Kolkata Court March 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.
In Re: Petition of Uttom Koondoo and anr. and Vs. Uttom Koondoo and an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal634
Field, J.1. There is no finding or sentence under Section 413 of the Penal Code. The Sessions Judge erroneously speaks of the 'seven headings of the charge.' There were seven distinct charges, not seven headings of one charge. Upon conviction on a single charge under Section 411, three years is the maximum term of imprisonment that could have been directed. Regard being had to the provisions of Section 453 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prisoner could not have been charged and tried at the same time for more than three offences of the same kind. The Sessions Judge was, therefore, wrong in trying the seven charges together. The appellants do not, however, complain of this irregularity in procedure; and it does not appear that the irregularity has occasioned a failure of justice prisoners in their defence (Section 283, Code of Criminal Procedure). We, therefore, direct a new trial; but the conviction and sentence must be set aside, and the prisoners will be convicted upon the thr...
Ram Coomar Kur Vs. Jakur Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal716
White, J.1. The present application for execution was made on the 4th of December 1880. The one immediately preceding was made on the 3rd of October 1877, consequently the present application is prima facie barred under Article 179, [q.v. supra 8 cal., 29.] Schedule ii, of the Limitation Act (XV of 1877). But it is contended by the vakeel on behalf of the judgment-creditor, that, under Section 19 of the Act, an acknowledgment of liability was made by the judgment-debtor on the 7th of December 1877, by virtue of which a new period of limitation has been given to his client starting from the latter date.2. It appears that, upon the application of the 3rd of October 1877, an order for attachment was made, under which certain properties of the judgment-debtor were attached; and that, on the 7th of December in the same year, the judgment-debtor, through his vakeel, presented to the Court a petition, which, after setting out the facts relating to the attachment, prayed that the judgment-debt...
Shib Nath Chuckerbutty Vs. Jibunti Nath Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal820
White, J.1. (Who, having stated the facts and reviewed the evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff's case on the merits had been clearly proved. His Lordship then continued): But it has been argued for the defendants that the suit is barred by the third Clause of Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code, which prohibits the splitting of remedies. This clause apparently introduces a new provision into the Code. It is not to be found in the Original Procedure Code of 1859, the 7th Section of which prohibited the splitting of claims, but contains no provision, or at any rate no express provision, against the splitting of remedies. The circumstances under which it is sought to raise this defence are these: On the 25th January 1879, the present plaintiff, through his mother, brought against the present defendants a suit, in which, claiming under the same title to succeed to Promotho Nath's property, he prayed only for a declaration that he was the heir to that property. The plaint...
Stephen Vs. Stephen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal714
Wilson, J.1. This is a suit on a promissory note signed by the three defendants for Rs. 1,700. Two questions were raised: 1st, How much did the plaintiff advance by way of consideration? 2nd, Is the third defendant liable on the note2. As to the first question, on one point no doubt is raised. The amount of Rs. 1,700 was made up in part by a sum of Rs. 440, deducted for future payment of premiums on a life policy effected as security for a loan. As to this it appears, that plaintiff only paid Rs. 220, and then let the policy drop; as to Rs. 220, therefore, the consideration has failed. The main question is, whether the rest of the consideration was paid. The plaintiff says, it was. Defendants say, only Rs. 270 were paid, and that, as to the rest, the note was given for a wholly different purpose. The plaintiff swears that he has paid the money, and he is confirmed by a witness, who says he chanced to be present. On the other side the two male defendants contradict him. The note itself ...
Romaprosad Roy and ors. Vs. Shorup Paramanick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal712
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case an objection has been taken by the respondent, that we have no jurisdiction to hear the appeal as it is for an amount under Rs. 100, and there is no question raised in it 'relating to a title to land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto.'2. We think that this objection is a good one. We have been referred to two cases Hurry Mohun Mozoomdar v. Dwarkanath Sen 18 W.R. 42 and Shaik Dilber v. Issen Chunder Roy 21 W.R. 42 with which we entirely agree, and which appear to be directly in point. This being a case between landlord and tenant, there is no question of title as between parties having conflicting claims thereto. If the third person whose title was set up by the defendant, had intervened in the suit and claimed the rent against the plaintiffs, we might have had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; but as it is, we think we have no such power, and that the appeal must be dismissed with costs....
Dhunput Singh Vs. Shoobhudra Kumari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal620
Field, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, Rai Dhunput Singh Bahadoor, sues Rani Shoobhudra Kumari, a lady whose estate is under the management of the Court of Wards, and he seeks to recover Rs. 9,100, being Rs. 6,000 principal and Rs. 3,100 interest, due upon a bond dated 3rd February 1876, which is found to have been executed by the Rani. He also seeks to have certain property (which is specified in the schedule annexed to the plaint) declared liable to be sold in execution for the realization of the amount claimed by him. Three questions arise for our decision in the case. The first is--Was Rani Shoobhudra Kumari duly constituted a ward of Court under the law relating to the Court of Wards at that time in force? The second is--If she was duly constituted a ward of Court, was she thereby incapacitated from contracting on any account whatever? The third question, which must be decided in order to dispose of this case, is--Whether Rani Shoobhudra Kumari, if duly constituted a ward of Cour...
Bunnomali Nundi Vs. Hurrydass Byragi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal710
Prinsep, J.1. The plaintiff was charged by the defendant, in the Criminal Court of Burdwan, under Section 147, with rioting, and Section 504, with intentional insult likely to cause a breach of the peace, and was acquitted. Under the orders of the Joint Magistrate he received Rs. 20 as compensation. He now sues the defendant for damages, Rs. 500 on account of injury to his reputation, and Rs. 313-7-5 as the costs incurred in the Criminal Court.2. The first Court assessed the damages for the loss of honour and mental anxiety at Rs. 79, and allowed him also the pleader's fees in the Criminal Court, Rs. 121, making a total of Rs. 200. The lower Appellate Court reduced this amount to Rs. 50.3. There is much in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court that does not meet with our approval, but as the defendant has not appealed, we must take it that it has been rightly held, that he is liable to damages on account of having maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause falsely charged...
Duli Chand and ors. Vs. Rajkissore
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal88
Mitter, J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiffs for the cancellation of a mokurari lease. It was based upon the terms of the mokurari lease. These terms are to the following effect: 'If the said mokuraridar and her heirs fail to pay the mokurari rent for any year in full, then we, the proprietors, and our heirs, shall have the power to deduct the rent due to us from the nuzarana-money, and after paying the balance of the nuzarana-money to the mokuraridar and her heirs, and cancelling the mokurari patta, take seer possession of the share in the said mauza.' It was stated in the plaint that, for seven successive years, this condition of the lease was broken, and the full amount of rent for each of these years remained in arrear at the end of each year; that the plaintiffs' predecessor in title obtained a decree for rent on the 31st May 1877, which, up to date of suit, had not been satisfied. That decree was for Rs. 4,444-5-4. The prayers of the plaint were: first, that the mokurari ...
Nocury Lall Chuckerbutty Vs. Bindabun Chunder Chuckerbutty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal707
Field, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued to have a building removed, which had been erected at very considerable expense upon a piece of land, which has been found to be the joint property of Hindu co-sharers. There is a considerable number of decisions connected with or bearing upon the question at issue in this ease. Some of these decisions are directed, to define what are the rights of a Hindu co-sharer as regards the use of land which is the joint property of himself and other co-sharers. Others of these decisions are concerned with the proceeding by injunction, and the circumstances, under which an injunction should be granted when the rights of other co-sharers are infringed. A third class of these cases consists of decisions in suits brought to remove permanent buildings erected by one co-sharer upon land forming joint property, and in the alleged infringement of the rights of the other co-sharer. The observations which have been made by the learned Judges of this Court in ma...
Woopondra NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Brojendra Coomar Bhoomick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal705
Field, J.1. These are appeals from orders of the Officiating District Judge of Nuddea, remanding four cases under the provisions of Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts are briefly these. The plaintiffs sued for rent in respect of certain land that had accreted to the tenures or holdings of the defendants. The Munsif was of opinion that these were really enhancement suits, and that the service of the notice required by Section 14 of the Rent Act was necessary. The District Judge on appeal held that notice was not necessary; and he remanded the cases to be tried on the merits. The decision of the District Judge is opposed to the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramnidhee Manjee v. Parbutty Dassee I.L.R. 5 Cal. 823. In the view there taken we agree. We think that, although the Alluvion Regulation (XI of 1825) entitles a tenant to hold, as part of his jama, additional land which has accreted thereto, yet, as regards the question of rent, the cas...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »