Kolkata Court February 1884 Judgments
Madon Mohon Poddar and ors. Vs. Purno Chundra Purbot and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal297
Richard Garth, C.J.1. It has already been decided by this Court in several cases that Section 21 of Act XI of 1865 is still in force, notwithstanding the right of review which is given to Small Cause Courts in the mofussil by Section 623 of the Civil Procedure Code--(see reference No. 19 of 1878 from the Small Cause Court of Bhangah, decided by this Bench on 26th August 1879, and reference No. 14 of 1881 from the Munsif of Soodharam, decided on 8th December 1881) Rattan Krishen v. Poddar Raghoo Nath Shaha I.L.R. 8 Cal. 287.2. There are some cases in which a new trial might be the proper remedy, and where a review would not be allowed by law; and there are others where a new trial could not be had, and the appropriate remedy would be by a review.3. It does not appear from the reference in this case, what the nature of the application was, or whether the plaintiff's proper remedy would be by a new trial or a review; but we think that he should not be bound by the mere form in which the a...
Tag this Judgment!JohiruddIn Mahomed Abu Ali Soher Chowdhry Vs. Janoky Bullubh Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal567
Field, J.1. In this case one Nusiruddin Mahomed Chowdhry borrowed, on the 25th Assar 1279, corresponding with the 8th July 1872, two separate sums of Rs. 5,000 each, one from the plaintiff Johiruddin Mahomed Abu Ali Soher Chowdhry, and the other sum from defendant No. 2, Khaja Enayetoolla Chowdhry; each of these loans was secured by a mortgage of one moiety of the mortgagor's share (consisting of 8 annas 3 pie 1 kag 9 1/2 tils) in Jote Gokul. The loans not having been paid, defendant No. 2 brought a suit upon his mortgage bond, and on the 23rd November 1877 obtained a decree. In execution of this decree, he, on the 8th June 1878, attached the mortgagor's interest in Jote Gokul, and on the 18th March 1879 this interest was brought to sale and purchased by defendant No. 1, who is the appellant before us.2. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent, that what was sold was not the mortgagor's interest in the whole share which belonged to him, but his interest in a moi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gamirullah Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal408
Prinsep, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted in a summary trial of mischief and criminal trespass.3. The Sessions Judge has submitted the proceedings in order that the conviction and sentence may be quashed. First, because 'the judgment appears to rest principally on two documents referred to in it, which are not evidence against the accused at all.' This objection, however, is effectually disposed of by the fact that there is ample legal evidence, and therefere, under Section 167 of the Evidence Act, we cannot interfere.2. The Sessions Judge next relies on the cases of Shakur Mahomed v. Chunder Mohun Sha 21 W.R. Cr. 38 and Issur Chunder Mundle v. Rohim Sheikh 25 W.R. Cr. 65. With regard to the first case, we would refer to the case of Sonai Sardar v. Bukhtar Sardar 25 W.R. 46 explaining it as no authority for the proposition quoted, and with regard to the other case, we would remark that the present case cannot be regarded as a bond fide claim of right depriving the Magistrate of...
Tag this Judgment!Jellicoe and ors. Vs. the British India Steam Navigation Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal489
Richard Garth, C.J. and Cunningham, J.1. The Small Cause Court Judge having found as a fact that the plaintiffs in this case accepted the terms of the bill of lading, we think that we cannot do otherwise than confirm his judgment.2. The defendants, of course, are not subject to the provisions of the Carriers Act; and they have a right to impose upon shippers any terms, however unreasonable, which the latter think proper to accept. They may thus free themselves from the consequences of their own negligence or default, however gross or wilful.3. So long as the law allows one class of carriers to insist upon contracts of this kind, and the public submit to have their goods carried upon such terms, Courts of Justice are quite powerless to protect them....
Tag this Judgment!Jugatmoni Chowdrani Vs. Romjani Bibee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal533
McDonell, J.1. Mr. Gregory, who appears on behalf of the respondents, has contended that under Section 561 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he is to support the decree of the Court below upon the question of wuqf, which was decided against him in the lower Court. We think that this contention is sound; and we proceed accordingly to deal with the question of wuqf. The first grant is to be found at page 50 and following pages of the paper-book, and it is dated so far back as the year 1756. It recites that a firman is issued to the effect that mouzah Adoni, etc., appertaining to taluk pergunnah Luskerpore, etc., Sirkar Barungabad, in the province of Bengal, whish yields a sum of Rs. 1,080, be fixed (granted) bafurzandan as detailed inlieu of Rs. 3 per day for the expenses of fursh, lighting, and servants of the mosque, and mudrassa erected by Dost Mahomed Khan in Lalbagh, pergunnah Asadnugur, Sirkar Oodnir as mududmash of the mutwulli Bedar Ali and other servants of the aforesaid mosque. I...
Tag this Judgment!FakaruddIn Mahomed Ahsan Vs. the Official Trustee of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal538
1. In this case the execution proceedings were struck off by an order dated the 7th May 1883, which set forth that the decree was satisfied. The petition which forms the subject of this appeal was filed on the 3rd July following, and in that petition it was sought to re-open the whole of the accounts between the parties.2. It has been contended to-day before us that this petition of the 3rd July ought to be read with a previous petition of the 3rd February 1883. As to this petition of the 3rd February, the Judge says: 'In February last, the judgment-debtor applied to scrutinize the state of the account, and the request was granted,' The original petition has not been produced before us to-day, and we must accept the account given of it by the District Judge. Accepting this account, it appears clear that all that was asked by the petition of the 3rd February was permission to examine the accounts, and that this permission was granted. This being so, it was open to the judgment-debtor, h...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Chunder Dhur Vs. Cohen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal565
Pigot, J.1. The question is what was the rate prevailing in the market at the time the memorandum was prepared for what I may call sound business. The returns prepared by this gentleman are, as Mr. Delius states, records made by him at the time of what he knew, or believed he knew, to be the fact with regard to the market rate of such transactions. The facts which were then present to his mind were--(1) What within his knowledge buyers were willing to offer, and what within his knowledge the producers or sellers were asking. Along with that there was the further fact, the transactions which were actually entered into, and upon these classes of facts, all of which are facts, he compiled this record. Now, the market rate of any day is nothing more than a compilation of the result of various facts connected with the trade of that day, and what I desire to do in ascertaining the particular state of the market on any day, is not to cast on the Court the duty of gathering rates from contract...
Tag this Judgment!Punchoo Money Dossee Vs. Troylucko Mohiney Dossee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal342
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The question in this case is, whether under the will of Narain Dutt, his widow Kristo Kaminey Dossee took an absolute interest in his property, or only the ordinary estate of a Hindu widow.2. Narain had two wives. His first wife died in his lifetime, leaving one daughter, the plaintiff. His second wife, Kristo Kaminey Dossee, was the toother of the defendant.3. Narain made a will, dated the 1st of February 1844, which was in these terms.: (Beads the passage set out, ante p. 343).4. After the testator's death his widow Kristo Kaminey Dossee did not adopt a son. She took possession of his property, and remained in possession till she died in the year 1875.5. One of the daughters mentioned in the will died; and only the plaintiff and the defendant were alive at the time of the widow's death; and they have ever since enjoyed the larger portion of the testator's property in equal shares.6. But there is a house in Neemoo Khansamah's Lane, and some moveable property, of ...
Tag this Judgment!Bamasundari Dassi Vs. Krishna Chandra Dhur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal424
Field, J.1. In this case the plaintiff is purchaser under a registered conveyance from defendant No. 4. Defendants 1, 2 and 3 are purchasers under an unregistered conveyance from the same person. The Judge in the Court below has decided that the title of defendants 1, 2 and 3 ought to prevail against that of the plaintiff. The Judge says in his judgment: 'The Munsiff is wrong infinding, that now since the Act of 1877, registered documents of which the registration is compulsory, have no priority over unregistered documents executed before 1877, of which the registration was optional. Under the present Act no document executed after the passing of the Registration Act of 1864, if unregistered, and the registration was optional, can take effect against a later registered document. But the purchase under the later registered document cannot prevail against the former unregistered purchaser, if it is shown (1st) that the earlier bill of sale was a legal conveyance, and (2nd) that it was ac...
Tag this Judgment!Lalla Dabee Pershad Vs. Santo Pershad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal505
Mitter, J.1. Whether in this case the Courts below have exercised the discretion under Section 136 properly or not is a question which we cannot enter into in second appeal, and we express no opinion upon that point, but as regards the question whether the lower Courts had any power to deal with the case under Section 136, we are of opinion that the objection taken before us is not valid. When interrogatories are delivered with the leave of the Court under Section 121*, the Court orders these interrogatories to be answered within ten days from the date of service thereof under Section 126. Therefore, there is virtually an order passed under the provisions of Chap. X. That being so, if the party interrogated fails to comply with that order, the Court has the power to pass an order under Section 136.2. We are therefore of opinion that the contention of the appellant that Section 136 has no application to this case is not correct.3. We therefore dismiss this appeal with costs.------------...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »