Kolkata Court March 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.
HirdaynaraIn and ors. Vs. Hurmuzi Begum and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1880
Reported in: (1879)ILR5Cal921
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that there is no difficulty about the point which has been raised in these appeals. We have been referred by the appellants' pleader to certain cases which were decided under the Limitation Act of 1859. [See Hurnand Shoo v. Mussamut Ozeem (9 W.R., 102), Gobind Chunder Rai v. Ram Chundra (19 W.R., 95), and Bhuli Singh v. Mussamut Nehmu Bebee (3 B.L.R., App., 102; affirmed on appeal, 4 B.L.R., A.C. 29). But those cases turned upon the particular language of Clause 12, Section 1 of the Act of 1859, which seemed to make it imperative upon the Courts to deal with malikana as an interest in land, and to treat a claim for it as barred if not made within twelve years after the last receipt by the proprietor.2. But the present case is governed by the Limitation Act of 1877, which, like its predecessor, Act IX of 1871, has made special provision for cases of this kind. Article 132 of schedule ii expressly provides that malikana, as well as other sums charged upon i...
The Empress Vs. Kherode Chunder Mozumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal717
Jackson, J.1. It appears to us that this was properly a case cognizable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and not under Section 196; and that, consequently, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to convict, but ought to have committed the prisoner for trial to the Court of Session. We observe that there is only one case--Queen v. Oodun Lall (3 W.R., Cr., 17)--in which incidentally a conviction in a case somewhat resembling the present appears to have been held legal under Section 196; but there the conviction had taken place before a Sessions Judge with the aid of a jury, and the question of jurisdiction did not arise. We are not aware that that dictum has been followed in other cases, and that was a ruling by a single Judge. We think the conviction must be set aside, and that the Magistrate should commit the prisoner for trial....
Noban Nusya and anr. Vs. Dhon Mahomed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal820
Prinsep, J.1. This was a suit brought under Section 77 of the Registration Act, III of 1877, to obtain a decree, directing the registration of a document which had been refused by the Registrar.2. The document in this case was one falling within Section 17, Clause (b), and was a bynanama, declaring the right of the plaintiff to receive a conveyance within thirty days from the execution of that deed, or in default the bynanama should be considered as such conveyance. 3. The defendants, apparently, refused to execute the conveyance, and the plaintiff, more than four months after the date of the execution of the deed, applied for registration of the bynanama.4. The District Judge, on appeal, considers that the right to obtain registration dated from the default of the defendants to execute the conveyance, and that the bynanama having then become a conveyance, the time for applying for registration commenced on that date. It is quite clear, however, that the view taken by the District Judg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›