Kolkata Court May 1885 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.
Gopinath Vs. Kuldip Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal566
1. It appears that the charge against the accused with which we are now dealing was not made under Section 193 of the Penal Code, but under Section 82 of the Registration Act. It is, therefore, not necessary for the purposes of the case to consider whether, when in holding an enquiry under that Act, the Registrar is acting as a 'Court,' within the meaning of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We have only to consider whether before instituting a charge under Section 82, any sanction at all is necessary.2. We are of opinion that no sanction is required. It has been contended that, under Section 83 of the Registration Act, it is necessary that some one of the officers who are mentioned in that section must have given previous permission to institute proceedings; but we think that it is not so. The provisions of Section 83 are not obligatory. They rather seem to be intended for the purpose of enabling the officers of the Registration Department, when they should see fit, to insti...
Ram NaraIn Rai and ors. Vs. Ram Coomar Chunder Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal562
Tottenham and Agnew, JJ.1. The points taken in this second appeal relate to certain decrees adduced in evidence by the plaintiffs in the Courts below.2. The question at issue between the parties was, whether the rent of the tenure in question was payable solely in cash, or partly in cash and partly in kind, as claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff put in, as part of his evidence, three decrees. One was a decree based on a solenamah and made in the year 1858, and the other two were ex parte decrees, obtained in 1868 and 1876 respectively.3. In the solenamah decree it was recited that the plaintiffs alleged the rent of the tenure to be payable partly in cash and partly in kind, but the claim was only in respect of cash rent; and the decree, according to an agreement between the parties, was for the payment of a certain amount of money.4. The ex parte decrees of 1868 and 1876 were, it appears, for rent both in cash and in kind. As regards the first decree on the solenamah the lower Appe...
Matuki Misser Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal619
Macpherson, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 201 and 176 of the Penal Code. Under the former section he has been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment, and under the latter to simple imprisonment for one week. The conviction under Section 201 cannot, I think, stand in the absence of proof that the offence, the evidence of which he caused to disappear, was committed. The evidence of the two women who deposed to having seen Ghogan Misser give two slaps to the woman Mussamut Bhulkia is, I think, wholly untrustworthy, and there is no other evidence to denote that any offence was committed; nor is there any proof that the appellant had, at the time when toe body was disposed of, any knowledge or information which would lead him to believe that the offence of murder or culpable homicide had been committed.2. The conviction under Section 176 is, I think, good. Under Section 45 of the Criminal Procedure Code, every occupier of land is bound to communicate forthwith ...
Kali Chandra Singh and anr. Vs. Rajkishore Bhuddro
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal615
Field, J.1. The question in this case is whether a co-sharer is entitled to maintain a suit for enhancement of his share of the rent, which, according to his allegation, was separately collected by him. We will assume for the purposes of our decision in this case that the share of the rent was, in this particular case, separately collected. The Courts below have held that such a suit is not maintainable. It has been pressed upon us by the learned vakil that the decision of the Courts below is wrong upon the authorities. He first pressed upon us the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Chuni Singh v. Hera Mahto I.L.R. 7 Cal. 633. We think that the only observation necessary to make with reference to this case is that the very question we have now to decide was referred to a Full Bench; but was not decided, because, according to the opinion of the majority of the Court, this point did not arise in that case. Then the learned vakil relied upon the case of Bidhu Bhusun Basu v. Kamarad...
Shama Churn Chowdhry Vs. Drobomoyee ChowdhraIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal246
Field, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is ah adopted son and is still a minor. He sues to recover possession of certain lands which he alleges to be a portion of an estate which belonged to Uma Churn, his adopted father. The only point with which we have to deal upon this appeal is, whether the minor has a good title as adopted son. All the questions of fact have been found in his favour by the Courts below; and there is now no question as to these facts before us.2. Uma Churn had three wives; with one of these ladies we have no concern. The two wives with whom we are concerned are Nobo Sundari and Gaya Sundari. Gaya Sundari was the mother of Hur Cumar, and Hur Cumar, upon Uma Churn's death, succeeded to his property. Hur Cumar died unmarried and during minority; and his mother Gaya Sundari died before him. Upon Hur Cumar's deaths Gaya Sundari's co-wife, Nobo Sundari, in the exercise of an anumatipotro, or power of adoption granted to her by Uma Churn, adopted the present plaintiff.3. ...
Bhagbat Panda Vs. Bamdeb Panda and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal557
Tottenham and Agnew, JJ.1. The question laid before us for decision by the appellant's pleader is, whether the defendants in this suit were entitled under Section Ill of the Civil Procedure Code to set-off against the plaintiff's claim certain amounts in respect of which they alleged a claim against him, such amounts being, at the time when the written statement was filed, unascertained. The suit was one for contribution in respect of a decree obtained jointly against the plaintiff and defendants, but which was liquidated by the plaintiff alone. The decree was in respect of arrears of rent of an ijara held jointly by the plaintiff and defendants. The defendants pleaded that, although the plaintiff had paid off the whole of the decree in question, still he was not entitled to recover any portion of the decretal amount from them, because they had paid up to the zamindar the whole of the ijaia rents for other years, and had been out of pocket by so doing, the collections having fallen sho...
Laidley and ors. Vs. Bishucharan Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal553
Tottenham and Agnew, JJ.1. This was a suit to recover from the defendant, tenant, rent greater in amount than has been paid by him hitherto.2. The suit was based on a contract embodied in the kabuliat given by the defendant.3. The only question before us in second appeal is, whether in such a suit it was necessary that the plaintiff should first serve a notice of enhancement under Section 14 of the Rent Law.4. The Courts below have held that a notice was necessary, and for want of it they have dismissed the suit. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Nistarini Dasi v. Bonomali Chatterjee I.L.R. 4 Cal. 941 : 4 C.L.R. 278 was cited in the Court of First Instance, but was held not to apply to this particular case.5. We are of opinion that the Full Bench case does apply. The suit was upon a contract to the effect that the defendants, agreeing to pay a certain rent for a certain specified area, bound themselves to pay further rent, at the rate set out in the kabuliat, for any lands found...
The Brahmaputra Tea Co. Ld. Vs. E. Scarth
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal545
McDonell and Macpherson, JJ.1. This appeal raises questions under Sections 27 and 74 of the Contract Act. On the 3rd of October 1880, the defendant, the respondent in this appeal, entered into an agreement with the Brahmaputra Tea Company, by which he undertook to serve the Company as assistant tea-planter for a term of three years, to be computed from the date of the termination of his fourth year's service under a prior agreement. The Company agreed to pay him a salary of Rs. 300 a month for the fifth year, Rs. 350 for the sixth year, and Rs. 400 for the seventh year. It is admitted that this agreement took effect from the 5th of November 1881. On the 17th of May 1882, the defendant gave notice of his intention to leave, and on the 27th of November following, he actually did leave the Company's service without their consent, and became manager of the Moabund Tea Estate, which is about two miles distant from one of the Company's gardens. It is alleged that he has, by so doing, infring...
Sashi Bhusan Dutt, Minor by His Next Friend Hridai Nath Mundle Vs. Jad ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal552
Richard Garth, C.J. (McDonell, J., concurring)1. The only point, as we understand, which is referred to us in this case is, whether, having regard to Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, a minor, who is the obligee of a bond given for the value of certain goods, can sue upon it.2. The Munsif considers that he cannot, because the bond is void, as having been entered into by a party not competent to contract.3. We think this is a mistake. It is true that the language of the Indian Contract Act may well have led to the mistake; but we consider that the law here is the same as it is in England. A contract entered into with a minor is only voidable at the option of the minor see Addison on Contracts 3rd edition page 169; Hari Ram v. Jitan Ram 3 B.L.R. A.C. 426....
Shamsonnessa Begum Vs. Anne Love
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal527
Norris, J.1. In this case W.N. Love, also called Anne Love, was arrested on Saturday last by Brown, the Sheriff's officer, under a warrant issued out of this Court, dated the 2nd of May 1885. She was arrested on Saturday, the 2nd of May, and in consequence of the Court not sitting at the time of the arrest, she was, according to Brown's statement, taken to the Presidency Jail. Brown says he showed the warrant to the warder, and the warder refused to receive the prisoner; that he then went to the Russa Jail; that he found that the Russa Jail had ceased to exist, and he then took the prisoner to the Alipore Jail where she remained till Monday.2. The warder says the warrant was not shown to him, and that there was no refusal on his part, or on the part of any other person, to receive the prisoner.3. Anne Love was produced here on Monday, the 4th instant, and under Section 336 I directed that on her giving security for the sum of Rs. 1,800 to the satisfaction of the Registrar to appear whe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »