Kolkata Court June 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.
Hafiz Mahomed Ali Vs. Assanullah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal932
Field, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover possession of certain lands, alleging that they were re-formations on the original site of mouzah Atrap, which belonged to him and the defendants jointly, in the respective shares of 9 annas and 7 annas.2. The defendants pleaded limitation, and, amongst other matters, alleged that the lands were re-formations, not on the original site of mouzah Atrap, but upon the original site of mouzah Jhulkai, which was, and is, in the exclusive possession of the defendants themselves. A number of questions were raised in the pleadings, which were embodied in the six issues raised by the Subordinate Judge who tried the case.3. The Subordinate Judge gave the plaintiff a decree. Against that decree an appeal was preferred, and the following, amongst other objections, were taken in the grounds of appeal: First,, an objection as to the boundaries of the two mouzahs; secondly, that the plaintiff had not proved his possession within twelve years of an...
NobIn Chandra Roy Vs. Magantara Dassya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal924
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The facts of this case are as follows:One Ram Chand Saha, a trader in Rungpore, died some years ago, leaving a widow (the defendant No. 1), and two minor sons, Chunilal (the defendant No. 2) and one Ananda, who died during his minority.2. Ram Chand in his lifetime carried on a. family business, which was admittedly continued for a time after his death by a gomasta; but on Chunilal's attaining his majority, he took the management into his own hands, and carried on that, or a different business, or both. The nature of the business which he did carry on is one of the questions of fact raised in the case.3. On the 25th of Srabun 1285, Chunilal executed a karbamama in the plaintiff's favour, mortgaging, certain property as security for a loan account, which was opened for the purposes of his business. The plaintiff having sued upon this account, obtained a decree against the mortgaged property, but on proceeding to a sale, he was met by an objection on the part of the ...
Queen-empress Vs. Dhananjoi Chaudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal931
Prinsep and Macpherson, JJ.1. The Deputy Magistrate in this case has convicted the accused without examining certain witnesses who had been summoned for the defence. It appears that on the day of trial these witnesses were not present and the accused asked for fresh processes. The Deputy Magistrate refused to postpone the trial or to issue fresh processes on the following ground:The witnesses are all friends of the accused, and could have been produced to-day even if they did not receive the summonses. I therefore decline to grant this petition.' Having once granted the processes for the attendance of these witnesses, this was not sufficient ground for the refusal to assist the accused in obtaining their evidence. If the Deputy Magistrate in the first instance considered, under Section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the application for summons for these witnesses was made for purposes of vexation or delay, or for defeating the ends of justice, he might have refused to summ...
Queen-empress Vs. BepIn Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal970
Prinsep and Macpherson, JJ.1. The six appellants have been convicted of dacoity in a trial held by jury. The evidence against them consisted of the evidence of an approver and of certain witnesses who said that they recognized the appellants at the dacoity. It is also in evidence that some 'mals,' part of the stolen property, were found in the house of Dukee Dye, one of the appellants; and two others, Bepin and Kunju, made confessions before the Magistrate which they have since retracted and denied. In laying before the jury the evidence of the witnesses who speak to having recognized the prisoners, the Judge has very properly pointed out that when the offence was reported to the Police, no one was mentioned as having committed the dacoity, which would be extremely unlikely if any of the villagers had recognized any of the dacoits. He has also mentioned the fact that these witnesses admit that they had previously no acquaintance with those they profess to have recognized in the confusi...
In Re: British Steamship or Vessel marry Stuart
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal865
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Norris in a cause depending on the Original Side of this Court in its vice-admiralty jurisdiction.2. It was a suit in rem, promoted by the master of the British ship 'Nevada' against the 'Mary Stuart' for damages sustained by the 'Nevada' under these circumstances.3. The 'Mary Stuart' is a steam tug belonging to the Port of Calcutta, of which Captain Thomas was the master.4. She was hired on the occasion in question to tow the 'Nevada' down the river; and it was alleged by the promovent that in consequence of the negligence of the master of the 'Mary Stuart,' and of his wilful disobedience of orders, which he was bound to obey, the 'Nevada' ran foul of a vessel, called the ' Savoir Faire,' and considerable damage was caused to both vessels.5. The 'Savoir Faire' took proceedings against the 'Nevada' for the damages which she sustained in the collision; and this suit was brought against the 'Mary Stuart' to recover th...
