Kolkata Court February 1936 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.
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Jiban Kumar De an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal292,163Ind.Cas.228
Cunliffe, J.1. The petitioners here are the Crown. They obtained a rule nisi on a number of grounds, of which we need only now consider the first two. The rule was directed against an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Faridpur. The learned Judge was dealing with an order made by one of his subordinates, if that is the proper expression to use, Mr. De who is a Sub-Divisional Officer and a First Class Magistrate at Madaripore.2. It became De's duty to preside over an inquiry under Section 110, Criminal P. C. That is one of the so-called preventive sections which deals with the liability in time of disturbance of persons implicated to execute bonds for good behaviour. The state of affairs down in Mr. De's district seemed to have been, before this inquiry took place, of a somewhat serious nature. There was apparently a rebellious agitation going on, people were being terrorised on the one hand and other persons were apparently arming themselves. It is obvious from Mr. De's order that l...
YeajuddIn Pramanik and anr. Vs. Rup Manjuri Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal326
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal in a suit on a mortgage bond. The bond was executed in May 1926 for a sum of Rs. 200 at interest of 2 per cent per mensem with rests of three months. The due date having passed and the defendant not having paid the amount the suit was instituted in November 1931. The bond was executed by a widow, defendant 1, and by defendant 4, husband of her deceased daughter, and by defendants 2 and 3, minor sons of defendant 4 and the deceased daughter. The bond was executed by defendant 4, the father in respect of the shares of his sons, defendants 2 and 3. Various defences were taken. The Court of appeal below decreed the suit fully against the defendants. In appeal the first point taken is that the minor defendants 2 and 3 are not legally bound by the mortgage bond, Under Mahomedan Law the father is the legal guardian of his minor sons, but his power to sell the minors' immoveable property is not absolute. He may sell the immoveable property of the minor in cer...
Profulla Kumar Sen Gupta and anr. Vs. Behari Lal Sen Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal247
M.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by two plaintiffs in a suit to set aside an ex parte decree. The facts are that the principal defendants brought a suit on 31st July 1929 for declaration of their right to the western boundary of a certain tank and for confirmation of possession of the same. The suit was instituted against the two appellants plaintiffs, who were described as minors represented by their mother as their natural guardian and also against their uncle defendant 7 who 'was living in joint mess with them. A summons was served upon the mother of the two plaintiffs. The mother did not appear to defend the suit. The suit however was strenuously defended by the plaintiffs' uncle, defendant 7. The trial Court decreed the suit. Defendant 7 made an appeal and the appeal being decided against him made a second appeal to the High Court. The decree of the trial Court was passed on 11th August 1930 and the present suit was instituted on 16th September 1932. The trial Court found that p...
Guru Charan Rudra Pal and anr. Vs. MafijuddIn Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1936
Reported in: AIR1938Cal150
M.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued for declaration of title and recovery of khas possession of a certain piece of land claiming that they had obtained lease of it from the owners of a certain estate, that they were in possession but were dispossessed by the defendants in Pous 1337 B.S. The defence was that the land did not appertain to touzi no. 5583 as stated by the plaintiffs, but it appertained to another estate adjacent thereto, and under that other estate, the defendants had obtained lease and had been in possession for more than 12 years and the plaintiffs' story of possession and dispossession was false. The trial Court appointed a com-missioner, who upon making a relay of the thak map found that the land in suit appertained to touzi no. 5583 as stated by the plaintiffs, that part of the land was as lee land of that touzi, and part was accretion to that touzi by recession of the river. The trial Court decreed the suit. The decree was affirmed in appeal.2. The defe...
Bhupati Nath Chakravarty Vs. Basanta Kumari Devi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal556,167Ind.Cas.713
D.N. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Nadia by his decision dated 31st July 1933. The case made in the plaint is that after the death of the plaintiff's father he was given in adoption by his mother Bagala Sundari Debi to the husband of the defendant Basanta Kumari, a gentleman of the name of Kshetra Nath Chakravarti, in July 1926. Kshetra Nath died on 16th November 1928. At the time when plaintiff was given in adoption his age, it is stated, was nine years. It is alleged that he was ill-treated by his adoptive mother, the defendant Basanta Kumari and his mother took him back and thereafter Kshetra Nath executed a deed cancelling the adoption. This deed is dated 23rd April 1927. Shortly after, both Kshetra and Basanta Kumari executed a deed which is termed as a deed of settlement, giving all the properties to certain ancestral deities and for the performance of Durga and Lakshmi pujas.2. The case which the plainti...
Gajanan Agarwala Vs. Hamidar Rahman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1936
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.662
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This appeal which is by the principal defendant arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent for declaration of his title (eight annas share) to two tin sheds standing on Dag No. 688 of the Cadastral Survey Map and also for confirmation of possession. The sheds are in the possession of a tenant, Sitaram Halui, who is pro forma defendant No. 11. The principal question involved in this appeal is a question of res judicata a question on which the two Courts: below have differed, the Court of first instance deciding that question in favour of the principal defendant, who had set up the plea, the lower Appellate Court against him.2. The plaintiff had shares in tin sheds standing on two plots of land, which have now been recorded in, Dags Nos. 688 and 689 of the Cadastral Survey Map. In execution of a decree obtained against the plaintiff, as surety, the defendant's father Gouri Datta purchased the plaintiffs' 1-3rd share in some of the tin sheds, in January,...
Emperor Vs. Sherali Badyakar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1936
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.342
Cunliffe, J.1. This is a reference which has been made to us by the Sessions Judge of Tipperah against the acquittal of certain accused persons who were put on their trial before him and a jury for the crime of dacoity with murder. The jury, it may be noted, found two of the co-accused with these persons, who are the subject of this reference, guilty and they were duly sentenced. The reference is made under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a useful section no doubt, if prudently applied. But in this particular case, we do not think that the learned Sessions Judge was at all justified in objecting to these three acquittals. If persons are put on their trial before juries, it seems to me that on questions of fact the decisions of the jury should always be accepted, unless it is possible to demonstrate that the acquittals have been arrived at perversely. I fail to appreciate why in this particular case, the jury were not perfectly justified in refusing to accept the identifi...
Bhakta Bhusan Pramanik and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal227
Henderson, J.1. The three appellants Bhakta Bhusan Pramanik, Durgapada Modak and Jaladhar Kundu have been convicted of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392, I. P. C. The two former have been sentenced to death and their case has been referred to this Court by the learned Sessions Judge. The third has been sentenced to transportation for life. All the three persons have appealed and the appeal and the reference have been heard together. Briefly the facts of the case are as follows: There was an old woman named Saibalini who had been living alone for sometime. On the morning of the 16th August last, her nephew went to her house to see her but found the door in the compound wall locked. He scaled the wall, made his way into the house and there found the old woman lying dead on her bed. Information was given to the Police who started to inquire into the matter as being the case of an unnatural death. P. W. 2, Golak Behary Roy, is the landlord of the village. He received certain i...
Jogendra Nath Das Vs. Sarup Chand-hukum Chand, Firm and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal264
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. The defendant is the petitioner before me. The plaintiff instituted a suit to recover possession of certain property described in the schedule to his plaint. There had been a revenue sale. He was the former proprietor; and his case in the plaint is that the revenue sale is illegal, a nullity and has not passed title to the defendant. Secondly, ha prays for setting aside the revenue sale in any event; and his third prayer is for recovery of possession.2. The suit is a suit for recovery of possession and for the purpose of Court-fees and valuation it comes within Sub-section 5, Section 7, Court-fees Act. The question is whether under Clauses (a) or Clause (e) of that Sub-section such valuation is to be made. In the schedule to the plaint the land is described as 'garden land together with trees, etc.' The land is comprised in holding No. 39, Touzi No. 1298/2833 of the Collectorate of the 24-Parganas. Of this holding a separate revenue has been assessed at Rs. 21-3-...
Emperor Vs. Bhola Giri Mohunt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal259
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. It appears that a certain plot of land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of extending the Gun and Shell Factory at Cossipore. Within the plot there is a Siva temple belonging to the accused Bhola Giri. The site of the temple was not acquired. Various disputes arose between the accused and the officers of the Gun and Shell Factory, but they resulted in compromises, and ultimately it was agreed that a space of four cubits was to be left open for the purpose of affording access to the temple. On 21st September 1934 a certain complaint was made to the learned Police Magistrate at Sealdah by the officer in charge of the Cossipore Police Station. The learned Magistrate on that date passed an order after reciting the acts said to have been committed by the accused which according to him would lead to a disturbance of the peace on the following terms:As the said breach of the peace is imminent and immediate preventive measures are desirable, I d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »