Kolkata Court February 1882 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.
The Empress Vs. Shasti Churn Napit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal331
Mitter, J.1. The conviction seems to be illegal. Assuming that Shasti Napit was legally arrested under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he was not lawfully detained in custody for any offence, and could not therefore be punished under Section 224 of the Penal Code; nor could he have been punished under Section 225A, as he had not failed to furnish security for good behaviour.2. The conviction must be set aside and She warrant for his imprisonment cancelled....
In Re: Teacotta Shekdar and ors. and Vs. Ameer Majee, Hafiz Paikar and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal393
Mitter, J.1. The petitioners state that a criminal case, in which the petitioners were complainants, and Ameer Majee and others were defendants, was pending in the Deputy Magistrate's Court of Jungipore. This case was transferred to the Sub-divisional Officer of Lallbagh by an order of the Officiating Magistrate of the District, purporting to have been passed under Section 48 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners have applied to this Court to set aside the order of transfer, on the grounds (i) that it is not warranted by Section 48; (ii) that it should not have been passed without any notice to them, they being entitled to be heard in the matter; and (iii) that it would be extremely inconvenient to them to attend the Court at Lallbagh, which is at some distance from their homes.2. By the order of the Officiating Magistrate referred to above he directed that 'all criminal cases occurring in Chuckla Ramchundrapur, and all cases if there be any, or any shall arise occurring near...
Leelanund Singh Vs. HamidooddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal576
Cunningham, J.1. This was a suit for rent. The only question is, whether the claim was comprised in the deed of compromise, which was executed previously with reference to a former suit between the parties. The language of this deed is, in several places, somewhat general, and extends to claims of every description. In construing it, the view taken by the original Court is, that it deals with a particular claim, namely, the subject of the former suit, which was a certain account to be rendered as an agent, and certain sums of money to be recovered, for which the defendants, in the former suit, were responsible. I think the general expressions used in the deed of compromise must, according to the well-known rule of interpretation, be confined to matters of the same nature, and forming part of the transaction which the parties had in view. I, therefore, agree with the view taken with regard to the compromise by the original Court, and think that the appeal, so far as regards this part of...
Hurro Lall Shaha Vs. Kamona Soondury Dassee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal570
Field, J.1. In this case the plaintiff asks for the revocation of probate of a will alleged to have been executed by one Huri Mohun Shaha as far back as 27th Magh 1279 (8th February 1873). Huri Mohun Shaha, the alleged testator, died in the following month, that is Falgoon 1279. No application for probate of the alleged will was made until some four years after the testator's death; and probate was granted on the 22nd June 1877. The present petition for revocation of this probate was presented to the Court of the District Judge of Pubna on the 22nd May 1880; and the petitioner explains his delay in applying for revocation by saying that he had no information as to probate of the alleged will having been granted until a few months before making this application, when for the first time he became aware of the grant. Now the District Judge has dealt with the materials put forward by the petitioner and with the evidence produced as to the execution of the will in a way that is, to our mind...
Poresh Mundul and anr. Vs. Imam Ali and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal468
Cunningham, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs and defendants are landholders of two jaghirs, co-terminus throughout their entire length of 20 bighas, and separated from each other by an 'al,' running east and west. The plaintiffs say, that the rain water from their lands used, from time immemorial, to pass over the defendants' land by flowing over the 'al' through certain passages (khurhi or nalla), but that the defendants have raised the height of the 'al' by 2 or 2 1/2 cubits, so as to form a new bandh for a distance of 11 bighas, have closed all the khurhis, and have laid two new pipes, a cubit high, through the 'al'; that, owing to these acts, rain-water accumulated on the plaintiffs' lands and occasioned damage to the crops of the plaintiffs in one suit amounting to Rs. 150, and of the plaintiff's in the other suit amounting to Rs. 180. The plaintiff's accordingly claim (i) a declaration of their prescriptive right; (ii) an order reducing the 'al' to its proper height; (iii) the op...
Mahomed AfsuruddIn Vs. Beer Chunder Manikya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal471
Morris, J.1. In this case the District Judge holds the view that though a decision of the Collector under Section 77, Act X of 1859, is not final, and is liable to be set aside by a suit brought in a Civil Court, yet the decision of the Judge passed on appeal against an order passed by the Collector under Section 77, Act X of 1859, is final, because his Court is a Court of competent jurisdiction and is precisely the same Appellate Court as that in which an appeal is tried under Beng. Act VIII of 1869. This view appears to us to be erroneous. The decision of the Court on appeal against an order passed under Section 77, stands in no higher position than the decision of the lower Court, whether passed by the Collector or by the Deputy Collector in cases referred to him by the Collector. This point has been expressly determined by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dinanath Bose v. Kali Kumar Roy B.L.R. Sup. Vol. 364; s.c. 5 W.E. Act X Rul. 23. The judgment of the Full Bench, delive...
Cally Nath Naugh Chowdhry Vs. Chunder Nath Naugh Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal378
Pontifex, J.1. We are of opinion that the decision of the Court below is a correct decision, and that the testator's will contains a sufficiently clear gift to his grandsons living at his own decease.2. It is true that the testator endeavours to postpone the possessory enjoyment of his grandsons to a period of at least five years from his death; and that he directs an accumulation of the profits of his estate for a very, much longer period. But his will containing, as in our opinion it does, sufficiently direct words of present gift, the clauses in it which attempt to postpone the enjoyment in possession, and to direct accumulation, must be rejected or disregarded as inconsistent or repugnant.3. The fact that the estate is subjected to trusts or charges for partial purposes, such as the raising and payment of Rs. 400 per mensem for the maintenance of certain members of the testator's family; the substitution at the end of five years of a life-interest in a certain portion of the estate...
In Re: NobIn Chundra Banikya and Vs. NobIn Chundra Banikya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal560
Mitter, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of the offence of abetment of murder (ss. 114 and 302 of the Penal Code) of a person named Muddun Banikya, and sentenced to transportation for life. The assessors were for acquitting the appellant. That, on the night of Friday the 8th Joist last (20th May); Muddun was murdered in his hut while asleep, and on the following morning his corpse was discovered with a ram-do lying near it, is proved beyond the possibility of a doubt. It appears that the appellant was suspected of having committed this murder, and was arrested by the Police on the 22nd May and challaned on the 30th May. On the 31st May the appellant made a statement to the Deputy Magistrate in charge of the Subdivision within which the murder was committed, confessing his guilt and implicating one Ramkristo Banikya and four other Mussulmans of his village. On the 7th June the Deputy Magistrate, under Section 347 of the Criminal Procedure Code tendered pardon to the appellant, who,...
Pran Nath Surma Jowardar Vs. Surrut Chundra Bhuttacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal460
Bose, J.1. The following genealogical tree shows the relationship of the plaintiff and Grish Chunder as heirs to the deceased Roghu Nath: RAMGOPAL | RAM KANT ________________________|____________________ | | Ram Nath Kali Kant | | ____________________________ A daughter | | |Ram Mohun Roghu Nath | | Pran Nath (plaintiff)Bhoirub Chunder |A daughter |Grish Chunder.2. The defendant belongs to another branch of the family, but defends his possession of the land in suit against the claim of Pran Nath by asserting that Grish Chunder, and not Pran Nath, is the proper heir.3. This case raises a question of Hindu law as current in the Bengal school. The question is--Who is the preferential heir to Roghu Nath, deceased proprietor--his uncle's daughter's son, namely, Pran Nath, or his brother's son's daughter's son, namely, Grish Chunder4. The District Judge of Mymensingh, in appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, has held, in an elaborate and well considered judgment, that Grish Chun...
Tara Prashad Coondoo and anr. Vs. Ghunshyam Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal466
Cunningham, J.1. In this case it was urged with regard to the year 1286 (1879), for which rent at an enhanced rate was claimed, that the Courts below ought to have dismissed the plaintiffs' claim altogether instead of giving them rent at the rate found to be the proper one. In support of this contention the rule laid down by the Privy Council in the case of Soorasoondery Dabee v. Golam Ally 15 B.L.R. 125; s.c. 19 W.R. 142 was brought to our notice; but we find that the application of that rule has been discussed in the subsequent cases of Brojonath Tewaree v. Grant 22 W.R. 13; Bhugwan Dutt Jha v. Sheo Mungul Singh 22 W.R. 256 and Bhubo Soonduree Chowdhrain v. Kasheenath Acharjee 22 W.R. 351 and that it has been held, that the rule prescribed by their Lordships in that case does not apply to cases where the suit is not simply a suit for enhancement, but a suit for rent at the old rate as regards some years and at an enhanced rate for others.2. We, therefore, think that the Courts below ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »