Kolkata Court March 1876 Judgments
Ramdhone Bhuttacharjee Vs. Khajah Ashanoollah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal326
L.S. Jackson, J.1. It appears to us that this is not a suit to which the provisions of Section 27 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869 could be applied for the purpose of barring the suit as not brought within one year. Whatever other difficulties that section may present in regard to suits differing from the present one, we think there are many circumstances which prevent the application of it here. In the first place, it is not simply a suit to recover the occupancy of land from which the plaintiff has been dispossessed by the person entitled to recover the rent. There is a certain complication in the facts alleged, because the plaintiff claims a howla right of which the principal defendant altogether denies the existence. He sues Khajah Ashanoollah, who is not the sole zemindar, but one of the persons entitled to the rent. He sues also Ram Coomar Sen, the previous talookdar of this estate, and he also sues the several persons who are now paying rent to Khajah Ashanoollah. The case is not there...
Tag this Judgment!Mutty Lall Dhur and ors. Vs. Hendry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal396
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff claims a three-sixteenth share in a dwelling-house at Sealdah, one half of which is admitted to have belonged to the late Bulzloor Rohim, who died in 1871.2. Buzloor Rohiin, in his lifetime, had employed Anderson, Wallace, & Co., in Calcutta, to do some repairs to the house; after his death his daughter Surfurunnissa Begum, who was entitled to five-sixteenths of the whole property, employed them to do further repairs. The price of these repairs not having been paid, Anderson, Wallace, & Co. brought an action against Surfurunmssa Begum, as representing her father's estate, to recover the sum due to them; and having obtained a decree, the house was sold in execution under the decree, and was purchased by the defendants Hendry and Hubbard, Meanwhile, a sister of Buzloor Rolum, Sadumnnissa Bibi, who had been for some time past on a pilgrimage to Mecca, and who was entitled to a three-sixteenth share of the property, returned, and she sold he...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mohesh Mistree and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal283
Macpherson, J.1. It seems to us to be clear that this case came before the Magistrate of the 24-Pergunnas under Section 295 of the Criminal Procedure Code,[1] and that it was in the first instance dealt with by the Magistrate under that section. That being so, his proper and only course was to proceed under Section 296, to report the case for orders to the High Court, which (under Section 297) might have ordered the accused persons to be tried, if of opinion that they had been improperly discharged.2. A case (re Sidya bin Satya) quoted by Mr. Prinsep in his latest edition of the Criminal Procedure Code, as having been decided by the Bombay High Court, has been referred to as showing that the Magistrate was right in the course he adopted. But that case is not reported in the regular reports of the Bombay High Court: nor have we been able to find any report of it. The full facts with which the Bombay Court had to deal are not before us, and we are unable to say how far the Court may real...
Tag this Judgment!Peary Mohun Mookerjee Vs. Arfunnessa
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal379
Mitter, J.1. This was a suit for resumption of 7 bighas 15 chittacks of land held by the defendant under an alleged lakhiraj title. The plaintiff is the representative of an auction-purchaser, and the suit was commenced within twelve years from the date of auction-purchase. The plaintiff alleged that the land in suit appertained to the mal estate, and was held under the pretence of a lakhiraj title by withholding payment of mal rent only from a comparatively recent time. The defendant alleged that the lands in suit were valid lakhiraj. At first both the Courts below dismissed the plaintiff's suit, notwithstanding that they held that the onus of proof in such a case as this was upon the defendant. The lower Appellate Court, on an application of review having been made, has given to the plaintiff a decree for a portion of the land, holding that the defendant has failed to establish his case with reference to it. The defendant has preferred this special appeal against that decision.2. The...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. ZuhiruddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal220
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I am happy to say, that since last evening, some papers have been discovered, which will render any further discussion of this rule unnecessary.2. It appears, that in 1869, in a case which in its circumstances very closely resembled the present, it was decided by no less than nine Judges of this Court, that the proper course was to apply to the Court, sitting in its judicial capacity upon affidavits, in the usual way; and I am extremely glad to find that no less distinguished a Judge than Mr. Justice Louis Jackson, was one of the Judges who took part in that decision. This was the case of The Queen v. Pogose referred to by Mr. Woodroffe. An application in that case was made by Mr. Herschel, the Officiating Sessions Judge of Dacca, to the Registrar of this Court, suggesting that an order should be obtained for the transfer of the proceedings to the High Court for trial. I will read his letter, dated the 11th of June 1869.I have the honour to request that you will l...
Tag this Judgment!Nil Money Singh Deo Vs. Chunderkant Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal125
Glover, J.1. We cannot go behind the order of remand made by this Court on the 15th January 1874. The case was then sent back to the Assistant Commissioner 'to have it distinctly tried what is the nature of the defendant's tenure. On the finding on that issue will depend whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover in this suit on the notice which he has already served.'2. Both the lower Courts have now found that the defendant's tenure is a 'tullubi bromottur one,' held as such from the time of the perpetual settlement, and, therefore, such an intermediate tenure as entitles the holder to a notice under Section 51, Regulation VIII of 1793.* * *3. There is, undoubtedly, evidence on the record showing that, at the time of the decennial settlement, the defendant's holding was entered in the records as a tullubi bromuttur one paying a quit-rent of sicca Rs. 182-9, and that the Judicial Commissioner has found that this was the nature of the holding.4. In Rajah Nilmoney Singh v. Chun...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Upendronath Doss and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal357
Phear, J.1. This case now comes before us by reason of its having been removed to this Court from the Court of the Magistrate of Calcutta, Northern Division, by an order made under Section 147 of the High Courts' Criminal Procedure Act.2. The learned Standing Counsel, on behalf of the Crown, objected that the order had been irregularly made, because the Crown was not served with notice of the application for it, and was not given an opportunity of being heard upon that application. We are of opinion, however, that when, as in the present case, a conviction has been arrived at by the Magistrate, and the petitioner is actually suffering imprisonment there under, it is within the discretion of this Court to order for sufficient prima facie cause shown, on the application of the prisoner, that the case be removed, without notice to the Crown. We intimated our readiness to give time to the Standing Counsel, if he required it, for the purpose of this hearing, but he said he was quite prepare...
Tag this Judgment!Deen Doyal Lall Vs. Het NaraIn Sing and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal42
Kemp, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this case. He sued three sets of defendants to recover a sum of Rs. 8,088-8-6, due under a bond dated the 28th of Assin 1269 Fuslee, corresponding with the 17th of October 1861. The principal amount borrowed was Rs. 2,600, and interest is claimed from the 28th Assin 1269, the date of the bond, to the 28th Bysack 1281, date of suit, being twelve years and seven months, at the rate of Re. 1-8 per mensem, the total amount of interest claimed being Rs. 5,488-8-6. The bond was admitted by the principal defendants, the judgment-debtors. They were examined, and they also stated that, after the bond fell due, they were unable to pay it, and that they agreed to go on paying interest. The first defendants are the purchasers of a portion of the property which was mortgaged to the plaintiff as security for the sum advanced by him to the principal defendants. The Subordinate Judge has given the plaintiff a modified decree for a sum of Rs. 2,875-9-6 out o...
Tag this Judgment!Runglall Misser Vs. Tokhun Misser and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal114
Ainslie, J.1. The points which have been urged before us are, that, whereas Section 119 provides a definite limit of time, beyond which an application for a rehearing shall not be entertained by the Court, the order of the Judge admitting the application, and all the proceedings following thereon, have been done without sanction of law; and that in this appeal from the decree, the appellant has a right to question every order of the subordinate Courts leading up to the decree objected to.2. Section 119 of the Code of Civil Procedure says that, in all cases in which the Court shall pass an order under this section for setting aside a judgment, the order shall be final. But it is contended on the strength of a Full Bench judgment in Bhyrub Chunder Surma Chowdhry v. Madhubram Surmah 11 B.L.R. 423 that the word 'final' does not mean final absolutely, but final for the time; that the order by itself shall not be open to appeal; but that whenever the case is opened by an appeal from the decr...
Tag this Judgment!Shonatun Shaha Vs. Hurrymohun Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal276
L.S. Jackson, J.1. The question which we have been called upon to consider in this special appeal is whether the plaintiff has any right to maintain the present suit as the right heir, under the Hindu law, to the property which is claimed in this suit. That property was given to the deceased wife of the plaintiff after their marriage and during the continuance of the marriage state by the husband's father's sister's son. It is admitted that this property was the stridhan of the deceased wife, and that the plaintiff claims it as being preferable heir to such property on her decease. This was a matter objected to by the defendant in his written statement. The Munsif dismissed the suit upon other grounds, but did not go into this question. On appeal before the Subordinate Judge, he reversed the decision of the Munsif as regards the grounds on which it rested, and, having then to decide this question, he disposed of it in this wise.2. The learned Judge read the portion of the Subordinate J...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »