Kolkata Court March 1879 Judgments
The Empress Vs. Safatulla and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal815
White, J.1. The prisoners in this case were acquitted by the jury of culpable homicide, and convicted under Section 304a of the Indian Penal Code of causing the death of one Alim Koregar by a rash act not amounting to culpable homicide.2. The evidence showed that the deceased had had an enlarged spleen for several years; that his death was caused by rupture of the spleen; and that the rupture was occasioned by blows of the hands inflicted by the prisoners upon the trunk of the deceased's body whilst he was alive.3. The Judge charged the jury with reference to Section 304a in the following terms: 'If you do not think that the act amounted to culpable homicide, but that the circumstances of this district in respect of the prevalence of disease of the spleen are such as to render any beating on the trunk of the body an act of criminal rashness, you will be justified in convicting the accused under Section 304a.'4. It appears to us that the Judge has not put the matter before the jury with...
Tag this Judgment!Brojo Kishore Singh Vs. Bharrut Singh Mohaputtur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal963
Birch, J.1. I think that the Lower Appellate Court, upon the authority of the cases cited in its judgment was right in dismissing this suit.2. The mere fact that the defendant, in ignorance of his rights, allowed the local investigation to proceed, and the rates to be ascertained by an ameen without objection, does not in my opinion raise any distinction between this case and the cases relied on by the Judicial Commissioner.3. The local investigation was made to enable the Court to decide whether the rent claimed by the plaintiff was a fair and equitable rent such as the Court could by its decree impose. If the result of the investigation was to satisfy the Court that the rent, claimed was not the rent fairly payable, the plaintiff's suit would rightly be dismissed.4. From that enquiry the plaintiff may or may not derive benefit in future litigation, but he cannot succeed on his present plaint, as his claim is shown to be unfounded.5. The special appeal is dismissed with costs.Mitter, ...
Tag this Judgment!Nehora Roy and ors. Vs. Radha Pershad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal64
Garth, C.J.1. We think that the appellants are not entitled, under the circumstances, to raise the point upon which they have appealed; and we consider that they were very properly precluded from raising that point in the Court below. It is to be hoped that this is nearly the last scene in a long series of litigation which has been going on between these parties for upwards of twenty years. In the year 1860, a final decree was made by the Sudder Court at Agra, which determined the rights of the parties in a suit which had been going on for a very long time, and that Court sent the decree to the Court of Ghazipore, which was the Court of first instance, to be executed. In January 1867, a readjustment was made by the Government of India of the boundary line between Lower Bengal and the North-Western Provinces, by means of which the whole or the greater part of the property in dispute, which had before belonged to the North-Western Provinces, became a portion of Lower Bengal, and as the C...
Tag this Judgment!Gunga Pershad and anr. Vs. Bilbassee Koonwaree Mothee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal278
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that this is a very clear case, and that the Court below was quite wrong in not trying the questions of title which the defendants wished to raise, and which in fact were raised by the issues.2. The defendants had brought a previous suit against their father for the purpose of having the property in question partitioned, and they obtained a decree for that purpose. The present plaintiffs desired to intervene in that suit, with a view to showing that this property, which had been mortgaged to them by a zurpeshgi lease, was not subject to partition.3. The Judge, however, would not allow them to intervene, and, therefore, as soon as the defendants had obtained their decree and were proceeding to deal with the property under the partition, the plaintiffs came in under Section 230 of Act VIII of 1859, and claimed to hold the property as against the defendants by virtue of their zurpeshgi deed. The lower Court allowed them to come in, and under that section reg...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chunder NaraIn Vs. J.G. Farquharson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal837
Mitter, J.1. This is an application by one Chunder Narain against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Kamroop, dated 8th August 1878, convicting him of the offence of 'criminal trespass' under Section 447, Indian Penal Code, and imposing upon him a fine of Rs. 50.2. The application is under Section 297 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The facts found by the lower Court are, that the applicant 'entered into or upon property in possession of' the complainant; but it is also found that his object was to kill a deer, the pursuit of which was commenced by him from a spot outside the garden in possession of the complainant. The definition of 'criminal trespass' is given in Section 441, Indian Penal Code. The conviction is therefore illegal, and must be quashed. 3. We accordingly set it aside, and direct that the fine, if realized, be refunded.Birch, J.4. The petitioner has been convicted of criminal trespass under Section 447 and fined Rs. 50. The case was tried summarily, but the evid...
Tag this Judgment!Heeralall Rukhit Vs. Ram Surun Loll
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal835
Pontifex, J.1. I shall appoint an officer of the Court before whom the plaintiff will lay his particulars in confidence as to why he wants to inspect any other part of the books, and he will report, after looking at the books, whether he is able to say whether and in what way part which the defendant wishes to seal up is material to. the case of the plaintiff. Each party will have a week to say what parts he wishes to seal up or inspect....
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. NobIn Chunder Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal865
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We find that, in the case referred to us, Nobin Chunder Dutt was bound to keep peace for the term of one year in his personal recognizance for the sum of Rs. 500. Within this term, certain other persons were charged with a breach of the peace before the Deputy Magistrate, who thereupon convicted Krishna Tappadar and others of an assault; and, although Nobin was not personally concerned in the offence, and was not made a defendant at the trial, the Magistrate decided upon the evidence that he (Nobin) had by the agency of the convicted persons caused that breach of the peace to be committed, and he thereupon called upon him to show cause why his recognizances should not be forfeited; and on his appearance in Court, he upon no further evidence [868] than that which was recorded on the prosecution of Krishna Tappadar and others declared the recognizances forfeited.2. The course prescribed by Section 502 of the Criminal Procedure Code (and by Section 293 of the former ...
Tag this Judgment!Jussoda Kooer Vs. Lallah Nettya Lall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal43
Birch, J.1. In this case the Judge states that he is unable to grant a certificate, inasmuch as the witness called by Mussamut Jussoda admits that the father of the minor is alive, and, therefore, in the Judges opinion, it would be inadvisable to grant a certificate of guardianship to the mother. The Judge appears to have overlooked the fact that this case is governed by the Mithila law, and that, under that law, the mother is the person to whom the certificate should be granted in preference to the father. The Judge's order must be reversed, and he must be directed to grant a certificate to Jussoda as guardian of the person of the minor and as manager of the minors property, The appeal is allowed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Okhoy Coomar Chuttopadhya and ors. Vs. Mahtap Chunder Bahadoor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal24
Birch, J.1. This suit was brought to obtain a refund of the amount paid by the plaintiffs in excess of the rent due to the defendant for three years and a half, from the 1st Kartick 1277 to the end of 1280.2. The Subordinate Judge gave the plaintiffs a decree, holding that it was. proved that the plaintiffs had paid the whole of the patni rent to the defendant, and that they had done so to save their patni, which otherwise would have been placed in jeopardy by the proceedings taken under the Patni Regulation by the defendant. The Subordinate Judge proceeds to say, that 'the land was taken by Government before the plaintiffs' purchase, and there was no dispute as to the quantity of land taken. the plaintiffs from the time when the lands were taken were entitled to a deduction of rent for the 147 bigas of land so taken, and if, not with standing this, the Maharaja's agents continued to realize the rent of the land which had been taken, he can be justly called upon to repay what he receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Deolie Chand and ors. Vs. Nirban Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal253
Ainslie, J.1. There can be no doubt that at the date of the mortgage there was a two-annas share held by the decree-holder, which has subsequently passed to the judgment-debtors, and which obviously could not be subject to the mortgage at the date thereof. The contract of the judgment-debtor was to hold fourteen-annas subject to a mortgage for the repayment of the debt due to the appellant. So long as he had only a twelve-annas share in his possession the mortgage security was of necessity reduced to that amount; but if at any time he became owner of fourteen-annas the creditor had an equitable right to demand that that fourteen-annas should be held subject to his mortgage. This principle has been distinctly recognized in the Specific Relief Act, and it appears to us that there can be no doubt that the decree-holder is equitably entitled to have security as far as it is possible for the debtor to give it, up to the extent of the fourteen-annas for which he contracted.2. We, therefore, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »