Kolkata Court January 1878 Judgments

In Re: in the Matter of the Empress Vs. Futteh Jya Khan and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal570

Birch, J.1. In this case the Sessions Judge of Burdwan has committed the petitioner before us to take his trial before the Court of Sessions on a charge of having given false evidence in a stage of a judicial proceeding,--viz., a trial held in the Court of Sessions under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge had himself held the preliminary enquiry, and committed the case to the Court of Sessions.2. We are asked to set aside this commitment as made in contravention of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. The Sessions Judge; in the explanations which he has submitted, states that, in his opinion, Section 471 empowers him to commit this case, and that that power is not limited or restricted by the provisions of the following Section (472).4. We think that the learned Judge has taken an erroneous view of the law, and that the interpretation he would put upon these sections cannot be supported.5. The offence with which Futteh Jya Khan is charged, is admitt...

Chunder Caunt Mookerjee Vs. Jodoonath Khan and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Richard Garth, C.J.1. As regards the last point urged upon us, which only affects the question of costs, we think that the tender of the Rs. 1,043-5 was made in such a way, that the plaintiffs could not accept the sum tendered without giving up the remainder of their claim.2. An offer of that kind to pay a portion of the dobt in discharge of the whole is not a legal tender of the part only; and this case, therefore, does not come within the principle of the authorities which have been cited to us by Mr. Bell.3. If the money had been tendered unconditionally, it might have been otherwise....

Bolye Chund Sing Vs. Moulard

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal572

Wilson, J.1. In deciding this case it seems to me important to see what questions are open and what not. With regard to a large part of the case there is no dispute. The plaint on one side, and the written statement on the other, concur in regard to a large portion of the matter out of which the suit arises. The written statement raises specific ground of defence. It alleges that money for the rent was tendered under certain circumstances stated in the written statement, and sets this out as a defence to the action. The matter came before Mr. Justice Pontifex for settlement of issues, and he raised certain specific issues, and decided certain other points.2. I do not say that, under certain circumstances, the Judge at the trial is precluded from allowing amendments, or from raising issues other than those settled. But what the Judge has decided at the settlement of issues by refusing to raise an issue, is a question which ought not to be re-opened by the Judge at the trial, and the Jud...

The Empress on the Prosecution of Michell Vs. Joggessur Mochi

Court: Kolkata

Ainslie, J.1. We think that the Sessions Judge might have disposed of this case under Section 419, Criminal Procedure Code without a reference to this Court.2. The words 'Court of appeal' in that section are not necessarily limited to a Court before which an appeal is at the moment pending. It may very often happen, as in this case, that the question of the propriety of an order under Section 418 for the disposal of any property produced before the Court may in no way concern the convicted person; and we think it unreasonable to put such a construction on Section 419 as shall make the power of the Judge to modify, alter on annul a Magistrate's order affecting one, contingent on the accident whether another person has or has not chosen to appeal.3. Section 286, by the words 'except in the cases provided for by this Act' must include cases in which the power to alter or annul the order of a Magistrate is expressly given.4. We are further of opinion that the case does not call for our int...

Gocool Chunder Chowdhry and anr. Vs. Koonj Behary Chowdhry and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal616

Kemp, J.1. This is an application, not as the Judge states for a certificate to collect debts due to the estate of Kalee Sundari Chowdrain, who had no interest beyond a life-interest, but it is an application for a certificate under Act XXVII of 1860, to collect debts due to the estate of the late Gournath Chowdhry. Now it is admitted that Gournath Chowdhry died in Aughran 1245, or some forty years ago. The application for a certificate on the part of the appellants before us is on the footing that they are the gyantees of Gournath Chowdhry, and there was a counter-application by two ladies, Tripura Sundari and Kheema Sundari, who allege that they are the widows of Gobind Chunder Chowdhry, the adopted son of Gournath Chowdhry, and that they represent the interest of his two minor sons as their guardians. The Judge has examined a large number of witnesses in this case. Their examination appears to have lasted over twelve days; it was then postponed for a considerable period and resumed ...

Hurropersaud Roy and anr. Vs. Shamapersaud Roy and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal654

R.P. Collier, J.1. The transaction out of which this suit arose occurred nearly half a century ago, and from it has flowed [6S5] a continuous stream of litigation, not in all respects creditable to the earlier tribunals of India down to the present day. A history of that litigation, given shortly and clearly, will lie found in a report, in the 8th volume of Mooro's Indian Appeals, of a judgment of this Committee, which was delivered on the occasion to be hereafter mentioned. Doorgapersaud Roy Chowdhry v. Tarapersaud Roy Chowdhry 8 Moo. I.A. 308 Their Lordships deem it enough to refer to that case without recapitulating the history, inasmuch as the facts necessary to the determination of the points now before them need no very lengthened statement.2. Two brothers, Doorgapersaud Chowdhry and Taraporsaud Chowdhry, of whom Doorga was the elder, entered into an agreement of compromise for the purpose of settling disputes then pending between them on the 4th of April 1829. That agreement of ...

Heera Lall Pramanick and ors. Vs. Barikunnissa Bibee

Court: Kolkata

Richard Garth, C.J.1. So far as the merits of tins case are concerned, we are not called upon hero to adjudicate upon them. The Munsif hay determined the rate of rent which is payable by the defendant, and the District Judge, in his judgment of the 14th February 1877, says, that as regards the Munsifs decision on remand, in which the merits of the case were discussed and settled, the appellant did not raise any question before him.2. The only point, therefore, which could be, or has in fact been, raised on special appeal in this Court is that of jurisdiction, which was determined in a former judgment of the Officiating Judge, dated the 13th of May 1876, in favour of the plaintiff. That judgment has been reversed by the learned Judge of this Court, and we have to consider the correctness of his judgment upon that point only.3. The question arises in this way. The plaintiffs, in the year 1862, brought a resumption suit against the defendant's mother (under whom the defendant claims) in r...

Prosunno Coomaree Debea and anr. Vs. Sheikh Rutton Bepary and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal696

Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case we are of opinion that the appeal should be decreed. (The learned Judge stated the facts of the case and continued.) So that we must take the established facts to be that the defendants, their father and grandfather, have been occupying this land for fifty or sixty years; that it has been used as a homestead, consisting of a house and fruit-trees; that there is no evidence as to the origin of the tenancy, nor (except as to the amount of rent) as to the tonus of it; and that it does not appear who built the house or planted the fruit-trees. The notice to quit has been proved, and no objection has been taken that any longer notice to quit was required by law.2. Upon these facts, the Munsif has decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.3. The Subordinate Judge has reversed that decision and has delivered a judgment which, in our opinion, is not only contrary to law, but which we cannot refrain from characterizing as being wilfully perverse and disrespectful to...

The Empress on the Prosecution of Ram Manikya Chakrobutty and ors. Vs. ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal540

Ainslie, J.1. We see no grounds for interfering. Section 453 of the Criminal Procedure Code modifies Section 452, which requires a separate charge and a separate trial for every distinct offence, by allowing three charges of three distinct offences of the same kind and committed within one year of each other to be tried at the same time; hut this does not mean that, if at one time or within one year a man commits fifty distinct offences of the same kind, he shall not in one day be prosecuted for more than throe such offences. This is clear from illustration (6), Section 454....

Hurro Soonderee Dossee Vs. Nilkunto Dey

Court: Kolkata

L.S. Jackson, J.1. The question which we have to determine in this case relates to the sufficiency or insufficiency of an attachment which the defendant, special appellant, had effected, and in respect of which he seeks to invalidate a mortgage set up by the plaintiff of certain rights which the other defendants, Nos. 1 and 2, had to receive in a specified amount from the Collector annually as compensation for their extinguished rights to certain lakhiraj land. The attachment was made under Section 237 of the repealed Code of Civil Procedure, and if that attachment was sufficient, then by Section 240 the mortgage made during the attachment was invalid, and the purchaser at the execution-sale would have acquired a right to receive such money free of any such mortgage. It is contended that it is an attachment duly made under Section 237, inasmuch as the property consisted of money in the hands of an officer of Government, which was or might become payable to the defendant or on his behal...