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.
Queen-empress Vs. Autal Muchi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1026
Tottenham and Norris, JJ.1. The conviction in this case must be set aside, and the fine, if realized, refunded. There is no evidence on the record to show that the packet received by the Chemical Examiner in Calcutta was the packet taken from the prisoner; the packet is traced into the hands of the Civil Surgeon and no further. We are at a loss to understand why the Civil Surgeon was not called: but even if the identity of the packet had been established, we think the certificate produced and put in at the trial was not admissible in evidence. Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enacts that a document purporting to be a report under the hand of the 'Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner' may be used as evidence in any inquiry: the certificate in this case is signed by a person styling himself ' Additional Chemical Examiner,' and is of no more value as evidence than a piece of waste paper.2. Serious miscarriage of justice may result from the production of certificat...
Nasib Kooer and ors. Vs. Isree Pershad Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1017
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiff, Mussumat Nasib Kooer, to recover a one-fifth share of the estate of her deceased husband, Baijnath Singh, under these circumstances.2. Baijnath Singh was the head of a Mitakshara family, consisting of his two wives (the plaintiff, and one Mussumat Kasida Kooer, who is since dead) and four sons, who are the defendants in this suit, and the family were possessed of several ancestral properties.3. Baijnath died on the 13th Aughran 1263 Fusli; and after his death, and that of Mussumat Kasida Kooer, the four brothers separated, and a partition of the family property was made by the plaintiff with the consent of her sons, the plaintiff retaining in her own possession an estate called Lodipore, upon the ground that it was her stridhan.4. At this time, it appears the two elder brothers (the defendants 1 and 2) separated themselves from their two younger brothers (the defendants 3 and 4), who continued to live with the plaintiff; and...
Mullick Abdool Guffoor and anr. Vs. Muleka and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1112
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The main question in the case is the validity of this deed of gift. There is no douht that but for this deed the plaintiff's would be the heirs of Kaniz Fatima, at least to the main portion of the property. But they deny the validity of the deed on several grounds:(1st) That Kaniz Fatima never executed it; (2nd) that if she did she was not of sound mind when she did so; and (3rd) that the deed is invalid by the rules of Mahomedan law.2. The Judge in the Court below has found entirely in favour of the defendants. He considers, that the execution both of the ikrarnama, and of the deed of gift has been clearly proved, and that there is no legal objection to the validity of the deed of gift. He also finds, that the mocurrari to Babbun was a permanent lease, and he has dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs.3. In this Court, the main contention has been with reference to the validity of the deed of gift, and we may say at once, that we have not the least doubt as re...
Queen-empress Vs. Mathews
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1022
Field, J.1. The evidence cannot be given. I must instruct the jury to put out of their minds anything the present witness, being a policeman, may say implicating the prisoner by quoting words alleged to have been used by the prisoner himself.2. The Standing Counsel (Mr. Phillips). -Your Lordship will hear me on the point. I am entitled to obtain an answer to the question I have asked, even if the reply should bring out any statement or part of a statement made by the accused implicating himself to the witness. The Court will remember that my question is directed to clear up a matter left in doubt by the cross-examination, not an independent enquiry started by the prosecution. The witness used an ambiguous expression 'the time.' I am entitled to fix the precise meaning he attached to these words. For instance, if the accused had said to the Police officer 'I did not kill the deceased with a knife, but shot him with a pistol; and the cross-examining counsel extracted from the witness the...
Ranjit Singh and ors. Vs. Bunwari Lal Sahu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal993
Richard Garth, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. We think that the learned Judge has made a mistake in this case.2. It is admitted that the defendant's purchase was prior to that of the plaintiffs'; but the plaintiffs' ease was, that as they were in possession of the property from the time of their purchase in September 1866 up to the year 1879, they have acquired a statutory title by limitation as against the defendants.3. In answer to this the defendants say that, under their decree against Amrit Lal the plaintiffs' vendor in the year 1873, they obtained symbolical possession of the property in the usual way by process of execution, and the lower Court has held that this proceeding had the effect of vesting a sufficient possession in the defendants to prevent the plaintiffs from setting up as against them a statutory title by limitation.4. We think that this is clearly a mistake. Upon reference to the Full Bench case of Juggobundhu Mukerjee v. Ram Chunder Bysack I.L.R. 5 Cal. 584 : 5 C.L.R. 54...
Eugene Pogose (a Minor) by Her Next Friend, P.N. Pogose Vs. the Delhi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal951
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This suit was brought by Mrs. Eugene Pogose, the wife of Mr. Peter Nicholas Pogose, to establish her title to certain property in the district of Mymensingh, which had been attached by the respondents, the Delhi Bank, in execution of a decree against the plaintiff's husband.2. The plaintiff made a claim to this property in the execution proceedings; but that claim, having been rejected by the Court, she has brought this suit to obtain a declaration of her rights.3. Her ease is, that this property (together with four other properties in the district of Backergunge) was settled upon her and her children by a marriage settlement, dated the 5th November 1877, corresponding with the 21st Kartik 1284 ; the marriage having been solemnized on the following day.4. The execution of this deed by the plaintiff's husband on the date in question is not denied; but the defendant's case is, that, having regard to the circumstances under which it was executed, the settlement was v...
Mahomed HosseIn Vs. Inodeen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal946
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This is a reference from the Judicial Commissioner of British Burmah under Section 31 of the Burmah Courts' Act XVII of 1875.2. The question referred for the decision of this Court appears to be this: Whether a second appeal under Section 27 of the Burmah Courts' Act is subject to the limitation of time prescribed for appeals to the High Court under the Indian Limitation Act; or, in fact, to any limitation whatever?3. The Judicial Commissioner states that 'it has been the practice of this Court, when sitting with the powers of a High Court, to apply to appeals made under the above section, the term of limitation of 90 days prescribed by Article 156 of the second schedule of the Indian Limitation Act, for appeals made to a High Court under the Code of Civil Procedure.' The question has been raised, however, whether the Limitation Act applies to a second appeal under Section 27 of the Burmah Courts' Act.4. The rules as to second appeals under the Burmah Courts' Act ...
Habibullah Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal937
Wilson, J.1. This case has been referred to me in consequence of a difference of opinion between Tottenham and Norris, JJ.2. The accused has been charged with, and convicted of, offences under Section 193 of the Penal Code. Each charge followed the form given in Schedule V, XXVIII, II, (4) to the Code of Criminal Procedure and charged him with having, in the course of a judicial proceeding, made, as a witness, two contradictory statements, one or other of which he knew to be false or did not believe to be true. The conviction is in accordance with the charge without any express finding which of two contradictory statements was false.3. Mr. Gasper, who appeared for the accused, raised these points. First he argued that, under the present law, a charge and conviction of this nature is in no case good. The validity of such charges has twice come before Full Benches of this Court.4. In the Queen v. Mussamut Zimeerun such a charge seems to have been regarded as an alternative charge of perj...
Queen-empress Vs. Sadhee Kasal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal936
ORDERPrinsep and Macpherson, JJ.1. As the case is now presented to us, on review of the Sessions Judge's statement, and on perusal of the record, we think it sufficient to point out to the Sessions Judge that the offences under trial not being exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions, the Sessions Judge was not competent to tender pardon, under Section 338 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to Chowri Kasal....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›