Kolkata Court November 1877 Judgments
The Empress Vs. Harai Mirdha and Umed Sardar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal190
Markby, J.1. The two prisoners, Harai and Umed, whose case is now before us under Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code, were put upon their trial before the Sessions Court on a charge 'that being members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, they had committed murder.' This was a charge under Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also charged 'that being members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, they had voluntarily caused grievous hurt.' This was under Sections 326 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Other prisoners were likewise charged at the same time, and the verdict of the jury as regards these two prisoners was a verdict of acquittal upon both these charges; but in answer to a question put to them by the Sessions Judge, they stated that the two prisoners, Harai and Umed, were in the company of two of the other prisoners, whom they found guilty on the second of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Gungapersad and ors. Vs. Gogun Sing
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal323
L.S. Jackson, J.1. The question that arises in this special appeal is whether the lower Appellate Court is right in reversing the decree of the Court below, and apparently dismissing the suit on the ground of the reception of a document called dowl fehrist, which, in the opinion of the lower Appellate Court, was inadmissible, because it was not registered and not stamped. It is not discoverable from the judgment of the Munsif that any objection had been taken to the dowl in the Court of first instance on that ground. The contest before him appears to have been whether the dowl was genuine or not,--that is to say, whether it recorded facts which were actually true. But the Judge holds that it was nothing more or less than the record of the new rates of rent, and that the signatures of the ryots were taken to it in testimony of their agreement to cultivate the lands at the rate mentioned. It specified seven years as the period for which these holdings were to continue, and should therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Kashishwary Deby and ors. Vs. Gogon Manjy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal498
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that this appeal should he allowed. The judgments of the Subordinate Judge, and that of Mr. Justice White, appear to us to he directly opposed to the ruling of the Full Bench in the case of Golam Mohamad v. A smut All Khan 10 W.R. F.B. 14.2. The grounds upon which that case proceeded, as we understand them, are these; that in order to entitle a landlord to sue a tenant for a kabuliat at a certain rout, he should either have tendered to the tenant a pottah at the rate of rent mentioned in the kabuliat, or ho should be willing to grant a pottah at that rate; and when be brings a suit against his tenant for a kabuliat at a certain rent, it must be presumed that ho is ready to grant a pottah at that rate. That presumption would enable him to succeed in his suit, if the Court considers that the rent which he claims is the correct amount. But if the Court thinks that lie is not entitled to a kabuliat at the rate claimed, but at a lower rate, then it is plain th...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Lotta Vs. Sreedhone Borooa and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal772
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the District Judge has made a mistake in this case, which the learned Judge in this Court has not thought fit to rectify.2. The District Judge appears to have considered, for some reason or other, that it was not competent for the Civil Court to question the validity of the proceedings of the Collector.3. The question arose in this way-The plaintiff claimed rent from the defendant by virtue of a patni which had been granted to her by Doorga Mohun, and under which Doorga Mohun's rights as the defendant's landlord had been conveyed to him (the plaintiff).4. The defendant's case was, that the patni was invalid, because Doorga Mohun had no right to grant it.5. Now, prima facie, Doorga Mohun had of course a right by law to grant the patni. But the defendants alleged, that certain proceedings had been taken by the Collector, the legal effect of which was to prevent Doorga Mohun from transferring his interest in the tenure; which proceedings consisted of a ...
Tag this Judgment!Sham Chand Giree Vs. Madhub Chunder Giree
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal244
Markby, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover possession of certain property under Section 15, Act XIV of 1859 q.v. supra Cal. p. 245. The District Judge gave the plaintiff a decree. The defendant then applied to this Court to set aside that decree under the powers of general superintendence conferred upon it by Section 15 of 24 and 25 Vict., c. 104. Upon that application a rule was issued, calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the decision of the District Judge should not be set aside, upon the ground that the defendant was entitled to have a decision upon the question whether or no possession of the plaintiff was in law the possession of the defendant, and whether that being so, the plaintiff was estopped from setting up an adverse title.2. I am certainly not prepared to say that I agree altogether with the view of the law taken by the District Judge. It would seem to go to the length of laying down that a mere agent, who was put into possession of property by his em...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Kishore Roy Vs. Dhununjoy Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal228
Richard Garth, C.J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal, that as the present appellant, who was the respondent in the Court below, did not then appear, he is not entitled to be heard in this Court; and Section 119 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been relied upon as an authority for that position. No case showing that Section 119 applies to such a case as the present has been cited; and looking at the language of the section, it appears to us to apply only to the case of a defendant who does not appear in the Court of first instance, and not to that of a respondent who does not appear in a lower Court of appeal. Moreover we find, that a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, in the case of Ramshet v. Balkrishna 6 Bom. H.C. Rep. A.C. 161, has decided, that a special appeal lies where the respondent did not appear in the first appellate Court, and that Section 119 does not apply to such a case; and we also find, that in two cases before this Court--one ...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Shere Bahadur Singh Vs. ThakuraIn Dariao Kuar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal645
R.P. Collier, J.1. This case has not boon tried in a manner altogether satisfactory. Without, however, referring to the previous proceedings, their Lordships think it enough to advert to the final judgment appealed against. The learned Commissioner gave his judgment in these terms: 'Basant Singh died during the Rebellion of 1857, and the alleged adoption of the plaintiff is said to have taken place in April 1858. Before this the general confiscation of the land of Oudh had been declared by the British Government, and it was only in May 1858 that a summary settlement was made with the defendant. At the time, therefore, of the alleged adoption, the title to the estate vested neither in the deceased Basant Singh nor in the plaintiff, nor in the defendant, but in the British Government. Even if it be allowed that there was adoption of plaintiff', and that this, in accordance with Hindu law, conferred upon him all the right of a posthumous son of Basant Singh, still neither he nor Basant Si...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›