Kolkata Court April 1879 Judgments
Bhokteram Vs. Heera Kolita
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal184
Ainslie, J.1. The prisoner in this case laid an information at the police thanna against Sadheram, Bhokteram, and two others, stating that he suspected them of committing a robbery in his house. The police officer investigated the case, and being of opinion that the information was false, so reported to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner on the report passed an order of dismissal, purporting to do so under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This the Assistant Commissioner should not have done; no complaint had been made to him by the present prisoner, nor could the report of the police officer be regarded as a complaint for this purpose, for he had reported that the information was false. Bhokteram then applied to the Assistant Commissioner for leave to prosecute the prisoner under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code.2. No such leave or sanction was necessary; the offence, if there was one, was not committed before any Court; see Section 468| of the Crimin...
Tag this Judgment!Tekait Chooramun Singh Vs. Dunraj Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal56
Mitter, J.1. This is a suit for arrears of rent at an enhanced rate. The rate at which the defendant pays being Rs. 3 per biga, the plaintiff in this action seeks to raise it to Rs. 5.2. The plaintiff also prays for ejectment of the defendant from the tenure and recovery of damages for non-payment of rent. The Court of first instance decreed the claim in full, but on appeal, that decree has been reversed by the Judicial Commissioner, and the plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.3. Concurring with the Assistant Commissioner, the Judicial Commissioner finds that the prevailing rate of rent in the neighbourhood is Rs. 5. Nevertheless he has dismissed the suit, because he is of opinion that the defendant's father excavated a tank in 1842, and constructed an ahir, or reservoir, in 1861, and that the productive powers of the land in suit have been thus increased by the agency and expense of the defendant's father.4. Furthermore he says,--'Almost all the witnesses for plaintiff, who say tha...
Tag this Judgment!Gourah Koeri Vs. Gujadhur Purshad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal219
Mitter, J.1. One Khoonjo Behary died on the 7th June 1878, leaving him surviving two sons, Gujadhur and Kanny, and his widow Musst. Gourah Koeri. Gujadhur and Kanny are step-brothers, Kanny's mother being Gourah Koeri, and Gujadhur's mother had predeceased her husband. Gujadhur had attained majority before his father's death, and Kanny is still a minor. These three appeals arise out of three applications made to the lower Court. Two of these, by Gujadhur and Musst. Gourah Koeri, respectively, were made for obtaining certificates under Act XXVII of 1860 to collect the debts due to the estate of the deceased Koonjo Behary. The third application was made by Gourah Koeri to obtain a certificate under Act XL of 1858 for the administration of her minor son's property.2. The District Judge has granted to Gujadhur a certificate under Act XXVII of 1860 to collect the debts due to his father's estate, and has rejected both the applications of Musst. Gourah Koeri.3. Upon the evidence it appears t...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Mal Vs. Kooer NaraIn Mytee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal251
Mitter, J.1. We think that, upon the facts stated in the petition, the applicant is not entitled to a certificate under Act XXVII of 1860. The petition is based upon an unoomoti puttro alleged to have been executed by Juggunauth Mal on the 23rd Assin 1270 (8th October 1863), he having died in Falgoon (March 1864) of that year, and if this unoomoti puttro be a genuine document, the estate of Juggunauth vested in the applicant as soon as he was taken in adoption.2. The present application is made to collect the debts due in respect of the properties left by Juggunauth while they were under the management of the alleged adoptive mother Doorgamonee. The petitioner cannot possibly have a locus standi under the provisions of Act XXVII of 1860. The Act applies to cases where applications are made by representatives of deceased Hindus, Mahomedans, and others not usually designated as British subjects, to collect the debts which are payable in respect of the estates of such deceased persons. In...
Tag this Judgment!Mohesh Chunder Sen Vs. Juggut Chunder Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal212
Jackson, J.1. The plaintiff, who was the auction-purchaser of a taluk, sued to recover from the defendants, who were very numerous, a certain quantity of land. He claimed this land of course as having been a part of the originally settled estate.2. As to the title set up, the plaintiff, in the particular case which has been argued before us, relied chiefly upon a thakbust map, which bore the signature of one Anundo Chuckerbutty, who was the defendant's predecessor in title.3. The Judge (who reversed the judgment of the Munsif) refused to consider this thakbust map so adduced as being absolutely conclusive evidence, and so dismissed the plaintiff's suit.4. The plaintiff on second appeal before us objects, that the Judge has described this map as evidence quantum valet, which he seems to consider an inadequate application of the thakbust map as a piece of evidence; and it is contended, on the authority of a decision to which I was a party, that a survey map is sufficient, when there is n...
Tag this Judgment!Abdool Aziz Biswas Vs. Radha Kanto Kobiraj and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal226
Jackson, J.1. The appeal out of which this second appeal arises was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Jessore, on the sole ground that the document put in evidence by the plaintiff, and which is called a sale-certificate, was inadmissible by reason of its not being registered. In support of this view of the law, the Subordinate Judge refers merely to a ruling of the Madras High Court (6 Mad. Rep. Appx., XXXIX) relating to a sale-certificate under the late Code of Civil Procedure. That ruling appears to have been a decision not upon argument, though it is, of course, entitled to respect. But it is not necessary for us to say whether we concur with the Madras High Court in holding that a sale-certificate under the late Code of Civil Procedure is an instrument declaring an interest in property, and if the value of the interest so declared is one hundred rupees or upwards, that the registration of the instrument is compulsory under Section 17 of Act VIII of 1871, because the present Co...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Durjan Mahton and ors. Vs. Wajid HosseIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal135
Ainslie, J.1. Who after stating the facts continued:The proceedings of the Deputy Magistrate have, no doubt, been very irregular, but it appears to us that the result arrived at is that which he must have arrived at if he had acted according to the law.2. The dispute in this case arose, in respect of certain property which admittedly was in the possession of the ryots up to a certain date; and which was claimed by Wajid Hossein and others as having been transferred to them by the execution of a decree for ejectment under the Rent Law on the 18th of November 1878. Both the parties refer to the same decree, one as showing his right to both crop and land, and the other as showing that the zemindar were entitled to the land only, and not to the crop. When, therefore, it became necessary for the Deputy Magistrate to consider what steps he should take to prevent any breach of the peace, it clearly was necessary for him to come to some determination as to the effect of the Munsif's decree, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Golap Chand Nowluckha Vs. Krishto Chunder Dass Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal314
Jackson, J.1. The plaintiff's suit has been dismissed on the ground of limitation, the Munsif not having taken the trouble to read with care the terms of the present Limitation Act, XV of 1877. He says: 'The plaintiff admits that his cause of action against the defendant accrued from the date of his discharge on the 6th Kartic 1283. This suit, brought after the lapse of one year from the above date, is evidently barred. The plaintiff cannot have extension of the time allowed by the special law for the realization of rent, because the Court remained closed on the 6th Kartic 1284, and subsequent dates. The new Limitation Act does not apply to cases under the Rent Law.'2. Now, it is quite inaccurate to say that the new Limitation Act does not apply to cases under the Rent Law. What the Act says is this: 'When by any special or local law, now or hereafter in force in British India, a period of limitation is specially prescribed for any suit, appeal, or application, nothing herein contained...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. RohimuddIn Nazir Mahomed and Somiruddin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal31
Ainslie, J.1. The Judge and assessors have concurred in finding the prisoners guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder committed in the course of a riot, and they have been sentenced under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149. Other persons had been previously tried and convicted on account of the same matter. They were convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 149, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court on the 12th November 1878. In the present trial, the Officiating Judge has held that the case comes under the 5th exception of Section 300 of the Penal Code,--'culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death, or takes the risk of death, with his own consent.' He says, that if 'one of a body of professional lattials armed with deadly weapons is killed in a fight which these lattials have voluntarily entered into and provoked,--his death cannot be...
Tag this Judgment!Jhotee Sahoo Vs. Omesh Chunder Sircar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal1
Mitter, J.1. In this case we are of opinion that the Subordinate Judge was not competent to cancel the order of the District Judge by which the appeal of the appellant was allowed to be registered although filed beyond time. Under Clause b, Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1871, the District Judge, being satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not being able to present the appeal within the prescribed time, allowed it to be registered. No doubt this was an ex parte order, because at that time the respondent had not entered appearance, and on a proper cause being shown, such an ex parte order is liable to be cancelled by the Court which passed it; but the Subordinate Judge in this case is not competent to revoke the order of the District Judge. The decision cited by the Subordinate Judge does not support his view of the law. In that case the appeal was ordered to be registered by a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, and the case coming on for hearing, upon the obj...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »