Kolkata Court December 1880 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.
Latchman Pundeh Vs. Maddan Mohun Shye and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal513
Field, J.1. The decree which forms the subject of these proceedings was passed on the 5th of December 1876 by the Munsif of Manbazaar. Subsequent to the passing of that decree, the head-quarters of the Manbazaar Munsifi were transferred from Manbazaar to Barabazaar, and the local limits of the jurisdiction of the same Munsifi were altered by transferring certain than as to the district of West Burdwan and forming them into, or uniting them within, another Munsif, termed the Katra Munsifi.2. On the 5th of December 1879, the decree-holder applied to the Munsif of Manbazaar, then stationed at Barabazaar, to have his decree executed. The decree was a money-decree, which also declared a lien on certain immoveable property. This immoveable property was, at the time of making the decree, within the jurisdiction of the Manbazaar Munsifi; and by reason of the transfer, to which I have adverted, became subsequently, and was on the 5th of December 1879, a portion of the local jurisdiction of the ...
Kali Prosonno Ghose Vs. Newaj Bundopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal543
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think that this appeal Should be dismissed.A suit was brought by the zamindar to enhance the rent of certain lands after notice. The defence in respect of one portion of these lands was, that it was lakhiraj; and the defendant called two witnesses to prove that defence.2. The first Court dismissed the suit upon this ground. It held that, as regards the lands said to be lakhiraj, prima facie case had been made out by the defendant that they were lakhiraj; and that the plaintiff had failed to show that the whole of the lands in suit were rent-paying lands; and as the notice of enhancement was a general one applicable to all the lands in suit, not distinguishing the rent-free from the rent-paying lands the notice was bad even for the rent-paying portion; and therefore he dismissed the suit and declined to go into the question of enhancement at all.3. The case then came before the Judicial Commissioner on appeal: and he has remanded it to the first Court upon the gr...
Anunda Shaha Biswas, Vs. Kema Bebee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal548
Pontifex, J.1. We think that, under Section 560 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a petition is presented for rehearing of an appeal heard ex parte in the absence of the respondent, the applicant is bound to satisfy the Court that the notice was not duly served, or that he was, prevented by sufficient cause from attending when the appeal was called on for hearing. If he is not prepared at the time to satisfy the Court in these particulars, his application is properly rejected. That is what seems to have happened in this case. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Hameedoollah Vs. Mahomed Asghur HosseIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal499
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think that this rule should be discharged.The plaintiff in the first instance brought a suit against the defendants in the District Court of the 24-Parganas for an alleged infringement of his copyright. The Judge of the 24-Parganas dismissed the suit, upon the ground that, being a suit for damages, it ought to have been brought in the Small Cause Court.The plaintiff then brought a suit in the Small Cause Court at Sealdah, and there the defendants took the objection that the suit could not be brought in the Small Cause Court, but should have been brought in the District Court of the 24-Parganas. The Small Cause Court dismissed the suit upon that ground; and this rule was then obtained by the plaintiff to set aside the order of the Small Cause Court, dismissing his suit and directing that Court to try the cause upon the ground that it was properly cognizable there.In support of the rule, the learned pleader has now called our attention to a case decided in the yea...
The Government Vs. Karimdad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal496
1. On the 26th July 1880, one Karimdad laid a complaint before the head constable in charge of Kubdia outpost, against one Doorga Churn Ghose, a Government officer, and against his peon, under Section 342 of the Penal Code. The Police enquired into the case and reported that the charge was false.2. On the 20th August, the Deputy Magistrate in charge of the sub-division recorded his order on the Police report to the effect, that the charge laid was utterly false, and recommended the Magistrate of the District to order the prosecution of Karimdad under Section 211 of the Penal Code. The Magistrate had previously summoned Karimdad to make his statement at head-quarters before one of the Deputy Magistrates; he, however, neglected to attend.3. On the 31st August, the Magistrate sanctioned the institution of proceedings against Karimdad under Sections 211 and 198 of the Penal Code, and directed the Deputy Magistrate to take up the case.4. On the 21st September, the Deputy Magistrate, without...
The Empress Vs. Nobo Gopal Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal491
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think that this rule should be discharged.2. It was granted at the instance of the Legal Remembrancer calling upon Nobo Gopal Bose and the other prisoners to show cause why the case against them, which now stands for trial in the Sessions Court of Burdwan, should not be transferred to Hooghly or to the 24-Parganas, or to some other jury district, upon the ground that a fair trial is not likely to be obtained at Burdwan.3. The affidavit in support of this rule was made by Mr. Stevens, the District Magistrate of Burdwan, and it is certainly couched in very general terms.4. Mr. Stevens says that he has been credibly informed, and believes, that the case is causing considerable excitement in the district; that the prosecutor, and the prisoner Nobo Gopal Bose, are persons of influence in the locality; and that most of the inhabitants of the town of Burdwan and its neighbourhood have their sympathies enlisted on one side or the other. But he does not tell us from what...
Kristo Mohiney Dossee and ors. Vs. Kally Prosonno Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal485
White, J.1. I have come to the conclusion, after some doubt, to make this rule absolute.2. The object of the suit is to compel Kaliprosonno Ghose to pay, to the extent of the value of his share in a particular zamindari, the amount of a decree which has been passed against this estate.3. It is unnecessary to consider the doubts as to whether the plaintiffs will be entitled at the hearing to that relief or any other relief in some qualified form, because, assuming that they could establish their right to any such relief, I consider that the plaintiffs have failed to show that the defendant Rutnessur Biswas, who is now executing the decree, ought to be stayed in consequence, supposing even that such an equity at all exists. The Appellate Court having decided that Rutnessur may execute his decree against the estate of Khelut, and not against the estate upon which a lien was declared by the decree, he cannot, in my opinion, be restrained from executing his decree, because he is exercising ...
In Re: Grish Chunder Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal483
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think it quite clear that, in this case, and as a rule in all cases, general letters of administration of a Hindu's estate must be taken out for the immoveable as well as the moveable property, and that duty must be paid upon the value of the whole. Limited administration can only be granted under special circumstances.2. The real point in the case decided by Kennedy, J., in the case of Kadum-binee Dossee v. Koylash Kaminee Dossee (I. L. R., 2 Cal., 430), is beside the present question; and the opinion there expressed by the learned Judge seems not to have been necessary for the purposes of his decision....
Ramkishore Chuckerbutty and anr. Vs. Kallykanto Chuckerbutty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal479
Morris, J.1. (who, after stating the facts, continued):-In special appeal it is contended that the Judge has put a wrong construction upon the decree, which by its terms purports to be against Bissessuree Debia personally, and that they, special appellants, are not, within the meaning of Section 234 of the Civil Procedure Code, 'legal representatives of the deceased.' In support of this contention they cite as an authority the case of Mohima Chunder Boy Chowdhry v. Ram Kishore Acharjee Chowdhry (15 B. L. R., 142). They also refer to a recent, but unreported, case, decided in special appeal by a Division Bench of this Court. The judgment of Sir Richard Couch in the first quoted case supplies two reasons, which militate against the argument of the special appellants. Sir Richard Couch says:-' In the present case the debt was not due from the husband, and if the estate of the husband is to he charged either for the arrears of rent becoming due after his death, or for the bond which was gi...
The Empress Vs. in Re: Mir Ekrar Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal482
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The accused presented a bond for registration on the 18th December 1879. This bond is said to have been originally dated the 6th August 1879. If this date had remained, the instrument was presented after the time within which such an instrument must be by law presented for registration. The accused is said to have altered the date to the 26th August in order to bring the bond within time; or to have presented it for registration, knowing that the date had been so altered. It appears to us that the alteration of the date under these circumstances is not forgery, as there is nothing to show that it was done 'dishonestly or fraudulently' within the meaning of Clause 2, Section 464 of the Penal Code.2. It is not contended that the bond itself was not genuine, or that the accused intended to support a false claim by a false bond. It is clear that his intention in altering the date of the bond was to cause the registering officer to entertain an erroneous opinion touchi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›