Kolkata Court May 1885 Judgments
Adu Shikdar Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal635
Norris, J.1. (After setting out the facts and detailing the evidence continued).--I am inclined to think that the Judge has attached too little weight to the evidence as to the circumstances under which the accused made his statement; but, however that may be, I am of opinion that so much of the statement as related distinctly to facts thereby dicovered was admissible in evidence, not as a confession, but as evidence of the facts thereby discovered.2. Now it seems to me that no facts deposed to were discovered by the prisoner's statement, 'that he had robbed Kristo Rishi of Rs. 48, whereof he had spent Rs. 8 and had Rs. 40.' Upon this point the Sessions Judge says: 'According to Straight, J., in Empress of India v. Pancham I.L.R. 4 All. 198 and Queen-Empress v. Babu Lal I.L.R. 6 All. 509 the evidence of Adu's statement that he had robbed Kristo Bishi of Rs. 48 is inadmissible, but Stuart, C.J.'S opinion in the first case is in favour of its admission in explanation of the delivery of t...
Tag this Judgment!Rashbehari Mukherji and anr. Vs. Sakhi Sundari Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal644
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This was a suit to enhance the rent of a tenure.2. One of the answers made by the defendant was that the tenure could not be enhanced, because the plaintiffs had only an undivided share in it, and that another person, named Gurupershad, was entitled as a co-sharer, so that the plaintiffs could not, in a suit brought by them alone, without joining Gurupershad, enhance the rent of the tenure.3. The only issue that appears to have been raised in the first Court was (to use the language of the Munsif), 'are the plaintiffs co-sharers, and can they enhance?'4. Both Courts have found this question in the affirmative; and upon that finding have dismissed the suit.5. We have now heard the case fully argued on appeal. It has been contended by the appellants that there was no legal ground for the conclusion at which the lower Courts have arrived; and, having examined the evidence, we are led to believe that the lower Court's judgment is founded upon some misapprehension both...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Durga Sonar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal580
Mitter and Norris, JJ.1. The Sessions Judge has admitted the depositions of the prisoner made before the Joint Magistrate of Monghyr on February 10th, 1885, without any evidence of his identity.2. At page 54 of the Sessions Record the Judge says: 'The Government Pleader then put in Durga's statement on oath taken on February 10th after the offer of a pardon was 2made under Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure'--(then follow some words which are quite illegible)'--under Section 339+, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.' And we suppose he thought that under Section 80+ of the Evidence Act it was admissible without proof that the Durga Sonar who made the deposition was the same Durga Sonar then being tried.3. This was a gross blunder. Without the deposition there is no sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction of the prisoner, and we accordingly set aside the conviction and direct his discharge.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Manick Chandra Joaddar and anr. Vs. Kokilmoni Dassia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal792
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The decision of the lower Court appears to us quite correct. The plaintiffs' title to the property did not accrue until the death of Bhagabati, which occurred in the year 1287. But then the appellant contends that more than twenty years before this, Bhagabati had in fact deserted the property, which was subsequently to the desertion occupied, first, by Giridhar, and then by the appellant Kokilmoni, Giridhar's daughter; and it is said that, as Bhagabati deserted the property, the plaintiff's should have come in and claimed it; and, as they did not do so, they are barred by limitation.2. But it has been found by the District Judge that the possession of Giridhar and Kokilmoni was not adverse to Bhagabati. On the contrary, he finds that she left them in possession of the property, and used to receive maintenance from them until she died. He considers, therefore-and apparently with good reason that their possession was hers.3. But even assuming that their possession w...
Tag this Judgment!Joydeo Singh Vs. Harihar Pershad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal577
Mitter, J.1. The petitioner before us was defendant in a civil suit. The suit was decreed by the Munsif on the 22nd August 1882, and at the end of the judgment a sanction was given for the prosecution of the petitioner for forgery and for giving false evidence. There was an appeal preferred against the Munsif's decree, and that appeal was disposed of against the petitioner on the 9th August 1883. Then, on the 23rd July 1884, the plaintiff in the civil suit commenced the criminal proceeding for which he had obtained the sanction on the 22nd August 1882.2. While this proceeding was pending, it was discovered that the sanction upon which the prosecution relied was more than six months old. Thereupon, on the 20th August, another application was made for obtaining a fresh sanction, which was given on the 13th April 1885.3. This rule was obtained by the petitioner upon the plaintiff to show cause why the order of the Munsif, dated 13th April 1885, should not be set aside.4. It is contended b...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chunder Rai Chowdhuri and anr. Vs. Thomas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal658
Field, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh, refusing to set aside a sale on the grounds that there was irregularity in publishing or conducting such sale; and that the applicants had sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity.2. The Judge in the Court below has found that there was no substantial f injury proved in the case, nor was there any irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale. He did not enter into the question, whether, assuming that injury and irregularity had been proved, such injury was by reason of such irregularity.3. It had been contended before us by the learned Counsel for the appellants that there was irregularity. The judgment-debtors, appellants before us, are minors; and the irregularity alleged is this. The sale was originally fixed for the 20th May 1884. On that date, an application was made by certain of the judgment-debtors (other than the minors, who are appellants before us) for a postponeme...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoocha Vs. Elahi Bux
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal574
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We are extremely unwilling in this case to interfere with the order of the lower Court. We believe that under the circumstances the uncle of the girl is a far preferable guardian of Inami Begum to the petitioner, the grandmother.2. But the decision of Mitter and Wilkinson, JJ. in Fuseehun v. Kajo I.L.R. 10 Cal. 15 is directly in favour of the appellant; and we think that we are bound by that decision, unless we are prepared to refer the question to a Full Bench.3. That also was a case decided und9r Act IX of 1861. The plaintiff was the maternal grandmother of the minor, a girl aged 12 years, who had attained puberty. The parties who claimed to be guardians were, first, the mother of the minor, who, as in this case, had married again, and was disqualified from being guardian; and, secondly, the paternal uncles of the minor. The Court held that, though under Mahomedan law the uncles would be the proper guardians, Section 21, Regulation X of 1793 (applicable to minor...
Tag this Judgment!Mukta Sundari Dasi and ors. Vs. Kowsulliah Sundari Dasi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal588
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs took an ijara lease from the zamindar of certain property, in which was included a tenure, which had been held by the defendants at a certain rent for a great many years.2. The plaintiffs' case was that, under an arrangement which they made with the defendants sometime ago, the defendants were to pay, and have always paid, their rent and cesses to the zamindar instead of to the plaintiffs, and that these payments had always been received by the zamindar on the plaintiffs' account and placed to their credit.3. This being the arrangement, the plaintiffs say that the defendants, in breach of it, did not pay to the zamindar the rents or cesses, which they ought to have paid for the years 1283 to 1287, and consequently the zamindar brought a suit against the plaintiffs to recover those rents and cesses, and recovered the amount.4. This suit was then brought by the plaintiffs to recover from the defendants the sums which, according to the arr...
Tag this Judgment!Bipro Doss Dey Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal655
Pigot, J.1. I think the question in issue in this matter is more as to what is to be gathered from a fair construction of the words in the affidavit of Major Thomas, than any question of law at issue between the parties.2. The case of Southwark & C Water Co. v. Quick L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 315 (323) is relied on by the Advocate-General for the defendant, and also by Mr. Hill for the plaintiff.3. I construe the affidavit thus: The letters of which production is sought, were a letter by Major Thomas to Major Hallet, and Major Hallett's reply to it; the first being a letter written for the purpose of giving Major Hallett information with a view to possible future litigation. It does not appear that it, or the reply to it, was written for the purpose of being communicated to any solicitor. It is consistent with the terms of the affidavit that both letters were written without such a purpose; but that they were of such a nature, that they might, in the event of litigation, be communicated to a solic...
Tag this Judgment!Goverdhan Sinha and anr. Vs. the Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal570
Mitter and Norris, JJ.1. In these two cases the petitioners before us have been convicted under Section 76,* Clause (b) of Beng. Act II of 1882, called the Bengal Embankment Act, 1882. The facts proved against the petitioners are, that they have repaired existing embankments so as to make them higher, and probably broader, than they were before, and it was also proved that they did these acts without taking the previous permission of the Collector as required by Clause (6) of Section 76. It is further found by the Magistrate that under Section 6 of the Act, the Lieutenant-Governor, by a notification, declared that the tracts within which these embankments exist, are tracts within which the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 76 shall take effect. It is stated in the affidavit, and not contradicted in any way, that no proclamation and general notice of this declaration under Section 6 was published in the manner prescribed in Section 80 of the Act.2. There is no finding in the Magistrat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »