Kolkata Court June 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.
In Re: Anonymous
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal767
Richard Garth, C.J.1. Upon the question addressed to this Court by the Board of Revenue of the North-Western Provinces on the 29th of March last, we are of opinion that if a pleader is authorized by the vakalatnama under which he acts to receive monies or documents for his client in the course of the cause, which he is empowered to conduct, or as a consequence of the decree or any order of the Court in such cause, a Court of Justice might legally and with propriety direct a public officer to pay money or make over valuable documents to the pleader, provided that such money or documents have become receivable by the client in the ordinary course of the suit, or in consequence of the order or decree.2. The receipt of money or documents under such circumstances is one of those ordinary duties which pleaders are continually called upon to perform for their clients, and a vakalatnama properly framed generally contains a power to perform such duties.3. If, therefore, the Legislature had inte...
Mohesh Chunder Banerjee and ors. Vs. Ram Pursono Chowdry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal539
Jackson, J.1. The plaintiffs have brought the present suit to recover from the defendants Nos. 1 to 40, to whom were afterwards added certain persons passing under the name of Gisborne and Co., the sum of Rs. 6,901, due under two distinct accounts. The first part, or the sum of Rs. 1,200, is made up of the principal duo upon a bond, dated 11th Aughran 1281 (26th November 1874, viz., Rs. 645, and interest of a like amount due upon the same bond. The rest of the claim consisted of two amounts deposited in the Collectorate, respectively on the 13th May and 16th November 1875, to stay the sale of a patni taluk of which the bond previously mentioned purported to give the plaintiff a mortgage, and the interest upon those two payments. The bond, out of which the rest of his claim directly or indirectly arose, appears to have been executed by the defendants 1 and 17. These two persons are said to be the direct descendants or representatives of the persons originally registered in the zamindar'...
Abdool Bari Vs. Ramdass Coondoo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal607
Jackson, J.1. The object of the present suit was to recover from the defendant certain land which he (defendant) was holding within the taluk purchased by the plaintiff at a revenue-sale on the 29th March 1863. As the case comes before us in special appeal, the defendant claims the benefit of Section 53 of Act XI of 1859, it having been found that the defendant is a non-resident cultivating ryot, having in that capacity also a claim to be protected under Section 37 of the same law. The Courts below have decided against him on both grounds; and the chief point which we have to consider is, whether Section 53 really applies to the present case or not. The facts are these: Previous to the revenue-sale, and previous to the occurring of the default which brought about the revenue-sale, a default having arisen from non-payment of the revenue payable on the 19th January 1863, the plaintiff had purchased, at an execution-wale in the Civil Court at Sylhet, certain mouzas, which were held and en...
In Re: in the Matter of the Petition of Shibo Prosad Pandah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal124
Markby, J.1. The defendant in this case has been convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months by the Joint Magistrate of Balasore under Section 500 of the Penal Code of defamation, and he has applied to us to set aside the conviction and sentence as illegal. The defamation charged is contained in a petition to the Magistrate of Balasore, in which the defendant stated that Harnarain Mahapattur and others were preparing to bring false charges against him, and it was upon Harnarain Mohapattur's complaint that the allegations in this petition were injurious to his character that these proceedings wore instituted. The defendant at the trial tried to prove that the allegations in the petition were true, and he called several persons who swore that they had heard conversations between Harnarain Mohapattur and other persons in which Harnarain Mohapattur had expressed his intention of getting up false charges against the defendant, and they had reported these conversations to t...
NaraIn Chunder Vs. Tayler and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal103
Jackson, J.1. The Extra Assistant Commissioner, not going into the merits, threw out the plaintiff's suit, firstly, on the ground that the plaintiff was barred, in as much as twelve years had elapsed from the time of the accretion of the land as taken possession of by the defendants and, secondly, because three years' limitation applied from the date of the Survey Deputy Collectors award; and lastly, because by Act IX of 1847 the Court was debarred from maintaining the suit.2. As to the first two grounds, it is clear that the plaintiff would not be barred, because he is an auction-purchaser of the estate, and as such is entitled to recover it free of all encumbrances, and his cause of action, by whatever period of limitation it would be restricted, would arise from the time of his purchase, and the period of limitation is to be counted from that time; and it seems that the present suit is brought within three years from the date of the plaintiffs purchase.3. As regards the objection un...
In Re: in the Goods of Elliott
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal106
Pontifex, J.1. It being conceded by both sides that Surgeon-Major Elliott came out to India in the service of the East India Company previous to 1858, I think the case is concluded by the very careful judgment in Wauchope v. Wauchope (4 Ct. of Sess. Cases, 4th series, 945), before the Court of Session in Scotland, in which I feel certainly inclined to agree; at all events, I am not inclined to dissent from it. I must, therefore, hold that Surgeon-Major Elliott at his death had an Anglo-Indian domicile. The will is therefore not good....
The Empress Vs. Abdool Karim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal18
Ainslie, J.1. Section 274 of the Code of Criminal Procedure takes away the right of appealing from persons convicted by Magistrates of the first class exercising summary jurisdiction when the sentence is one of imprisonment, not exceeding a term of three months. Therefore, in the present case, the convicted persons, who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months, are deprived of the right of appeal on the facts, if the Deputy Magistrate was right in trying the case summarily.2. The Deputy Magistrate seems to think that the fact that he had not the Police papers at the time that the prisoners were put on their trial entitled him to deal with the case on the verbal statement of a Court Sub-Inspector. But on looking at the record it appears that the very first witness for the prosecution states distinctly that there were two persons who appear to have been the leaders of the unlawful assembly if the evidence of this witness is to be believed) armed with sword...
Nilmonee Singh Deo Vs. Rambundhoo Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal757
Jackson, J.1. The question which we are called upon to determine in these six appeals touches the finality of a decision of the District Court; or in case of an appeal, of the High Court as a Court of Appellate Jurisdiction under Section 39 of Act X of 1870, otherwise called the Land Acquisition Act of 1870. In all these cases the subject of dispute is the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector in respect of land taken up for public service, in respect of which compensation, a dispute as to the apportionment thereof arose, and a reference was made thereupon under Section 38 of the Act with a view to a decision by the Court meaning as explained in the definition clause of the Act, 'the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction,' no other Judicial Officer having apparently been appointed for that purpose in the District of Burdwan. The parties contending were the zamindar, certain persons called jagirdars, and other persons having subordinate rights and by the decision of t...
Kally Coomar Roy and ors. Vs. Annoda Churn Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal89
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This suit is brought to recover from the defendant No. 1, who is a ryot, an eight-anna share of the rent of a certain jote, which, as plaintiff's say, formed the joint property of their father; Guru Dass Roy, the defendant No. 3, and Prankisto Roy, the father of defendant No. 2.2. The plaintiffs' case is that an undivided eight-anna share of this property has been conveyed to them by a deed of gift; and they sue the defendant to enforce payment by him of their half share of the entire rent.3. They have made defendants Nos. 2 and 3 parties to the suit avowedly in order to obtain as against thorn an adjudication of their title to the eight-anna share of the rent; and they are in point of fact endeavouring to try the question of title as between them and the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 under the guise of a rent suit against the defendant No. 1.4. It is not suggested that defendant No. 1 was unwilling to pay his rent in its entirety to the persons who were entitled to rec...
Mobaruck Shah and anr. Vs. Toofany and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal206
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that there has been some misapprehension in this case as to the actual circumstances under which the plaintiffs' claim was made.2. The suit was brought to recover a portion of the site of an old road which had been used by the public for a considerable time previously to the year 1279 (1872), and which road, during all that time, formed the boundary between the land of the plaintiffs and the land of the defendants.3. In the year 1279 the Deputy Magistrate changed the line of the road altogether, so that the part in, question was no longer used or required as a road: whereupon the plaintiffs took possession of that half of it which adjoined their field, and cultivated it for a time by their burgodars; but then, it seams, the defendants carried off the crop thus grown by the plaintiffs' burgodars, and thus forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs; whereupon this suit was brought.4. The Munsif decided in favour of the plaintiffs upon the ground that, as the old ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »