Kolkata Court September 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.
Roghuni Singh and ors. Vs. the Empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-22-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal455
Field, J.1. This is an appeal from a sentence passed by the Sessions Judge of Patna upon three persons, Roghuni Sing, Ram Charan Singh, and Kanya Singh, who have been convicted, the first mentioned of murder, and the other two of abetment of murder, and have all three been sentenced to transportation for life. Two other persons, namely, Ram Lall and Bhoran, were tried, together with the appellants before us, and were acquitted by the unanimous verdict of the jury.2. The prisoners, appellants, have been convicted by a majority of three out of five jurors.3. It appears that the jury retired for eight minutes only, and in this case I desire to observe that this time was insufficient to enable the jury to consider the evidence, and deliberate thereupon amongst themselves.4. The facts of the case for the prosecution are briefly these: Two persons, Radha Singh and Mewa Singh, were said to have taken a lease of some 10 bighas 13 cottahs of land from one Lakhon Mahton, ijaradar. On the morning...
Rasbehary Mookerjee and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal591
Mitter, (Offg.) C.J.1. This is a suit to set aside a revenue sale of the share of an estate called Aima Mungulpore bearing Towzi No. 1312.2. The ground upon which the lower Appellate Court has set aside the sale is that the sale notification under Section 6, Act XI of 1859, did not contain the names of all the recorded proprietors of this share, but only of one of them, Talebulla. Section 6 requires that a notification should be issued in the language of the district specifying the estates or shares of estates which are to be sold. The District Judge is of opinion that unless the names of all the recorded proprietors are given, an estate, or share of an estate, cannot be considered to be specified within the meaning of Section 6. We are unable to agree in this view of the law. The section distinctly says that it is the estate or the share of an estate which is to be specified. If it were the intention of the Legislature that the names of the recorded proprietors should be also inserted...
Ram Dhun Dhur Vs. Mohesh Chunder Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal406
Wilson, J.1. We think that the order of the lower Appellate Court must be varied in this case. The suit is for two distinct things. In the first place, it is a suit in which the second defendants are principally interested, with the view of giving the plaintiff a share of the sale-proceeds of certain property. With regard to this claim it is enough to say that we see no ground whatever for differing from the view taken by the Court below; but then there is a matter of greater difficulty, namely, the suit as against the first defendant. The object of that is to enforce the mortgage-decree which the plaintiff has obtained against the former owner of the property, viz., Pitamber, against the property which has now passed into the hands of the first defendant, who has purchased it at an auction sale in execution of a money decree. Prim facie the plaintiff is entitled to that, because the sale in execution of the money decree was the sale of the right, title and interest of the mortgagor, a...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›