Kolkata Court January 1935 Judgments
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. L.E. Renny and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal184,162Ind.Cas.129
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is an appeal by the Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, on behalf of the Government of Assam, against a decision of the Extra Assistant Commissioner of Dibrugarh, acquitting the respondents of an offence under Section 13, Public Gambling Act (Act III of 1867). It appears that on some carnival ground in Dibrugarh, a kind of game was played which, the prosecution alleged, was a gambling game. There were employed in the game an ordinary dart board with numbers upon it, another board with corresponding numbers in rows, and a table with corresponding numbers upon it. It was alleged that people bought tickets, which they placed upon one or other of the numbers upon the table. Then one of them was given a dart or darts which he aimed at the dart board and, according as the darts hit particular numbers on the dart board which corresponded with the same numbers on the table, the person who had placed tickets on the table won or lost, that is to say, the winners recei...
Tag this Judgment!Tarini Prosad Mitra Vs. Rakhal Chandra Manna
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.302
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the plaintiff whose suit for damages his been dismissed by the Court of Small Causes at Midnapore. The amount involved is small but the questions raised are of general importance.2. The facts admitted and found are as follows. One Ramchandra Ghosh held an occupancy holding, very small in area, under the plaintiff. On October 22, 1932, he sold the same to the defendant for Rs. 25. At the date of the sale the e were on the kills two bamboo clumps. After getting the notice of the transfer and within the time mentioned Section 26F of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the plaintiff made an application for pre-emption on October 26, 1933. While the application was pending the defendant cut and removed all the bamboos. This he did on January 3 and 1931, apparently on the conviction that he had no defence to the application for pre-emption. On January 11, 1931, the order for pre-emption in favour of the plaintiff was made and the plaintiff in due cou...
Tag this Judgment!SarafuddIn Nur Ahmad Mazumdar and anr. Vs. Jibannessa Khatoon and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.347
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, in the alternative for a conveyance of the properties described in schedules ga and gha of the plaint on the basis of the provisions of para. 48 of an award which was followed by a decree. His suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below. Hence the present appeal.2. The relevant facts are these. The plaintiff and the defendants were co-sharers. In 1919, a suit for partition was instituted in which the plaintiff and the defendants as also their other co-sharers were parties. This suit was numbered as Title Suit No. 6 of 1919. The subject-matter of the suit was referred to arbitration and the arbitrators filed the award in Court on December, 22, 1920. The award was accepted by the Court and a decree was passed on it. By the award, the arbitrators allotted different portions of the joint property to the different co-sharers. The plaintiff was given...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Sundari Dasya Vs. Benode Behari Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.595
D.N. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Rangpur, daled February 23, 1930, by which he decreed a suit brought by the plaintiffs (now respondents) in which J hey ask for a declaration of their rights as joint shebaits of two family idols Sri Sri Rajrajeswar and Sri Sri Radha Krishna as also for recovery of joint possession along with the defendant now appellant. The relationship of the parties to the suit is shown in a family pedigree which is found at page 46 of the 1st part of the paper book and which is reproduced below.SITARAM SAHA, deceased.|________________________________________________________________| | |Anandiram Saha Gopnath Saha Kenaram Sahadeceased deceased deceased| | Ramkrishna Saha | deceased | | |Padmolochan deceased || |_______________________________| || | Raisundari Dasya ____________________________________________ (defendant) | || Jagannath Saha deceased Kali Charan Saha| deceased,Purna Chandra Saha |Dead | | |Wife Saroda Sun...
Tag this Judgment!The Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Bazlar Rahman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.12
Williams, J.1. This is an appeal by the Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, on behalf of the Government of Bengal, against a decision of the Deputy Magistrate of Noakhali by which he acquitted the respondent of a charge under Section 263 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts were as follows : On February 20,1933, the respondent Bazlar Rahman who was a Collectorate peon, was found near the Stamp Vendors' Stalls attached to the Noakhali Court. Information had been given to the Police of frauds upon the revenue perpetrated in connection with court-fee stamps. Certain Police Officers were watching near the Stamp Vendors' Stalls. The respondent was watched, and was seen to have something in his hand. The officer in charge of the Kotwali Police Station seized him by the wrist, whereupon the respondent firmly closed his fist, crushing whatever it was that he had in his palm. The officer forcibly opened the respondent's fist in the presence of two local Pleaders and Sub-Inspector Samusuddin...
