Kolkata Court December 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.
Rughunath Panjah and ors. Vs. Issur Chunder Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal153
Richard Garth, C.J. (Macpherson, J., concurring)1. The only question which we have to decide in this ease is whether the former judgment is a res judicata.2. The plaintiffs sue for the rent of a tenure at the rate of Rs. 92 a year; and the answer of the defendants is, that many years ago, in the year 1867, a suit was brought by the plaintiffs for the rent of this same tenure at the rate which they now claim; and the answer which the defendants then made was, that the lease originally professed to grant more land than the lessors had any right to convey, and consequently the defendants claimed a deduction on the ground that some 24 bighas, which were covered by the potta, had been taken out of their hands by some one who had a better title to it than the plaintiffs; and the result of that suit, which was tried before the Deputy Collector, was, that an abatement of rent was made in favour of the defendants, and the jumma was assessed at Rs. 41-11.3. The defendants, set up this judgment o...
GossaIn Money Puree Vs. Guru Pershad Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal146
ORDERRichard Garth, C.J. (Macpherson, J., concurring)1. We think that this rule should be made absolute.2. It was applied for under these circumstances: One Gossain Money Puree had obtained a decree against one Chucka Sing in the Gya Court, dated the 30th August 1880, by which the sale of certain property, which had been mortgaged to him by Chucka Sing, was ordered to be made. That decree had been confirmed by the High Court.3. Chucka was the father of a Mitakshara family; and after this decree had been obtained his sons brought another suit to have it declared that they were entitled to certain shares in the property which had been ordered to be sold, and which Chucka Sing had no right to mortgage.4. Meanwhile the mortgagee, the plaintiff in the first suit, proceeded to execute his decree; but the plaintiffs in the second suit (the sons) applied for, and obtained, an interim injunction from the Subordinate Judge against the plaintiff in the first suit, restraining him from selling the...
Behari Mahton Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal106
Mitter and Norris, JJ.1. We are of opinion that the two first charges are not sufficiently explicit, and that they should have contained such particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed as would have been sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he was charged.2. The foundation of both charges lay in the fact that the accused was alleged to have been a member of an unlawful assembly. 'An unlawful assembly' is defined by Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, and the alleged common object of the assembly ought to have been set out in the charges. An accused person is entitled to know with certainty and accuracy the exact value of the charge brought against him. Unless he has this knowledge he must be seriously prejudiced in his defence. This is true in all cases, but it is more especially true in cases where it is sought to implicate an accused person for acts not committed by himself, but by others with whom he was in company.3. The Session...
Mohabir Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Baghowan Chowbey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal150
Richard Garth, C.J. and Macpherson, J.1. We think that this rule should be made absolute.2. The question which the Judge has decided in the Court below was not the proper subject of an appeal, unless it was 'a decree' within the meaning of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. And it would not be 'a decree' within the meaning of that section unless it came under Sub-section (a) or (b) or (c) of Section 244.3. The appellant in the Court below, Srimondel Doss, contends here that it does come within Sub-section (c), because it is 'a question arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives.' He argues that the party who applies to execute the decree is 'a representative of the plaintiff in the suit.'4. We think, however, that the question is not one which can properly be said to have arisen between the parties to the suit. It is not a question between the plaintiff and the defendant, or between the representatives of either the plaintiff...
Queen-empress Vs. Jacquiet
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal85
ORDERNorris, J.1. This case has been referred to us by the Sessions Judge of Burdwan under the provisions of Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts are briefly these: The prisoner was committed for trial under Sections 302 and 304 of the Penal Code. At the trial the Sessions Judge of his own motion added a charge under Section 325 of the Penal Code. Evidence was adduced in support of all three charges, and at the close of the case for the prosecution and the speeches for the prosecution and defence, the Judge proceeded to charge the jury. He began his charge by telling the jury that the counsel for the defence had endeavoured to bring the case within Section 325; in other words, had endeavoured to save his client's life. The Judge then goes on to point out to the jury what evidence there is in favour of the charge under Section 302, and what evidence there is against it. Similarly, the Judge points out what evidence there is for and against the charge under Section 30...
Uma Churn Mundle and ors. Vs. JosheIn Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal84
ORDERMitter and Norris, JJ.1. We think that the course taken by the Deputy Magistrate was irregular. He must summon a fresh jury and commence the enquiry afresh....
Jhoti Sahu Vs. Bhubun Gir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal143
Mitter, J.1. We think that in this case the decision of the lower Appellate Court should be set aside, although we agree with the Judge in the reasons given by him in disposing of the arguments advanced before him in support of the contention that the decree was not barred by limitation.2. We set aside the decision upon the ground that there was a decree passed, on the 11th July 1881, under the provisions of the second paragraph of Section 210 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. This point apparently was not taken before the District Judge, and from the facts of the case, as they appear on the proceedings, the point seems to arise.4. On the 30th June 1881, the decree-holder, appellant before us, made a second application for execution. Thereupon, on the 11th July 1881, the judgment-debtor appeared and made an application, alleging that he had come to an arrangement with the decree-holder for the payment of the money, due under the decree, by instalments, and that the decree-holder had gi...
Rutnessur Biswas Vs. Hurish Chunder Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal221
Prinsep and Pigot, JJ.1. The plaintiff's case is as follows:--The plaintiff is assignee of one Rysona Dasi, who held in possession certain land specified in the plaint. Of that land she granted an ijara to one Gobind Chunder Sircar in 1279. He, in 1280, granted a dur-ijara of these lands to the defendant, and in 1281 gave up the ijara to Eysona Dasi. The defendant after this applied for and obtained from Rysona Dasi a confirmation of his dur-ijara; and after this, in 1284, Rysona Dasi assigned her entire right to the plaintiff.2. The terms under which the defendant held are contained in a kabuliat, not part of the record in this case. The plaint states, as the reason for not filing it in the present case, that it is already filed in Suit 1230 of 1877, being a suit against defendant for the rent due under the kabuliat for the years 1282-83 in which a decree for plaintiff had been made, which decree had been appealed to the Judge's Court.3. No objection was taken on the ground of the abs...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›