Kolkata Court February 1945 Judgments
Shib Das Kumar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1945
Reported in: 1949CriLJ777
Roxburgh, J.1. In this case the petitioner has been convicted under Section 3 of Ordinance 33 of 1943 for possession of certain coil of wire found in a godown at 38 Maharshi Devendra Road, Jorabagan. Another man Gouri Sankar Kulwar was tried along with the present accused in connection with some wire found with him in a taxi at Tolly gunge. On information be was stopped by the police, he took them to the godown at Jorabagan and pointed out the present petitioner who happened to go there at the time. The key of the godown was found with the-present petitioner, who threw it away. Gouri Sankar Kulwar has been acquitted on the ground that Major Hindley (p. W. i) who was called to prove that the articles in question were military stores was not as emphatic in regard to the wire found in the taxi as he was with regard to the coil found in the godown. As regards that, he is very definite that this wire is not supplied to the civilians, that it never came to India before the war, that it is su...
Tag this Judgment!Gopinath Biswas and on His Death, Haripada Biswas Vs. Md. Nurul Absar, ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal336
1. An estate in Beerbhoom known as the Khanpore estate, comprises seventeen items of immovable property. In 1934 thirty three persons made an application to the District Judge, Beerbhoom, under Section 93, Ben. Ten. Act for appointment of a common manager of those seventeen items of property. Another person was subsequently added as a co-applicant. There were two opposite parties to the application, which was based on the grounds mentioned in Sub-section (ii) of that section. Of those thirty-six persons the first twenty-nine out of the applicants and the two opposite parties had shares in all the seventeen items; applicants 31 to 33, (the Dutt's) had shares in items 1, 2 and 17 and applicant 30 (Haripada Biswas) had share in items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 only. Applicant 34 (the added applicant) Binapani Dassi, had a darpatni interest in an anna share of item 1 only. She had no interest in any other property and the other parties to the application had no interest in that darpatni. The result ...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Sukh Gulgulia and anr. Vs. Habib Ullah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal355
1. Nim Chand, who is defendant 1, in the suit in which the appeals arise, instituted a suit (Money Suit No. 78 of 1932) against three persons, Sorab, Habib Ulla and Nasib, to recover money said to be due on a promissory note. During the pendency of the suit, he attached before judgments lots Nos. 1 to 41 described in the plaint of the suit we have before us. That suit was ultimately decreed for RS. 3500 against Nasib only and was dismissed against Sorab and Habib Ulla. Nim Chand started execution proceedings (NO. 341 of 1935) against Nasib. He attached more properties--lots Nos. 42 to 63--as belonging to Nasib. He alleged that the properties which he had attached before judgment as well as these properties belonged exclusively to Nasib. Sorab and Habib Ulla filed claims in the execution proceedings, stating that some of the properties attached belonged to them exclusively and in the rest they had shares. Those claims being dismissed they filed a title suit against Nim Chand and Nasib b...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotilal Mondal Vs. Birubala Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal431
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule has been obtained by the mortgagee and raises a difficult point in connexion with an application under Section 26G, Ben. Ten. Act. At the time of the execution of the mortgage, the land was producing nothing. The intention of the mortgagee was to build and there was a clause in the deed to the effect that the mortgagor would only get back possession of the land on paying a fair price for any buildings which might be constructed by the mortgagee. In view of the provisions of Section 26G (5) the debt has now been discharged. Opposite party 1 accordingly filed an application under the sub-section to recover possession. The Munsif neither allowed nor rejected the application in direct terms. He held that the debt was discharged but put the mortgagor on terms that she was to pay Rs. 1100, at which he assessed the value of the structures, as a condition precedent to being put into possession. Both sides appealed. The petitioner was dissatisfied with the Munsif'...
Tag this Judgment!Arpan Ali Alias Arfan Ali and anr. Vs. Jnanendra Kumar Pal Choudhury a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal413
1. The plaintiffs-respondents are the owners of a market in the town of Habigunj, called the Chaudhury Bazar. The defendants are fishermen of nine neighbouring villages, Nowahatti, alias Jallabad, and others. They have been sued under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P.C., as representing all the fishermen of the said nine villages. So all the fishermen of the said nine villages would hereafter be called 'the defendants.' The facts are not now in controversy. In Habigunj there was an old market, called the Puran Bazar, which belonged to some other person or persons. Before 1883 the grandfather, or it may be a remoter ancestor of the plaintiffs established the market known as the Choudhury Bazar on his own land. Fishermen of twelve villages, including those nine villages where the defendants reside, began to sell fish in Choudhury Bazar for a time. Then those fishermen deserted that market and went to sell fish in the Puran Bazar. After a time they returned to Choudhury Bazar in 1883. At that tim...
Tag this Judgment!Siddiq Ahmed Choudhury Vs. Syed Ahmed Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal418
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15, Letters Patent and it is directed against a judgment of Henderson J., dated 22nd May 1944 passed in Second Appeal No. 1890 of 1943. The appellant before us is the plaintiff and the suit was one commenced by him for establishment of his title as mutwalli in respect of a wakf created by his father Osi Mia and for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from interfering with his possession as mutwalli of the wakf estate. The material facts are not in controversy and may be stated as follows:2. The plaintiff as well as the four defendants in the suit are all sons of Osi Mia, though, their mothers were not the same. Osi Mia, married three wives in succession; the plaintiff and the pro forma defendant 4 are the two sons by his first wife. By the second wife also Osi Mia had two sons and they are defendants 1 and 3 in the suit; defendant 2 is the only son born of the third wife of Osi Mia. On 30th January 1934, Osi Mia creat...
Tag this Judgment!Mon Mohan Roy and ors. Vs. Santi Lochan Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal378
ORDER1. (Civil Rule No. 851 of 1943). Mohini Mohan Ghose, who is opposite party 5 in this rule, made an application under Section 8, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act (hereinafter called the Act) to the Debt Settlement Board of Garpara. He made that application alleging that he was the creditor of opposite parties 1 to 4 and he wanted the debts of the said opposite parties 1 to 4 to be settled by the Debt Settlement Board. In his application he did not mention the fact that there were other creditors of the said four opposite parties. After his application had been registered in that Board, the Board issued a notice upon the debtors, opposite parties 1 to 4, to file a statement in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. The debtors in due course filed the statement. In that statement they named the petitioners before us to be their creditors also. On the said information being furnished, the Debt Settlement Board issued a notice upon the petitioners before us to file the...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ujagar Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1945
Reported in: 1949CriLJ560
ORDERHenderson, J.1. The learned Government Counsel has asked me to quash this commitment.2. The accused is a taxi driver. The prose-cution ease is that while driving his taxi in a negligent manner, he knocked down two persons one of whom subsequently died. He was sent up on a charge under Section 304A, Penal Code. The Magistrate accordingly started to try him under that section. He, however, suddenly altered his mind and committed him to this Court for trial on two charges (l) under Section 804, Penal Code, for causing the death of Qualm Ali, (2) under Section 838, Penal Code, for causing grievous hurt to Joynal Sircar.3. I am bound to say that the jury could only be asked to convict under Section 304 on a far fetched view of the evidence. Learned Government Counsel stated that he Could not press for anything more than a charge under Section 304A, and I should certainly alter the charge accordingly.4. Now the grounds on which I am asked to quash the commitment are the failure of the M...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Prova De W/O Dr. Satish Chandra De Vs. Sachindra Kumar Basu and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal216
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff landlord and it arises out of a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 7056-12-0 as the balance of rent due in respect of a putni tenure which remained unsatisfied after the sale of the tenure under the provisions of Regn. 8 of 1819. The material facts are not in controversy and may be stated as follows: The plaintiff is the present proprietor of a zemindary property bearing Touzis Nos. 5074 and 5089 of the Jessore Collectorate. Under these touzis there is a patni created as early as in the year 1852 reserving an annual rental of Rs. 12,000. The patni changed hands on more occasions than one and the last purchase was by Nagendra Kumar Basu, whose legal representatives the present defendants are, and he purchased the tenure at a Regulation sale on 15th May 1937. Nagendra Kumar Basu died in the year 1938 leaving behind him a will by which his sons, the defendants in the suit, were appointed executors and the latter took out probate of ...
Tag this Judgment!Moktarali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal421
1. These are two appeals by seven accused who were convicted under either Section 395, Penal Code or Section 412 of that Code and sentenced to six years' rigorous imprisonment each. The appellants Moktarali, Jogesh Chandra Chakladar and Momtazuddi Sikdar are represented before us, the remaining four presented their appeal from jail. We will deal with the cases of each of the appellants seriatim.2. Jogesh Chandra Chakladar: The evidence against this accused was that he was identified by a certain lady of some eighty years of age as one of the dacoits and that a certain pitcher identified as being a part of the property stolen at the time of the dacoity was found in his possession. His explanation as regards the pitcher was that it was the property of his wife's step-brother Kali Prasanna Das. He was charged under Section 395, Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge obviously himself did not accept the evidence of identification given by the old lady and advised the jury accordingly. He t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›