Kolkata Court August 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.
Prosonna Nath Roy Chowdry Vs. Afzolonnessa Begum
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal523
Mitter, J.1. In this case the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed by the Courts below as barred by limitation. The facts found by the lower Appellate Court are these: The property in dispute originally belonged to one Kalinath Roy, who died in Bhadro 1251 (Aug.-Sept. 1844), survived by his widow Oma Tara and an infant son Gobind Dass. In 1254 (1847) Oma Tara executed, in favour of the defendant, a mourasi izara of the property in suit. In this document she does not describe herself as guardian or mother of Gobind Dass; but the District Judge is apparently of opinion that it was executed by Oma Tara as guardian of Gobind Dass. In this opinion we think, he is right. See Hunooman Persaud Panday v. Mussamat Babooee Munraj Koonweree (6 Moo. I.A., 393).2. Gobind Dass died, before attaining majority, in Bhadro 1262 (Aug.-Sept. 1855), and, under an anumati pattro executed by Kalinath before his death, the plaintiff in this case was adopted by Oma Tara in Assar 1265 (June-July 1858). Oma Tara d...
Achiraj Lal and anr. Vs. the Empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal604
Markby, J.1. But I also think that neither of these two persons would come within Section 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With regard to the person who appears to be really a khazanchi, although possibly he performs some other duties, I do not think that he would be an agent within the meaning of that section under any circumstance, unless we extend this section to all servants of zemindars, which I certainly should not feel disposed to do. With regard to the dewan, he might be an agent within the meaning of the Act if his master was absent. But it would be unreasonable to extend the operation of the Act to a dewan who was acting only under the orders of his resident master. The section is exceedingly vague in its language and, unless strictly construed, might be made the instrument of great oppression2. The conviction and sentence must be set aside, and the petitioners released.Prinsep, J.(After noticing the irregularities referred to by Markby, J., proceeded as follows):As rega...
Brijnath Doss Vs. Juggernauth Doss
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal322
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The defendant now says that the jewellery did not belong to Chutterbhooj, but to his wife, and that the garden, although conveyed to Chutterbhooj, was bought with Kissen's money, or with the proceeds of the house 75, Burtola Street. But, if Chutterbhooj's wife allowed him to deal with the jewellery as his own, and if the defendant received it as being Chutterbhooj's property (as it is clear from the above account that he did), he cannot possibly resist the plaintiff's claim for it in this suit. And with regard to the title deeds of the garden, it is equally clear that, as between the plaintiff and defendant, the latter having received them from Chutterbhooj, cannot set up the title of a third party, especially as the plaintiff is the ostensible owner of the property.2. The defendant then contends that, although as between him and the plaintiff the property in the title-deeds to the garden and in the jewels may be in the plaintiff, he has a right of lien upon them ...
Pattarri Sirkar Vs. Shurnomoyee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal625
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff brings this suit to recover from the defendant Rs. 634 and 11 annas under the following circumstances. The plaintiff alleges that he holds a mokurari jote of 65 bighas 10 cottas 5 chittaks and 2 gandas of land, bearing a rental of Rs. 13-11-3; that the defendant, who is the landlord, brought a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment, and having obtained a decree, with an order of ejectment, on the 7th November 1873, evicted the plaintiff from the jote on 21st pous 1280 (4th January 1874); that at the time crops,--viz., kulye, wheat, and job,--were standing upon the land; that the defendant, the landlord, after taking possession of the jote, carried away the crops through her servants and labourers; that, against the decree which was passed by the first Court on the 7th November 1873, the plaintiff preferred an appeal; that, on appeal, that decree was modified, and the plaintiff was allowed fifteen days' time to deposit the rent which was decreed against him; t...
In Re: in the Matter of the Petition of Mohesh Chunder Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal417
Ainslie, J.1. One Promothonath Sandyal, a minor, died on the 12th of Pous last, corresponding with the 1st of January of the current year. During his lifetime, Bholanath Khan was one of his guardians, and, to use the language of the Deputy Magistrate, 'it is admitted that Bholanath Khan was the sole surviving trustee of the late Promothonath Sandyal at the time of his death, and that the property was vested in him.' Khethernath Chuckerbutty, on behalf of his son Shibnath Chuckerbutty, claimed the estate of the late Promothonath Sandyal. He obtained an order for a certificate under Act XXVII of 1860 on the 28th of February last, and subsequently took out the certificate. He then proceeded to the villages, and on the strength of this certificate he induced a number of ryots to give him kabuliats. The Deputy Magistrate was informed by the Police that there was likely to be a breach of the peace, and he instituted proceedings under Section 530 of the Criminal Procedure Code, calling upon K...
Furzund HosseIn Vs. Janu Bibee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal588
R.C. Mitter, J.1. This is a suit for restitution of conjugal rights; the defence raised is that of divorce. The Court of first instance overruled this plea, and decreed the plaintiff's claim. The Court of appeal has come to a different conclusion, and has dismissed the suit, holding that the plea of divorce is established. There is no difference in the findings of the Courts below as to the facts of the case.2. Those facts, as found by the lower Appellate Court, are briefly these: 'The plaintiff, a native doctor, being about to leave Silchar, wished to take his wife, Mussamut Janu Bibee, with him; he was opposed in this by his wife and her family, with whom he appears to have been on very unsatisfactory terms, and, in the hope of settling disputes, he convened a punchayet, before whom, on the plaintiff's stating his intention of removing his wife, the defendants produced the kabinnama, which contained a condition to the effect that, in the event of the husband's attempting to remove hi...
Nicholls and ors. Vs. Wilson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal560
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that this is a very clear case; and it would almost have been sufficient to say that we entirely agree with the learned Judge in the Court below.2. The whole Question depends upon the meaning of the guarantee upon which the suit is brought.3. The plaintiff's firm had acted since the year 1874 as the agents or bankers of the Corinthian Theatre Company. That Company were importing in August 1875 several actors from Australia, who were to play at the Corinthian Theatre; and the Company had a difficulty about paying the expenses of their passage. Under these circumstances, the Company applied to the plaintiffs to advance the passage-money; but the plaintiffs were not content to make the advance upon the responsibility of the Company only, and desired to have the personal security of two of the directors. Upon this, Messrs. Shanks and Wilson entered into the guarantee in question, which is in these words (His Lordship read the guarantee as set out above).4. It...
In Re: in the Matter of the Petition of Oodoychurn Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal411
White, J.1. We think that the order of the Judge in this case must be set aside. There were rival claimants; both of them wore very distant relations of Kalichurn, to whose heirs the debts belonged. The Judge has decided the rival claims upon a consideration, first, of the nearness of kinship, and, secondly, of the nearness of residence, of the party who succeeded before him to the place where most of the debtors reside. We think that ho is wrong in this. Neither of the above considerations warranted the Judge in awarding the certificate to the respondent in preference to the appellant, who has prima facie, the better title to inherit to Kalichurn, and consequently to the beneficial ownership of the debts. A recent authority which is cited to us--the case of Gobind Persad Talookdar v. Mohesh Chunder Surmah Ghuttack (15 B.L.R., 35; s.c., 23 W.R., 117)--shows that the present appellant has the preferable title, and that decision appears to have been followed by the Chief Justice and Mr. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›