Fritz Olner Vs. Lavezzo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal878
Richard Garth, C.J. (Wilson, J., concurring)1. This is a reference made to the High Court by the Recorder of Rangoon under Section 54 of the 'Burmah Courts' Act, 1875'2. The circumstances which gave rise to it are these:The plaintiff in the suit was engaged as a mariner on board the Italian barque Gentili on a voyage from Bremerhaven in Germany to Rangoon; and the defendant was the master of that vessel.3. On her arrival at Rangoon some of the sailors, including the plaintiff, went on shore, and were then brought up by the master (the present defendant) before the Magistrate, charged with desertion. This charge was dismissed.4. Thereupon some of the men, including the present plaintiff, brought suits against the defendant in the Small Cause Court to recover their wages; and an objection was then taken on the part of the defendant that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain those suits.5. It is with one suit only, namely, that brought by the present plaintiff, with which we are now ...
Assanullah Vs. Bussarat Ali Chowdhry (Lunatic) by His Guardian Prankri ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal920
Field, J.1. This was a suit for enhancement. The plaintiff is a purchaser from Government. The Subordinate Judge has found that the plaintiff is not entitled to enhance the rent, because the land in respect of which the suit has been brought was resumed lakhiraj such as is referred to in Section 9 of Regulation XIX of 1793; in other words, that it was a resumed grant which had been made before 1790, and that, according to the last clause of the section just recited, the defendant, after resumption and settlement, was entitled to hold the land as a dependent talug subject to the payment of a revenue fixed for ever. The learned vakil for the appellant has addressed to us a long argument, in the course of which he has referred to a large number of cases bearing upon the intricate questions of lakhiraj land and resumption. There are really two points in this argument which require our consideration. The first point contended for is, that the burden of showing that the land formed a grant c...
Hurry Mohan Rai Vs. Gonesh Chunder Doss and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal823
Mitter, J.1. I am of opinion that the estate of Raj Chunder Doss, to which the defendants have succeeded on the death of Juggodumba Dossee, is liable for the balance of the price of the lime supplied by the plaintiff for the repair of certain houses appertaining to that estate. The lime was ordered for the purpose of repairing some of the houses on Raj Chunder's estate, and was actually used for that purpose.2. Under these circumstances the plaintiff, in my opinion, has the right to be paid out of the estate to which the houses appertain; and Juggodumba is not personally liable for the balance of the price of the lime supplied by the plaintiff. She incurred this liability as representing the estate of Raj Chunder Doss.3. The point referred to us has been argued before us as if the question--for decision was, under what circumstances a Hindu female in possession of a qualified estate is competent to borrow money for the management of the estate, so as to bind it in the hands of the next...
Sutherland Vs. Singhee Churn Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal808
Pigot, J.1. The defendant seeks inspection of certain documents of the plaintiff, which plaintiff claims that he is entitled, under Section 135 of the Code, for the present to withhold.2. This is a suit for specific performance in which several defences are set up: one, that no contract was ever entered into; another, that if such a contract was ever entered into, the defendant was induced to enter into it by the misrepresentation of the defendant.3. The acts of misrepresentation alleged by the defendant are, perhaps, as to some of them, somewhat loosely indicated in the written statement. But as to one, which I must for the purpose of the present application at any rate treat as material, it is clear enough.4. The defendant alleges that the plaintiff represented to him before the negotiation, or the contract, whichever it was, was entered into, that the property to be sold was of the net annual value of Rs. 13,000. The defendant's case is, that this was a false representation, and tha...
Loburi Domini and ors. Vs. the Assam Railway and Trading Co. Ld. and t ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal915
Field, J.1. In these three cases the Court granted a rule to show cause why certain appeals should not be transferred for hearing from the Court of the Judge of the Assam Valley Districts to some other competent tribunal. The ground upon which this application for transfer was made was that Mr. Ward, who was the Judge of the Assam Valley Districts, had, in his executive capacity as Commissioner, taken an active part in directing and preparing the defence in these suits before the Court of First Instance, and had expressed a strong opinion upon the merits of the question involved. We think that, if nothing had occurred to alter the status of the Assam tribunal as it existed when we granted these rules, we should now have to make them absolute. But that something has occurred to alter that status, appears from an affidavit which has been read before us to-day. The first paragraph of this affidavit is as follows:The present Judge of the Assam Valley Districts, before whom the appeal will ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »