Kolkata Court June 1879 Judgments
Aukhil Chunder Sen Roy Vs. Mohiny Mohun Dass and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal489
Morris, J.1. The plaintiff sued for possession of an 8-anna share of a taluk, bearing No. 1159 on the rent roll of the Collectorate of Zilla Tippera, and paying a revenue of Rs. 384 per annum. He valued the suit at ten times his share of the Government revenue, or Rs. 1,920, and paid stamp-duty accordingly. The defendants, in their written statement, objected, amongst other things, to the valuation of the suit. In para. 2 they say: 'The plaintiff has stated in his plaint, that the value of the properties is Rs. 60,000; but in reality the value of them may be Rs. 15,000 or 16,000. Under such circumstances the plaintiff having instituted the suit estimated at Rs. 1,920, the valuation of the estimated property is, therefore, less, and the cognizance of this case by this Court in appeal hereafter will be altered.'2. The first Court overruled this objection in the following terms: 'The claim has been valued, I find, at ten times the revenue of the share in claim. It has not, therefore, been...
Tag this Judgment!Ashrof Ali and anr. Vs. the Empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal281
Mitter, J.1. On behalf of the appellants a question of law has been raised before us. It has been contended that the whole proceedings in this case are illegal, because the appellants were allowed no opportunity to substantiate their charge in any Criminal Court. In support of this contention several decisions of this Court have been cited before us. These cases seem to us to be distinguishable. In all these cases proceedings were commenced by the accused person in a Court. It has been held in these cases that no sanction should have been given for a prosecution against him under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code without giving him the full opportunity of substantiating his charge. In this case no formal complaint was made by the appellants before any Criminal Court. The charge of theft was made to a police officer, who reported it to be false. The appellants did not renew this charge before any Criminal Court. We do not think that there is any force in the contention raised before ...
Tag this Judgment!ishri Dutt Koer and ors. Vs. Hunsbutti KeraIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal512
Ainslie, J.1. Budhnath Koer died, leaving two widows and a daughter. He was one of four brothers, but separate in estate from the others. The plaintiff's are the representatives of those brothers, and the widows and daughter's minor daughter are the defendants in this suit.2. On the 21st December 1873, the widows executed a deed of gift in favour of the daughter Dyjhi, who has since died. By this instrument they gave her, with immediate possession, the properties mentioned in the first and second schedules annexed thereto; the properties mentioned in the third schedule they retain for life without the power of alienation, but on their deaths they were to become absolutely vested in the daughter.3. The properties in the first schedule are described as self-acquired, and those in the third are of both kinds.4. Some contention has arisen upon the meaning of the words 'mahsook khas' (self-acquired), and it was suggested by the appellants that these words, upon which the plaintiffs in part ...
Tag this Judgment!Hirdey NaraIn Sahu Vs. Sheo Shunkur Sahoy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1879
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal25
Broughton, J.1. I am entirely of the same opinion. With regard to the objection that the document which is the subject of this suit has not been properly registered, and could not be received in evidence, it appears to me that when a document is presented for registration, the Registrar has a duty to perform which involves an enquiry by him as to whether he should register it or not. Having performed that duty, and having done the act required by the Legislature, it is not possible for us, in the absence of any power for reviewing the act of the Registrar, to go behind it. When a document which purports to have been registered is tendered in evidence, the Court cannot reject it for noncompliance with the Registration Law, but can deal with all other objections against it on their merits....
Tag this Judgment!Gerender Coomar Dutt Vs. S.M. Juggadmba Dabee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal126
Wilson, J.1. This is a suit on a promissory note. The plaintiff proved his case. The only defence suggested was one of limitation founded upon the following facts:2. The note was made on the 4th of June 1873, payable three months after date. The plaint was filed on the 22nd of November 1873; no summons to appear was issued till 1878. On the 13th of September 1878 a Judge's order was obtained ex parte for the issue of a summons, and a summons was accordingly issued and served. The defendant contends, that in the interval between the filing of the plaint in 1873, and the issue of the summons in 1878, the suit became barred by limitation, and, that the order of the 13th of September 1878 could not revive it. If the first of these propositions is true, the second must, I think, follow. But I do not think the first proposition is true.3. There are now, as there have long been, statutory provisions determining the time within which suits may be commenced,--that is to say, within which plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Prankissen Laha Vs. Sreemutty Noyanmoney Dassee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal222
Wilson, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit claim to be entitled to succeed to the property of Soromoney Dassee, deceased.2. She died a widow on the 7th of January in this year, leaving her surviving the plaintiffs, who are sons of her husband's elder brothers; one sister, the defendant Noyanmoney; the defendant Kallykissen, who was the husband of a deceased sister; and the remaining defendants, who are sons of the same sister.3. The plaintiffs claim the whole of Soromoney's property as her stridhan, and it is not disputed that they are the heirs to whatever constituted her stridhan.4. There is no doubt as to what the property consisted of. An iron safe belonging to Soromoney was found after her death, and all parties concerned very properly abstained from meddling with it. It was opened in Court. In it were certain ornaments and articles of jewellery.5. It was proved that they belonged to Soromoney, and that, in part, they were the ornaments given her on her marriage, re-manufactured, an...
Tag this Judgment!Taruck Nath Mullick, Manager of the Cooch Behar Chuklajut Estate, on B ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal353
White, J.1. In answer to the queries referred to this Court by the Munsif of Julpigoori, we are of opinion:(1) That, under the new Civil Procedure Code (Act X of 1877), when the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear, the proper procedure is that prescribed by the 100th section of that Code, whether the defendant has been summoned only to appear and answer the claim, or has, in addition, been summoned to attend and give evidence.(2) That it is not necessary, before proceeding to hear the suit ex parte under Section 100, that all the process prescribed by law for compelling the attendance of the defendant as a witness should be exhausted. It is sufficient that the service of the summons upon the defendant is duly proved. If such proof is not given, the courses to be adopted are one or other of those mentioned in clauses (b) and (c) of Section 100 according to the circumstances of the case.2. With reference to the statement of the Munsif, that he has directed this case and t...
Tag this Judgment!Dhunput Sing Vs. Sham Soonder Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal291
Tottenham, J.1. The plaintiff is the owner of a fractional share of a zemindari called Lot Rasaba, which is let in patni, the names of the pro forma defendants 1 to 3 being registered in the zemindar's sherista as the patni talukdars. The plaintiff also had a share (four annas) in this patni. For his share of the arrears of rent of the patni in respect of the years 1280 to 1282 (1873 to 1875), deducting the quota of the rent payable by himself, the plaintiff brought against the aforesaid defendants the suit No. 8 of 1877. The pro forma defendant No. 4 intervened in that suit, alleging that he had acquired by purchase a six-anna share of the patni in question, and therefore the suit shall have been brought against him also. He was made a defendant before the suit was finally disposed of. The plaintiff, it is alleged, came to know that the remaining share of the aforesaid defendants 1 to 3 had been purchased by the principal defendant in this case, viz., Sham Soonder Mitter. The plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Proby Vs. Proby
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal357
Pontifex, J.1. The petitioner has instituted proceedings praying for a judicial separation from her husband. She is now scarcely more than 18 years of age; she was married on the 15th of February last, and her husband attained the age of 21 on the 17th of May. They lived together only until the 17th of April, when the petitioner separated herself from her husband; and she alleges cruelty on the part of her husband as the ground on which she claims a judicial separation.2. Within four days from the service on her husband of her petition, she served him with notice of her present application for an order directing him to pay her such alimony during the pendency of her suit as this Court might think fit, and also to pay into Court such sum as might be deemed sufficient to pay her costs of and incidental to, this suit. 3. The application for alimony the husband does not resist, but he opposes the application so far as it asks that he should provide for the petitioner's estimated costs of s...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Churn Dass Vs. Kripa Sindhu Dass and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal474
Richard Garth, C.J.1. Janmojoy, Jankee, and Kandai were three brothers, forming a joint undivided Hindu family under the Mitakshara law. Radha Churn, the plaintiff, was the third and youngest son of Janmojoy, and was adopted by Kandai. Jankee, it is admitted, separated from the family many years ago. Radha Churn, as the heir of one of the two remaining brothers, now sues the defendant--who, as he states, represents the other brother Janmojoy, for a half share of the remaining ancestral estate. It appears that, on the death of Sham Soonder, the eldest son of Janmojoy, the defendant Kripa Sindhu succeeded in establishing his claim to a certificate under Act XXVII of 1860; and that this has given rise to the present suit, though the status of Kripa Sindhu is not here raised since he is admittedly the son of the second son of Janmojoy, and, therefore, in either capacity a member of the family. The other persons made defendants also hold doubtful positions in this family, one of them being ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »