Kolkata Court February 1881 Judgments
In Re: Deela Mahton Vs. Sheo Dyal Koeri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal714
Cunningham, J.1. We think that the Magistrate was not at liberty to refuse to summon the witnesses tendered by the accused, except on the grounds specified in Section. 359 If the Magistrate think that any witness is included in the purpose of vexation or delay or of defeating the ends of justice he may require the accused person to satisfy him that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such witness is material. If the magistrate be not so satisfied he shall not be bound to summon the witness but in doubtful cases he may summon such witness if such a sum is deposited with the Magistrate as he thinks necessary to defray the expense of obtaining the attendance of the witness one of the Code of the Criminal Procedure; and that if he did refuse on those grounds, he ought to have proceeded under that section. The fact that the accused stated that they did not wish to examine those witnesses when the case closed, was no reason for refusing to summon them to meet fresh evidence which...
Tag this Judgment!Sarkies Vs. Prosonomoyee Dossee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal794
Wilson, J.1. The main question in this case is a pure question of law,---namely, whether, by the law in force in Calcutta, the widow of an Armenian, married before the Dower Act (XXIX of 1839), is entitled to dower out of lands which her husband held during the marriage for an estate of inheritance, as against a Hindu purchaser for value from the husband during his life.2. There is, so far as I can find, no express authority upon the question. It must, therefore, be dealt with upon consideration of principle.3. The plaintiff's claim is founded upon two propositions,---1st, that, by the law of England, a widow would, under like circumstances, be entitled to-dower; 2nd, that the law of England governs the present case.4. The first of these propositions is no doubt correct. The question is as to-the second. It is often said that the law administered by this Court is,--- except in certain matters affecting Hindus and Mahomedans, and except so far as statutory provisions have modified it,--...
Tag this Judgment!Ramsebuk and ors. Vs. Ramlall Koondoo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal815
Richard Garth, C.J.1. Before answering seriatim the questions referred to us, I think it necessary to explain what I consider to be the law with regard to the non-joinder of plaintiffs in actions of contract. This explanation will of itself afford an answer to most of the questions referred. In actions of contract, it is the right of the defendant, if he takes the objection in proper time, to insist upon all the persons with whom he contracted being joined as plaintiffs; and if, after the objection has been raised, the plaintiff proceeds with the suit without taking steps to add the person or persons whose nonjoinder has been objected to, and the Court finds that the objection is well founded, the suit must be dismissed. It is for this reason that the nonjoinder of plaintiffs in an action of contract has always been a plea in bar; and the justice of the rule is manifest. If a defendant is sued by one only of two persons with whom he has contracted, he may have a set-off, or any other d...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mayadeb Gossami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal762
Cunningham, J.1. The prisoner in this ease applied for a certificate under Act XL of 1858 in respect of the estate of two infants, and in support of his application he gave a sworn deposition on the 4th October last before the District Judge.2. His deposition was made in Assamese, and was translated by the Sherishtadar of the Court, and the Judge recorded it in English. He did not sign it, nor was it read over to the witness or translated. The requirements of Sections 182 and 183 of the Civil Procedure Code were, therefore, not complied with This is clear from the deposition of the Sheristadar before the Deputy Commissioner.3. At the conclusion of the proceedings in his Court, the Judge considered that the prisoner had given false evidence, and he directed that he should be prosecuted. This has resulted in his conviction, and as this Court was of opinion, on the facts brought to its notice, that the appeal ought not to be tried by the Judge before whom the false evidence was given, the...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Jubdur Kazi and Golab Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal718
Mitter, J1. These appeals arise out of the same trial. The appellant s have been convicted of being members of an unlawful assembly, in which one Guru Churn received fatal injuries and one Babul Chund was less severely hurt.2. It seems that they were acquitted of any offence as respects the death of Guru Churn, the conviction being for rioting armed with deadly weapons under s. 148, and for hurt caused to Babul Chund under Section 324, read with Section 149 of the Penal Code. The periods awarded being three years under Section 148, and two years under Sections 149 and 324.3. The learned Counsel who appeared for Jubdur Kazi, appellant in No. 22, confined himself to urging that the sentences passed upon his client were in excess of what could be passed, according to law, and that the injuries caused to Babul Chund by one of the members of the unlawful assembly, not found to be his client, were not caused in prosecution of the common object of the assembly.4. The learned Counsel's content...
