Kolkata Court September 1885 Judgments
Juggeshwar Dass and ors. Vs. Koylash Chunder Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-22-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal55
Pigot, J.1. The petitioners have been found guilty by the Magistrate of an offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code The complainant was examined by the Magistrate at the time of the issue of the summons, and before the issue of the summons. 'In his evidence endorsed on the back of the petition taken by the Magistrate, he states that he was not himself present when the occurrence, of which he chiefly complains, took place. Before the Magistrate he appears to have stated that he was present. What he complained of was this, that when on the 5th August, he or those in his employ were removing some thing's to the new hat at Champdani from the hat belonging to the persons in whose employ the 'accused are, the accused said the things must not be removed, and on his not listening to that, they turned the cart upside down, and the things fell down to the ground, where they remained some days afterwards. This story of the complainant was not controverted, and upon this state of things ...
Tag this Judgment!Askar Mea Vs. Sabdar Mea
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal137
Pigot and O'Kinealy, JJ.1. We think the Magistrate is right in the reference made; and direct that the order be set aside.2. We do so on the ground that, in this case, a bond fide question seems to exist, as to whether there ever was a public road in the place in question. When such a question arises it is one for the Civil Courts, as the case of Basaruddin Bhuia v. Bahar Ali I.L.R. 11 Cal. 8 decides.3. The enquiry contemplated by those sections of the Criminal Procedure Code is an enquiry into the existence or non-existence of the obstruction complained of-not an enquiry into disputed questions of title....
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Tafaullah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal190
Tottenham and Agnew, JJ.1. We think that the Sessions Judge is light in considering the conviction to be illegal. Section 223 of the Penal Code applies only to cases where the person, who is allowed to escape, is in custody for an offence, or has been committed to custody, and not to cases where such person has simply been arrested under civil process. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and order the fine, if paid, to be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Joy Chundra Dass Vs. Gobind Chundra Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal327
Prinsep and Pigot, JJ.1. The first point for our consideration is, whether lands on which gardens have been made are protected by Act XI of 1859, Section 37, from the effect of a sale for arrears of revenue, unless they may have been expressly leased for that purpose.2. No doubt three successive Revenue Sale Laws, Regulation X of 1822, Act XII of 1841 and Act I of 1845, were to this effect, but the language of Act XI of 1859 is different, and is capable of the more liberal interpretation in favour of the tenant. This construction has been adopted by Birch and Mitter, JJ., in unreported special appeal 1796 of 1876 Sheikh Joofail Ali v. Ram Kanto Rai Chowdhuri and three appeals decided simultaneously, and also by White and Mitter, JJ., in the case of Brago Bibee v. Ram Kant Roy Chowdhry I.L.R. 3 Cal. 293.3. We were at one time inclined to doubt the correctness of this opinion, but after examination of proceedings in the Legislative Council, we have come to the conclusion that the alterat...
Tag this Judgment!Jugmon Jha and ors. Vs. Bachha Jha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal348
Tottenham and Ghose, JJ.1. The contest in this case is between two persons who claim to be entitled to certain properties left by one Choona Ojhain, deceased. The plaintiff substantially claims upon the ground that the said properties belonged to Choona Ojhain's husband and were part of his estate, and that on Choona's death he is entitled to the same under the Hindu law, be being her husband's brother's son. The defendant, on the other hand, contends that the properties were the stridhan of Choona, and that he being her sister's son is entitled to the same in preference to the plaintiff. The parties in the case are governed by the Mithila law.2. The Court below has found that only some of the properties were Choona's stridhan, but has held that, whether the rest were stridhan or not, the plaintiff, as her husband's brother's son, is entitled to succeed under the Hindu law in preference to the defendant.3. We may here observe that in addition to the contention mentioned above some othe...
Tag this Judgment!Harender Kishore Singh Vs. the Administrator-general of Bengal on Beha ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal357
Prinsep, J.1. By a registered agreement, dated the 17th April 1875, Rochfort was taken into the service of the Maharajah of Bettiah, and his eldest son, as manager of their estates, on certain terms and conditions therein expressed. Among these, the term of three years was agreed on as the term of the service. It was further stipulated that that service might be terminated at the end of that period, after certain notice; that Rochfort should at the end of each Fusli year account for, and transmit in the usual manner all moneys that may have been collected or may have been received by him as manager; that he should keep proper books of account, etc.2. On the expiry of this stipulated period of three years, Rochfort gave notice to the Maharajah requesting his discharge, with the intention of proceeding to England for urgent family reasons. Eventually Rochfort was permitted to go in December 1878. He returned to Calcutta in the following June, and died in that city during July 1879.3. Aft...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit Singh Minor Under the Court of Wards by His Guardian NobIn Kris ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal375
Norris and Ghose, JJ.1. The learned Government Pleader, who appeared for the Court of Wards, did not, as we understood him, question in the course of his argument, the conclusion of the Court below that it was not proved that the minor was the adopted son of Kirti Chandra.2. As regards the appellants in the other appeal, we are clearly of opinion upon a consideration of the neog-puttro that they were not by that instrument appointed shebaits as directed by the will executed by Ranee Annapurna, and so they also have no locus standi, and on this ground, which is common to both appellants, we should have felt inclined to dismiss both these appeals. But considering the importance of the points raised by the learned Government Pleader, and having in view the provisions of Sections 83 and 86 of the Probate and Administration Act (V of 1881), we think it proper to deal with them.3. Baboo Annoda Prosad Banerjee's main contentions were that the application of Jagannath did not properly fall wit...
Tag this Judgment!Bykant Nath Shaha Vs. Rajendro NaraIn Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal333
Prinsep and Grant, JJ.1. In execution of a decree obtained in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dinagepore, certain property belonging to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 was attached by the Subordinate Judge of Rajshaye. For certain reasons, however, there was delay in holding the sale. Meantime, in execution of another decree held by an entirely different party, the same property was attached by the Munsif of Malda in the same district. At the sale held by the Munsif of Malda, the plaintiff, on the 29th September 1882, purchased the property, paid in the entire purchase money, and obtained an order confirming the sale on the 23rd November 1882. Proceedings were then taken in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Rajshaye to bring that property to sales The purchaser in the Munsif's Court objected; his objection was overruled: but at the sale subsequently held he again purchased. He now brings this suit to realize, from the decree-holder in the Munsif's Court as well as from the judgment-d...
Tag this Judgment!Krishto Kishori ChowdhraIn and anr. Vs. Radha Romun Munshi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal330
Wilson and Ghose, JJ.1. In this case the defendant became liable, according to the findings of both Courts, as surety for a person who took an ijara lease from the plaintiffs. The suit is now brought against the defendant. The first Court gave a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The second Court has set aside that decree on the ground that the defendant is a surety, that the claim against the principal debtor has been allowed to become barred by limitation, and that, therefore, the claim against the present defendant cannot be sustained. The learned Judge in the Appellate Court says this in paragraph 22 and the following paragraphs of the judgment:22.--As the plaintiff then has allowed the claim to become barred against the principal, he cannot recover from the surety.23.--And the inevitable result must be that the suit should be dismissed.24.--This Court then finds in his favour the point urged by appellant, that he cannot be held liable when the claim against his principal has beco...
Tag this Judgment!V.H. Lopez Vs. E.J. Lopez
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal706
Wilson, J.1. The main question we have to answer upon this reference is, whether a marriage between a man and his deceased wife's sister, celebrated in Calcutta in the year 1877, is liable to be declared null and void, under Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, on the ground that the parties are within the prohibited degrees, both parties being domiciled in British India and resident in Calcutta, and both being Roman Catholics. It is not found whether either of the parties to this marriage is the descendant of English ancestors, or of European settlers in this country other than English, or of native converts to Christianity, or of mixed race; their names suggest a Portuguese origin. We are bound to presume every matter of fact in favour of the validity of a marriage, and therefore if there be rules as to the prohibited degrees which would invalidate a marriage between persons connected as these were, 'and if those rules be applicable to any one class of Christians, but not to all Chr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »