Kolkata Court April 1881 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.
Roghoonath Mundul and anr. Vs. Juggut Bundhoo Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal214
1. We think the decision of the lower Appellate Court in this case must be reversed. It appears that the defendant in the present suit instituted a suit, No. 43 of 1877, against the present plaintiffs, claiming that rent to the amount of Rs. 27-2-3-2-2 was due to him, in respect of former years on account of a certain quantity of land. The present plaintiffs, who were defendants in that suit, alleged that the amount of rent and the extent of land had both been overstated by the plaintiffs. In deciding that suit the Subordinate Judge held, that the present plaintiffs, who were defendants in that case, were bound by a jummabundi which they had signed, and which stated the amount of rent as claimed in that plaint, and being so bound, the Subordinate Judge refused to try whether the extent of land had been overstated or not by the then plaintiffs. After the decision of that case the present suit was. instituted, in which the plaintiffs pray, notwithstanding the former decision, that their ...
Gyan Chuader Sen and anr. Vs. Durga Churn Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal318
Pontifex, J.1. We think this case must go back to the District Judge, who has disposed of it on a preliminary technical objection, which we do not think applies. The plaintiff in the case sued for partition, and obtained a decree from the Subordinate Judge. Against that decree the defendant appealed to the District Judge, not, however, raising the present objection, and his appeal was dismissed. The decree of the Subordinate Judge was, that the plaintiff was entitled to a partition, and to a certain share in the property to be partitioned, and there was a direction that an Amin should proceed to the land and partition the property. An Amin accordingly proceeded to partition the property, and he made a report to the Court. Against that report the defendant took objections on the merits. The Subordinate Judge overruled the objections, and confirmed the Amin's report. Against the order of confirmation, the defendant again appealed to the District Judge, and after having acquiesced in all ...
Gyan Chunder Roy and ors. Vs. Protap Chunder Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal208
Cunningham, J.1. The question raised in this case is the competence of a Magistrate, under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to dismiss a complaint; and, under Section 468 of the Code, to sanction the prosecution of the complainant for making a false charge, without hearing the complainant's evidence. I see no reason to question the legality of the Magistrate's proceeding. Section 147 empowers the Magistrate to dismiss the complaint, if, after examining the complainant, there is, in his judgment, no sufficient ground for proceeding; and there is nothing in Section 468 to indicate that any particular proceeding on the part of the Court giving the sanction is essential to its validity,---such as, for instance, is necessary in the case of a Court committing case or sending it for inquiry under Section 471. I am unable to concur in the opinion expressed on this point in Syed Nissar Hossein v. Ramgolam Singh (25 W. R., Cr. Rul., 10). The application must be rejected.Prinsep, J.2. ...
Kritartha Moyi Dossee Vs. Obhoy Churn Nundi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal284
Pontifex, J.1. In this case the defendants are the appellants on the second appeal to this Court. It appears that, on the 24th November 1864, the defendants had, at a Sheriff's sale, purchased property, in which the plaintiff had an interest, and had taken possession thereof. After the expiration of twelve years all but one day, the plaintiff instituted this suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court for the recovery of her property, valuing the suit at Rs. 1,001; at the same time she brought another suit, in the same Court, for another property purchased at the same sale by the Sheriff, by another purchaser. After this case had been in the Subordinate Judge's Court for about seven months, he came to the conclusion that the suit was overvalued, and therefore returned the plaint that it might be filed in the Munsif's Court, which was done on that very day. In special appeal it is contended, that the time during which the suit was pending in the Subordinate Judge's Court ought not to be allow...
Ramkishen Singh and ors. Vs. Dulichand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal648
M.E. Smith.1. This is a suit brought by the respondents, Ramkishen and others, against Dulichand, the appellant, to recover back a sum of Rs. 78,393, which the respondents had paid to the appellant to prevent the sale-of a mouza called Korina, which had been attached and put up for sale in execution of a decree obtained by the appellant against one Neoghi. The suit claimed, in the alternative, that the amount of Rs. 78,393 should be apportioned between Korina and another mouza of the name of Nandan. The-point, upon the facts found in the Courts below, is a short and plain one, but in order to make it intelligible, it is necessary to refer to the transactions-which took place between the parties, though not at great length.2. Ram Rutton Neoghi, a zamindar, was the owner of several mehals, and amongst others of two mouzas called Korina and Nandan. These mouzas were mortgaged in the way which will be hereafter described. The first mortgage which appears is of the date of the 3rd July 1865...
Steel and ors. Vs. Robarts
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal809
Wilson, J.1. Decided that, where a matter is before arbitrators, it is out of the hands of the Court; that although the Civil Procedure Code gives power to the Court to interfere in various ways in arbitration matters, it makes no provision for such an application as the present. Such being the case, added to the fact that he considered that no sufficient reason for making the application had been advanced, the motion was dismissed with costs....
The Empress Vs. Chandra Nath Sirkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal65
Morris, J.1. This is a case of riot, which resulted in the death of one Gopeenath Manjhi, permanent injury to the right arm of Khaim Sheikh caused by gunshots, and minor injuries to others, also caused by gunshots and by cutting weapons.2. The Sessions Judge, in concurrence with both the assessors, has convicted Chandra Nath Sirkar, Alum Poramanick, Nundo Manjhi, and Hukim Poramanick of riot under Section 148 of the Penal Code, but differing from the assessors, he has also convicted Chandra and Nundo Manjhi of culpable homicide not amounting to 'murder; and he has sentenced Chandra Nath Sirkar to transportation for life, Nundo Manjhi to transportation for ten years, and Alum Poramanick and Hukim Poramanick to rigorous imprisonment for three years.3. Concurring with one assessor, but differing from the other, the Sessions Judge has further convicted Malu Sheikh, Modhone Sheikh, Mudhee Sheikh, and Kolimuddeen Pathan, of riot, but he has, differing from both assessors, also convicted the ...
In Re: Juggodishari Dabi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal84
Morris, J.1. Regard being had to the definition of probate in Section 3, Act X of 1865, and to the words of Section 256, [Section 256:-Every person to whom any grant of administration shall be committed shall give a bond to the Judge of the District Court to enure for the benefit of the Judge for the time being, with one or more surety or sureties, engaging for the due collection, getting in, and administering to the estate of the deceased, which bond shall be in such form as the Judge shall from time to time by any general or special order direct.] which section appears to us to refer as much to Section 254, as to Section 255, we cannot say that the District Judge was wrong in law to require an administration-bond from the person to whom the Court had ordered probate to be granted. In fact the Act scarcely seems to leave any option in the matter. A case has been brought to our notice-Bun Bahadur Singh v. Moharanee Bajrup Koer (4 C.L.R., 498)---in which the learned Judges, who were ask...
Gureebullah Sirkar Vs. Mohun Lall Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal127
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The Judges of the Division Bench having differed in opinion, this case has been referred to me as a third Judge, and we have heard the point in difference again argued before us.2. The suit was brought under Section 30 of the Bent Law, and a decree was made in the Court of first instance by consent of the parties on the 24th January, 1876, for the sum of Rs. 100 payable by installments. The first installment of Rs. 10 was payable in January 1876, and the remaining installments of Rs. 15 each were payable respectively, in January and August of the years 1877, 1878, and 1879, the last becoming due in August 1879, or upwards of three years from the date of the decree. On non-payment of any one of these installments, the whole sum decreed became due.3. The two first installments were not paid in due course, and the whole amount thus became payable.4. An application for execution was made on the 10th of January 1879, which was struck off on the 7th of March following, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›