Tag this Judgment!Panchu Mohini Debya Vs. Taruck Chunder Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal791
Pontifex, J.1. In April 1878, rent being due from the defendant to the plaintiff for the years 1281, 1282, and 1283, the plaintiff instituted a suit for the rent of 1281, for which she obtained a decree.2. Although that suit was instituted after Act X of 1877 came into force, the plaintiff did not include in her suit the rents for 1282 and 1283, which were also then due.3. In April 1879, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for the rents of 1282, 1283, and 1284. With respect to the rents of 1284, it appears from the judgments of the Courts below that, at the time of the institution of the former suit, the year 1284 had not expired, and therefore the entire rent for that year had not become due. The present suit would, therefore, lie for the rent of 1284.4. But objection was taken by the defendant to the suit so far as it related to the rents of 1282 and 1283, on the ground, that they should have been included in the former suit in accordance with the provisions of Section 43 of Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Baba Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Abedooddeen Mahomed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal69
Morris, J.1. In all the suits for arrears of rent out of which these appeals arise, the Subordinate Judge has declined to recognize the rates of rent fixed by the Collector in the proceedings held by him at the instance of the plaintiff under Section 10 of Beng. Act VI of 1862, and has dismissed the plaintiff's suits, save in respect of certain sums admitted by the defendants themselves. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge is appealed against, on the ground that he cannot go behind the decision of the Collector under Beng. Act VI of 3862, that the defendants made no appeal at the time against the decision under Section 10, and that, therefore, the proceedings under that section are final.2. It seems to us, however, clear on the face of those proceedings, that the Collector acted without jurisdiction; and that, therefore, the Subordinate Judge is right in declining to accept the rates that have been fixed by him.3. First, the Collector proceeded on the application of a fractional hold...
Tag this Judgment!Dabi Churn Dutt and ors. Vs. Sundhya Mala
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal715
Morris, J1. We think that this appeal must prevail upon the authority of the decisions which have been quoted to us, viz., Mohidin v. Muhammad Ibrahim (1. Mad. H. C. Eep., 245), Nund Eishore Singh v. Hurree Pershad Mundul (13 W. E., 64), Fran Nath Sandyal v. Bam Coomar Sandyal (2 C. L. R., 33), and the Full Bench decision in the case of Gobind Chunder Koondoo v. Taruck Chunder Bose (I. L. R., 3 Cal., 145). It is clear that the self-same right and title, which are in issue in this case, have been substantially in issue and adjudicated upon in the previous case decided between the same parties on the 9th December 1874. In that case the subject of dispute was a plot of land forming part of what is called Bund Mahata ; it was claimed by one side as appertaining to Mermah, and by the other side as appertaining to Simrail Kandi, and each party set up a certain potta from the same lessor in proof of title. It was found that although the land of Bund Mahata appertained to Mouza Mermah, yet, un...
Tag this Judgment!Upooroop Tewary and ors. Vs. Lalla Bandhjee Suhay
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal749
Mitter, J.1. Various objections have been taken by the defendants against the plaintiff in this suit, and the lower Courts have overruled them all. Some of them have been also taken before us in this appeal, but it would be convenient to take up first the 8th and 9th grounds mentioned in the petition of appeal. These two grounds raise the question, which is in issue between the parties, as regards the title to the property. It is contended before us, that the decision of the lower Courts, that what was sold was only the interest of Dabee Pershad, is erroneous. The proceedings resulting in the execution-sale taken together with the bond of the year 1864, it is contended, show that what was sold was the entire family property. The District Judge decides this point as follows:-'Now the words which I have just quoted apply exactly to the present case. It appears from the bond of the 24th August 1864, that the mortgage was of Dabee Pershad's right, title, and interest without any specificat...
Tag this Judgment!Gour Chunder Shaha and anr. Vs. NobIn Chunder Sircar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal759
McDonell, J.1. Now it appears to us that the plaintiffs are not entitled to succeed in this suit. It may be well to point out in the first instance that the case of the plaintiffs is, not that the defendants, holding over after the expiry of the term of the kabuliat, are bound by the conditions of the kabuliat, and are, therefore, liable to pay rent according to the terms of that instrument, nor is it contended that the defendants have refused to grow indigo, and are, therefore, liable, under the penalty-clause, to pay the rent fixed by the decree. As a matter of fact, the plaintiffs do not seek to enforce the conditions of the kabuliat in any way. Their contention is that, on the expiry of the term of the kabuliat, the enhancement decree of 1864 revived, and has full effect.2. In the first place, it is to be observed that this decree does not contain any direction as to the time for which it is to have effect. Those who are conversant with the history of the law of enhancement of rent...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »