Kolkata Court June 1948 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.
Haridas Ghosh and anr. Vs. Kishan Chand Mehera
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1948
Reported in: AIR1952Cal393
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is a plffs'. appeal in a suit for assessment of rent in respect of certain lands which are recorded in the finally published record of rights as being held by the deft, under the plffs. & liable to be assessed with rent. The plffs. had claimed that the rent to be assessed should be at Rs. 25/3/- per year; damages had also been claimed at the same rate for use & occupation for a period of three years before the date of the institution: of the suit. The defence was that the deft, had lakheraj title to the lands & that the entries in the record of rights were wrong. The deft, also pleaded limitation & acquisition of lakheraj title by adverse possession.2. The learned Munsif did not accept the principal contention as raised by the deft. & decreed the suit in part assessing the rent at Rs. 13/8 per year. The claim for back rent was disallowed. The deft, preferred an appeal to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Burdwan, & the plffs. also filed a cross-objection for...
Sambhu Roy Vs. Moti Khatik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ172
ORDERHarries, C.J.1. These are two connected petitions which arise out of the same incident. The petitioner was a landlord of certain premises, part of which was let to the opposite party. The opposite party made a complaint alleging that he had been prevented by force from entering the premises let to him. The petitioner was tried under Section 448, Penal Code, for house trespass. The learned Magistrate who heard the case held that a case under Section 448, Penal Code, had not been made out and acquitted the petitioner on that charge. He, however, found the petitioner guilty of a lesser offence under Section 341, Penal Code, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 60 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week.2. The complainant thereupon applied to be put in possession of the premises, which he alleged had been let to him, under the provisions of Section 522, Criminal P.O. The learned Magistrate was satisfied that the opposite party had not been prevented by actual physi...
Prava Debi Vs. Santi Ram Chatterji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ211
ORDERHarries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Presidency Magistrate convicting the petitioner under Section 341, Penal Code and sentencing her to pay a fine of Bs. 180 or in default two months' simple imprisonment.2. The complainant was a tenant of certain premises and he had sub-let the first floor and a small room on the second floor to the petitioner, It appears that there was a staircase from the ground floor to the- first floor and then on to the root upon which the second floor room stood. The charge against the petitioner was that she bad placed a door across the stair way making it impossible for the tenants of the ground-floor to go on to the roof.3. Three persona were prosecuted, namely, the petitioner who was a kept woman, the man who kept her and a servant. The petitioner only was convicted and there seems to be practically no evidence that she was the person who caused this door to be placed to block the staircase. Even assuming that it was ...
Nirode Mohan Roy Vs. Charu Chandra Mazumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Cal401,54CWN455
Das Gupta, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the signature of one Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay who, apart from having written the will, saw the testator execute the will and affixed his signature in the presence of the testator is sufficient attestation within the meaning of Section 63, Succession Act. The testator Chandra Mohan Roy had in the year 1924 executed a will by which he left certain properties to his two nephews (brother's sons), Kshirode Mohan Roy and Nirode Mohan Boy and left the residue to his daughter's sons. In 1926, he executed another will which is the subject-matter of the present litigation and by this will he left certain properties to Kshirode Mohan Roy and the residue to his daughter's sons. Chandra Mohan Roy, the testator, disappeared shortly after the execution of this will in 1926 and has not been since heard of by the persons who are likely to hear of him if he was living. Charu Chandra Mazumdar, who is Chandra Mohan's daughter's son, ap...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›