Kolkata Court April 1882 Judgments
In Re: Petition of Jhubboo Mahton and ors. Vs. Jhubboo Mahton and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal739
Field, J.1. In this case eight persons have been tried and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 142 of the Penal Code, and have been sentenced to transportation for life. The circumstance out of which the case arose was a dispute concerning a piece of land and the crop which, at the time of the occurrence, was upon this land.2. The first prisoner Jhubboo was originally charged under Sections 302, 326, 396 and 148 of the Penal Code. In the course of the trial two further charges were added, viz., that he, Jhubboo, was a member of an unlawful assembly in the prosecution of the common object of which, namely taking possession of certain crops by force, one of the members' committed murder by causing the death of one Ibrahim Hossein, and that he was thereby guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code; and secondly, that he was a member of an unlawful assembly in the prosecution of the common object of which, namely, in taking possession of the crops by force, ...
Tag this Judgment!Finch Vs. Jugmohun Tewari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal62
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the ticcadar of Mouza Malpore, brought this suit for arrears of rent for the year 1283. He alleged that the defendants held in that year 7 bigas 8 cottas 5 dhurs of land at a nukdi rent of Rs. 16-10 5/8; 7 cottas 10 dhurs of land on which there were bamboo clumps, and the value of the landlord's share of the bamboos cut in the year was Rs. 51; and 18 bigas 5 cottas of bhowli lands, the value of the landlord's share of the putnee was Rs. 210 and odd. The plaintiff gave a deduction of Rs. 24 and odd annas as the amount paid by the defendants in that year.2. The defendants denied holding any bhowli land, and alleged that they held a maurasi tenure in the village, the rent of which was Rs. 22-1-3, and that in this tenure the bamboo clumps mentioned in the plaint were included.3. The Munsif gave a decree in accordance with the allegations of the plaintiff, although ho made some modification in the amount claimed. This decree has been confirmed by the Distr...
Tag this Judgment!Sreegopal Mullick Vs. Ram Churn Nuskur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal856
Wilson, J.1. This case is practically before the Court tinder somewhat peculiar circumstances.2. The main question is one relating to title, and I am not really in a position to say what the title is. Naturally one would suppose that the defendants would produce all the title deeds, and lay before the Court full information on the subject, but from what fell from the defendants one can see that they are not in possession of the title-deeds.3. The case arises in this way. The plaintiff entered into a contract with the two defendants on the 2nd April 1878, for the purchase from them of certain property at ghoosery, comprised in two plots described in the contract. The material parts of the contract are these (after reading the portions set out above his Lordship continued):4. It is not necessary to go into the details of what happened afterwards, except, on one or two points. Rupees 500 in Company's paper was paid at the time of the agreement. There is a conflict of testimony as to wheth...
Tag this Judgment!ishur Chunder Surmah Vs. Doyamoye Debea and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal864
White, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the District Judge of Sylhet, dismissing an application of the appellant upon a preliminary ground and without going into the evidence.2. The appellant's application is contained in a petition which states that Gunga Gobind Misser died on the 9th November 1877, having previously made his will on the 31st July 1877. The testator is alleged to have bequeathed by that will all his moveable and immoveable properties to the petitioner, who is a sapinda and kinsman to the testator, and also to the testator's widow and two daughters. The petition further alleges that the will is in the possession of Sarbamangala Debi, the widow. The petition was accompanied by a copy of the will, but of course not by the will itself. The application was two fold: first, praying that the original will should be called for from Sarbamangala Debi; and secondly, that letters of administration under the Act should be granted to the petitioner.3. The petitioner cl...
Tag this Judgment!Mailamdi Fakir Vs. Taripulla Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal644
McDonell, J.1. There has been great delay on the part of the Sessions Judge in making this reference. The explanation of the Honorary Magistrates who sat on the Bench and are alive ought to have been submitted. The record says that the charge was under Section 352; and there is no serious contention that anything else was intended. So much of the order as directs the accused to be imprisoned until he gives security is bad, and a definite period not exceeding one year should have been inserted in this part of the order.2. Under all these circumstances we think it will be sufficient to set aside so much of the order as requires recognizance and security to keep the peace, and we set aside this portion accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bushan Mahto and ors. Vs. Jebli Mahto and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal853
Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiffs in the case referred to us allege in their plaint that they are the proprietors of certain shares in a mouza, and under that title are in separate possession of a certain share in some land held by a common tenant of themselves and the defendants, who are the proprietors of the remaining shares of the mouza. The plaintiffs claim to have the corn-rent payable by that tenant divided between themselves and the defendants in the proportion in which the plaint alleges the land to be separately possessed by them and the defendants.2. The suit is, therefore, not based upon the plaintiffs' possession only, but also upon their title, and their right to succeed depends upon their proving such title.3. The first question, on which our opinion is solicited, describes the questions of right which have to be determined between the parties to this suit as de facto rights and interests. But the law knows nothing about de facto rights in such a case as the present. Suits re...
Tag this Judgment!In Re; Petition of Luddun Sahiba Vs. Mirza Kamar Kudar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal736
McDonell and Field, JJ.1. The petitioner in this case made an application under Section 536 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of obtaining an order for maintenance of herself as the wife of Prince Mirza Kamar Kudar. It is admitted on all hands that the parties are Sheeas, and that she was a wife by the mutta form of marriage contract. She alleges that the period of the contract made between herself and the defendant was fifty years. The defendant, on the other hand, alleges that the period was one month and-a-half only.2. The Deputy Magistrate, before whom the case came for disposal, was of opinion,--first, that inasmuch as, under the Sheea law, a mutta wife has no right to maintenance, the petitioner was not entitled to obtain an order for maintenance under the provisions of Section 536 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and, secondly, that as the defendant had given up the remaining term of the period of the mutta marriage, the petitioner was no longer a wife within t...
Tag this Judgment!Madhub Chunder Nag and ors. Vs. Bandy Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal932
Macpherson, J.1. The appellant, judgment-debtor, made an application in the Court below for setting aside the sale held in execution of the decree passed against him, but did not succeed. From the order rejecting that application he now appeals to this Court, on the ground that there were material irregularities in publishing and conducting the sale which led. to substantial injury. Of the irregularities the most material one that has been pressed upon us is, that the sale-notification was not fixed up in the Collector's office as required by Section 289 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Subordinate Judge is, no doubt, wrong in his comments on this part of the case in considering that the publication of such a notice is merely a formal proceeding. But we think that, in this instance, the omission is not shown to have resulted in any substantial injury to the appellant, or to have injuriously affected the price obtained for the property.2. Another ground taken is, that the rule framed by...
Tag this Judgment!LukhynaraIn Chuttopadhya Vs. Gorachand Gossamy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal116
Tottenham, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondent's pleader in this case, that no second appeal lies, the subject of the suit being, as he submitted, one of the Small Cause Court class. For the appellant, however, it was contended, and, as we think, rightly contended, that the question of right to the land was raised by the plaintiff, and that the suit was treated by both the Courts below as one for title. We, therefore, hold that the appellant has a right to have the second appeal heard and the question of title decided.2. The suit was brought against an auction-purchaser under Act XI of 1859 for an alleged trespass and damage done by him to the plaintiff by appropriating the fruit of certain trees said to be upon the plaintiff 's mokurari tenure, which mokurari tenure is alleged to have been registered in the Common Register under Act XI of 1859. He, however, did not produce any further evidence of the existence of the tenure beyond filing a mokurari patta, and of th...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Fayez Chowdhry Vs. Jamoo Gazee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal730
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The only question raised in this appeal is, whether the sum which the defendants undertook to pay to the plaintiff for collection charges at the rate of two annas in the rupee, was a claim which the plaintiff has a right to enforce.2. The plaintiff granted to the defendants a patni talook at a fixed jama of Rs. 600, for which the defendants gave the plaintiff a kabuliat; and the defendants, by the same kabuliat, agreed to pay the plaintiff collection charges at the rate of two annas in the rupee along with the instalments of the annual rent.3. This suit was brought both for arrears of rent and also for arrears of the two annas in the rupee for collection charges; but the defendants contended that the latter claim could not be enforced, inasmuch as it represented the illegal cesses which were collected from ryots.4. Both the lower Courts have disallowed the claim upon the ground, and apparently upon the authority of the case of Kamala Kant Ghose v. Kalu Mahomed Man...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »