Kolkata Court August 1882 Judgments
The Empress Vs. Hurro Kole
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal288
Wilson, J.1. This is an appeal from a conviction by the Superintendent of the Cuttack Tributary Mehals. The offence was committed in Mohurbunj. The accused is a native of Mohurbunj. The trial took place at Balasore. It has been decided by a Pull Bench that Mohurbunj is not a part of British India The Empress v. Keshab Mohajan I.L.R. 8 Cal. 985. The Superintendent of Tributary Mehals and his Assistant exercise jurisdiction over offences committed in those mehals, including Mohurbunj, under regulations and instructions which were examined in the case just referred to and in Hursee Mahapatro v. Dinabundhu Patro I.L.R. 7 Cal. 528.2. We have not now to consider whether the jurisdiction as exercised is in accordance with law or not, but only whether we have any power to interfere with the decision of the tribunal. We think this Court has no such power, either by way of appeal or of revision. The Letters Patent now in force (those of 1865) by Section 27, make this Court a Court of Appeal 'fro...
Tag this Judgment!Bhugwan Chunder Roy Chowdri and ors. Vs. Manick Bibee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal383
Wilson, J.1. We think that this appeal should be dismissed.2. The suit is one to recover certain land, and the case made is this: That the plaintiffs, or rather those from whom the plaintiffs claim, granted an ijara in December 1867 to the son-in-law of the present defendant, one Fuzur Ali; that Fuzur Ali executed a kabuliat in accordance with the ijara; that the present defendant executed at the same time through her mokhtar a bond for the purpose of securing payment of rent; that subsequently in a suit brought in the year 1868, in the Court of the Deputy Collector of Moonsheegunge in the district of Dacca, under Act X of 1859, against both Fuzur Ali and the defendant to recover arrears of rent, a decree was recovered; that after the Act had ceased to be law, and after Act III of 1870 had been passed, the decree (which would seem to have been transferred in accordance with the last mentioned Act by the Deputy Collector to the Subordinate Judge's Court at Dacca) was remitted for execut...
Tag this Judgment!Lallit Coomar Gangopadhya Vs. Denonath Chuckerbutty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal633
Wilson, J.1. This is an appeal against an order allowing an application for execution of a decree. The decree bears date the 7th of June 1877, and was in favour of Koilash Nath Dutt Rai. On the 1st of June 1880 one Nobin Chunder Bhattacharjya applied for execution claiming it as assignee of the decree. It is found as a fact that he was a mere benamidar for the original decree-holder. The present application, which is made by a person who has attached the decree, was made on the 9th of December 1880. The question raised is, whether this application is barred by limitation. If the period of limitation runs from the date of the decree there is no doubt that the application is too late. If the period runs from the former application for execution there is no doubt that it is in time. We have, therefore, to say whether an application for execution by a mere benamidar is an application 'in accordance with law' within the meaning of Article 179, Clause 4 of Schedule II, of the Limitation Act....
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Gobind Dhur and ors. Vs. Hari Churn Dhur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal367
Wilson, J.1. We think that this appeal must be allowed. It appears to us that the lower Appellate Court has mistaken the application of the law of limitation to the case. The judgment of that Court says: The plaintiffs, therefore, are bound to prove that the ijaradars were in possession of the disputed land to the end of the term of their ijara, and if it comes out that the ijaradars did hold possession up to the end of the term of the ijara, then the cause of action of the plaintiff's may be held to have arisen just as the ijara terminated, otherwise the plaintiffs were bound to bring this suit within twelve: years from the time at which the ijaradars were dispossessed from the land or from the time at which their (the ijaradars) predecessors had been. dispossessed, in case the defendants were never in possession.2. That appears to us to be a misapprehension of the law. The facts are very short. The land was purchased by the plaintiffs, and at the time when they acquired their title i...
Tag this Judgment!Lucky Churn Chowdhry Vs. Budurrunnissa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal627
Wilson, J.1. We are disposed to think that this appeal will not lie. The order that is sought to be appealed against is one under Section 97 of the Civil Procedure Code, which says: 'If, on the day so fixed for the defendant to appear and answer, it be found that the summons has not been served upon him, in consequence of the failure of the plaintiff to pay the Court-fee leviable for such service, the Court may order that the case be dismissed.' The question is whether there is an appeal against such dismissal when no appeal is expressly given either in Section 588 or elsewhere. Section 588 says that an appeal will lie against a decree. A decree is defined in the interpretation clause as 'the formal expression of an adjudication upon any right claimed, or defence set up, in a Civil Court when such adjudication, so far as regards the Court expressing it, decides the suit or appeal.' A decree, therefore, must be an expression of opinion upon the rights of the parties; but this was a dism...
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Bibee Vs. Nownit Lal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal315
Mitter, J.1. after referring to the facts and evidence, continued as follows:2. The possession of the disputed mouzah by Gocul Chand and his father is not therefore shown by any evidence to have been permissive. Whether this possession was referable to the title derived under the alleged deed of gift to Dukho Bibi is not made clear upon the evidence. If the plaintiff's allegation of the abstraction of the deed of gift from her by the defendant No. 1 be not correct, then there is no evidence to connect the possession of Gocul Chand and his father with the title under the alleged deed of gift. The lower Court has rejected this part of the plaintiff's story. I see no reason to dissent from that opinion.3. But although the title under the deed of gift is not proved, the possession of Gocul Chand and his father for more than twelve years being established, and it being not shown that that possession was with the permission of the defendants and their ancestors, it seems to me that we must h...
Tag this Judgment!Bundhoo Lall Vs. Joy Coomar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal363
Mitter, (Offg.) J.1. We are of opinion that in this case the judgment of the lower Appellate Court cannot stand.2. The question between the parties was whether the plaintiff was entitled to have the alang or singha, marked B.C. in the Munsif's map, removed, the plaintiff's allegation being that it was placed there in the month of August 1879 by the defendants, who are the proprietors of mouzah Rathni.3. The plaintiff alleges that the land upon which the alang has been put up belongs to him, being part of a jagir of eight bighas within mouzah Titaria.4. The defendants do not deny that the alang or singha B.C. is upon a piece of land appertaining to mouzah Titaria, but they allege that this piece of land does not appertain to the plaintiff's jagir of eight bighas, but to the khalisa land of mouzah Titaria; that it is really a part of an alang or singha of an har called ahar uparata, and that it has been in existence for more than twenty years.5. The Munsif came to the conclusion that the...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Sreenath Banerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal221
McDonell, J.1. In this case the prisoners were convicted of offences under Sections 201 and 346 of the Penal Code. On appeal, the Sessions Judge properly acquitted them of any offence under Section 201, but upheld the conviction under the latter section. We are of opinion that the conviction 'cannot be sustained. To render a person liable under Section 346, it must be shown that the wrongful confinement was of such a nature as to indicate an intention that the person confined should not be discovered. In the present case it is clear that the element is wanting.2. Again, it appears to us that the complainant was not at all in wrongful confinement. The Judge himself says that she was induced, not forced; and that her confinement was not actual, but, as he calls it, potential. This is not sufficient. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitting the prisoners direct their release....
Tag this Judgment!Jung Bahadoor and anr. Vs. Sheo Proshad and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal389
Mitter, J.1. The following genealogical table of the family will be of help in stating the facts of this case: _____________________________________________ | | Buniad Protab Narain | | Muni Lall Kali Sahai, Defendant, third party. Mt. Rohini Kooer Plaintiff No. 2, | Jung Bahadoor (Minor), Plaintiff No. 1.2. From the above tree it will appear that the plaintiffs are the minor son and wife of Kali Sahai, who has been made a pro forma defendant. The appellants before us were the defendants who defended the: suit in the lower Court. At the time of the institution of the suit, they were in possession of seven annas of Jufferabad Asli, Aurungabad, Jehanabad, and Dowlatabad, dakilis of which plaintiffs claim to recover possession of a 4 annas 8 pie share.3. It appears, that, these mauzahs constitute an estate, the towji number of which is 1,300, and the Government revenue of which is Rs. 27-13-11. Eight annas of these mouzahs were held and owned by Kali Sahai, who, on the 28th February 1873,...
Tag this Judgment!Ajoodhya Persad Vs. Collector of Durbhungah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal419
Mitter, ( Offg.) C.J.1. It appears that a fourteen-anna eight-gunda share of a mouzah named Mohamedpur was settled permanently in the year 1226 Fasli (1819). The number of this share of the mouzah in the Collector's Towji is 223. The defendants, second and third parties, are now the owners of this estate. The remaining one-anna twelve-gunda share of the mouzah in question was permanently settled in the year 1861 with Fakir Misser and others. The number of this latter estate in the Collector's Towji is 4,945. In the year 1873, the estate No. 4945 was sold by auction for arrears of Government revenue, and was purchased by the plaintiff.2. On the 28th of July 1879 the plaintiff brought this suit for obtaining a declaration that he is entitled to have the one-anna twelve-gunda share of this mouzah separated from the fourteen-anna eight-gunda share by metes and bounds, and also for a decree directing a partition of the whole mouzah into two parts, so that the lands of his estate may be defi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »