Kolkata Court September 1881 Judgments
The Empress Vs. Kali Churn Chunari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-22-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal154
Prinsep, J.1. In my opinion there is no ground for our interference in this case. The objection raised is, that the Deputy Magistrate refused to require the Police officer to refresh his memory from a statement of the witness which he had recorded under Section 119 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It does not appear that this Police officer, when examined as a witness, desired so to refresh his memory. I think that the accused was not entitled to insist upon the Police officer refreshing his memory by referring to his notes, because, under Section 126, he was not entitled himself to see these notes or any papers prepared in the course of a Police investigation; and Section 119 declares that [156] such notes shall not be treated as part of the record or be used as evidence. Reg. v. Uttamchand Kapurchand 11 Bom. H.C.E. 120 is not in point.2. As regards the other objection taken, I have not been shown that, in the procedure taken by the Deputy Magistrate, the accused has been any way mater...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Board of Revenue Under Section 46 of the General Stamp Act. Hil ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal254
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the instrument in question should be stamped as a mortgage only.2. The arrangement which it is intended to effect is partly a lease and partly a usufructuary mortgage. In consideration of the former loan being allowed to continue, and of the additional loan being now made by the proprietors of the Concern, the Maharajah grants a lease of the properties for twenty years, upon terms which secure to the lessees the repayment of the whole sum with interest by yearly instalments and at the same time secure to the Maharajah a very substantial share in the usufruct of the property. It seems clear to us, that, under these circumstances, the loan is the consideration for the lease and the lease is the consideration for the loan; and that neither part of the arrangement would have been complete without the other.3. We, therefore, think it impossible to say, that the instrument relates to two distinct matters within the meaning of the first Clause of Section 7 ...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Bengal Vs. Dinonath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal166
Broughton, J.1. The Chief Presidency Magistrate has been called upon to show cause why he should not give to the Bank of Bengal copies of the depositions of the witnesses and the orders recorded in the matter of their complaint made against Dinonath Roy, who has been discharged by the Magistrate.2. This rule is moved for under the Specific Belief Act and under Section 170 of the Presidency Magistrates' Act.3. Two questions arise in this matter: first, whether, under Section 170 of the Presidency Magistrates' Act, the Bank of Bengal, as the prosecutor in the case, have a right to the copies; and second, whether, supposing that they have a right, and this right has not been acceded to by the Magistrate, the High Court can proceed, under Section 45 and the following sections of the Specific Belief Act, to order the Magistrate to fulfil his duty.4. Although the rule has been moved for under the Specific Belief Act, it appears to us to be beyond doubt that the provisions of Section 15 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Prayag Singh Vs. Ram Nirunjun Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal138
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Sarun, awarding a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The claim relates to the estates left by two persons named Dund Bahadoor and Jung Bahadoor. The plaintiff is related to them as half-brother, while the defendant is their uterine brother. Under the Hindu Law of Inheritance, it is clear, therefore, that the defendant's right is superior, but the plaintiff bases his claim on a compromise embodied in two petitions, filed by himself and the defendants respectively to the Collector of the District on the 28th March 1859.2. We agree with the lower Court in the findings to which it has come. It appears that, in the year 1870, the defendant and Dund Bahadoor (who had then attained majority) for self and as guardian of Jung Bahadoor, brought a suit to recover possession of the 'Jethans' by setting aside the compromise upon the self-same grounds as are taken in the written statement in this case. That case was dismis...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchunder Nag and ors. Vs. Kalikristo Paul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal147
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We are of opinion that there is no appeal against the order which the learned Judge has made in this case. He has come to no decision upon the merits, nor has he given what we consider to be a judgment within Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In point of fact he says: 'I cannot give a proper judgment in the case as it stands.'2. He considers that the lower Appellate Court has misunderstood the case and has not tried the proper issues; and, therefore, professing, as we conceive, to act under the combined operation [148] of Sections 566 and 587 of the Civil Procedure Code, he has framed certain issues, and desired the lower Court to try them, and return its findings to this Court; meanwhile the case remains on his own file.3. How far the learned Judge had power to deal in this way with Section 566 on second appeal, we are not in a position now to decide; because, in our opinion, the order which was made does not amount to a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of...
Tag this Judgment!Balkissen Dass Vs. Luchmeeput Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal91
Richard Garth, C.J.1. Certain it is that, on the one hand, the plaintiff was mistaken in supposing that the Dobays owed no money to Luchmeeput at the time of the mortgage; and on the other, Luchmeeput was not aware of the true position of the plaintiff's family as regards the banking business. The consequence was, that when the trial had proceeded for some time, it transpired that the plaintiff, Byjonath, although professedly carrying on business in his own name was really doing so on behalf of the other members of his family, who were interested in the bank; and thereupon Mr. Kennedy took an objection, that all the persons so interested ought to be made parties to the suit.2. This was resisted on the part of the plaintiff; but the learned Judge, after hearing both sides, thought it right to adjourn the case, giving the plaintiff's counsel an opportunity of applying to the Court within one month to add the other members of the firm as plaintiffs, or if he elected not to do so, giving t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Reza and ors. Vs. Hubibul HosseIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal192
Mitter, J.1. (who, after stating the facts, continued as follows): It seems to be doubtful whether the order in question falls within the definition of the word 'decree' in Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 2 says: ''Decree' means the formal expression of an adjudication upon any right, claim, or defence set up in a Civil Court, when such adjudication, so far as regards the Court expressing it, decides the suit on appeal.' The only way in which the order of the District Judge may be brought within the definition is by holding that it is an adjudication on the right of the plaintiff's to have their suit heard upon the plaint with the court-fee which they have paid, and that it was that right which was determined by the District Judge. But it seems to me that it would be a strained construction of the words of the definition given above. However, without expressing a decided opinion on this point, it seems to us that the appeal must fail on the merits.2. The law with referen...
Tag this Judgment!Radoinath Shaha Vs. Radoinath Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal195
Mitter, J.1. The petitioner, it is said, owns a wine-shop in the village of Chundun Pookur, within the jurisdiction of the Police station of Barrackpore. On the night of the 12th July he was arrested by Inspector A.H. Prichard, and taken to the Police-station. There the Inspector entered a charge against him for selling and having in possession English liquor without a license. He was released on bail, being directed to appear before the Magistrate of Barrackpore the next day, the 13th July, to answer these charges. On his application, the case was postponed to the 25th July, on which date the Magistrate tried him summarily for the following offences:1st.--Refusal to produce license (Section 59).2nd.--Illegal sale of imported liquors (Section 53).3rd.--Illegal possession of imported liquors (Section 64).4th.--Breach of condition of license (Section 59).2. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to all the charges. But he was found guilty under Sections 53 and 59 of the Act, and fined Rs. 100...
Tag this Judgment!Koylash Chunder Bose Vs. Anarallah Shaikh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal118
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the appeal should be dismissed upon this short ground. Three plots of land were let to the defendants under one kabuliat, two of these, they say, they have relinquished, but one they are now admitted to be in possession of.2. Under these circumstances they have clearly no right to set up as a defence to a suit for the whole rent, that they were induced to enter into the kabuliat by the fraud of the plaintiff.3. The lease was an entire contract, and the defendants have no right to repudiate one portion of it on the ground of fraud and adhere to the other portion. If the tenancy is to be avoided on the ground of fraud, it must be avoided in toto.4. If they wished to set up the defence upon which they now rely, they should have relinquished the whole of the land covered by the kabuliat.5. If, on the other hand, they wished to have their contract of tenancy rectified or altered, they should have brought a suit for that purpose. They would have their reme...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mahomed Busheerul HosseIn and Vs. Mahomed Busheerul Hossein
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal263
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Patna, adjudging one Tajamul Hossein, a lunatic under Act XXXV of 1858, and appointing his son, the respondent before us, the manager of his estate. The appeal has been preferred by the daughters of the alleged lunatic. When this appeal was first argued before us, we adjourned it for a time to allow the alleged lunatic to prefer an appeal if he was so advised; but on the expiration of the time allowed no such appeal having been preferred, this appeal of the daughters was heard.2. An objection in limine has been taken by the pleader on behalf of the respondent, that this appeal ought to be rejected on the ground that the daughters have no locus standi. We do not think this objection is valid.3. The proceedings in the District Judge's Court at Patna were initiated by an application made by the respondent under Section 3 of Act XXXV of 1858. It was alleged in that application, that the alleged lunatic was then residi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›