Kolkata Court May 1880 Judgments
Kalishunkur Doss Vs. Gopal Chunder Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal49
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The following sketch will suffice to explain roughly the position of the premises, the nature of the easement, which is the subject of dispute, and the defence to the suit, which we have to consider in this appeal.Defendant's land. Drain Privy. Plaintiff's house and premises.Wall erected by the Defendant Drain House and premises of A, theAcross the drain. Subject of former suit.That defence, upon the strength of which the lower Courts and the learned Judge of this Court have dismissed the plaintiff's case is, that, in a former suit, in which another person, whom we will call A, set up a similar right against the present defendant to that now claimed by the plaintiff, it was decided that no such right existed; and it has been held by the lower Courts, and by the learned Judge in this Court, that this judgment between the defendant and A operates as a res judicata in this case to debar the present plaintiff from prosecuting his claim.2. We think, however, upon a rev...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Petition of Chundernath Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal875
Morris, J.1. This matter has arisen from a complaint made on 15th February 1879, regarding an obstruction to a public thoroughfare.2. It appears that, a few months before this complaint was made, proceedings had been taken under Section 521 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, regarding an obstruction to another portion of the same road, and the matter had been referred to a jury under Section 523. The report of the jury was not unanimous, but the Magistrate, on 6th February 1879, accepted the opinion of the majority, declaring that the road was private, and not public.3. The Magistrate, apparently without the consent of either side, directed the same jury to report on the second matter. Shortly after, one of the contending parties objected to one of the jurymen, who had been appointed by the Magistrate, on the ground that he had decided the matter against him in the first case. Without giving notice to the other party, the Magistrate allowed this objection, and appointed another juryman...
Tag this Judgment!Ramcoomar Mitter Vs. Ichamoyidasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal37
Jackson, J.1. We are unable to concur in the judgment of the Courts below, although, of course, in dissenting from two Hindu gentlemen on such a point we feel considerable diffidence. But it appears to us that the plain rules of Hindu law, as well as those of equity and good conscience, are in favour of the plaintiff in this case. If the widow, to whom this money was advanced by the plaintiff, had, in order to pay it off, either alienated or pledged a portion of the estate, we should have had no difficulty at all, because that would have been an alienation or a pledge for a purpose, which is distinctly laudable and recognized as such by authorities on Hindu law;--laudable I say and proper, because the purpose for which the money was borrowed was to promote the marriage of the son's daughter of Bindu-basini's deceased husband. Now, it appears to us, and we think it admits of no doubt, that the male issue of such a marriage, supposing a male to result, would be capable of producing spiri...
Tag this Judgment!Nobocoomar Mookhopadhaya Vs. Siru Mullick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal94
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I confess that I have considerable doubt as to the correctness of the judgment of the Court below; but as my learned colleague thinks that the judgment is right, and as I find that, on the Original Side of the Court, it has been held by Mr. Justice WILSON that, under the Act of 1877, six years is the proper period of limitation in the case of a registered bond, I am unwilling, where the meaning of the Legislature is really doubtful, to divide the Court upon a question of limitation.In one sense, of course, every suit for a breach of contract is a suit for compensation; but I should have thought that, in ordinary legal parlance, a suit to recover money due upon a bond (especially having regard to the form of a single bond in this country), would be a suit for a debt or sum certain; whilst on the other hand, a suit for compensation for breach of contract (Article 116), meant a suit for unliquidated damages.But there is no doubt that, under the Acts of 1859 and 1871,...
Tag this Judgment!Ramessuri Dassee Vs. Doorgadass Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal103
White, J.1. The respondent in this case obtained a decree against the husband of the appellant on the 8th April 1878, and before application was made for execution the husband died. On the 29th March 1879, the respondent applied for execution of the decree upon a tabular statement. In the judgment-debtor column of this statement, the appellant's name is entered under the description of Ramessuri Dasi, widow of Ram Koomar, and in the column for the name of the person against whom execution is sought, the appellant's name is introduced as being that person. Upon this application the Munsif directed the property mentioned in the tabular statement to be attached and sold. The property was accordingly sold in June 1879, and bought by the respondent himself. Within a month of the sale the appellant applied to set it aside on the ground of irregularity.2. One of the objections raised is, that the sale was not duly proclaimed at or near the spot where the attached property is situate.3. We pro...
Tag this Judgment!Khetturpaul Sritirutno and anr. Vs. Kedarnath Nag
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal34
Tottenham, J.1. The appellant in this case holds a jumma in the estate of the Sobha Bazar Rajah, the late Sir Radha Kant Deb Bahadoor, of which estate the plaintiffs are trustees.2. By his lease the defendant was prohibited from digging any tank in his holding without the permission of his lessor. He has, however, excavated a tank, and built pucka ghats, converting the surrounding lands into a garden.3. The plaintiffs brought this suit to compel him to fill up the tank, and to restore the land to its original state, or, should he fail to do so, to make him pay them Es. 715 as compensation.4. The defendant pleaded limitation, and further, that the tank was excavated with the knowledge and permission of the former executors of the estate, who also made no objection at the time the work was done. The first Court finding that the tank was made at least four years previous to the suit, held, that the plea of limitation was established, because it thought that the suit came under Article 32 ...
Tag this Judgment!Haran Chunder Banerji and ors. Vs. Hurro Mohun Chuokerbutty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal41
Tottenham, J.1. (who, after shortly stating the facts, proceeded as follows:-- The material issues on the merits were, whether the will of Nobokishore, of which probate had been granted, could be questioned in this suit; whether the ceremonies enjoined by the Shasters had been duly performed at the defendant's adoption; whether the adoption of Bissesshur was valid or not; and whether, if defendant's adoption be invalid, he is entitled under the will to retain the property.2. The Subordinate Judge disposed shortly of all the issues except that which raises the question of the validity of the adoption of Bissesshur. If that adoption was valid, the defendant Kedarnath was not a legally adopted son; if Bissesshur was not legally adopted, then Kedarnath's title cannot be assailed: for that all the proper forms and ceremonies were Observed in regard to him was found by the lower Court, and has not been denied before us, though a denial of it was set out in the memorandum of appeal. The lower...
Tag this Judgment!Rajender Dutt Vs. Sham Chund Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal106
Wilson, J.1. This case came on for settlement of issues on the 19th and 22nd April, when the several questions of law arising in the case were argued. It was admitted that there was no real contest as to the facts of the case-that is to say, of the correctness of the pedigree as alleged, and the execution of the several documents set out in or annexed to the pleadings. But as there are infants parties to the suit, it was necessary that these matters, so far as they affected them, should be proved. I directed, under Section 196 of the Procedure Code, that these facts might be proved by affidavit.2. Affidavits have since been filed, and the whole case is now ready for decision. (His Lordship then stated the facts of the case, and proceeded as follows):3. There is no averment or admission in the pleadings that the plaintiff purchased with notice of the agreement of 1858. I called attention to this during the argument, and Mr. Bonnerjee, the plaintiff's counsel, admitted that his client to...
Tag this Judgment!The Government of Bengal Vs. Mahaddi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal871
Prinsep, J.1. Mahaddi and Panchoo, together with others were charged under Section 149 of the Penal Code, read alternately with Sections 302, 304, and 325 of the Penal Code, that is, with being members of an unlawful assembly at a time when (i) murder, or (ii) culpable homicide not amounting to murder, or (iii) grievous hurt, was caused by some members of that assembly in prosecution of its common object.2. The jury absolutely acquitted all except Mahaddi and Panchoo, but with regard to these two men the jury unanimously found that they were guilty only under Section 325, Penal Code,--i.e., of having voluntarily caused grievous hurt without grave or sudden provocation. What then followed is thus recorded by the Sessions Judge: 'The Court informed the jury that there was no charge under this section, and requested the jury to re-consider their verdict. The jury accordingly retired for that purpose. They returned to Court at twelve minutes to four o'clock P.M. The Foreman stated they wer...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lall Nag Vs. Koylash Chunder Koosari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal206
Jackson, J.1. In this case, after the questions raised in appeal had been fully argued by Baboo Mohiny Mohun Roy, it was brought to our notice by Baboo Sreenath Dass, on the part of the respondent, that in this case the defendants before us are not entitled to appeal, inasmuch as, under Section 584, as under Section 540, of the Code of Civil Procedure; an appeal lies only as against the decrees of the Subordinate Courts. The words in Section 540 are, 'from the decrees or front any part of the decrees,' and the last mentioned expression is not to be found in Section 584. The contention of the respondent's vakil is, that the defendants in these cases, who have obtained the benefit of the decree of the Court below, by which the suits are dismissed, are not entitled to come up here in appeal by reason of a particular expression or finding contained in the judgment, against which the Code does not allow an appeal. It appears to us that, in regard to Section 584, that undoubtedly is so. It n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »