Kolkata Court April 1880 Judgments
Joggessur Singh and ors. Vs. Bycunt Nath Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal822
Jackson, J.1. The Appellate Court had also the survey map of the year 1844, to which objection had been taken, that objection being the old formal one, that, by an order of the Board of Revenue, the entire Government survey of the district of Hooghly had been annulled and a fresh survey made. That does not appear to us specifically to affect the presumption of law contained in the Evidence Act in favour of the particular survey map of this mouza, which must be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved by the parties. It does not prove the contrary to show that the general survey had been set aside, because it is quite consistent with that order that the actual bearing of the land in suit should be correct. However that may be, it seems that a second survey having taken place in the year 1870, a new map was made, which coincided precisely with that of 1844. Under these circumstances, we think that the lower Appellate Court had before it, independently of the decisions objected...
Tag this Judgment!Chundee Churn Roy Vs. Shib Chunder Mundul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal945
White, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the District Judge of Burdwan reversing the decree of the Munsif, which had been passed in favour of the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us.2. From the language of his plaint it is dubious whether the plaintiff, who, is the appellant before us, claims the ownership of the portion of the khal mentioned in the plaint, or whether his claim is confined to a right of fishing in the water of that portion of the khal. In the course of the proceedings, however, that point was cleared up, for the Munsif says in his judgment that the plaintiff's claim was limited to a prescriptive right of fishery, and it is clear from his grounds of appeal to this Court that the plaintiff accepts that view of his case.3. The Munsif, finding that there was upwards of twenty years' enjoyment of the right to fish proved by the plaintiff, passed a decree in his favour.4. The learned Judge in the lower Appellate Court, in reversing that decree, makes this ob...
Tag this Judgment!Payn Vs. the Administrator-general of Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal766
Wilson, J.1. The order of transfer may be made on the ground that the parties and the witnesses reside in Calcutta; that it will be cheaper to try the suit here; and that all parties appearing on the motion desire a transfer. These reasons to be recorded....
Tag this Judgment!Shumbhoonath Shaha Vs. Guruchurn Lahiri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal894
Morris, J.1. In this case application to execute a decree was made on 25th February 1878. The lower Court has rejected it, on the ground that, although the next preceding application for execution was made on the 31st July 1876, yet, under Act IX of 1871, Scheduleii, Article 167, which was then in force, 'execution was on that date barred, owing to the application immediately before it having been made on the 27th March 1873, or more than three years previously. The decree which is sought to be executed was, undoubtedly, on the 31st July 1876, and no proceedings taken on the application of that date to execute it could revive it. The application could have been opposed on the ground of limitation, and, consequently, no process of execution could have lawfully issued under it. This principle is clearly laid down in the case of Bissessur Mullick v. Dhiraj Mahtab Chand (B.L.R. Sup. Vol., 967, S.C. 10 W.R., F.B., 8), and in subsequent rulings of this Court [See. Unnoda Pershad Roy v. Sheik...
Tag this Judgment!Uggrakant Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Hurro Chunder Shiekdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal209
Jackson, J.1. We find ourselves obliged very reluctantly to order a second remand in this case. The order with which the case was sent back to the lower Appellate Court in January 1879 was sufficiently precise. The Judge, on the ease going back, appears to have done that which was perhaps not absolutely open to him, viz., to admit fresh evidence, and the plaintiffs contend that, owing to the manner in which that was done, they were put at a certain disadvantage. However that may be, the Judge, we find, refused credit to the witnesses whom the defendants called to prove that the plaintiffs had knowledge of their claim to the miras tenure, and he relies altogether upon certain documents which the defendants have put in. He says:---It remains to be seen what the documentary evidence shows. The potta certainly does not show by itself that the plaintiffs knew for more than twelve years of the title set up by defendants. There is nothing to show that it came to their notice before 1866, whic...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Anuntram Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal954
Judgment1. In the particular case out of which this reference arises, the prisoners, Tophia and Dariah, were arrested by the police and forwarded under custody to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, and made each a confession to him before the police investigation was concluded, (or at least before the report of the police investigation was submitted). The Magistrate who recorded their confessions was the Magistrate who conducted the preliminary enquiry, and committed them for trial to the Court of Session. And not only had this officer jurisdiction to make the enquiry preliminary to commitment, but he had also the power to determine what Magistrate should conduct the enquiry. The Sessions Judge finds that, 'when the prisoners were sent up before him on the 17th, he had resolved to take up the preliminary enquiry himself,' as indeed his duty required; but that the formal order to that effect was not made till a few days later. The prisoners, as the Judge also points out, ceased to be i...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Kala Chand Dass and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal14
Pontifex, J.1. We agree with the Sessions Judge in this case that the order passed by the Magistrate, requiring the accused persons to deposit cash in lieu of taking a bond for good behaviour, ought to be set aside as bad.No doubt, defendant No. 5 is, on his admission, as stated by the Magistrate, but which really is not borne out by the record, a by no means reputable character. But in my opinion Section 505 is not intended to apply to a person of such character and reputation, and the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with him under that section. And, speaking generally, the order passed by the Magistrate seems to me preposterous. The seven defendants are each required to find two sureties to the amount of Rs. 500 each; three of the defendants are required to deposit in cash Rs. 1,000 each; two of them Rs. 500 each; and the remaining two Rs. 250 each, and in default to have rigorous-imprisonment for one year.3. [16] With respect to the deposit, we agree with the Judge that the o...
Tag this Judgment!Johuri Mahton Vs. Thakoor Nath Lukee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal830
White, J.1. We have heard Mr. Sandel for the appellant, who is the plaintiff in the first Court.2. The appeal is confined to a sum of Rs. 395. The lower appellate Court has held that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by the law of limitation, inasmuch as the suit is not brought within three years from the date when the money became payable.3. The money in question was deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant pending negotiations for a new lease; and the arrangement was, that, if the new lease was granted, these 395 rupees should be treated as part of the security to be given for the due performance of the lease; but that, if no new lease were granted, the money should be returned. The negotiations fell through, and the consequence was, that the money immediately became repayable, and in the eye of the law was money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff. Article 62 of the Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act prescribes three years' limitation for a suit...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mccorkindale (Deceased)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal1
Wilson, J.1. I don't think there is any reason for doubt in this application. The facts are simple. Mr. McCorkindale employed the firm of Messrs. Orr and Harriss as his attorneys. On the 23rd of January last he died, leaving a will, whereby he appointed Messrs. James Anderson and William Palam his executors. These gentlemen having renounced probate of the will, the Administrator-General, on the 19th of February last, obtained letters of administration to the property and credits of Mr. McCorkindale. On the 3rd of February the firm of Messrs. [5] Orr and Harriss dissolved partnership, and the business was carried on under the style of 'Messrs. Harriss and Co.' They retained possession of Mr. McCorkindale's papers. Repeated demands were then made by the Administrator-General to the present firm of Messrs. Harriss & Co., to deliver over to him all drafts, deeds, letters, documents and papers which were then in their hands in reference to all matters and suits wherein the late firm of Mess...
Tag this Judgment!Lootfulhuck Vs. Gopee Chunder Mojoomdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-13-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal941
Morris, J.1. The ground taken by the Judge is, that this 'defendant as tenant is not bound to pay his rent fractionally a single hour longer than he chooses so to do.' And he supports this proposition by quoting a passage in the judgment of Mr. Justice Ainslie sitting alone in the case of Anu Mundul v. Sheikh Kamalooddeen (1 C.L.R., 248). He also refers to some remarks of the Chief Justice in the Full Bench case of Guni Mahomed v. Moran (I.L.R. 4 Calc., 96). It appears to us, however, that the remarks in the Full Bench case of Guni Mahomed (I.L.R. 4 Calc. 96) cannot be understood as supporting the view taken by the Judge that a tenant-defendant can, at his option, decline to pay to a part-owner of property the fractional share of rent which he has previously been paying to him. It seems to us that, when on the consent of all the shareholders, landlords, a tenant in an undivided property has agreed to pay to the different sharers the rent of the tenure in proportion to their respective ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »