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 Ameruddin, and Vs. Farid Sarkar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal481
Mitter, J.1. Farid Sarkar and Ali Sarkar and others were charged with the offence of rioting by entering forcibly into a zamindar's cutcherry. Against the first two there was a separate complaint by one Ameruddin, a peon in that cutcherry, of having caused hurt to him in the course of the rioting, which formed the subject-matter of the first-mentioned case. The Magistrate convicted the accused persons in both cases. He recorded one judgment, in which he says that he tried the riot-case regularly, and the hurt-case summarily. The punishment awarded in the latter case was a fine of Rs. 50 each. Both cases went before the Sessions Judge,--the former by way of appeal, and the latter by way of motion. The Judge, holding that, under Section 454 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there should have been one trial, treated the whole matter together, and reversed the conviction. Although we are inclined to agree with the Judge that, under Section 454, there could have been one trial, yet it does no...
The Land Mortgage Bank of India Vs. Jassoda Kooer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal916
Mitter, J.1. This appeal arises out of a decision of the Officiating Judge of Sarun, in the matter of the execution of a decree, which was obtained by the decree-holders, respondents before us, against the judgment-debtor, the appellant, in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Patna. The decree was transferred under the provisions of the Code for execution to the District Judge's Court of Sarun. The judgment-debtor raised various objections against the execution of the decree. All these objections have been disposed of by the District Judge of Sarun, excepting two,--viz., the objections relating to the plea of limitation and to the amount due under the decree. In this appeal the judgment of the lower Court is not questioned with reference to the objections which have been disposed of by the District Judge. As regards the plea of limitation, and the objections regarding the amount due under the decree, the District Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain them. He was of opinion ...
Ram Sahye Bhugut Vs. Ram Soonder Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal919
Mitter, J.1. The facts of this case are briefly these:2. On the 18th January 1844 the plaintiff's son Abhilukh and defendants Nos. 10 and 11, two sons of Sheo Sohay, the plaintiffs brother, sold one anna five gandas of Mouza Ram Chawra, seven pies ten krants share of which is the subject-matter of this suit. The sale was made to Rungi and Sheo Ram, ancestors of defendants Nos. 7 to 9. Sheo Ram pledged his share as security for revenue payable by one Hera Mohun in respect of the ticca of an akheri mehal. For default in the payment of this revenue the pledged share of Sheo Ram was sold under the provisions of Act I of 1845 on the 17th December 1850, and purchased by defendants Nos. 1 to 4, the appellants before us. Rungi's share was sold by a private bill of sale, dated the 19th July 1870, to defendants Nos. 3 and 5: the latter again sold his share to defendant No. 6 on the 19th August 1872. The plaintiff seeks to recover a seven pies ten krants share of the mouza in dispute, being half ...
Kedarnath Dutt Vs. Harra Chand Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal420
Wilson, J.1. (Without calling on Mr. Bonnerjee to reply), held, that the application being one in a pending suit, the right to apply was a right which accrued from day to day, and therefore it was not barred by lapse of time....
Kaminy Mohun Somoddar Vs. Gopal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal479
Field, J.1. The question in this case is one of limitation. The original decree was dated 26th February 1877. An application for execution was made on the 20th April 1877. Within three years from this latter date,--that is to say, on the 9th April 1880,--a fresh application for execution was made; but this application was found not to be in the form prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. The Munsif, under the provisions of Section 245, directed that the application should be amended, and he fixed seven days as the period within which the amendment was to be made; but the application was not amended within this period of seven days, and subsequently,--that is to say, on the 11th of May 1880,--a further application for amendment was made and allowed. Now, the Judge of the Court below has held, with reference to the language of Section 245 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 'if the application be not so amended, it shall be rejected,' that it was compulsory upon the Munsif to reject the ...
Luchmeeput Singh Vs. Sita Nath Doss
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal477
Field, J.1. In this case an order was made under Section 546 of the Code of Civil Procedure that security be given for the restitution of property, which was about to be taken in execution of decree. The decree was a decree of the Second Subordinate Judge of the 24 Parganas, and the execution was pending in his Court. Now the first point with which we have to deal is concerned with an objection made by the pleader for the respondent to the effect that no appeal lies in this case. Undoubtedly, this particular matter does not fall within the enumeration contained in Section 588 of the Civil Procedure Code; but we think that the question which has been decided by the order of the Subordinate Judge is within the meaning of Clause (c), Section 244--a question arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed and relating to the execution of the decree; that it was a question decided between the parties is admitted; that it related to the execution of the decree is, we t...
Golap Soondory Dossee Vs. Golam Ali Mundul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal612
Cunningham, J.1. In this case the plaintiff states that her husband had a permanent tenancy of seventeen bighas at a rent of Rs. 4-4; that, in 1286, the principal defendant (who is a tenant under the pro form defendants) dispossessed her, and she prays for possession of the property by declaration of her right.2. The first Court found (i) that there was no evidence as to any grant commencing the plaintiff's husband's tenancy, and that the plaintiff could claim occupancy rights only under Section 6 of the Rent Act; (ii) that no rent was paid to the owners from 1281 to 1285; (iii) and that, consequently, the plaintiff's husband had forfeited his occupancy rights.3. The lower Appellate Court found that the plaintiff's husband had a right of occupancy and acquiesced, apparently, in the finding that no rent was paid for five years. But the Judge considers that, as the plaintiff's husband, and after his death, the plaintiff, were in possession of the property, the mere non-payment of rent fo...
Rooplall Dass and anr. Vs. Krishtokishore Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal687
Field, J.1. We think there are no grounds for this appeal. The suit was brought to recover a sum of money which was secured by a mortgage. The decree declared that the amount claimed was due to the plaintiffs, and it further declared that, for the recovery of the amount, the property mortgaged could be made liable; in other words, it was a decree in the nature of a money-decree, which also contained a declaration of lien upon certain property. But the decree did not say in express language that the amount decreed was to be recovered in the first instance from the mortgaged property; and that any balance not recovered therefrom might be recovered from the other property belonging to the judgment-debtors. It is now contended before us that, although these express words are not to be found in the decree, it ought to be construed as if they bad been actually inserted. We think that we cannot accede to this contention. If the appellants were dissatisfied with the decree in the particular fo...
Kristo Mohinee Dossee and ors. Vs. Kaliprosono Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal402
Pontifex, J.1. The circumstances of this case may be concisely stated as follow:2. A and B were co-sharers in a share of an estate, with respect to which share the Collector had ordered a separate account to be kept. B failing to provide his quota of the revenue, A raised money on a mortgage to C of his own interest, and paid the revenue on the share and so saved the share belonging to A and B from sale under Section 131 of Act XI of 1859. Subsequently, both A and B failed to pay the revenue due on the share, and the share was sold under Section 13 to defendant Kaliprosono Ghose, who under Section 542, took subject to all incumbrances by A and B. Then Kaliprosono bought up C's mortgage. But before the sale to Kaliprosono, A had sued B for the amount, which A had on the first occasion paid as B's quota of revenue to save the share from sale; and in that suit A claimed to have a lien on B's interest in the share.3. At the time of Kaliprosono's purchase, A had obtained a decree in that su...
Empress Vs. Tegha Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal473
Cunningham, J.1. With reference to Section 579 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the concluding heading of the fourth schedule ('offences against other laws,') and Section 19, Clause (f) of the Arms Act, XI of 1878, we are not satisfied that there has been any illegality in the proceeding's either of the Police Inspector in this case or in the conviction of the accused.2. Section 25 of the Arms Act appears to refer to cases in which the Magistrate considers that arms, whether under a license or not, are possessed 'for an illegal purpose,' or under circumstances such as to endanger the public peace, neither of which conditions is suggested as existing here. It is not clear from the Sessions Judge's reference whether the Police Inspector was specially empowered under Section 30. That section appears to contemplate the presence of some specially empowered officer besides the officer conducting the search.3. There is nothing in the Act to exempt the custodians of the temple from complying...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »