Kolkata Court May 1877 Judgments
Kadumbinee Dossee Vs. Koylash Kaminee Dossee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal431
Kennedy, J.1. I cannot add the minor as a party plaintiff, and I think I must dismiss the suit, for it appears to me that the plaintiff has no interest in the land and no right to maintain this proceeding. These are two reasons why the minor should not be joined as a party plaintiff: first, because if he were made a party at this stage of the proceedings when several witnesses have already been examined, he would be bound by evidence given in his absence; and secondly, because his being made a party would, probably, expose him to an adverse decision which would be clearly binding on him; and I even think he would be incapacitated from hereafter seeking to disallow the plaintiff's costs of the suit from being paid out of his estate in administration. These costs would then be costs in a cause to which he would be a party, and specially made a party by order of Court. When I first heard of the existence of a son of Nundolal it occurred to me, on general principles, that the suit could no...
Tag this Judgment!Roychurn Dutt Vs. Ameena Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal386
Macpherson, J.1. The Court was of opinion that the Sheriff' was entitled to poundage upon the sum actually compromised for, and granted the application subject to such payment of poundage to the Sheriff. The Sheriff' to have the costs of the application....
Tag this Judgment!Januk Singh Vs. BheknaraIn Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal439
White, J.1. It is to be observed that the present suit is not one in which a son is seeking to set aside a sale of ancestral property made by his father or to recover from a purchaser ancestral property which has been sold in execution of a decree against the father; but a suit in which a creditor, in whose favour a father has created a charge upon the ancestral immoveable estate, is endeavouring to enforce that charge against the share or interest of the sons in that ancestral estate, where the latter were no parties to the charge, and were also minors at the time of its creation. Such being the nature of the present suit, the proposition of law laid down by the officiating Judge amounts to this, that when a creditor brings such a suit, he is entitled to a decree against the sons upon simply proving the loan and the instrument of charge, and that his right to a decree can only be defeated, in the event of the sons showing that the money was advanced for an immoral purpose. In other wo...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Halodhur Poroe and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal383
Markby, J.1. I think we must hold that this is not a case under Section 277 of the Indian Penal Code. The water which is said to have been fouled was certainly not the water of a reservoir, nor, in my opinion, was it the water of a 'public spring.' The judgment of the Magistrate shows that it was the water of the river Nobogunga. I do not think by the use of the words 'the water of any public spring' the Legislature intended to include the water of a river. On that ground we quash the order and direct the fine, it paid, to be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Charu Nayiah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal355
Markby, J.1. We agree with the Sessions Judge in thinking that the prisoner was wrongly committed. It was proved that the prisoner fished in a public river at a place where the prosecutor had the exclusive right of fishery. The Deputy Magistrate held that this constituted criminal trespass; but we do not think so. The law provides that whosoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with a certain intent, is guilty of criminal trespass. But though a fishery is property, we do not think that a man who fishes in a public river enters upon property in the possession of another, though he may have no right to fish there. The river upon which the prisoner entered being a public one was not in the exclusive possession of any one, and a right of fishery is not property of such a nature as that a man who unlawfully infringes that right can be said to enter upon property in the possession of another within the meaning of the section....
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Joy Hari Kor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal356
Markby, J.1. We think that we ought not to make the order asked for, because, even if the case were transferred to the Magistrate to Dacca, we do not think he would have power to release the lunatic upon taking security. The authority of the Magistrate appears to us to cease when the lunatic is handed over to the care of the local Government, and it does not revive until the prisoner is sent back to the Magistrate under Section 432 on a certificate that he is capable of making his defence. The Deputy Commissioner can, if he thinks proper, bring the matter to the Government....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bittan (an Infant)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal357
Macpherson, J.1. There being no suit, has the Court power to make such and order? It is submitted it has. The power which the Court has under the Charter of 1865, Section 16, is the power which the Superme Court had. That Court had the power of the Court of Chancery in such matters; see Simpson on Ifants 223; Daniell's Chancery practice, 1189 and 1190. It appears from these authorities that the Court of Chancery has power to appoint a guardin on pertition without suit. The rules of the Supreme Court on the matter refer to petitions generally without any reference to any suit; see Smoult and Ryan's Equity Rules, 170, [Macpherson, J.-The question is what was the practice of the Supreme Court at the time the High Court was instituted.] see matter of Ann Butler (Morton's Dec., 262), and Ex parte Lokecaunt Mullick (Morley's Dig., Vol II, 42).2. The Court mentions that the order should be to refer if to the Judge in Chambers to enquire whether the petitioners, or any other person to be named...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bungseedhur Khettry, an Insolvent Claim of Ramlall Budree Doss
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal359
Macpherson, J.1. On these affidavits I find the facts to be, that, about 10 P.M., on the 20th of December, the firm of Ramlall Budree Doss, merchants in the Burra Bazar, promised at once to give Rs. 5,000 to the insolvent if lie would next morning deliver to them goods to that amount, and would in the meantime satisfy them that he had sufficient goods in his godown and would allow them (Ramlall Budree Doss) to put their lock on the door of the godown so as to secure the goods therein until they had received the value of their Rs. 5,000. Thereupon the insolvent took the gomasta of Ramlall Budree Doss to his godown, lot him see that it contained goods worth more than Rs. 5,000, and allowed him to put his master's lock on the door, while the insolvent, at the same time, replaced his own locks.2. The gomasta and the insolvent then returned to Ramlall Budree Doss' kothi, where Rs. 5,000 were at once paid to the insolvent, who promised to deliver in the morning Bs. 5,000 worth of goods out o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›