Kolkata Court April 1885 Judgments
Kallanus Vs. Lal Mahomed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal519
McDonell and Macpherson, JJ.1. This suit was brought to recover arrears of rent based on a kabuliat. The defendant admitted having given the kabuliat, but stated that he had done so under coercion. He also raised the further defence that at the time when the kabuliat was executed the plaintiff had no title to the share claimed by him. The Munsiff was of opinion that under Section 116 of the Evidence Act the defendant could not, if the kabuliat stood, deny the plaintiff's title. So he confined himself to the simple issue as to whether the kabuliat was obtained by coercion or not, and finding, for the reasons given in his judgment, that it was so obtained, he dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The Subordinate Judge, on appeal, held that the evidence to prove coercion was not reliable, and that the defendant could not avoid the contract, as he had ratified it by paying rent. He, therefore, reversed the Munsiff's judgment and decreed the plaintiff's suit.2. In second appeal it was urged befor...
Tag this Judgment!Mehter Ali and ors. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal530
Prinsep, J.1. As regards the two constables, the evidence leaves no doubt in our minds with regard to the correctness of the order of the Sessions Judge convicting them, under Section 330 of the Penal Code, of having caused hurt to certain persons, accused of murder of Mussamut Dhuri with the intention of extorting confessions from them.2. As regards the other appellant, Mehter Ali, who occupied a somewhat higher position, being a head constable, it is argued that the evidence on the record does not amount to actual proof that he himself caused any such hurt to any of these persons. In support of this contention our attention has been drawn to some discrepancies in the evidence on the record, and especially on comparison of the evidence given by the principal witnesses at the trial with statements made at the various preliminary stages of the proceedings. These discrepancies, however, do not affect the general character of the evidence. The evidence is clear that false confessions were...
Tag this Judgment!Kunj Behari Singh and anr. Vs. Jogi Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal509
Tottenham and Ghose, JJ.1. This was a suit to recover possession of certain properties which were purchased on the 4th April 1876 by the defendant No. 1, Jogi Singh, who is the appellant before us, at a sale in execution of a decree. The plaintiffs are the sons of one Pheku Singh; one of them is a minor, and the other has attained majority. During their minority, Chet Narain Singh, their uncle, as also their mother on her own behalf and on behalf of her sons, executed a mortgage bond for Rs. 1,700. A decree was subsequently obtained upon that document in June 1875, and in execution of that decree the properties in suit were sold and purchased by the defendant. The plaintiffs brought the present suit in January 1882 to recover possession of their share of the properties thus sold to the defendant upon the ground that there was no legal necessity whatever for the loan contracted by the mother; that the decree was a fraudulent one; that in the suit in which the said decree was obtained th...
Tag this Judgment!Pergash Koer and anr. Vs. Mahabir Pershad NaraIn Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal582
Mitter, J.1. This suit was based upon a mortgage deed called bye-bil-wufa, executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff's father, on the 21st July 1873. Under this deed a two-anna nine-pie share, out of five annas six pie, out of eleven annas of the mouzah in dispute, which eleven annas constituted an entire estate, was mortgaged. The plaintiff alleged that on the 15th June 1877 an application was made to the District Court for service of notice under Regulation XVII of 1806; that this notice was served upon the mortgagor; and that as the money due under the mortgage' was not paid within the time allowed by the Regulation, the right to redeem was barred. It was further stated in the plaint that, some time after the notice had been served, the plaintiffs came to know that the share mortgaged had been sold in execution of a decree against the mortgagee [mortgagor?] and purchased by the mortgagor himself in the name of his son, the defendant No. 2. Accordingly, the defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Serang and ors. Vs. Beadon
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal524
Wilson, J.1. I had some doubts in admitting the plaint, but having regard to my recollection of the case of Booth v. Briscoe L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 496 I thought it safer to admit it.2. Mr. Bonnerjee cited and distinguished Booth v. Briscoe.3. Mr. Braunfeld for the Plaintiffs contended that the suit was rightly framed, the prisoners having been charged, tried, convicted and committed to jail together; that they had incurred expenses together in obtaining their release; that had the suits been brought separately there would have been a multiplicity of suits, which it was the policy of the law to avoid, and in all probability the defendant would have applied to consolidate them, and cited Coryton v. Lithebye 2 Saund. Pt. I p. 115; Barratt v. Collins 10 Moo. J.B. 446; Booth v. Briscoe L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 496.Wilson, J.4. Considered that there was nothing to justify the plaintiffs thus joining in one suit, seeing that their causes of action, though similar in nature, were in fact distinct and separate. H...
Tag this Judgment!Laidley and ors. Vs. Gour Gobind Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal501
Field and Beverley, JJ.1. It is contended that the defendants are entitled to a right of occupancy in the yellow-coloured land as to which this appeal has been preferred, and also in the eleven days coloured white and lying to the west of the land coloured yellow. The Subordinate Judge has decided against the defendants in respect of this occupancy right upon the authority of two cases, one of which will be found in 25 W.R. 117, and the other in I.L.R. 4 Cal. 957. We think that the present case is distinguishable from both these cases. The report of the first case Cannan v. Kylas Chunder Roy Chowdhry is very brief. The judgment of Macpherson, J., is as follows: 'As regards the first ground of appeal, we think that there is nothing in it. It may be, or it may not be, that Mackilligan had acquired a right of occupancy in this land. But it is clear that the Agra Bank, which has been in possession only some six or seven years, cannot, merely as a transferee of Mackilligan's interest and re...
Tag this Judgment!KamruddIn Dai and ors. Vs. Sonatun Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal449
Pigot and O'Kinealy, JJ.1. Thereupon set aside the judgment of the Sessions Judge, ordered a re-hearing, and released the prisoners on bail pending such re-hearing....
Tag this Judgment!Hori Das Mal Vs. Mahomed Jaki and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal434
Richard Garth, C.J. (Mitter and Tottenham, JJ., concurring)1. This is a reference made to a Full Bench in five different suits, which have come up to this Court on second appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Dacca, affirming the decree of the Munsif of Kaligunj.2. The suits are all brought by the same plaintiffs against different defendants for rent of a julkur in the river Megna; and the plaintiffs' case is that they held the julkur in question as tenants from the proprietors under an ijara lease for the four years, 1287 to 1290, and that the defendants were their under-tenants of the fishery. The julkur is a mehal in the river Megna, a tidal navigable river, which is said to have been settled by the Government with the plaintiffs' lessors for a great many years past at a sudder rent of Bs. 287, and let out by them from time to time in ijara.3. The first and principal question which is referred to us by the Division Bench is:(1) Whether exclusive rights of fishery in tida...
Tag this Judgment!Dena Nath Banerjee and ors. Vs. Hari Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal499
Mitter, J.1. The principal question in this case is, whether the kobala set up by the defendant, and said to have been executed by one of the plaintiffs, Dena Nath, in 1862, is genuine or not2. It is true that this is a question of fact, and the Subordinate Judge, on appeal, came to the conclusion that the document in question was not genuine; but if in second appeal it is found that certain material facts which have an important bearing upon the question at issue have been omitted to be considered, this Court has always interfered with the decision of the lower Appellate Court, even if it be on a question of fact.3. In this case the learned Judge of the Court, in his judgment, has pointed out certain facts which have a material bearing upon the question, whether the kobala is genuine or not; he has also pointed out that these facts have not been considered by the Subordinate Judge. That being so, we think that the case was properly remanded; but, under the circumstances, we think it r...
Tag this Judgment!Bhutnath Dey and anr. Vs. Ahmed HosaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal417
Norris, J.1. This was a mortgage suit, and the facts of the case were as follows:One Sheik Ahmed Ally Ostagur died in August 1879, leaving him surviving as his heirs, heiresses and legal representatives according to Mahomedan law, his widow Arzu Bibee, his three children by her, viz., the defendants Ahmed Hosain, Rahimunessa Bibee and Banni Jan Bibee, his son by a wife who had predeceased him, viz., the defendant Palk Jan and his mother Ameenah Bibee.2. On the 12th May 1881, Arzu Bibee, Ahmed Hosain, and Rahimunessa Bibee mortgaged three plots of land in the 24-Pergunnahs, and one plot in Calcutta to the plaintiffs to secure the repayment of Bs. 2,000, with interest at 12 per cent.3. The plot of land in Calcutta formed part of the estate of Sheik Ahmed Ally Ostagur; the plots in the 24-Pergunnahs belonged to Arzu Bibee. Subsequently to the mortgage Arzu Bibee conveyed her interest in one of the plots in the 24-Pergunnahs to Ameenah Bibee, who died in February or March 1882, leaving her...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »