Kolkata Court April 1878 Judgments
SufferuddIn Vs. Ibrahim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal755
Prinsep, J.1. In addition to the reasons stated by the Sessions Judge, we are of opinion that it was not competent to a Bench of Magistrates to deal with a case under Section 530. A Bench may be empowered under Section 50 'to try such cases or such classes of cases only and within such limits as the Government may direct.' The definition of the term 'trial' shows that it refers only to trials for offences, and not to miscellaneous matters such as those coming within Section 530. So that in this view of the law also the order passed was illegal: it is accordingly set aside....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chumman Shah and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal756
Prinsep, J.1. It was unnecessary for the Magistrate to record any 'confession' of Chumman Shah, since he was competent on the admission of Chumman to sentence him without any further record (Section 324, Code of Criminal Procedure).[1][1] Section 324: If an accused person admits the commissin ofAccused may be convict- an offence before a Court competent to try him for such offence,ed on his own plea. such Court may convict him on his own admission....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Troylokhanath Biswas and Ram Churn Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal742
Markby, J.1. The short facts of the case, so far as it is necessary to state them for the purpose of disposing of the present rule, are, that, on the 10th June last, a man named Ramgotti Biswas was found lying dead at no great distance from the factory of Lokenathpur. Under the circumstances in which he was found, I think that there was no possibility of doubt, or at any rate there was very good reason to suppose, that the man had either committed suicide or had been murdered. It was therefore a proper case for the institution of an inquiry under Section 135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and accordingly, as we must take it now, the Magistrate of the division proceeded to hold this inquiry. Those proceedings lasted a considerable time, and ultimately they were communicated to the Magistrate of the district. The final conclusion to which the Magistrate who held this inquiry came was, that the man had committed suicide, and that he had purposely committed suicide under such circumsta...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rushton (Deceased)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal736
Richard Garth, C.J.1. It appears tome that Mr. Belchambers is perfectly right, and that the value of the property must be the value at the present time, less the capitalized value of the annuity....
Tag this Judgment!The New Beerbhoom Coal Co. Vs. Buloram Mahata and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1878
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal175
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This is a suit for specific performance of an agreement to grant a mining lease of some waste lands in the district of Raneegunge. The plaintiff's are a coal mining company, who purchased from a Mr. James Erskine, in the year 1861, his interest in a lease, which he had taken from the original defendants in this suit, or their predecessors in title, of certain waste lands for mining purposes. That instrument was dated the 13th of September 1858. It professed to be a heritable patta of 51 bigas of waste bromottur land, in Mouza Mohatadihi, for quarrying coal, for garden, for orchard, for road-making, and other uses, at a rent of Rs. 25-8, and a suitable bonus. Mr. Erskine was to quarry coal, erect buildings, and carry on his factory, which he was to build according to any plan he thought best. Then follow these words, upon which the plaintiffs' present claim is founded:Within that aforesaid mouza we will not give a patta to any other factory person,--that is to say,...
Tag this Judgment!Hurro Lall Sircar and ors. Vs. Mohima Chunder Dey Sircar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal769
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that there is no sufficient ground in this case for adopting the judgment of the Munsif to the exclusion altogether of that of the Subordinate Judge.2. Assuming that the latter has committed an error of law, it appears to us to amount to this, that he has failed to attribute proper weight to the potta which has been produced by the plaintiff's; and that neither he, nor the Munsif, has dealt quite properly with the plea of limitation.3. These errors, we think, would only afford a ground for remanding the case to the lower Court for reconsideration; and we, therefore, propose to take that course, with the following remarks:4. The question of limitation, as it seems to us, has not been sufficiently distinguished in either of the lower Courts from the question of title. In some cases, as for instance where grants or leases have been made of waste or jungle lands, and the right to those lands is disputed, it is often impossible to give evidence of acts of owne...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Empress Vs. Sahae Rae
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal623
Markby, J.1. The facts of this case do not appear to be susceptible of any doubt. The prisoner was employer of a man, named Behary, his wife Chetya, and his sister Foolcoomaree. Some disagreement appears to have arisen as to the payment of the wages due to this family. In the morning in question the prisoner went to the house of Behary, and called Chetya, the wife of Bohary, and Foolcoomaree his sister, to execute some work on his behalf. They refused and made use of language which, no doubt, was disrespectful. Therefore, the prisoner, with the shoes which he was wearing, commenced striking Chetya about the head and shoulders. Chetya had at that time a child of a few months old in her arms, the head of the child, as she describes it, being either upon or close to her shoulder. One of the blows delivered by the prisoner fell upon the child's head, and, as was almost certain to happen, the child died in consequence.2. The prisoner was charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murde...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Gangadhur Bhunjo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal622
Prinsep, J.1. These cases have been submitted to us by the Sessions Judge of Midnapore, because sentences of fine have been imposed by the Magistrate of the Division of Contai for breaches of the stamp law contrary to the rule laid down in the case of the Queen v. Nadi Chanel Poddar 24 W.R. Cr. Rul. 1.2. It appears that the Collector authorized this officer, under Section 43 of the Stamp Act, to institute and conduct the prosecution in these cases. Under these circumstances we think that he was not competent also to try them. Any possible inconvenience might have been obviated by the Collector's employing the Government pleader or some other person to conduct the prosecution under Section 43. We quash the convictions and sentences, and direct that the fines, if paid, be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Petambar Baboo and anr. Vs. Nilmony Singh Deo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal794
Jackson, J.1. It appears to us that the decision of the Court below on the issue of limitation is erroneous. It appears that in July 1865 a suit was brought by a person, who was then talookdar, against the defendants for arrears of rent, and in the plaint in that suit it was recited that previously this talookdar had sued the zemindar for a reduction of the talook rent on the ground that the present defendants had alleged their rent to be mokurrari, Rs. 132, whereas the talook rent had been assessed on the allegation of the zemindar that the rent was higher. That is the account given in the judgment of the Court below, and we understand what took place was this. The previous talookdar there spoken of had, in the first instance, sued these defendants for rent at a rate higher than Rs. 132, and these defendants had then made out their right to hold the mokurrari at Rs. 132, and no more; thereupon the talookdar, being defeated, sued the superior landlord upon the ground that the defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoobun Mohini Debia and anr. Vs. Hurrish Chunder Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-13-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal23
R.P. Collier, J.1. The facts which give rise to the questions of law into which this case resolves itself are as follows: 2. Shumbhu Chunder Surmana, in 1819, granted a talook to his sister, Kasiswari Debia, by a sanad in the following words:Shumbhu Chunder Surmana. Sanad executed to the worthy to be remembered Kasiswari Debia, of good conduct, in the year 1226, B.S.: You are my sister: I accordingly grant you as a talook for your support the three dehas (villages), Hurripur, Futehpur, and Kudumtoli, in Chukla Jonardunpore in my zamindary, Parganna Mymensing, at a tahut jamma of (Rs. 361) three hundred and sixty one rupees with the land and water, and trees, &c.;, comprised within the four boundaries, [and] all [rights] appertaining to the said mouzas. Being in possession of the lands and paying rent according to the tahut jamma, do you and the generations born of your womb successively (santan sreni krame) enjoy the same. No other heir of yours shall have right or interest. To this ef...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »