Kolkata Court November 1884 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.
Soorja Koer and anr. and Chowrasi Koer Vs. Nath Buksh Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal102
Mitter and Norris, JJ.1. In this case (No. 1158) the plaintiff-appellant is the daughter-in-law of one Golab Roy, and the defendant No. 1, Nath Buksh Singh, who is his kartaputer, is in possession of his estate.' It appears that the plaintiff-appellant before us obtained a~decreefor maintenance against the defendant No. 1. Similarly, the widow of Golab Roy, namely, Soorja Koer, and her daughter obtained a decree for maintenance against the defendant No. 1. In execution of this latter decree, a portion of the family property was brought to sale, and purchased by the defendant No. 2, the respondent before us.2. The present suit was brought, both against the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2, to recover maintenance from the month of Augrahan 1286 to 20th Cheyt 1289. Plaintiff, in her plaint, sued to recover a personal decree against both these defendants. Her allegation was that the purchase of a portion of the family property by defendant No. 2 Was a benami purchase, and that the d...
Sri Kissen Rai Vs. Hafiz Abdul Kurrim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal139
Mitter, J.1. The question which the District Judge in this case was called upon to decide by the remand order of this Court was, whether the tenure, to which the lands in dispute in this case appertain, is transferable or not.2. The District Judge says: 'I have gone over the evidence as it now stands and find that it is wholly insufficient to establish transferability, but I allow additional evidence to be given on the point, so that the order of remand may be carried out in the way most favourable to the appellant before the High Court.' Then he caused additional evidence to be taken under the provisions of Section 568 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Second Munsiff of Arrah.3. When this evidence was returned, the District Judge, after taking it into consideration along with the evidence already on the record, has come to the conclusion that the tenure is transferable. He has accordingly, in accordance with the directions in the remand order, decreed the plaintiff's suit dismissi...
Chunder Nath Ghose Vs. Nundololl Chatterji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal81
ORDERPrinsep and O'Kinealy, JJ.1. This is a case of adultery and enticing away a married woman with criminal intent under Sections 497 and 498 * of the Penal Code. After hearing the entire evidence for the prosecution, the Magistrate discharged the accused, on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to justify the framing of a charge. The Sessions Judge, however, on an application made to him, has, under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directed a further enquiry to be held. The Sessions Judge, at the same time, admits that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact of marriage on which this case depends. It is not alleged that any evidence was tendered by the prosecution, and not taken by the Magistrate. But the Sessions Judge seems to think that the wife, whom the complainant, the husband, refused to call as a witness, should have been examined by the Court, and on the supposition that if the case be retried a different complexion might be put on it, he has th...
RajnaraIn Koonwar Vs. Lala Tamoli Raut
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-06-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal91
Wilson, J.1. In this case two charges were made against the accused persons arising out of exactly the same state of facts and under the same circumstances. The one was a charge of voluntarily causing hurt which would be a summons case, and the other a charge of theft, which would be a warrant case. But inasmuch as the two charges were based upon exactly the same evidence, and the same circumstances, and no order was made for a separate trial, it is plain that the mode of trial, under which the Deputy Magistrate ought to have proceeded, was that applicable to the greater of the two charges, that is, the case ought to have been tried as a warrant case. But what happened was this: The complainant being absent on a day to which the hearing of the case was adjourned, the Deputy Magistrate made an order purporting to be an order under Section 247. An order under this section is, of course, an order of acquittal. What he ought to have done was to have made the order under Section 253, not fo...
Queen-empress Vs. Atar Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-03-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal79
Wilson, J.1. We agree with the District Magistrate in thinking that the order of the Deputy Magistrate is illegal, on the ground that the compounding of the original charge was not a conclusive answer to the charge under Section 211. The order will be set aside, and the case will proceed before such Magistrate as the District Magistrate may direct.2. The other point raised by the District Magistrate we think it unnecessary to deal with upon this reference....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›