Kolkata Court May 1943 Judgments
Amir Hushen Vs. Abdul Bari Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal560
Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of defendant 1, and it arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the lands in suit on establishment of his jote right to the same. The plaintiff's case was that the disputed land appertained to Sikimi Taluk Rastum Khan which was at the material time owned by one Rangu Mia. The plaintiff took settlement of the land from Rangu Mia on 17th Kartick, 1326 B.S., and was in possession of the same till Falgun 1348 B.S., when he was dispossessed from it by defendant 6 in collusion with the other defendants. The defence was that the plaintiff had no title to or : possession of the land in suit and he never took settlement of the same Rangu Mia's interest in the taluk was sold on 25th July 1922 and was purchased by the Das's who were represented by defendants 4 to 7 in the suit. Defendant 1, it is alleged, took settlement of the land from defendant 4 and his cosharers on 25th Bhadra, 1333 B.S., and was in possession of i...
Tag this Judgment!ijjatulla Akanda and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal42
Lodge, J.1. This is an appeal against convictions and sentences under Section 364, Penal Code. The four appellants and two others were placed on their trial on a charge under Section 364, Penal Code, before the Assistant Sessions Judge of Bogra. The jury gave a unanimous verdict in respect of the four appellants to the effect that they were guilty of the offence with which they were charged, and in respect of the other two accused that they were not guilty of the offence with which they were charged. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge accepted the unanimous verdict of the jury, acquitted the other two accused and convicted the four appellants and sentenced them each under Section 364, Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.2. The case for the prosecution in brief is that Panaulla (Court witness 1) fell in love with a prostitute named Sushila, persuaded the woman to adopt Islam and then married her in March 1941. Panaulla took this new wife, who after her conversi...
Tag this Judgment!Grace Isabel Stuedman Vs. Anneley Eliardo Beresford De Courey Wheeler
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal75
Das, J.1. In this suit the petitioner prayed for a decree declaring that the marriage in fact (but illegally) celebrated between her and the respondent was and is null and void. The respondent not having appeared after personal service of the writ of summons together with a certified copy of the petition this suit came up for hearing as an undefended suit on May 7th last. After hearing the evidence adduced before me I passed a decree on that date declaring that the marriage in question was null and void. Requisition for drawing up of the decree having been furnished a draft of the decree was prepared by the decree department and sent to the petitioner's solicitors for their approval. This draft was drawn up in the same form as such a decree in a suit for nullity of marriage is nowadays drawn up in England, namely in the form of a decree nisi. Mr. Barwell who appeared for the petitioner at the hearing mentioned the matter to me and contended that in a suit for nullity of marriage the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Kalidas Rakshit Vs. Sm. Samrangini Roy Chowdhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal71
Gentle, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant mortgagor judgment debtor against an order made by Edgley J. on 9th December 1942. The relevant facts are as follows : On 7th April 1937 the defendant created a mortgage upon two immovable properties of which one was No. 4 Burtolla Street, Calcutta, (hereinafter called the premises). It is common ground that the provisions of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 (hereinafter called the Act) apply to the transaction. The mortgagee filed this mortgage suit in January 1939, a preliminary decree was obtained in the following March by which inter alia it was ordered that if the money realised by the sale of the mortgaged property was not sufficient for payment of the amount due, the plaintiff should be at liberty to apply for a personal decree against the defendant for the balance. The final decree was passed on 15th April 1940 for Rs. 34,202 with the usual terms regarding the sale of the hypotheca. The items of property, other than the premises...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Jobbar Molla and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal39
Henderson, J.1. All the appellants have been convicted of dacoity and in addition to that the first five appellants have been convicted of an offence punishable under section 412, Penal Code. Their appeal is from the jail. The learned Judges presiding over the undefended Bench thought that this was a case in which the appellants should have some assistance, and at their request Mr. Mukherjee has been good enough to argue the appeal as an amicus curias on their behalf. I need hardly say that we are extremely grateful to him for so doing. The evidence is of the type which one usually finds in these easesection In the first place, there is a confession made by appellant 1. There is evidence of identification supported by a test identification; finally there is evidence that some of the stolen property was recovered from the houses of individual appellants.2. The only evidence of any value against appellant 1 is this confession. Mr. Mukherjee has contended that this was inadmisssible in ev...
Tag this Judgment!inder Singh Vs. Sadhu Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal479
Khundkar, J.1. The facts out of which this case has arisen are shortly these: The petitioner Inder Singh filed a complaint before the Police Magistrate of Alipore alleging that his wife Durgi had left his house taking with her a sum of Rs. 200 in cash, and some clothes and utensils. The case was transferred for inquiry to an Honorary Magistrate who examined Inder Singh and some of his witnesses. Inder Singh in his deposition stated that he had discovered that Durgi was living with two men, Sadhu Singh and Sohoni, at Budge-Budge. The Magistrate thereupon summoned Sadhu Singh and Sohoni to stand their trial for an offence under Section 498, Penal Code. Other witnesses were examined but the Magistrate was not satisfied with the evidence, and discharged the two accused persons. Inder Singh moved the learned Additional District Magistrate for a further inquiry, but his petition was dismissed by the Magistrate who recorded a judgment in which he observed as follows:As regards the merits of t...
Tag this Judgment!Jnanendra Narayan Choudhury and ors. Vs. Samed Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal559
Blank, J.1. The facts from which this rule arises are briefly the following. One Babu Naresh Narayan Chowdhury of the first party lodged an information at a police station in the Pabna District on 15th October 1940, alleging likelihood of a breach of the peace by the second party on certain allegations. The second party made rival allegations on the same day and at the same time. The proceedings went on for something over two years from this date but not all the dates j are now material. On 11th November 1940, a notice was issued by the Magistrate on police report calling on both parties to appear with documents etc. On 11th February 1941 the previous order was cancelled and both parties were heard on 24th March 1941. On that date the learned Magistrate held that there was a bona fide claim to possession and ordered proceedings to be drawn up under Section 145, Criminal P.C., he attached the lands in dispute. A map of the lands was submitted on 2nd July 1941; objections were raised to ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wakfs Vs. Shahebzada Mohammed Zahangir Shah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal206
Pal, J.1. This appeal is by the Commissioner of Wakfs, Bengal, the added defendant 9 in a suit for a declaration that the entries in the Cadastral Survey Khatian No. 866 in respect of Cadastral Survey Dag No. 1118/1341 in the remark column as 'Pirosthan for use of Mahomedan public' and in the Northern boundary column as 'Hedayetulla' are incorrect. The cadastral survey record was finally published on 7th September 1931, and the present suit was instituted on 29th July 1937. The Khatian No. 866 is Ex. D in this case, and it relates to a lakheraj comprising more than 50 plots of lands. Yusuf Sultan, the original plaintiff, is recorded as one of the cosharers of this lakheraj. Plots NOS. 1118/1841, 1119, 1118/1366 and 1118/1367 are recorded as being in the possession of Yusuf Sultan, though in the remarks column against the first two of these plots the right of user of the Mahomedan public is also entered. Of these the present suit relates only to the entries in respect of the Dag No. 111...
Tag this Judgment!Dulichand Mahesri and anr. Vs. Prohlad Chandra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal50
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit for ejectment of the defendants from a piece of land in the town of Jalpaiguri on service on them of a notice to quit. There were three defendants, but the suit was contested by only two of them, viz., defendants 1 and 8. The defence was three-fold. In the first place it was alleged that the tenancy was a permanent one, secondly the sufficiency of the notice to quit was questioned and lastly the defendants claimed protection from ejectment under Section 182, Ben. Ten. Act. The learned Munsiff of Jalpaiguri who tried the suit in the first instance gave the plaintiffs a decree. On appeal that judgment was reversed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Both the Courts agreed in turning down the plea of permanency as well as that based on the alleged invalidity of the notice to quit. As regards the bar of Section 182, Ben. Ten. Act, it is common case that so far as defendants 1 and 2 are concerned, none of them was a raiyat a...
Tag this Judgment!Asaddar Ali Khan Waqf Estate by Mutwali Gajanfor Ali Khan and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal57
Pal, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs in a suit for the recovery of possession of the disputed lands on a declaration that the same appertain to taluk No. 1079/7 Bakar Mahmud. The taluk No. 1079/7 was sold for arrears of revenue on 22nd September 1921 and was purchased by the plaintiffs at that sale. This sale was confirmed on 17th July 1922 and the plaintiffs took delivery of possession of the taluk on 10th June 1923. The present suit was instituted on 17th July 1934. The plaint related to the lands of several moujas. The appeal before us however relates only to the lands of mouja Baneshwarpur. As regards these lands the case of the plaintiffs as made in the plaint is: (1) That from the time of the permanent settlement lands measuring 111 acres 1 rood 26 pole and recorded as residue chak (abashishta) in thak map No. 3992 relating to mouja Baneshwarpur appertained to the taluk no. 1079/7 Bakar Mahmud: (para 4 of the plaint). (2) That the principal defendants taking advantage of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »