Kolkata Court May 1878 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Roy Lutchmeeput Singh Vs. Assamathem Nessa Bibee, Widow of Meer Asruff ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal142
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I am of opinion that the property in question did not pass to the defendant under the sales made by the Sheriff.2. It may be, that if the suit instituted by the Land Mortgage Bank on the 10th of May 1872 had been brought in proper form, and if the proceedings in that suit had been conducted to a conclusion in the regular course of law, the decree might have been binding upon Suddurunnessa, and this property might legally have been sold under that decree; but in point of fact, the suit was brought advisedly against certain other persons as the representatives of Buzloor Rohim, expressly excluding the name of Fatimatunnessa, upon the ground that she had sold her share of the deceased's property to her daughter Surfunnessa; and omitting all mention of Suddurunnessa and her share, although the plaintiff in the suit knew perfectly well that she was entitled to a share, and they had reason to believe that she was alive at Medina. A decree was then passed in that suit, n...
Jungle Singh Vs. Khoob Lall and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal788
McDonell, J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover 994 rupees 5 annas 9 pie principal, with interest, under a teep executed by the defendants. Both the lower Courts have decreed the plaintiff's claim. In special appeal it is urged that the Courts below should have held that the teep on which the plaintiff relies is a promissory note and being insufficiently stamped as such is inadmissible in evidence.2. On the appeal being taken up a preliminary objection was raised that no appeal lies in this case, inasmuch as where a document is admitted by the first Court as not requiring a stamp, its inadmissibility cannot be questioned in appeal. Various rulings of these Courts have been cited in support of this objection; and it appears to us that the ruling in Enayetoolah v. Shaik Meajan 16 W.R. 6 is on all fours with the present case. Therefore, following that ruling, we hold that the preliminary objection must prevail.3. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Kaliprosad Rai Vs. Meher Chandro Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal222
Ainslie, J.1. The question raised by this application is whether, in 1876, Section 12, Act VIII of 1859, applied to the Sonthal Pargannas in respect of suits in which the subject of dispute exceeds Rs. 1,000 in value.2. The petitioner instituted a suit valued at Rs. 6,197-9 on a mortgage bond, by which certain properties lying partly within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Moorshedabad and partly within that of the Court at Dumka in the Sonthal Pargannas were pledged, and sought to get a decree specially declaring the liability of those properties in respect of the debt covered by the bond. This suit was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Moorshedabad who made a reference to obtain sanction from the High Court under Section 12, Act VIII of 1859, to his proceeding with the suit.3. On the 17th April 1877 an order was made by a Judge of this Court, before whom, in the ordinary course of business, such references were laid, declining to give the authority sought, on ...
Soonder NaraIn Vs. Bennud Ram and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal76
Jackson, J.1. The specific ground on which the special appellant impugns the conveyance which has been upheld by the lower Appellate Court is that the guardian who conveyed the property on behalf of his minor son was not a guardian appointed under Act XL of 1858; and it is contended that no guardian acting as what is called in this judgment a natural guardian can exercise higher powers than a guardian appointed under the law; that is to say, the power of a natural guardian is limited to granting leases for a period not exceeding five years, and such guardian must apply to the Court for sanction even in cases of legal necessity. I am not aware of any sanction of the law for that contention (see, however, Abhassi Begum v. Maharanee Rajroop Koonwar ante (p. 33). There is no doubt a decision by one. of the learned Judges of this Court, sitting alone in the trial of a special appeal below Rs. 50, in which that opinion has been expressed; but with every respect for the opinion of the learned...
Kanye Lall Ruj and anr. Vs. Kangal Chandra Ruj
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal69
L.S. Jackson, J.1. The plaintiff's sued in this case to recover possession of land which they claimed under two distinct titles--one being a title by sale and the other under a lease or usufructuary mortgage. The Court of first instance (Munsif) gave judgment for the plaintiffs for the whole of the lands claimed.2. On appeal, the Judge held that the title under the deed of sale was satisfactorily made out, but that the evidence of the usufructuary mortgage altogether failed. So he cut down the decree and allowed the plaintiffs only to recover the land which fell under the deed of sale. When the officer of the Court came to draw out the decree, he found no means of ascertaining what the lands wore that were covered by the decree, and consequently he was unable to specify the boundaries of the land of which the plaintiffs were to recover possession, and the decree accordingly provided that this should be ascertained in execution. Now, decrees of Appellate Courts, as well as decrees of Or...
The Empress Vs. Mohim Chunder Rai and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal765
Maclean, J.1. The appellants have been convicted by the Sessions Court of the 24-Pargannas of an offence under the Registration Act, VIII of 1871, and as the trial was held with a jury, the petition of appeal filed on 13th April was directed to show certain errors of law, such as defects in the Judge's charge to the jury. By a subsequent petition of 17th April, the prisoners claim to be heard against the conviction on questions of fact as well as law, as the offence of which they have been convicted is not one of those to which trial by jury has been made applicable by the Government notification of January 1862 (Calcutta Gazette, 8th January 1862, p. 87).2. It has been contended before us by the Government Pleader that the Sessions Judge was competent to try the prisoners with a jury notwithstanding that the offence charged is not included in the Government notification referred to, and therefore the prisoners are not entitled to appeal against their conviction except upon matter of l...
Purran Chunder Ghose Vs. Mutty Lall Ghose Jahira
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal50
Markby, J.1. This is a suit for arrears of rent under Beng. Act VIII of 1869. It has been dismissed by the Court of first instance as barred by limitation; and plaintiff's appeal having been dismissed, he has brought the matter before us in special appeal,2. Section 29 of the present Rent Law declares that 'suits for the recovery of arrears of rent shall be instituted within three years' from certain specified dates; and, like Act X of 1859, which it has replaced, contains no provisions for relaxing that term, such as are contained in the general law of limitation.3. On the last day allowed for filing the plaint in the suit now before us the Courts were closed, because it was a close holiday; and the plaint was presented on the next and first open day. Now, under the general law of limitation (Act IX of 1871), this would be allowed, as special provision is made for such a contingency; but the matter for consideration is whether that law applies to suits under the Rent Law, and whether ...
Nittyanund Nundy and ors. Vs. Joykisto Cowar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal738
Richard Garth, C.J.1. It appears that Anundo Chunder Cowar, the Lather of the appellant, who is an infant, died on the 19th March 1871. Anundo Chunder, up to the times of his death, carried on business as a trader, and had dealings with the plaintiffs' firm. He died leaving him surviving the appellant and his elder brother Nobokisto, both then infants under the age of 16 years, and two widows. The sons and widows, after Anundo's death, lived as members of a joint Hindu family. The ancestral trade was carried on under the management of the widows.2. The widows being purdanasheen women could not take the management of the ancestral trade directly into their own hands, but employed their son-in-law, one Harradhone, for that purpose; and it was under the direct supervision and management of Harradhone that the business was carried on. It is also proved that the appellant's elder brother Nobokisto, after he came of age, took part in the management with his brother-in-law Harradhone.3. Durin...
Prosunno Coomar Sircar and ors. Vs. Ram Coomar Parooey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal53
Markby, J.1. With regard to Special Appeal No. 868, which has just been argued, no doubt it raises a question of very considerable importance, and one which-perhaps, at any rate on this side of India (see Baban Mayacha v. Nagu Shravucha, I.L.R., 2 Bom., 19), has not yet been finally decided. Therefore, i f we had finally to give our opinion upon that question, we should hesitate in doing so when the matter has not been fully argued; but it is not necessary to decide finally in this case what the rights of the parties are in a tidal navigable rive. That any private right of fishery, such as is claimed here, must be derived from the Crown, if it exists at all, is, I think, a matter which is beyond dispute; and I think it also beyond dispute that any such right as this must he established by very clear evidence indeed, and that the presumption would be against any such private right. There is a still further doubt whether such a right as this can be created. The order of' the Board of Rev...
Baneshur Vs. Nilmoney Singh Deo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal91
L.S. Jackson, J.1. The special appeal before us is one of three arising out of three suits brought by different persons, who all allege themselves to be sons of the Rajah of Punchookootee, born of women of low condition, but not dasis or recognised handmaids, who are referred to in the evidence regarding a certain custom to which I shall presently refer. The plaintiff claimed to receive from the defendant Rajah allowance and arrears thereof at the rate of eight annas per day.2. The Rajah defendant, in his written statement, set out that he was a Khetrya by caste; that the mother of the plaintiff (admitting apparently the fact of paternity) was a woman of the Lohar caste, and that consequently plaintiff had no claim to maintenance at his hands; and he then averred that there was a custom in family of that Raj to the effect that when the Rajahs marry, and certain dasis or handmaids come into their family with the bride, if it should so happen that such dasis become pregnant and bear chil...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »