Kolkata Court June 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.
David Vs. Grish Chunder Guha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal183
Field, J.1. In this case the plaintiff is the proprietor of a sair mehal, or jalkar, which is No. 4000 on the rent-roll of the Furridpore Collectorate. The defendant holds under the plaintiff a patni, apparently of the whole of this property. The present suit is brought to recover the sum of Rs. 302-4 annas, on account of road cess and public works cess. A preliminary objection is taken that this is a suit of the Small Cause Court class, and therefore, as the amount is under Rs. 500, no second appeal will lie. It is contended that, with reference to the language of Clause 4 of the proviso to Section 6 of Act XI of 1865-'for any claim for the rent of land or other claim for which a suit may now be brought before a Revenue Officer,'-the claim in the present case is not a claim for which a suit could have been brought before a Revenue Officer at the time when Act XI of 1865 was passed. It is said, therefore, that the case does not fall within the proviso, but comes within the general word...
Nihal Chand, Alias Chutto Lal, and ors. Vs. Rameshari Dassee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal214
Tottenham, J.1. The order against which this appeal has been preferred purports to have been passed under Section 243 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the application of the judgment-debtor, on the ground that the judgment-debtor had brought a suit against the present decree-holders and others. The Court, in its discretion, stayed the execution of the present appellants' decree pending the decision of the regular suit brought by the judgment-debtor. It ordered that the attached property should remain under attachment, but proceeded to strike the execution-case off its file.2. It appears to us that the appellants have no right of appeal to this Court in this matter. They contend that it is an order determining a question between themselves and the judgment-debtor under Section 244, and that, that being so, the order amounts to a decree within the meaning of Section 2.3. We think that there are two reasons against this contention being allowed. First of all we think that an order stayi...
Purreshnath Biswas and ors. Vs. Beepen Chunder Shickdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal98
Field, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Munsif refusing to set aside a sale. The application to set aside the sale was made on the ground that there had been substantial irregularity in publishing the sale-proclamation, and that the judgment-debtor in consequence of such irregularity, sustained substantial injury. The irregularity is said to consist in this, that the sale-proclamation was not published in the village. Three of the persons, whose names were inserted in the peon's report as having been present when the sale-proclamation was published, were called on the part of the judgment-debtor, and they denied that any sale-proclamation had been published in their presence. The other witnesses to the publication of the sale-proclamation were not called on behalf of the decree-holder; and there is in fact no evidence to show that the sale-proclamation was published, and no evidence to rebut the testimony given by the above three witnesses. Under these circumstances, we m...
The Empress Vs. R.P. Counsell
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal896
Wilson, J.1. Refused the application, saying that, in a criminal case, the issue of a commission would he a most unsatisfactory course of proceeding, and one dangerous to the interests of the prisoner....
Tirthanund Thakoor Vs. Herdu Jha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal252
Tottenham, J.1. In this appeal it has been contended that the lower Appellate Court has wrongly given the defendant-respondent the benefit of the presumption prescribed in Section 4 of the Rent Act VIII of 1869, although his tenancy commenced less than twenty years before the suit was brought, and he did not, as found by the Judge, acquire the land by any transfer from the previous tenant.2. The words of the section are sufficiently plain; and seem to us to entitle the holder of the land for the time being, however, he may have acquired it, to the benefit of the presumption, if he can show that there has been a continuous and uniform payment of the same rent for 20 years. This interpretation is not inconsistent with what has been decided in this Court in previous cases, though in those cases it was not necessary to lay down more than this, that the holding of the ryot, or of some person through whom he claims, for a period of 20 years, was enough to raise the presumption.3. In the pres...
Jirjudhun Roy and ors. Vs. Bal Mokoond Lall and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal271
Mitter, J.1. This suit was brought to set aside a revenue sale held under Act XI of 1859 on the ground that the sale was made contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid Act, and that the plaintiffs had sustained substantial injury by reason of the irregularity complained of in the plaint. The suit was brought under the provisions of Section 33 of the Act. The lower Court has awarded a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. It has found that the notification required to be affixed in the Court of the Judge of the District, and in the Office of the Collector under Section 6 of the Act was not affixed 30 days before the date fixed in the notification for holding the sale. The lower Court has further found that the notifications required by Section 7 of the Act to be affixed in his own office, as well as in the Munsif's Court and Police Thanahs within which any part of the estate is situated, as also at the cutcherry of the owner of the estate, or at some conspicuous place upon the estate, w...
Chundhurry Maity and ors. Vs. Gobind Lall Seal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal172
Tottenham, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Midnapore, setting aside a patni sale on the ground of certain irregularities, which the Court below considered to have been established, and which it thought had been the cause of the patni being sold for an inadequate price.2. As to the irregularities found by the lower Court, we think that there is only one with which we need deal. As to the others we doubt whether they should be held to be irregularities at all; and even if they are, we do not think that the plaintiff's, the patnidars, can be said to have sustained any injury therefrom. The material irregularity, however, upon which the lower Court's decree must stand or fall is that relating to the service of the notice under Section 8 of the Patni Regulation. The Regulation requires that there shall be a threefold publication of the notice: A notice is to be published in the Collector's office; a similar notice is to be stuck up at the Sadr Cutchery ...
Kishari Vs. Ramcoomar Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal68
Maclean, J.1. Two points have been urged in this appeal: the first is, that the kabuliat, which appears to have been executed in the month of May 1865, should not have been admitted in evidence (in a suit instituted in June 1881), as it was unregistered. The other point is, that rent has never been realized by the landlord under that kabuliat.2. The contention on the first point is based on the language of Section 17 of Act III of 1877, which is to the effect that all documents mentioned therein shall be registered if they have been executed after the date on which Act XVI of 1864 and the other Registration Acts have come into force; and the effect which it is sought to give to that section is, that this lease of May 1865, having been executed after the date on which Act XVI of 1864 came into force, requires, under the Act of 1877, to be registered.3. But it is beyond doubt that the document in question did not require registration when it was executed, for it was not until the Act of ...
In Re: the Matter of the Petition of Prankrishna Surma and Vs. Prankri ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal969
Wilson, J.1. The conviction in this case was one under Sections 109 and 363 of the Penal Code for abetting the offence of kidnapping. Upon the appeal two questions were argued: first, whether the substantive offence was committed; secondly, whether there was sufficient evidence of abetment. The second question we may dismiss at once by saying that if the substantive offence was committed, there was ample evidence of abetment. The real question is as to the kidnapping. The facts proved appear to be the following:2. Parameshwari, the wife of Uma Churn Pattuk, left her husband's house at night, taking with her a daughter of six or seven years old and a son still younger. She went to the house of a cousin of her, who lived in a house in the same homestead with the accused and his younger brother Guru Dass. The same night Parameshwari gave her daughter in marriage to Guru Dass. The leaving of her husband's house with the daughter and the marriage of the latter to Guru Dass took place in pur...
Lulit Sing and anr. Vs. Wazir Mahton and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal100
Mitter, J.1. Two objections have been urged against the decision of the lower Court. The first is that the application for execution is barred under Article 179 of Schedule ii, Act XV of 1877. It appears that the decree of the first Court was passed on the 19th December 1877, in accordance with an arbitration award. An appeal was preferred by the defendants, against whom the decree was passed; they contended that the decree should not have been in accordance with the award. The Appellate Court, after entering into the objection raised by the defendants, canoe to the conclusion that no appeal lay against the decree of the first Court, because it was in accordance with the award of the arbitrators appointed in the case. There was a second appeal preferred by the defendants, and the Court upheld the view of the lower Appellate Court that there was no appeal. The judgment of this Court is dated the 12th March 1881. On the 22nd June 1881, the present application for execution of the decree ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »