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.
The Empress Vs. the Municipal Corporation of the Town of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal758
Ainslie, J.1. The question referred by the Presidency Magistrate is, whether the protection extended by Section 39 of Act IV of 1877 to certain individual public servants extends equally to a Municipal Corporation prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code for being guilty of a public nuisance.2. By Section 11 of the Penal Code, the word 'person' is defined to include a body of persons whether incorporated or not; and therefore the word 'person' in Section 21 may be read as a body of persons incorporated, The words 'public servants' in that section may consequently denote a body of persons incorporated falling under any of the descriptions given therein. It is not necessary to refer to any except the tenth. The illustration in the tenth description says that a Municipal Commissioner is a public servant; but it does not therefore follow that a Corporation such as that created by Act IV of 1876 (B.C.) is also a public servant within the meaning of that section.3. The words 'every officer' in...
Behary Lall Sandyal Vs. Juggo Mohun Gossain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal1
Richard Garth Kt., C.J.1. The questions involved in this case are of great general importance, and having considered them carefully, we are of opinion that the view taken by the Judge in the Court below was erroneous. [His Lordship then stated the facts of the case, and continued.] It has been argued for the appellant, first, that the questions raised by the second issue was one which the Judge had no right to entertain in a proceeding of this nature and secondly, that even if he had a right to decide whether the testatrix had any disposable property at all, there was sufficient evidence that she had some stridhan, which would be quite enough to justify the grant of probate. 2. We do not think it expedient to enter into the consideration of this latter point because we do not wish to prejudice the rights of either party in case of any future litigation upon that subject. It is sufficient for us to say that if it were necessary to establish that the lady had some stridhan, we think ther...
Ram Doolary Kooer Vs. Thacoor Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal61
Ainslie, J.1. The plaintiff in the present case sued for the recovery of possession of certain property on the allegation that she had made a verbal settlement with the defendant; and that the term of the settlement having expired, she had given him notice to quit, but that he refused to do so, and was holding on without any right whatever.2. The defendant in answer put forward a document dated the 23rd of September 1876, which is called a zurpeshgi lease. 3. The first Court found that the document was not genuine.4. The lower Appellate Court reversed that finding, and came to the conclusion that the document was actually executed by the plaintiff. The Judge says that, in the present case, it is not necessary to consider how far the document may be binding upon the minor, as he will have an opportunity of challenging it when he comes of age.5. In this view we think that the Judge was right. If the plaintiff came into Court on behalf of the minor intending to raise the question of the b...
Moran Vs. Guni Mahomed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal96
Richard Garth, C.J.1. As the question in each of these cases is of a somewhat similar character, and seems to depend upon the same principle, and as on looking into the authorities there appears to be some difference of opinion in this Court upon the subject, we think it right to refer both cases to the decision of a Full Bench.2. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1713 of 1876 the suit was brought by an ijaradar against a ryot for a kabuliat at a certain rent. The plaintiff had taken an ijara for a term of years of a moiety of an undivided estate. The defendant was the tenant of a nunkur jote within this estate at a rental of Rs. 16-8, and it has been found that, for some years before the suit, he has been paying Rs. 8-4 separately to Ramanand and Anandomoyee, who were the owners of one moiety of the entire estate.3. The lower Court held that, as he had thus paid a separate rent to the plaintiff's lessors, the plaintiff was entitled to sue him for a kabuliat, and decided accordingly; which ...
Lalla Nowbut Lall Vs. Lalla Jewan Lall and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal831
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We are of opinion that by the Mahomedan law one co-parcener has no right of pre-emption as against another co-parcener. There appears to be no reason, either upon principle or authority, why the right of shaffa should exist as between co-parceners; and the rule, as laid down in Hamilton's Hedaya, Vol. III, Bk. 38, Ch. 1, appears to have been misunderstood in this respect. That rule merely prescribes that any one partner (or co-parcener) of a property has a right of shaffa as against a stranger, who purchases a share from his co-partner and does not mean that the right exists as between co-partners who may purchase shares from one another. The object of the rule, as explained in that chapter, and in Ch. 3, is to prevent the inconvenience which may result to families and communities from the introduction of a disagreeable stranger as a co-parcener or near neighbour. But it is obvious that no such annoyance can result from a sale by one co-parcener to another. The on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›