Kolkata Court March 1881 Judgments
Jhumuk Noniah Vs. Shadashib Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal26
Pontifex, J.1. In this case Shadashib Roy has been convicted of criminal trespass punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sheosahai has been convicted of abetment of criminal trespass punishable under Section 447 Section 447:---Whoever commits criminal trespass, shall be Punishment for criminal punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. read with Section 109. The facts of the case appear to be as follows:---There is a dispute between Sheosahai and his tenants on the subject of rent. On the day of the occurrence, which forms the subject of these criminal proceedings, Shadashib, the servant of Sheosahai, and a number of other persons, went on the field of the complainant, and prevented him from cutting [27] his paddy. Shadashib was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10, and his master, Sheosahai, was sentenced for abetment to pay a fine of Rs. 100. The Sess...
Tag this Judgment!Nusir Mistri Vs. Najibulla Mulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal196
Pontifex, J.1. Who, after stating the facts of the case as above, continued:---Before the District Judge two authorities were cited; one of them---Does Money Dosee v. Jonmenjoy Mullick (I. L. R., 3 Gal., 363)---is an authority to-show that general words like those used in this bond would be insufficient to-give a creditor a lien upon any specific property. The other is a Full Bench case, Rajkumar Ramgopal Narayan Sing v. Ram Dutt Chowdhry (5 B. L. R., 264), and is relied upon by the plaintiff to show that, in this particular case, there was sufficient mention of property in the bond to give him a lien. Now the construction that ought to be put upon documents of this nature is stated, very plainly in Sugden on 'Vendors and Purchasers,' page 711, 14th edition. It is there laid down that it is a general rule, although it may not hold universally true, that 'a covenant to convey and settle lands will not be a specific lien on the lands of the covenantor, but the covenantee will be a credit...
Tag this Judgment!Faiz Ali and ors. Vs. Koromdi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal28
Pontifex, J.1. This rule was moved for and granted by us on the ground that the Deputy Magistrate had improperly refused to allow the petitioners to recall and cross-examine the witnesses of the complainant after the charge had been framed under Section 217. The same objection was taken in appeal before the Magistrate, and the Magistrate, in his decision, has held that the petitioners did not exercise their right under Section 218, of recalling the witnesses for the prosecution for cross-examination within proper time, and that therefore they were not now entitled to take any objection on account of the refusal by the Deputy Magistrate to recall such witnesses.2. Now, in the petition before us, it is stated that the charge was drawn up on the 17th of December 1880, and that on the same day an application was made to the Deputy Magistrate, asking that the witnesses should be recalled for further cross-examination. It appears, however, that the petition before the [30] Deputy Magistrate ...
Tag this Judgment!Fakuruddeen Mahomed Assan Vs. the Official Trustee of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal82
Morris, J.1. We agree in the view of the law that has been laid down by the District Judge of Pubna, and consider that the Pubna Court can, upon the certificate that has been sent to it, execute the decree of the Furridpore Court. The circumstance that the judgment-creditor, in order to secure property of the judgment-debtor, which was in a foreign territory, viz., Chandernagore, has obtained a decree in the Chandernagore Court on the basis of the decree of the Furridpore Court, does not, in our opinion, constitute a bar to the execution of the latter decree. The foreign Court does not stand in a higher position than the British Court, so that a decree of the latter should be merged in that of the former. According to the explanation given in Section 12 of the Procedure Code, 'the pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in British India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.' It seems to follow, therefore, as a necessary consequence, that the...
Tag this Judgment!Kadumbinee Dassee Vs. Jadoo Shat and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal150
Cunningham, J.1. The plaintiff in this case, on behalf of her minor daughter-in-law, along with other co-owners, was in the habit of receiving rent jointly through a common agent. The other co-owners dismissed this agent and appointed another, and thereupon the plaintiff gave notice to the tenants, not to pay her share of the rent, and she now seeks to enforce payment against them. This it appears to me is contrary to the law laid down in a series of decisions, and especially in the Full Bench decision-Guni Mahomed v. Moran (I. L. R., 4 Cal., 96; S.C., 2 C. L. R., 373).2. I think, therefore, that the decision of the lower Court must be set aside and the plaintiff's suit dismissed with all costs.3. This judgment will govern appeal from Appellate Decree No. 115 of 1880.Prinsep, J.1. The decision of the lower Appellate Court on this point is clearly wrong, for, as pointed out in the Full Bench decision, Guni Mahomed v. Moran (I. L., R., 4 Cal., 96; S.C., 2 C. L. R., 373), 'it has been con...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rochia Mohata
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal42
Pontifex, J.1. This is an appeal from a conviction by a jury in respect of which we can only interfere if there has been some error of law or misdirection by the Judge. Now it is alleged that we ought to interfere on two grounds, first, that evidence has been wrongly placed before the jury; and secondly, that in certain particulars there has been a misdirection, or rather a want of direction by the Judge.2. With respect to the first ground that improper evidence has been placed before the jury, the complaint is, that the depositions of two witnesses who were examined before the Magistrate were improperly allowed by the Judge to be put in by the prosecution and used in the Sessions Court under the following circumstances:3. One of these witnesses was the person whom the defendant and his party were accused of assaulting, and who has since died. Now, before the Magistrate the only complaint was a charge of grievous hurt. But in consequence of the death of the person who was hurt, viz., K...
Tag this Judgment!Jotendro Mohun Lahuri Vs. Nilcomul Lahuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal178
Morris, J.1. We understand the real plaintiff in this suit to be a minor, one Jotendro Mohun Lahuri, represented by his mother and guardian, Bhubonessury Dabia-otherwise the suit would not lie. The plaintiff then lays claim to the share of the estate left by Chandmoni Dabia, widow of Ram Mohun Lahuri, the uterine brother of his adoptive father, late Shibnath Lahuri.2. Chandmoni Dabia died on the 2nd Assar 1274, which corresponds with the 15th June 1867. The plaintiff was adopted on the 10th Magh 1280, which corresponds with 27th January 1874, by Bhubonessury Dabia, under permission granted to her under the will of her late husband; and though the defendant was the sole heir, at the time of her death, to the entire estate left by Chandmoni Dabia, his succession to one-half thereof is contested by the plaintiff in this suit on the ground that his adoptive mother was unable, in consequence of the fraudulent acts of the defendant, to exercise, before the death of Chandmoni Dabia, the power...
Tag this Judgment!Juggut Chunder Roy and ors. Vs. Roop Chand Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal811
Broughton, J.1. Found that the defendants were partners, and gave a decree in favour of the plaintiffs against all the defendants, and ordered Roop Chand to pay the costs incurred by Tariney Pershad Shaw and Chand: Mohun Shaw, and the costs of Rakhal Doss to be paid out of the partnership assets, aftet satisfaction of the debt....
Tag this Judgment!Kali Krishto Thakur Vs. Golam Ali Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal46
Field, J.1. This is a case under Section 530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The land in dispute is a piece of newly-formed chur land. It was claimed by one party as belonging to his estate Jahazmara, and by the other party as belonging to the Mehal Panchkati. This rule was obtained substantially on three grounds: first, that the preliminary proceeding of the Magistrate was defective; secondly, that the order made by the Magistrate is bad, inasmuch as it does not contain a sufficient description by boundaries so as to enable the land in respect of which the order has been made to be identified; and thirdly, that the Magistrate allowed his mind to dwell, not upon the question of possession, but on the question of title; and that he had not evidence of possession before him which could justify him in making the order. As to the first of these points, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the case of Sheikh Munglo v. Durga Narain Nag (25 W.R. Cr. Rule, 75). In that case no p...
Tag this Judgment!inder Pershad Singh Vs. Campbell
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal474
Mitter, J.1. In 1874, the plaintiff, Inder Pershad Singh, engaged to sow 20 1/2 bighas of land with indigo yearly for nine years (1281-1289 F. S.) in consideration of a sum of Rs. 41 paid to him, at the rate of Rs. 2 per bigha, by Mr. W. Campbell of Karhar Factory. The land lies in two villages, viz., 161/2 bighas lie in the village of Ruttonpoora, the plaintiff being an under-tenant of this land; and 4 bighas in the village of Keratpur, the plaintiff being the proprietor of this land.2. In 1284 F. S. (1876-77), the proprietor of Ruttonpoora ejected the superior tenant, under whom the plaintiff held the 161/2 bighas in that village; and the plaintiff's occupancy of that land ceased then.3. The present suit is brought by the plaintiff to be relieved from the contract entered into in 1874 so far as the 161/2 bighas in Ruttonpoora is concerned. It appears from the judgment in this case, that the defendant, Mr. Campbell, brought a suit, No. 59 of 1878, against the plaintiff, to recover dam...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »