Kolkata Court August 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.
Lutifunnissa Bibi and ors. Vs. Nazirun Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal33
Macpherson, J.1. In this case the allegations of the plaintiff are to this effect: She states in her plaint that the resumed mehal Harishpur, and four parcels of lakheraj land in four other mauzas were dedicated as wuqf by a former Maharajah of Burdwan, and that the profits were ever since' applied to the feeding of wayfarers and travellers, to lighting the mosque and shrine in the evening, and to meeting the expenses of repeating prayers on the occasions of Id and Bakhrid, and that the said profits were never spent for personal purposes.' She then goes on to say that after the death of her husband, Syed Mokram Ali, the defendant No. 1, who is her step-son, sold the mehal Harishpur and granted a mocurrari potta of the four parcels of lakheraj lands to defendant No. 2, ostensibly in the name of defendant No. 3, and that defendant No. 2 accordingly took possession of all the properties in Bysack 1274. She therefore prays that the properties in suit may be declared to be wuqf, that the sa...
Koylash Chunder Sen Vs. Koylash Chunder Chakrabarti and Mohendro Nath ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1057
ORDERPrinsep, J.1. Mothura Mohun Ohakrabarti and another attached certain property in execution of a decree obtained by them. Koylash Chunder Ohakrabarti, another decree-holder, also applied for execution of his decree, and for attachment, but it appears that no attachment was taken out by Koylash for some time. While the attachment of Mothura Mohun was in force, the judgment-debtor, without the permission of the Court specially obtained, sold their property to Koylash Chunder Sen, who is known as the claimant, and thus satisfied the decree of Mothura Mohun and Radanath; no further proceedings were taken by these decree-holders.2. Koylash Chunder Ohakrabarti then obtained an order for the attachment of the same property in execution of his decree; whereupon Koylash Chunder Sen preferred a claim under Section 278 of the Civil Procedure Code, alleging that he was in possession of the property under a purchase from the judgment-debtor, as just stated. The Subordinate Judge has disallowed ...
Kharak Chand Pal Vs. Tarack Chunder Gupta, Municipal Overseer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1030
Prinsep, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 188 of the Penal Code of having disobeyed an order of the Municipal Commissioners of Commillah under Section 256, Beng. Act V of 1876, dated the 29th March 1883.2. On enquiry we have ascertained that the District Magistrate, who tried and convicted the petitioner, was present as Chairman of the Municipal Commissioners at the meeting of the 29th March 1883, when the order was passed, the disobedience of which forms the subject of the present case.3. Section 555 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that ' no Magistrate shall, except with the permission of the Court to which an appeal lies from his Court, try or commit for trial any case to or in which he is a party or personally interested.' (No permission has been applied for in the present case.) The explanation to Section 555 further declares that, 'a Magistrate shall not be deemed to be a party, or personally interested, within the meaning of this section, to or in a...
Queen-empress Vs. Ram Sahai Lall and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1070
Field, J.1. We have heard the evidence in this case, and have considered the arguments addressed to us by the learned Counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellant, and we think that the proper course to take will be to set aside the conviction, and direct a new trial of the prisoner Ram Sahai Lall; and for this reason, Pokhan, the brother of the deceased Gandauri, gave the first information to the Police station. Pokhan was not speaking from his own personal knowledge in giving an account of the transaction which resulted in the death of Gandauri, but he did give certain details, and he stated that he had received these details from three persons, Tiloke, Jitan and Chita, and he proceeded to add that these three persons were his witnesses. These three persons were examined by the Deputy Magistrate, and their evidence did not support the case for the prosecution. It would appear, and it is so stated in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, that the Police officer who had charge...
Abbilakh Singh Vs. Khub Lall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1100
Field, J.1. This is an application under para. 4, Clause (c), Section 195, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the revocation of a sanction given for the prosecution of the petitioner, dated 16th February 1884. The sanction is in the following words:--'Sanction to prosecute is awarded.' We think that this sanction must be revoked on two grounds: The second paragraph of Clause (c), Section 195, provides that the sanction 'shall, so far as practicable, specify the Court or other place in which, and the occasion on which, the offence was committed.' The sanction which forms the subject of this application does not comply with these provisions of the law.2. The second ground upon which we think this sanction ought to be revoked is this: The sanction was not given immediately upon the termination of the proceedings in which the question of the genuineness of the istifa or notice of relinquishment was raised. It was given when those proceedings had terminated, and by an order of a subsequ...
Dalim Bibi Vs. Koonari Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal14
Macpherson, J.1. One Jonab Ali Lasker died leaving a widow (defendant 1), a maternal uncle (defendant 2), and a paternal aunt (plaintiff); and the sole question raised in this appeal is, whether under Mahomedan law the widow takes the whole-estate of the deceased to the exclusion of the maternal uncle and the paternal aunt, who belong to the class of 'distant kindred.'2. It is contended on the authority of the cases reported in 1 Select Reports, 346 and I.L.R. 3 Cal. 702, that the widow is entitled to the 'return,' and it is ingeniously argued that, as those who share in the 'return' take in preference to 'distant kindred,' so the widow's claim must be preferred to that of the 'distant kindred.'3. But we think that neither the cases cited nor the authorities go to this extent. What the cases decided was, that in the absence of other heirs (and 'distant kindred' are heirs) the widow is entitled to the 'return' as against the bat-ul-mal, or public treasury. And this is in accordance with...
NobIn Krishna Mookerjee Vs. Rassick Lall Laha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1047
Mitter, J.1. The petitioner before us was convicted by the Joint Magistrate of Alipore (1) of having abetted the false personation of one Khirod Chunder Mookerjee, son of Prosono Coomar Mookerjee, of Bhowanipore, before the Sub-Registrar of Sealdah; (2) of having intentionally made a failse statement before the said officer in identifying some unknown person as the said Khirod Chunder; and (3) of having abetted the offence of cheating by dishonestly inducing one Huridas Bhuttacharjee to deliver the sum of Rs. 5,000 to the said unknown person under the belief that he was advancing the said sum of money to Khirod Chunder Mookerjee, son of Prosono Coomar Mookerjee, of Bhowanipore. The petitioner was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200 in respect of the second of the above mentioned offences, no sentence being passed for the others. On appeal the conviction and the sentence have been upheld by the Sessions Judge of the 24-Pergunnahs. The present application ...
The Government of Bengal (Through the Deputy Legal Remembrancer) Vs. P ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1029
Mitter, J.1. This is an application by the Local Government for leave to appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of acquittal passed in a trial by jury. The grounds upon which the appeal is sought to be preferred are all questions of fact. It is contended that under the Code an appeal under Section 417 would lie upon questions of fact, although the acquittal was had in a trial by jury. We are of opinion that this contention is not valid. Section 417, which provides for the appeal, says:-- 'The Local Government may direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court, from an Original or Appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court.' Section 418 says:-- 'An appeal may lie upon a matter of fact as well as a matter of law, except where the trial was by jury, in which case the appeal shall lie on a matter of law only.' Then Section 423, Clause (d) says:--'Nothing herein contained shall authorize the Court to alt...
Ram Ranjan Chakravarti Vs. A.B. Miller, Offg. Receiver of the High Cou ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1014
Tottenham and Norris, JJ.1. The appellant in this appeal is the Receiver of the High Court. The learned Counsel, who appears for him, urges only one objection to the decree of the lower Court, and that a technical one. He says that it is a point of principle and therefore he contends for it. The objection is this that there was no authority of the Court for making the Receiver a party to this suit. The plaintiff made him a defendant and a substantial defendant without having obtained the leave of the High Court. It appears to us indubitable that this contention is valid. It is an elementary matter that the Receiver of the High Court does not represent the owner of an estate. He is an officer of the Court, and as such cannot sue or be sued except with the permission of the Court.2. As against the Receiver, therefore, the decree must be set aside with costs in both Courts.3. The costs of the Receiver will be in proportion to the claim against him....
Nuddyar Chand Shaha and ors. Vs. Gobind Chunder Guha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1092
Prinsep, J.1. The present appeal relates to the execution of a decree of this Court, dated the 20th December 1867, passed on an application for review of judgment. Under this decree certain costs were given to the parties in a manner to which reference will be presently made. Objections have been taken by the judgment-debtor (respondent) to the right of the decree-holder to execute the decree; and as these go to the root of the present proceedings, we have to consider them before we consider the case of the appellant.2. In the first place, an objection is raised that the execution of the present decree is barred by limitation.3. It appears that the first Court, in May 1881, held that execution was barred by limitation. But on appeal to the District Judge it was held, on the 14th June 1881, that execution could proceed; and the case was returned to the lower Court. Against that order no further appeal was made. It is now contended that it is not competent to the judgment-debtor to ask u...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›