Kolkata Court July 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.
Jeebunkisto Roy and anr. Vs. Shib Chunder Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1027
Tottenham, J. (Norris, J., concurring)1. We think that the order of the Sessions Judge directing a further enquiry in this case is not warranted by law. It seems to us that the law allows a further enquiry only where there has not been a full enquiry and where further evidence is disclosed. The application to the Judge was to the effect that the evidence recorded by the Deputy Magistrate was sufficient for the conviction of the accused, and the accused ought to have been convicted. The Sessions Judge seems to have endorsed the applicant's opinion, and upon that ground ordered the further enquiry. It seems to us that the accused having been discharged after a full enquiry by a competent Court, he is entitled to the benefit of that discharge, unless some further evidence is disclosed.2. The order of the Sessions Judge will be set aside and the proceedings stopped....
The Queen-empress Vs. Grees Chunder Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1024
Field, J.1. It is no doubt fair of the prosecution to produce the book to give the prisoner an opportunity of seeing if the entry is there, but I think the book itself is not relevant to disprove the alleged transaction by the absence of any entry concerning it.2. During the progress of the trial, Mr. Gasper put certain documents into the hand of the witness for the prosecution, and having proved them by cross-examination, tendered them in evidence, and had them marked as exhibits on behalf of the prisoner, at the same time intimating that he would contend that by so doing he did not give the counsel for the prosecution the right of replying upon his case in the event of no witnesses for the defence being called.3. When the case for the prosecution had closed, Mr. Gasper had stated that he did not intend to call any witnesses.4. Mr. Mullick contended that under Section 292, coupled with Section 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he was entitled to a reply, in consequence of the docume...
Rameshwar Mandal Vs. Ram Chand Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1033
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think that in this case the Munsif has hardly appreciated the nature of the contract.2. The suit is not for money lent in the ordinary sense of that expression; it is not for a loan repayable at once, or, what is the same thing in point of law, repayable on demand. Articles 57 and 59 of the Limitation Act are only applicable, in my opinion, to cases of that kind.3. The contract here set up by the plaintiff is one of a special nature. In consideration of a present advance by him, the defendant is said to have agreed to repay the money at the end of a year with interest.4. This being the contract, it is clear that the plaintiffs would have no right of suit until the expiration of the year; and therefore it would seem obviously unjust, and contrary to the meaning of the Limitation Act, that limitation should run, not from the time when the plaintiff's right of action accrued, but from the time when the advance was made, which was the consideration for the defendant...
Gunga Pershad and anr. Vs. Jeo Lal Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal996
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The two plaintiffs in this case are the brothers of Gupta Lal, the defendant No. 4, and they bring this suit to recover from the defendant No. 1 possession of their shares of an ancestral tenure which belonged to their father Jugrup Mahton.2. This tenure was held under two zamindars, one of whom, Mussumat Adhikari Koer, was entitled to an 8 annas odd share in it, and the other zamindar to the residue, the collections of the two zamindars being made separately.3. The defendant Gupta Lal was the eldest of the three brothers and the manager of the property, and his name only was registered as the proprietor of it in the zamindar's sherista.4. The rent being in arrear, Adhikari Koer sued him (Gupta Lal) for her share of it, and obtained a decree. But being only a part-proprietor, she could not sell the entire tenure under Section 59 of the Rent Law, but she brought to sale under Section 64 the right and interest of Gupta Lal, the judgment-debtor, and Jeo Lal Singh ali...
Ram Pershad Chowdry and ors. Vs. Jokhoo Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1003
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiffs in this case are the heirs of the brothers of one Bikramajit Singh, who is said to have died in 1252 fusli.2. Bikramajit admittedly left a widow called Sabja, and a daughter, called Moona, who is the mother of the defendant No. 1. He also had a son, Sheo Shahai Singh, whose widow, Khati, is defendant No. 2; and one,--the main--issue in the case, so far as the question of title is concerned, is, whether or not this son survived his father.3. The plaintiff's case was that he did survive his father, and that after his death his estate descended to his widow, Khati, and that they (the plaintiffs) were the reversionary heirs.4. The defendant's case, on the other hand, was that Sheo Shahai Singh died before his father, and the estate then passed to Bikramajit's widow, Sabja, and after her death to their daughter, Moona, who, with her son, the defendant No. 1, has taken possession of the property.5. The plaintiff's brought this suit on the following allega...
Nundo Pershad Thakur Vs. Gopal Thakur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1008
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think the Court below has fallen into error on several points of law in this ease.2. The facts are these: Mouzah Bishenpur Lukhmi, otherwise called Gahi, has been partitioned into two estates, bearing Nos. 1656 and 1657 on the touzi of the Mozufferpore District. The plaintiff is a proprietor of No. 1656, in which the second party defendants had also a small share. This share they sold to the first party defendants, who are proprietors in estate No. 1657. The plaintiff accordingly brought this suit to establish his right of pre-emption to purchase the property so sold.3. Now it appears that, at the time the butwara was made, the julkur, nimaksayer, and some 70 bighas of culturable land were left in the joint possession of the proprietors of both estates, and were not partitioned, and the plaintiff and the first party defendants were both joint co-proprietors in the same. The Subordinate Judge considers that this circumstance gave the first party defendants a rig...
Ram Chand Sen Vs. Audaito Sen and Srinath Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1054
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case I have great doubt whether the opinion of the Judge of the Small Cause Court is not correct: and if we were now asked to enforce an agreement to pay pon to a girl's father, in consideration of his giving her in marriage, I should have wished to refer the question to a Full Bench.2. But the facts, as I understand them, are these:The plaintiff paid Rs. 100 to the defendant No. 1, in consideration of his giving his daughter to him in marriage; and the defendant No. 2, who is a brother of the defendant No. 1, was a party to the contract.3. After the money was paid, the defendant No. 1 failed to fulfil his promise, and gave his daughter in marriage to some one else.4. The plaintiff now seeks to recover back his money, and the defendants attempt to take advantage of the illegality of the contract by way of a defence to the claim.5. Under these circumstances, I consider that the case referred to Juggeshur Chuckerbutty v. Panch Gowree Chuckerbutty 14 W.R. 154...
Hajon Manick Vs. Bur Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal17
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This suit was brought by the raja or Chief of the State of cherrapoonjee in the Khasia Hills to establish his title to, and to recover possession from the defendant of two villages, viz., mauzas Futtehpore and Augarpur, situated in the district of Sylhet, upon the following allegations:It is said that these two villages formerly belonged to the Raja or Chief of Jyntia (whose territories in the plains were confiscated by the British Government in 1835); that in or about the year 1810 they were ceded by the then Raja of Jyntia to the Chief of Cherrapoonjee in consideration of certain assistance rendered to him by the latter Chief in a war between the Raja of Jyntia and a third Chief, the Raja of Khyram; that from that date the villages in question formed part of the State of Cherrapoonjee and were in the possession of successive Chiefs of that State down to the death of Raja Ram Sing on the 12th Bysak 1282; that during the reign of Ram Sing the defendant was appoint...
Raja of Faridkot Vs. Gurdyal Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1884
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal222
Selborne, J.1. The respondent, the Raja of Faridkot, obtained in the Civil Court of that Native State in 1879 and 1880, two ex parte judgments in two suits instituted by him against the appellant, for sums amounting together to Rs. 76,474-11-3 and costs. For all the purposes of the question to he now decided, those two suits may be treated as one, the appeals to Her Majesty in Council having been consolidated. Two actions, founded on these judgments, were brought by the Raja against the appellant in the Court of the Assistant Commissioner of Lahore and were dismissed by that Court, on the ground that the judgments were pronounced' by the Faridkot Court without jurisdiction as against the appellant. On appeal to the Additional Commissioner of Lahore, the judgments of the first Court were upheld. The Raja then appealed to the Chief Court of the Punjab, which differed from both those tribunals, and upheld the jurisdiction of the Faridkot Court.2. Faridkot is a Native State, the Raja of wh...
Remfry Vs. Depenning and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal929
Pigot, J.1. In this case execution must issue; Section 35 of the Administrator-General's Act is limited to the express purpose for which it was enacted, and there is nothing in that Act or in the Civil Procedure Code to change the position of the Administrator--General, or to put him in a better position than any ordinary suitor. I must follow the course pursued in the suit of the Alliance Bank v. Hoff; Unrep and execution must issue....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »