Kolkata Court January 1935 Judgments

BepIn Chandra Mukhopadhya Vs. Taraprasanna Chakrabarty

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.601

R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of defendant No. 2 in a suit for recovery of khas possession instituted by the plaintiffs who are admittedly co-sharer landlords. Defendant No. 1 was admittedly the tenant, holding a non-transferable occupancy holding. On March 24, 1915, he sold the holding to defendant No. 2 who went into possession after his purchase. Notwithstanding the sale to defendant No. 2 by defendant No. 1 the plaintiff sued defendant No. 1 for the arreas of rent of the years 1319 to 1322 (i.e.' for rent due up to April 13, 1916), making their co sharer landlords parties defendants. This suit was numbered Rent Suit No. 2001 of 1916. To the said suit defendant No. 2 was not made a party defendant as the plaintiffs refuse to recognize him as a tenant. Defendant No. 1 appeared in the suit, pleaded that he held a transferable holding and had transferred the same to defendant No. 2 Thereafter he did not take any further part in the suit with the result that Rent Suit No. 2...

Nibaran Chandra Saha Vs. Matilal Shaha and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.561

R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of plaintiff No. 1 and arises out of a suit (Title Suit No. 99 of 1929) instituted by him and another person named Aditya Prosad Shaha for a declaration that the compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 503 of 1923 is fraudulent, collusive and illegal, that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 have acquired no rights thereunder for enabling them to receive rent or profits of the land (Dag No. 2213) covered by the said decree from defendants Nos. 4 to 6 and for confirmation of their possession therein. One or two other reliefs of an incidental nature is also asked but it is not necessary to detail them for the purpose of this appeal. To the suit one Sadanand has been made a pro forma defendant (pro forma defendant No. 7). This suit will be called hereinafter as the title suit and whenever the words plaintiffs or defendants are used, they shall be deemed to be the persons named as plaintiffs or defendants in this title suit.2. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 institu...

GirIn (Girindra) Das Gupta and ors. Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

ORDERNasim Ali, J.1. The facts which give rise to this Rule are as follows:2. One Bhudeb Mukherjee, Sub-Deputy Magistrate, was an accused in a case under Section 409, I.P.C., before the District Magistrate of Dacca. He was absconding. A non-bailable warrant was issued for his arrest on 28th February 1934. This was followed by proclamation and attachment issued on 22nd March 1934. He was arrested by the police on 3rd June 1934 in a house on Strand Road in Calcutta. On that date the police addressed a petition to the Additional District Magistrate of Alipore praying that the accused should be remanded to custody for being escorted to Dacca. The second Police Magistrate of Alipore, Mr. G.R. Mnkherjee, however released him on a bail on that date. The petitioners who have obtained this rule became surety for the appearance of Bhudeb before the District Magistrate of Dacca on 18th June 1934 and bound themselves in default thereof to forfeit the sum of Rs. 1,000 each of His Majesty the King-E...

Hemanta Kumar Banerjee Vs. Monorama Debi

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1935Cal488

ORDERNasim Ali, J.1. This Rule was issued upon the District Magistrate of 24 Parganas and the Opposite Party Monorama Debi to show cause why the order of the Police Magistrate of Alipore, dated 21st August 1934, refusing the petitioner's prayer for exempting him from further payment of the monthly allowance for the maintenance of the opposite party's child, Sambhu Nath, under Section 488, Criminal P. C, should not be set aside. The first ground urged in support of the rule is that Sambhu Nath is no longer a child within the meaning of Section 488, Criminal P. C, inasmuch as he is now 17 years old and is quite competent to earn his livelihood. It is argued by the learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner that the child, as contemplated by Section 488, is an infant who has not yet attained puberty. The word 'child' has not been defined in the Criminal Procedure Code. In the absence of any statutory definition or anything to the contrary in the Act, I am inclined to hold that 'child' i...