Kolkata Court December 1886 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.
Fanindro Deb Raikut Vs. Rani Jugudishwari Dabi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal316
1. The matter before us relates to the execution of a decree obtained by Kali Mohun against the executors of the estate of Jogendro Deb, deceased acting under an order of the Court, and also against the minor, stated to be his lawfully adopted son, represented by the widow of the deceased as guardian ad litem. The decree was for money borrowed by the executors to celebrate the funeral ceremonies of the deceased Jogendro, and was made on the 29th July 1881. In 1878 a suit was brought by Fanindro the appellant before us, to establish his right to suecead to the estate of Jogendro, and to set aside the adoption of the minor as well as the will in his favour. On the 11th of November 1879, Fanindro obtained a decree in the Court of first, instance. An appeal against this order was pending before this Court while the suit by Kali Mohun was still under trial. That appeal was decided on the 24th June 1881, in favour of the adoption, reversing the judgment of the first Court which had been obta...
Jaspath Singh Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal164
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. (Beverley, J., concurring)--I think that this appeal must be dismissed, and for the reason that this is a finding of the jury with which this Court has no power to interfere, and that if the verdict of the jury is correct, and I must take it to be correct, because, as I have just said, I have no power under the circumstances to interfere with it, the punishment which has been inflicted on the prisoner for killing this man is not too great.2. The case comes before us in a way which discloses a state of things as to the mode in which trials by jury are conducted in this country, that is much to be deprecated, and in what I say now I am speaking for myself alone--I do hope that Judges in explaining the law to juries in cases in which juries are to act will take more pains in explaining the sections of the Code, and not leave the Code to the juries for them to find out the meaning of it themselves.3. I think that in this case there is a possibility, I will not say...
Kristo Nath Koondoo and ors. Vs. T.F. Brown and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal176
Trevelyan, J.1. The main object of this suit is to obtain possession of the premises in which the business of T.P. Brown and Company, Limited, was generally carried on. At the date of the institution of this suit those premises were in the possession of the Official Liquidator of that Company.2. On the 16th of December, 1874, Gungapersaud the then owner of the premises, leased them to Mr. T.F. Brown, who is a defendant in this case, for a term of 15 years, commencing on the 1st of January 1875 at a monthly rent of Rs. 210.3. By a subsequent verbal agreement Mr. Brown undertook to pay an additional rent of Rs. 2 a month.4. On the 9th of August 1878 Gungapersaud conveyed to Gobind Ohunder Koondoo and the plaintiff Kristo Nath Koondoo, their heirs, representatives and assigns all his interest in the property in question.5. Mr. Brown then paid the rent to these two Koondoos. On the 13th of April, 1879, Gobind Chunder Koondoo died leaving four sons who are the plaintiffs in this suit. Mr. B...
Neaz Vs. Monsor and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal175
ORDER1. In this case we are of opinion that under Section 22 of Act I of 1871 the order made by the Deputy Magistrate was a legal order. The matter in which that order was made was not a regular criminal proceeding, but a quasi-civil proceeding, in which a Magistrate is authorized to assess and enforce in a summary manner compensation for an injury for which a civil action might be brought, Under these circumstances we think that, in the present ease, the so-called accused are jointly and severally liable for the compensation and costs awarded, and we see no reason to interfere....
Bachu Mullah and ors. Vs. Sia Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal358
ORDER1. We think that this rule must be discharged, at all events so far as the conviction is concerned.2. The Magistrate has tried two cases in which there were practically counter-charges of riot and assault. He has tried, first of all, one party, and having taken the evidence for that party he has, without giving his decision in that enquiry, proceeded to take the evidence for the other party, and in this second enquiry he has called as witnesses some of those very persons whose conduct was enquired into in the first enquiry, and as to whose guilt or innocence he was suspending his judgment.3. I think that is a course which is to be deprecated to the last degree. I think it a very great pity that Magistrates should ever adopt it. There is no doubt, to my mind, that it constitutes a very great irregularity, and the reason why it is so very objectionable is that you call a man as a witness whose conduct has been enquired into, but the decision in whose case has not been pronounced, an...
Baijnath Singh Vs. Shah Ali Hosain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal248
Mitter, J.1. (after stating the facts set out above continued).--The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal, and it is contended before us that the decision of the lower appellate Court is contrary to law. The decision upon which the lower appellate Court specially relies is that in the case of Muthura Persad Singh v. Luggun Kooer 9 C. 615. There the stipulation in the bond was that, in case of default of payment of the principal sum with interest at the rate of one per cent, per mensem on a certain date, interest should be paid at the rate of two per cent, per mensem from the date of the bond. Mr. Justice Wilson, in delivering the judgment of the Court, refers to certain cases apparently taking a contrary view, but he distinguished them from the case before him in the following way : 'The former of these cases probably dealt with a document executed before the Contract Act, but however that may be, such cases differ materially from the present. In them the agreement to pay an incr...
Moteeram Vs. Belaseeram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal174
ORDERW. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. We think that this rule must be discharged. These proceedings were held under Section 370, and the only matters which the Presidency Magistrate is bound to. record are the matters provided in that section. The first question and the real question in this case is whether, in a sentence of this kind, the Magistrate was bound to record any reason at all. The sentence is a sentence of a fine of Rs. 10, and, in default of payment of the fine, a short term of imprisonment is imposed. The question is, whether that is a sentence of imprisonment within the meaning of Section 370 (Clause i). In our opinion it is not. We think that it is a sentence of a fine, and that the latter part of the sentence is a mere mode of compelling payment of the fine, and that the meaning of that section is that, where the offence was sufficiently grave to involve a fine of Rs. 200 or imprisonment as the substantive sentence, the Magistrate was bound to record his reasons so as to enab...
Abdul Huq Mozoomdar and anr. Vs. Mohini Mohun Shaha and anr. Minors, b ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal240
Prinsep and Agnew, JJ.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the appellants, who claim to hold the property which has been sold in execution of a decree against a third party, are entitled to object to the sale in execution of that decree under Section 311 of the Code. Section 311 allows the decree-holder, 'or any person whose immoveable property has been sold,' in execution of decree, to make such an objection. The appellants allege that their immoveable property, held under a title created by a tumliknama, has been sold. The Subordinate Judge has refused the application, stating that the applicants can object under Section 335 of the Code when the auction-purchaser attempts to take possession. They may have this remedy, but the question is whether they cannot also object within the terms of Section 311. We are of opinion that the words, 'any person whose immoveable property has been sold,' are sufficiently wide to include a person in the position of the appellants. We accor...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›