Kolkata Court September 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.
GhurbIn Bind Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1097
Macpherson, J.1. The prisoner, Ghurbin Bind, has been convicted on a charge of dacoity, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. The dacoity was committed in August 1880. Several persons were shortly afterwards charged with being concerned in it, and were tried and convicted, but the prisoner, who is said to have absconded, has only recently been arrested. The only proof against the prisoner is the deposition of one Jogeshur Bind, who was made an approver-witness in the original trial, and who is now dead, coupled with some evidence as to his absence from the village at the time of the dacoity, and as to his absconding therefrom afterwards. The Judge considers that Jogeshur's deposition is evidence against the prisoner under Section 33 of the Evidence Act, and also under Section 512 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is clearly not admissible under the former Act, as it was not recorded in the presence of the prisoner; and it would only be admissible under the latter if t...
In Re: Chandra Sekhar Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal77
Macpherson, J.1. The Magistrate's order directing the attachment and sale of the moveable property of the petitioner on forfeiture of the surety bond executed by him for Rs. 2,400 is illegal, and must be set aside. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code authorizing a Police officer to take security for the production of any person before the Police. If the bond was in this respect bad, the Magistrate had no power to alter it and to impose on the petitioner a fresh obligation.2. Assuming, however, that the conditions of the bond could be legally enforced, there has been a total disregard of the provisions of Section 514 of the Code. The bond was taken by a Police officer, and that section requires that on its being proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and call upon the person bound by it to show cause why the penalty should not be paid. In the present case the petitioner denied the execu...
Nobokishore Sarma Roy on His Death His Legal Representative His Son Go ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1102
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The only difficulty, if there is any, which we have to deal with in this case, arises from the anomalous character of a Hindu widow's interest. I have no doubt that Mr. Justice Dwarkanath Mitter was perfectly right, in the Full Bench case of Kery Kolitany v. Mooneeram Kolita 13 B.L.R. l in describing that interest as having been originally a mere trust for the benefit of her deceased husband. But it has been found so impossible in practice to carry out that idea, that this Court, as well as their Lordships of the Privy Council, have for many years past considered and treated her estate as an absolute one, subject only to certain conditions.2. In the case of Phool Chand Lall v. Rughoobuns Suhaye 9 W.R. 108 Sir Barnes Peacock describes it thus: 'It is not,' he says, 'an absolute estate for all purposes; and it is not merely an estate for life, but she takes the estate of her husband for the benefit of her husband (which includes her maintenance and the performance o...
Queen-empress Vs. Shib Chunder Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1079
Richard Garth, C.J. and Prinsep, J.1. The prisoner in his petition, in which he partly founded his application for a rule, alleged that the learned Judge, in his charge to the jury, directed them, that there was no evidence before them that the peon could make the English 2's. and 3's.; and that, whereupon Mr. Allen, prisoner's counsel, immediately drew the attention of the learned Judge to the peon's own evidence and of his dak book, and to the evidence of Mr. Davis, that the peon knew the English characters and figures; the learned Judge replied: 'I know that; still I maintain that there is no evidence that the peon could make the figures 2 and 3 in the vouchers and could write English figures,' or words to that effect; and the petition further stated, that the learned Judge, throughout his charge to the jury, said nothing to alter or modify the effect of his own directions. The statements in the petition were verified, not only by the prisoner himself, but also substantially by the ...
Tripura Sundari and ors. Vs. Durga Churn Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal74
Prinsep and Macpherson, JJ.1. The irregularity complained of in the publication of the sale proclamation is that the proclamation was not fixed up in any part of the properties sold. This objection as regards the Husnabad property is groundless. The evidence shows that the decree-holders and judgment-debtors have their cutcheries on the opposite sides of a courtyard, that of the former being on the south and north sides, and that of the latter on the west side. The notice was attached to the house on the north side, because the western house is said to have been at the time under repair and the judgment-debtors were using the north house. The latter fact is denied by witness No. 10 of the judgment-debtors, but the fact of suspension being proved, and the property being joint, there was, we think, a sufficient compliance with the law, whatever the truth may be as to the occupation of the particular rooms. The return of the peon who proclaimed the sale does not show that a copy of the pr...
Madhub Chandra Mookerji and anr. Vs. Shama Charan Chatterji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal93
Macpherson, J.1. No evidence has been recorded in this case, and the only question we are called upon to decide is, whether the plaint discloses a cause of action on which the suit can be maintained. The Subordinate Judge held that it did not do so. The Additional Judge took a different view and remanded the case for trial on the merits. The appeal is against the order of remand.2. The allegations in the plaint are to the effect that the plaintiff after foreclosure obtained a decree against the defendant for possession of properties mortgaged by him, including a house standing on two biggahs of land, and other lands, some of which were, it is now stated, in the occupation of tenants; that the plaintiff executed this decree, and on the 12th July 1879 obtained possession of all the properties with the aid of the Court; but that the defendant without entering into any settlement continued to hold possession of two biggahs of land and the buildings thereon, although he had been served with...
Joy Prokash Lall and anr. Vs. Sheo Golam Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal37
Richard Garth, C.J.1. These suits were brought on the following allegations:In mehal No. 2286 of the Saran Towjee, mauza Bissumbhurpur alias Aphur represents a 2-annas kolum or share, and of this 6 pies belonged to Manessur Sahai and Mussammat Luchmi Koer. A private partition of the mauza having been made, the said share comprised among other lands 11 biggahs of zerat land in Aphur and 9 biggahs in Putti Esrawan.2. Appeal No. 666 relates to the 9 biggahs in Putti Esrawan; and the plaintiff's allege that they purchased these 9 biggahs (with other lands) in certain execution proceedings, and applied to the Collector to have their names recorded as fractional co-sharers in the mehal, and this suit is brought in consequence of the Collector's refusal to so register them as fractional co-sharers.3. Appeal No. 667 relates to 1 biggah out of the 11 biggahs in mauza Aphur, and the plaintiffs' allegation is, that they purchased this 1 biggah in certain other execution proceedings, but that the ...
Becharam Dutta Vs. Abdul Wahed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal55
Prinsep and Macpherson, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order directing the execution of a decree passed on the 10th of January 1872. The question is whether the execution is barred by the law of limitation.2. The lower Court assumed that the whole proceedings, up to and inclusive of the last application for execution, are governed by Act XIV of 1859, but this seems to us to be an incorrect assumption. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has held in Mungul Proshad Dichit v. Grija Kant Lahiri that the provisions of the Act IX of 1871 do not apply to any suit, or to any application in a suit, instituted before the 1st of April 1873, and that an application for the execution of a decree is an application in the suit in which the decree was obtained. The effect of this decision is, that so long as Act IX of 1871 was in force, Act XIV of 1859 governs all applications for the execution of a decree passed in any suit instituted before the 1st of April 1873. Act IX of 1871, which repea...
Coggan Vs. Pogose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal158
Pigot, J.1. The question in this matter, which I thought it worth while to consider, is, whether the equitable mortgage of 1873, as to the factum of which there is no doubt, ought or ought not to be postponed to the subsequent written and registered charge in favour of the plaintiff by reason of the charge being registered under provision of Section 48 of the Registration Act. Or whether such an equitable mortgage, constituted as this was, by deposit of title deeds, is an 'oral agreement' under Section 48.2. That section enacts that 'all non-testamentary documents duly registered, and relating to any property, whether moveable or immoveable, shall take effect against any oral agreement or declaration relating to such property, unless where the agreement or declaration has been accompanied or followed by delivery of possession.'3. I can find no authority, and none was cited before me, nor am I aware of any authority, under rulings of the Registration Act in which this section is to be f...
Sotish Chunder Lahiry Vs. Nil Comul Lahiry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal45
ORDERRichard Garth, C.J. and Prinsep, J.1. This was a rule obtained by Mr. Evans calling upon the claimant in the execution proceedings in this case to show cause why the order which had been made by the Deputy Commissioner, releasing certain property from attachment (which property is now supposed to belong to the claimant) should not be set aside, upon the ground that it was made with material irregularity.2. The circumstances are these: The suit was brought, so far back as the year 1862, by the present plaintiff against the widow and the two minor sens of Shib Nath Lahiry for mesne profits, and that suit eventually came before the Privy Council, and the Privy Council made a decree in favour of th ___________________e plaintiff and sent the case back, in order that the amount of the wasilat should be ascertained.3. Subsequently, in the year 1874, the widow professed to adopt, and is said to have adopted, the person whom I call the claimant. The ultimate decree that was obtained was o...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »