thereof the whole amount was to fall due on 1st Baisakh 1328=14th April 1921. On 28th March 1922 the suit was instituted, the claim being laid at Rs. 7,500 as principal, and Rs. 862-8.0 as interest. The defendants filed a written statement challenging the bond as fraudulent and void for want of consideration and upon other grounds, and also setting up a part payment of Rs. 92. A decree was passed ex parte against defendant 1. On the same day the claim against the other defendants was given up on compromise and as against them the suit was dismissed. On 8th January 1924, defendant 1 applied for setting that decree aside under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C. T...

Rajani Kumar Seal Vs. Mahalukmi Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1932Cal729

C.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case what has happened, shortly stated, is as follows : It appears that the decree-holder obtained a decree against the judgment-debtor and applied for execution of the decree. The present appellant thereafter intervened and agreed to stand as surety for the amount of the decree passed against the judgment-debtor. Thereafter several applications, as the record shows, were made by the decree-holder to obtain satisfaction of the decree by means of execution. The judgment-debtor and the surety raised various objections and it would appear that no less than 15 miscellaneous cases were started at the instance of the judgment-debtor and the surety objecting to the execution of the decree on various grounds. This took place from 1st November 1924 to 24th December 1929. The decree-holder, harassed and frustrated, made another application for execution on 24th March 1930. The judgment-debtor and the surety not content with raising objections in the 15 miscellaneous case...

Mon Mohan Gope Vs. Madhu Sudan Gope

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1932Cal869

Rankin, C.J.1. In this case a final decree for partition was passed on 28th March 1927. Its effect was to allot various lands in severalty to each of the parties but to reserve as ejmali a kalikhola and also a strip of land to serve as a road giving access to certain of the allotments. This was not a road existing as such from before the partition but was delineated by the commissioner of partition for the first time and it was necessary for him to direct the removal of some huts or ghars in order that the strip of land should serve as a road. The plaintiff in February 1928, brought an execution case and after a commissioner had been appointed to give him delivery of possession that case was dismissed on part satisfaction in July 1928. The question before us arises as between defendants to the suit.2. The present application for execution was filed on 20th November 19S0 by the respondents before us and the appellants contend that it is out of time being more than three years from the d...

Sarat Chandra Ray and ors. Vs. Bhupendra NaraIn Rai

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1933Cal199

1. The plaintiff instituted this suit for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of certain lands as appertaining to Mauza Gatiasham of which he is the proprietor. This mauza is situate immediately on the north-west of Mauza Khetab Khan of which the proprietors are defendants 1 and 2. At the time of the thak survey of 1856 which is the earliest point of time at which we know anything about the situation of the two mauzas, the river Teesta flowed by their west and south-west. In the plaint the case put forward was as follows: Since the thak the river Teesta gradually shifted its course, and on two or three occasions the lands of Mauza Gatiasham were diluviated and again re-formed in situ; that for the last time diluviation began in 1323 or 1324 and continued till 1327, after which re-formation commenced, the river receding towards the west and throwing up the chur which is the subject-matter of the suit; that in 1329, when the chur became fit for cultivation, the plaintiff a...

Baldeo BIn Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Panckridge, J.1. The appellant in this case has been convicted of the offence of dacoity and having bad a previous conviction he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. He was tried together with a co-accused. The jury found the appellant guilty by a majority of 3 to 2 and unanimously found the other accused not guilty.2. Various points have been taken on behalf of the appellant. It is first of all stated that the learned Judge was in error in failing to draw the attention of the jury to certain portions of the evidence which tended to show that the number of persons present at the occurrence was less than what the Penal Code requires to constitute an offence of dacoity. After perusing the evidence we have come to the conclusion that there is no justification for this argument. Nearly all the witnesses placed the number of the dacoits at some figure between 8 and 12. It is true that a female witness stated that she could not tell by guess how many were ...

Upendra Nath Samanta and ors. Vs. Saroda Prosad Ghose and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1932Cal772,140Ind.Cas.589

Mallik, J.1. This appeal arises out of a mortgage suit-a suit instituted for enforcement of a mortgage bond. The facts which are relevant for the purpose of the present appeal were briefly these. On 4th May 1913 one Nitai executed a mortgage bond in favour of Sarada, one of the two sons of Baikantha. In May 1918 Nitai executed another mortgage in favour of defendants 13 to 16. Before May 1918 Sarada's brother Narendra brought a suit against Nitai for recovery of some money due on promissory notes from Nitai and obtained a decree against him. In this decree it was held that the suit had been for both the brothers Sarada and Narendra. This decree was executed and in execution the properties mortgaged were put up to sale and purchased by the decree-holders who were both Sarada and Narendra. This was on 23rd November 1918. Since their purchase, the brothers have been in possession of the property in undivided shares. In May 1928 defendants 13 to 16 instituted a mortgage suit on their mortg...