Kolkata Court February 1879 Judgments
Horro NaraIn Vs. Sboodha Krishto Berah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal890
Mitter, J.1. This suit is brought by a talukdar to contest the demand of a distraint, and to try the plaintiff's right to the possession of the crop distrained.2. The defendant admits that he distrained the crops, but denies the plaintiff's right to, and possession of, the land.3. The plaintiff's case was that he held some of the lands in dispute at a money-rental and some in bhag-jote: the finding of the Court of first instance was that all the lands were let at a money-rental, and that the plaintiff was therefore not entitled to the crops distrained. The opinion of the Subordinate Judge was that the plaintiff could not bring such a suit, because he had no right to the crop, which the Subordinate Judge considered to belong to the cultivators. The suit was accordingly dismissed, and the defendant was declared, according to the provisions of Section 96, Act VIII of 1869, entitled to recover the sum which had been deposited by him as security when removing the crop.4. In appeal, the Judg...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Ketabdi Mundul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal764
Ainslie, J.1. We do not concur in the view of the law taken by the Sessions Judge. In the case of Khiran Nomiya (Unreported) this Court, on 3rd September 1877, held, that Section 304A does not apply to a case in which there has been the voluntary commission of an offence against the person. If a man intentionally commits such an offence, and consequences beyond his immediate purpose result, it is for the Court to determine how far he can be held to have the knowledge that he was likely by such act to cause the actual result.2. If such knowledge can be imputed, the result is not to be attributed to mere rashness; if it cannot be imputed, still the wilful offence does not take the character of rashness, because its consequences have been unfortunate. Acts, probably or possibly, involving danger to others, but which in themselves are not offences, may be offences under Sections 336, 337, 338 or 304A, if done without due care to guard against the dangerous consequences. Acts which are offe...
Tag this Judgment!Smith and ors. Vs. SreenaraIn Bagchee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal808
Jackson, J.1. The ground on which the defendant now, on appeal before us, seeks to resist the claim of the plaintiff's, is, that by the application of a portion of the purchase-money paid in respect of the entire turruff, which afforded satisfaction in part of the plaintiff's mortgage debt, he has conferred a benefit upon the plaintiff's, and, consequently, the plaintiffs, before they can recover possession of the chahar-patni, ought to be on terms and compelled to repay him certain portion of the purchase-money.2. It appears to us that the defendant is not in that position. That which he purchased was not the chahar-patni, nor did the Land Mortgage Bank proceed against the chahar-patni, which had been mortgaged to it. The Bank availed itself of its right to execute its decree generally, and sold the dar-patni, and by name the dar-patni granted by Tarachand Biswas. The defendant, in purchasing that along with other parts of Turruff Ramgourpore, took his chance. He has not in fact confe...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Goods of Hewson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal770
Richard Garth, C.J.1. Mr. Evans has argued the case before us on behalf of the Administrator-General, and has directed our attention to the several enactments which bear upon the question, as well as to the practice which has prevailed in the other Presidencies since the passing of Act XIII of 1875.2. After considering his argument, I have arrived at the conclusion, that grants of administration to an Administrator-General must still be limited to his own Presidency, and that those grants are not affected at all by the Act of 1875.3. It seems to me to have been the intention of the legislature, that grants of administration to the Administrator-General should be regulated entirely by the Act of 1874. 4. By the 66th section of that Act it is provided that 'nothing contained in the Succession Act, 1865, shall be taken to affect the rights, duties, and privileges of the Administrators-General of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay.'5. Then it is very important to observe, that Act XIII of 1875 doe...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Matter of the Sarawak and Hindustan Banking and Trading Com ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal704
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think that this rule should be discharged. We are asked to review our former judgment, and virtually to set it aside, upon the ground that, although no notice of the appeal was in fact given to the respondent within three weeks from the date of the order appealed against, that was not the fault of the appellant, but of the officer of this Court, and that the appellant has done all that he was bound to do by merely lodging his appeal within three days from the date of the order.2. Now it is perfectly true that the 141st section of Act X of 1866 does present some difficulty in this respect, because the appellant's right of appeal under that section is made to depend upon a notice being given, not by himself, but by an officer over whom he has no control.3. It is probable that the legislature, when they passed the Act, did not foresee this difficulty. Section 141 corresponds with the 124th section of the English Joint Stock Companies' Act of 1862 (25 and 26 Vict., ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Golam Lall Vs. Beni Prosad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal27
Ainslie, J.1. The decree in this case was made on the 13th January 1873 against the respondent. It was put into execution in that year, and there were further applications made from time to time, the result of which has been that the judgment-debtor has obtained the consent of the decree-holder to periodical postponements for periods of six months or so, on the condition of paying him interest at the rate originally of Rs. 18 per cent., and subsequently of Rs. 24 per cent. In each of these, I think certainly in the later petitions, it has been the practice to state the amount due under the decree at the date of the petition, and it has been specially agreed that that amount as principal with interest thereon should be paid. At last, some time in February 1877, an application was lodged by the decree-holder, whether as a fresh application for execution of decree or for continuing proceedings, is immaterial. On the 15th of May 1877, being the date fixed for the sale of the debtor's prope...
Tag this Judgment!Dukharam Bharti Vs. Luchmun Bharti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal954
Ainslie, J.1. One Rambuksh Bharti died on the 17th of Aughran 1284 (1st December 1877). It is stated that he and Luchmun Bharti were fellow disciples of one Moharuck Bharti, who died some time before that, and who is alleged to have left a will.2. Luchmun Bharti claims a certificate under Act XXVII of 1860 as being the person entitled to succeed to the guddee of the Mut. There is another claimant for a certificate, namely, Dukharam Bharti, who is admitted to have been a chela of Rambuksh.3. The question before us has nothing to do with the question of the extent of the estate of the deceased Rambuksh, nor with the right of succession to the Mut. The one question which we have to consider is, which of these two persons, the spiritual brother, or the spiritual son, is entitled as representative of the deceased to collect the debts, outstanding due to the personal estate of the deceased Rambuksh, if there are any.4. There is on the record a bond by Girdhari and Bheekum Aheer, of the 5th o...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Goods of Sir John Wemyss
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal721,(1879)ILR4Cal725
Pontifex, J.1. None of these authorities go to the extent of showing that where a will has been made, memoranda in a book can be treated as a codicil.2. All the memoranda in the book appear to have been made after the date of the will. One memorandum is dated the 11th January 1878, and says: 'My will is in an iron safe in my house, whereby I have given to my brother David,' &c.; All the other memoranda are in January 1877. The memorandum dated the 11th January 1878 sets up the will entirely.3. On this ground also that I do not think the memoranda are testamentary, I must refuse probate of them.4. Application refused. Administrator-General's costs of application to be paid out of the estate....
Tag this Judgment!Empress Vs. Mannoo Tamoolee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal696
Morris, J.1. The confession made by the prisoner on the 17th November 1878 must, I think, be treated as a confession recorded under the provisions of Section 122 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prisoner was arrested by the Police on the afternoon of the 16th, and carried early the next morning before the Deputy Magistrate, Mr. White, who was then at a place (Bankipore) outside the limits of the division which he had charge. Mr. White recorded the prisoner's confession, and attached to it the certificate required by Section 122. It is clear from this that Mr. White considered himself to be acting under the terms of that section. Subsequently Mr. White returned to Barh, within the limits of his own division, and, having power to do so, took up the case against the prisoner, conducted the preliminary enquiry, examined the prisoner as prescribed by Section 346, and finally, on the same date, the 20th November, committed him for trial before the Court of Session.2. The confession of the...
Tag this Judgment!Elahi Buksh Vs. Marachow and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal825
Ainslie, J.1. In this case the suit was instituted when Act VIII of 1859 was in operation, namely, in September 1877, and a decree was passed after that Act was repealed and the new Code of Procedure was in operation, namely, on the 2nd of February 1878. An appeal against that decree was made, and on that appeal coming on to be heard, neither the appellant nor his pleader appeared, and the appeal was dismissed. The Judge who dismissed the appeal stated, when he did so, that he was aware that the appellant's pleader was a lunatic.2. The appellant afterwards applied to have his appeal restored, but the Judge, giving no reasons, rejected the application. The appellant in this application stated that, having engaged a pleader, he felt secure, and did not think it necessary to appear in person. The order dismissing the appeal in the first instance was made on the 31st of May 1878, and it is stated by the Judge that it was made under Section 556 of Act X of 1877. The application for its rest...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »