Kolkata Court May 1935 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.
Mohomed Mohsen Ali and ors. Vs. Roy Kshitish Bhusan Roy Bahadur and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Cal235
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. A very interesting question has been raised by Mr. Hossein in this case. The question is whether certain persons who are not made parties in a suit for rent apparently framed under Section 148-A, Ben. Ten. Act, have the right to intervene in the suit on their own application. The facts are these: Opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, who are admittedly co-owners of Touzi No. 3 of the Pabna Collectorate and some of the joint landlords of the tenants, who are opposite parties Nos. 3 to 10, instituted a suit for recovery of their shares of the rent for the years 1337 to 1340, their shares being admittedly 8a Section 13 gds. odd. To the suit they made a large number of persons, who, according to them, are their co-sharers and joint landlords of opposite parties Nos. 3 to 10. Those persons are opposite parties Nos. 11 to 54. There is no controversy on the point that opposite parties Nos. 16 to 42 and 46 to 54 have still interest in the aforesaid Touzi and are some of the joi...
Daud Sheik Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.721
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case, the appellant was charged under Sections 395 and 412 oft the Indian Penal Code, and tried by the Sessions Judge of Murshidabad and a jury, who found him guilty under Section 412 and sentenced him to five years' regorous imprisonment.2. There was no doubt that a docoity was committed in the house of one Ram Chand when he and his family were asleep. There were 12 or more dacoits and they broke into the house but eventually went away when the villagers appeared. They took certain properties with them. This accused made a confession, but the learned Judge decided that it was not a Voluntary confession and, therefore, refused to admit it in evidence. Unfortunately he seems to have made the common mistake by allowing the Magistrate who recorded the confession to give evidence that a confession had been made by the accused, before deciding the question whether it ought to be admitted or not. As I have already pointed out in a recent case it is no good telling...
Benoy Krishna Sadhukhan and ors. Vs. Panchanan Sadhukhan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Cal671,159Ind.Cas.133
1. The plaintiffs who were unsuccessful in a suit; for declaration of title and recovery of possession with mesne profits and for accounts in respect o a karbar which was a business in oil have preferred this appeal. In the sixties of the last century we first hear of a family consisting of a man named Mohesh Chandra Sadhukhan, his mother Parbati and his wife Muktamani. The family were oilmen by caste and they earned their living by a caste-business, namely a business in oil. In 1864 a plot of land, 1 bigha 12 cottahs in area which then bore Holding No. 67 in a subdivision of Panchannagram in the District of 24-Parganas was acquired by Parbati by purchase and in 1867 she transferred it by way of gift to Muktamani. In 1873 Mohesh took mourashi mokarari settlement of a holding bearing No. 68 and lying adjacent to the west o Holding No. 67 and he transferred this holding along with some other lands which he appears to have also acquired by then to Muktamani by a kobala in 1878. Mohesh die...
Thoilokhya Nath Das and ors. Vs. Kenaram Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.663
D.N. Mitter, J.1. These two appeals arise cut of a suit for partition. Defendants Nos.1-3 are the appellants in Appeal from original Decree No. 90 of 1930, while defendant No. 4 has preferred Appeal No. 162 of 1930. The relationship between the parties to the suit will appear from the following genealogical tree:SITARAM| _____________________________| | | Mohan Gangaram Prohlad. d. 1905 Padmabati.|______________________________________| | | Prosad Kali Prosad Biswanathd. 1910 d. 1901 (defendant| | No. 6)| ___________________ || | | | | Kenaram Rajani Debendra| (plaintiff) (defendant (defendant| = No. 5.) No. 8.)| Sarojini| (defendant No.| 7.)|_________________________ | ___________________________________________________ | | | |Trailokhya Bhupendra Narendra Satis(defendant (defendant (defendant (defendantNo. 1.) No. 2.) No. 3.) No. 4.)2. It will appear from the said tree the Mohan Das was the plaintiff's grand father' He had three sons, the eldest Prosad Charan Das, the second Kali Pro...
Raja Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb Vs. Srinath Chandra Pani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1935
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.878
1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal relates to a hat in Mouzah Parihati, which is one of the mouzahas of Pargana Dhalbhum of which the plaintiff is the proprietor. Raja Satrughan Deo Dhabal Deb, a former proprietor of the Pargana had let it out in ijara right for a period of 25 years to one Mr. Mathewson on March 8, 1905. Mr. Mathewson transferred his said rights to the Dhalbhum Syndicate on June 8, 1905, who in their turn sold their rights to the Midnapore Zemindari Company on March 12,1909. On the expiry of the ijara on September 14, 1929, the Company relinquished possession of the estate in favour of the plaintiffs, the present proprietor.2. The plaintiff's case as laid in the plaint, put quite shortly, is the following: In 1877 a part of Mougah Parihati which was their hasil was let out in Prodhani right topne Kaghu Nath Pani, father of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by the Managar of the Court of Wards who was in management of the estate on behalf of the then proprietor R...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›