Kolkata Court February 1934 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.
Emperor Vs. D, a Pleader
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal794
M.C. Ghose, J.1. Upon hearing Dr. Basak in support of the reference and Mr. Mukerji on behalf of the pleader against whom these proceedings were started, we are of opinion, upon consideration of all the circumstances, that it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the pleader D actually signed the petition of compromise which was put in. It is true that the Munsif, who tried the suit, found against the pleader but, on appeal, the Additional District Judge disbelieved the evidence and came to the conclusion, as a final judge of fact, that it was not established that D signed the petition. In this view of the matter we are of opinion that the charge framed against him has not been established. The reference is rejected.Lort-Williams, J.2. I agree....
Emperor Vs. D
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.43
M. C. Ghose, J.1. Upon hearing Dr. Basak in support of the reference and Mr. Mukerji on behalf of the pleader against whom these proceedings were started, we are of opinion, upon consideration of all the circumstances, that it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the pleader D actually signed the petition of compromise which was put in. It is true that the Munsif, who tried the suit, found against the pleader but, on appeal, the Additional District Judge disbelieved the evidence and came to the conclusion, as a final Judge of fact, that it was not established that D signed the petition. In this view of the matter we are of opinion that the charge framed against him has not been established. The reference is rejected.Williams, J. 2. I agree....
Dhan Gaji and anr. Vs. NazamddIn Pradhania and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal398
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs. The suit was for partition, on the allegation that Neamatulla had a raiyati jote in respect of the lands in suit and that he died leaving as heirs two sons and two daughters. The suit was instituted by the heirs of one of the daughters claiming a partition and separate possession of their share. The trial Court decreed the suit. The Court of appeal has reversed that decree and dismissed the suit. Hence the appeal by the plaintiffs. Upon hearing the learned Advocates on both sides and upon a perusal of the papers, the facts appear to be as follows: The land in suit was occupied by Neamatulla for about three years before his death which took place about 1893. After his death in 1895, defendant 1, who was the major son of Neamatulla executed a fresh kabuliyat in favour of the landlord and took settlement of the land in suit for a period of five years. Defendant 1 has since then been in possession of the lands. The other three children ...
Bolai Chandra Khara Vs. Bishnu Bejoy Srimani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal425
1. We are of opinion that the case has been dealt with by the learned Magistrate from an entirely erroneous point of view. The prosecution case-was that out of a gross amount of Rs. 2,500 odd which the accused had collected as the Gomastha in the complainant's estate a sum of Rs. 1,900 odd only was credited by him to the sherista of the estate and the prosecution put forward three items, namely Rs. 75, Rs. 31-6-0 and Rs. 189-6 making up a total of Rs. 124-15-6 as the sum in respect of which criminal breach of trust had been committed by the accused. The learned Magistrate in two places in his judgment and also in the explanation which he has submitted in answer to this Rule has indicated vary definitely that he has dealt with the case on the footing that once the prosecution succeeded in proving that the accused had collected the said three items of money, it was for him to prove that he had paid those amounts into the complainant's sherista. At one place in his judgment he has said:Th...
Neelima Basu Vs. Jaharlal Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal772
Roy, J.1. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that she is the owner of a 3/4ths share in premises No. 26, Mushalmanpara Lane in the town of Calcutta, for partition and other incidental reliefs. The plaintiff is the sole surviving daughter of one Heeralal Sarkar, deceased. The defendant is the brother of Heeralal Sarkar and an uncle of the plaintiff. It is conceded that if the deed of gift executed by one Jeebankrishna Sarkar, an uncle of Heeralal, on 16th November 1895, in favour of Heeralal Sarkar be held valid, the plaintiff, as Heeralal's daughter, would be entitled to a 3/4ths share in the property and the defendant would be entitled to the remaining l/4th share. If on the other hand, it is held that the gift by Jeebankrishna Sarkar in favour of Heeralal was not a valid gift, the plaintiff and the defendant would each be entitled to a half share in the property. The validity of the deed has been challenged on three grounds specified in the issues raised by counsel for the defendan...
Abdul Majid Basunia and ors. Vs. Nripendra Nath Mazumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal393
1. This rule has been issued at the instance of five persons against whom an order Under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, was made by the Deputy Magistrate of Jalpaiguri on 11th December 1933. The order was made in connexion with a hat which was established at Taluk Jamgram at a distance of about a furlong from an old and long established hat which was in existence at a place called Baura. The two hats began to sit on one and the same days, namely Mondays and Thursdays. For the purpose of this case it is necessary to set out a few facts. The police of Patgram, within whose jurisdiction the places aforesaid are situate, submitted a report to the effect that there was no apprehension of the breach of the peace by reason of the hats being situated in close proximity to each other and though they were being held on one and the same days, This report was placed before the Sub-divisional Magistrate at the instance of the first party but the Sub-divisional Magistrate was not satisfied th...
Panchu Gazi Vs. Ejahar Ali Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Cal535,150Ind.Cas.596
Mallik, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of khas possession of a non-transferable occupancy holding on the ground of abandonment. The allegations on which the plaintiffs brought the suit were that the land was held by one Sukchand under the plaintiffs, that Sukchand sold the land to one Monsur Ali on 17th Chaitra 1334 corresponding to 30th March 1928 without making any arrangement for payment of rent with the result that there was an abandonment of the holding by Sukchand on 13th March 1928 and that when on 25th Jaista 1346 corresponding to June 1929 the plaintiffs went to take khas possession of the land they were resisted by the defendants. The defence inter alia was that the defendant had taken a sub-lease of the holding from Sukchand so long ago as 1318 corresponding to 1911 and having acquired a right of occupancy by local custom he was not liable to be ejected. This defence found favour with the trial Judge and the Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›