Tag this Judgment!Boidya Nath Sil and ors. Vs. Bejoy Chandra Kundu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal306
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is a second appeal by the judgment-debtors in an execution case. In the primary Court they pleaded that the execution case was barred by limitation. The decree holders sought to avoid the plea of limitation by pleading that on two separate dates the judgment-debtors had paid sums of Rs. 4 and Rs. 7 and by-such payments under Section 20, Lim. Act, limitation was saved. The judgment debtors asserted that the alleged payments were not true, that no payments had actually been made. The trial Court on hearing the evidence came to the conclusion that the payments alleged by the decree-holders were not true. Thereupon the trial Court held that the case was barred by limitation. It may be stated here that the suit was instituted in 1922, and the final decree was obtained in November 1922., The last execution case was started in February 1924 and was dismissed on 18th March 1924. The second execution case was started in August 1924. and was dismissed in November 1924. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad SaleuddIn and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal281
Henderson, J.1. The appellants have been found guilty of conspiracy with each other; the accused Romesh Das who has not appealed, P.W. 2, Peara Hossain and others to commit offences punishable under Sections 387 and 506, I.P.C. In brief the prosecution case is that they are members of a gang of revolutionaries, who extort money from persons by terrorising them. The modus operandi is said to be as follows: A letter is sent demanding the payment of money, which is said to be required for the purchase of firearms and for other revolutionary purposes. The letter contains a threat to the effect that, if the money is not forthcoming, the recipient and the members of his family will be murdered. There is a further direction to hand over the money to a messenger, who will come with another letter on some subsequent date. This letter is then followed by another one containing a direction in these terms. The prosecution case is that in pursuance of this conspiracy specific offences were committe...
Tag this Judgment!Kishori Kishore Mishra Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal308
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case there were four accused who were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Asansol with a jury, who by a unanimous verdict found the accused Ganpat Sonar, Kishori Kishore Mishra and Chhidami Sukul, guilty under Section 395, I.P.C., and Pandit Kishen Prosad Tewari not guilty. They also found Kishori Kishore Misra guilty under Section 465, I.P.C. The learned Judge, agreeing with and accepting the verdict, sentenced Kishore Kishore Misra and Chidami Lal to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment each and Ganpat Sonar to five years rigorous imprisonment. Kishori Kishore Misra is the only appellant. The case was unusual. On 9th January the village Chowkidar came to the house of one Priya Nath Roy and told him that the Sub-Inspector and Inspector of Raneegunge had come to the village to inquire about his gun, as he was suspected of having given it to the dacoits in a case at Raneegunj police station. He was asked to take his license with him as the police officers wa...
Tag this Judgment!Sabhapati Dubey Vs. Ram Kissen Kumar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal185
Nasim Ali, J.1. This Rule was issued against the Deputy Commissioner of Sibsagar and the complainant opposite party in a certain criminal case to show cause why the order of the Additional Sessions Judge of the Assam Valley Districts, in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1934, dated 10th October 1934, setting aside under Section 520, Criminal P. C., an order of a first Class Magistrate of Golaghat, under Section 517 of the Code and restoring a certain elephant to the complainant opposite party, should not be set aside on the ground that the Additional Sessions Judge was not the Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision within the meaning of Section 520, Criminal P. C. S. 520 is in these terms:Any Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision may direct any order under Section 517, Section 518 or Section 519 passed by a Court subordinate thereto, to be stayed pending consideration by the former Court, and may modify, alter or annul such order and make any further orders that m...
Tag this Judgment!Debendra Lal Khan and ors. Vs. Sudharam Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal173
M.N. Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal. The principal defendants were in occupation of some lands which belonged to the plaintiffs and their co-sharers, the pro forma defendants. These lands were recorded in the record-of-rights as being lands wherein the plaintiffs had a 4-anna share and it was also stated therein that they were assessable to rent. On that the plaintiffs applied under Sub-section 105 and 106, Ben. Ten. Act, for correction of the records alleging that they had a 5-anna share in the lands and not a 4-anna share as stated in the record-of rights. In that application they prayed for a declaration of their title to a 5-anna share and for khas possession in respect of that share and, in the event of such khas possession not being allowed, for settlement of a fair and equitable rent for the lands in respect of that share. The proceedings instituted on the basis of this application were struck off on 7th December 1917 with the following order: 'No...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »