Kolkata Court November 1878 Judgments
Nazir Khan Vs. Proladh Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal660
Jackson, Offg. C.J.1. This case is not on all fours with the one referred to by the Sessions Judge.2. In that case a Division Bench of this Court, finding no independent evidence on the record that the house which was entered and searched was a gaming-house within the meaning of the Act, held, that it could not be presumed to be so under Section 6 of the Act, because that presumption only arises when the proceedings are authorized by the preceding section, which, for the reasons stated in the judgment, was held not to be the case.3. In the case under reference there is the direct evidence of the witness Hurri Krishna Gosswami to show that the house of Kangali Dhoni was a gaming-house. Therefore, although the action of the Police may have been illegal, this would not exculpate the accused, or prevent the Magistrate convicting them on other independent evidence.4. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the order of the Deputy Magistrate....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Matter of the Petition of Mackenzie Vs. Shere Bahdoor Sahi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal378
Jackson, J.1. We think it clear that the order of the Magistrate is erroneous. He seems to be under the impression that the effect of the butwara proceedings and the orders therein is to oust the tenants previously holding under parties either in joint possession or holding separately by consent. That clearly is not so. The injustice would be monstrous if it were so.2. The possession given by the butwara ameen to Shere Bahdoor in this case was possession as owner, not possession as occupier. The Magistrate's order, therefore, must be set aside. The Magistrate will enquire into the fact of actual possession by the complainant, Mr. Jackson's client, and if he be found to be in actual possession will maintain him in it....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: in the Goods of J. White
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal582
Pontifex, J.1. Granted the order....
Tag this Judgment!Hurrodurga ChowdhraIn Vs. Sharrat Soondery Dabea
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal674
Morris, J.1. A cross-appeal has been preferred by the decree-holder. It is to the effect that the lower Court has acted upon a wrong principle in assessing the mesne profits; that it has simply added together the totals of the rents which the ameen has found to have been paid in each year to the judgment-debtor by the ryots, and not taken into account the loss which the judgment-creditor has sustained during the long period of dispossession. In support of his argument he refers to the judgments of this Court, to be found in the cases of Protap Chunder Borooah v. Ranee Surno Moyee (14 W.R., 151); Sokhee Monee Debia v. Brijoraj Mookerjee (17 W.R., 228); and Chowdhry Waheed Ali v. Mussamut Jumaye (19 W.R., 87)--the effect of which is that not merely the bare rental of each year, less the collection charges, is to be ascertained, but the actual loss which the party ousted has sustained by not having the use of his money during the period that he is kept out of possession.2. The reply made ...
Tag this Judgment!Monmohini Dassi Vs. Eshan Chunder Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal683
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff in this case seeks to recover possession of a share in a certain taluk, and to establish her right of worshipping two idols mentioned in the plaint. The taluk and the right of worshipping the idols are claimed by the plaintiff as heir of her husband. As regards one of the idols she claims the right of exclusive worship, and as regards the other, only during one-sixth of the year.2. The defendants pleaded limitation to the whole claim, and, upon the merits, alleged that under a will executed by her husband, the plaintiff by her conduct has forfeited her rights.3. The Court of first instance overruling both these objections decreed the claim in full. On appeal the District Judge has upheld the judgment, except as regards the idol Shalgram Deo, the idol which the plaintiff claimed to worship exclusively.4. The defendants have preferred this appeal, and contend that the lower Courts have misconstrued the terms of the will, and that the plaintiff's claim regarding...
Tag this Judgment!Alukmonee Dabee Vs. Banee Madhub Chuckerbutty and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal677
White J.1. Several questions have been raised by the appellant in this case, but, for the purposes of this appeal, it is only necessary to express our opinion on one of them, which is whether Kali Kumar Chuckerbutty, as the purchaser under a sale in execution of a decree to which I shall presently refer, acquired the interest of Dinobundhu Roy and Bepin Roy, the minor sons and heirs of one Anundmohun Roy, their deceased father, in the three-anna twelve anna share of the jalkar mehal, which is the subject of the suit; for, if the respondents did not acquire their interest, we think that the present suit must fail, notwithstanding that all the other questions raised by the appellant are determined in favour of the respondents. (After stating the facts of the case as above, and finding that the respondent had all along been in actual possession, and that neither Kali Kumar nor his representative had taken any proceedings to obtain actual possession from the Court in charge of the executio...
Tag this Judgment!Aunath Nath Deb Vs. Bishtu Chunder Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal783
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The point upon which in our opinion this case should be decided is rather of a peculiar nature.2. The plaintiff is the zamindar of a share in a property called Lat Sahalampore, and he also claims to be the darpatnidar of a portion of the same property.3. In his character of darpatnidar he brings this suit against the defendant No. 1, as ijaradar under him of part of the estate, for rent and for road-cess. The defendant resists the claim upon the ground that Paresh Nath, the defendant No. 2, is the real owner of the darpatni; and the defendant No. 2 has intervened for the purpose of supporting his title to the rent as against the plaintiff.4. It appears that some time ago, in the year 1259 (1852), one Isur Chunder purchased, and was the undoubted owner of, this darpatni estate.5. In the year 1265 (1858), Isur Chunder, being in difficulties, sold, or professed to sell, the darpatni to his wife Kripomoye and his son Dhankristo; and thereupon the names of Kripomoye an...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: C.M. Hunter; in Re: Xxviii Act of 1866
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal420
White, J.1. The Administrator-General of Bengal, who is the executor of the will of Charles Marley Hunter, applies, under Section 43 of Act XXVIII of 1866, for the opinion and direction of the Court touching the following bequest contained in the will:I bequeath to my daughter, Anne Margaret Hunter, on her attaining her 18th year, the sum of Co.'s rupees 10,000, with any interest that may have accrued thereon, if she marries, to be settled upon herself and children solely, should she die unmarried, her money to be equally divided between her brothers; and if either of them die, the whole of deceased's money to go to the survivor.2. The daughter was a minor at the date of the will and also of the testator's death. She is now about 24 years old, and unmarried. She claims to be entitled to the legacy absolutely, and to have the same, both principal and arrears of interest paid into her own hands by the Administrator-General.3. If I may read the bequest, affixing to the words employed thei...
Tag this Judgment!Mujeedunnissa Vs. Dildar HosseIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal629
Ainslie, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is one under the Limitation Act of 1871. A decree for possession of certain property and mesne profits was made on the 31st of January 1860. Execution was taken out in 1863, and possession was obtained, and a portion of the interest realized on the 6th March of that year. On the 3rd of March 1866, the judgment-creditor made a further application to the Court to determine the amount due to him as mesne profits, the question having been reserved under Section 197 in the original decree. An enquiry having been held, the judgment-debtor raised objections to the assessment proposed by the Ameen. Those objections were eventually disposed of by the first Court on the 29th of June 1869, and the order of that Court was confirmed on appeal on the 31st of August 1871. On the 25th of August 1874, the judgment-creditor applied to the Court to realize the amount due to him as mesne profits, and thereupon it was objected that this application was out o...
Tag this Judgment!Shoshi Mohun Pal Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Nobo Kristo Poddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-16-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal801
Mitter, J.1. In this special appeal it has been urged that upon the facts found, the ownership of the property, and consequently the risk passed to the defendants; that consequently, even if there was any breach of the warranty, the defendants could not rescind the sale under the contract law; that the defendants are, therefore, liable. An objection has also been taken to the finding of the lower Appellate Court, that it is not clear. It has been said that the District Judge having held that the sale was by sample, should have determined whether the quality of the rice in golah No. 4 was equal to that of the sample; instead of determining that question, he holds that the defendants brought only 'Chaitro Panchi Padi' of good quality, and the rice was not of that description.2. As regards this last contention, I do not think there is any force in it. What the District Judge holds is, that although the sale was by sample, yet having regard to the contract price and the prices of rice ruli...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »