Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1886)ILR13Cal121
ORDERO'Kinealy and Agnew, JJ.1. In this case the prisoner has been convicted of causing grievous hurt and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200. On his trial before the Sessions Judge of Patna, whilst certain of the witnesses were under cross-examination, their depositions before the committing officer were tendered in evidence in. order to contradict what they were then saying.2. No objection was taken to the reception in evidence of these depositions by the Crown; but the Sessions Judge, because a Mooktear in Court, who is 'said to have conducted the case in the lower Court on behalf of the accused, made a general statement that the committing officer was not in the habit of reading over depositions to the witnesses, himself raised the objection, and refused to receive the evidence tendered on behalf, of the prisoner. We think that he was wrong in doing so. There was no ground on which he could refuse the depositions. Further, we think that if he had r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1886)ILR13Cal231
Beverley and Porter, JJ.1. The only point raised in this appeal is 'that the Subordinate Judge has acted without jurisdiction and in contravention of the law in admitting the judgment of his predecessor into review, and in rehearing the appeal '. This clearly means that the Subordinate Judge has acted in contravention of Section 624 of the Code.2. Now it appears that the application for review of judgment was made, or in other words preferred, to the same Subordinate Judge who made the decree. That Subordinate Judge directed that the application should be entered on the register, and that the requisite fees for service of notice should be deposited within three days. The present case therefore seems to be precisely on all fours with that of Karoo Singh v. Deo Narain Sing. I.L.R. 10 Cal. 80 in which it was held that if the application for review is presented to the Judge who made the decree, and if he thereupon issues notice to the other side, the application has been 'made' to him with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1886)ILR13Cal245
Norris and Macpherson, JJ.1. It is contended that the lower Appellate Court has put a wrong construction upon that portion of Section 25 of Regulation III of 1872 which enacts that the Civil Courts in the Sonthal Pergunnahs can entertain a suit brought to 'contest the finding or record of the Settlement Officer within three years from the date of the said publication or of the final order of the Revenue Court.' The publication referred to is that of the record of rights, which under Section 24 requires to be notified, and published by posting a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the village, otherwise in such manner as may be convenient. The second Clause of that section gives a right to any person interested to bring forward in the Original or Appellate Settlement Courts any objection he may desire to make to any part of such record.2. In the present case it is admitted that the Settlement Officer in the course of a settlement held that the defendants were mokuraridars of certa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1887)ILR14Cal50
1. The respondents Rukini Mohun Bose and Anando Kishore Bose obtained a decree against the appellant and others on the 15th August 1878 for possession of certain lands and mesne, profits thereof from the date of dispossession to the date of the recovery of possession. Rukini Mohun Bose was then not of age, and was represented by a guardian. The decree directed the amount to be fixed in execution under Sections 211 and 212 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rukini Mohun attained his majority on the 17th April 1885. In execution of this decree possession was taken in the month of August 1880.2. On the 4th of April 1882 the respondents applied to the Court for the ascertainment of the mesne profits. The Civil Court Amin was directed by the Court to make the necessary inquiry, and notwithstanding repeated reminders from the Court, the Amin not having completed his inquiry, the application was struck off on the 9th October 1882.3. On the 18th September 1885 the present application was made for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1886)ILR13Cal346
Prinsep and Beverley, JJ.1. The appellants, who are the mortgagees of a certain tenure obtained a decree for foreclosure under Section 86 of the Transfer of Property Act. That decree was made on the 11th September 1884, and declared that, on failure to pay the amount due, the mortgagor's right of redemption should be barred on the 11th March 1885. In that month the mortgagor applied to the Court under Section 87 to enlarge the time, and on the 6th April the Court made an order fixing the 30th idem as the date on which the foreclosure would become absolute in the event of non-payment.2. Meantime, the superior holder of the tenure obtained a decree against the mortgagor for rent, and in execution of that decree the tenure itself was sold on the 6th April 1885, (apparently) free of incumbrances. On the 10th April, the mortgagees applied under Section 311 of the Civil Procedure Code to have the sale set aside, and on the 5th September following the Court disposed of that application, holdi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1886)ILR13Cal292
Ghose and Proter, J.1. This was a suit to recover from the heirs, other than the mother of one Syed Mahomed Abu Syed, the price of clothes and other articles sold to him by the plaintiff from 1279 F.S. to Bysakh 1286 F.S. The said heirs are: first, Mussamut Fusibun, the first widow of Mahomed Abu Syed, the defendant No. 1, and the defendants Nos. 2 to 8, the children of Abu Syed by Fusibun; and second, Mussamut Bibi Wajibun, his second widow, the defendant No. 9, and the defendants Nos. 10 to 14, his minor children by Wajibun--the said minors being represented by their mother and natural guardian Wajibun.2. This suit was brought on the 14th of May 1883, that is to say, three years after the transactions of sale; but it was alleged and proved in the opinion of both the lower Courts, that on the 1st of August 1880, the accounts were settled between the plaintiff on the one hand and Mussamut Fusibun and Mussamut Wajibun on the other, and that Rs. 2,555-2 having been found to be due to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1886)ILR13Cal164
Norris and Macpherson, JJ.1. We are of opinion that this appeal should be dismissed, Two grounds have been taken by the learned pleader for the appellant. In the first place, he complains that the Court below was wrong in not allowing his client, the plaintiff, to allocate the money value of the grain payments made by the defendants to him towards the extinction of certain debts due from the defendants to the plaintiff, before the execution of the mortgage bond upon which this suit is brought; and. he based his contention upon Section 60 of the Contract Act. That section says: 'Where the debtor has omitted to intimate, and there are no other circumstances indicating to which debt the payment is to be applied, the creditor may apply it at his discretion to any lawful debt actually due and payable to him from the debtor, whether its recovery is or is not barred by the law in force for the time being as to the limitation of suits.'2. It is impossible to say that there are here 'no other c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1887)ILR14Cal276
1. The judgment of the High Court (Prinsep and Beverley, JJ.) after stating the facts as above, proceeded as follows:It becomes necessary, therefore, in dealing with this appeal, to determine the exact effect of a muta marriage under the Shiah law, and whether it can be dissolved in the manner stated by the plaintiff, and found by both the Courts. The word muta signifies 'enjoyment,' and as applied to a particular form of marriage indicates a marriage of a temporary character, 'the extent of the period being left entirely to the parties who may prolong or shorten it to a year, a month, or a day; only some limit must be distinctly specified, so as to guard the period from any extension or diminution.' (Baillie's Digest of Mahomedan Law, Part II, on the Imamia Code, page 42). In the Tagore Law Lectures, 1874, by Shama Charan Sircar, on the same subject, at page 373, Section 517, the law is expressed in the same terms, the Tahrir-ul-Ahkam being quoted as an authority.2. There is apparentl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1887)ILR14Cal55
1. At the time when the case was argued before the Subordinate Judge, it seems that a somewhat similar objection was pressed, but the Subordinate Judge dismissed it, with the remark that it was not put in issue, and not only was it not put in issue, but, as already pointed out, it was an admitted fact that the plaintiff was a minor, and that his property was managed by his guardian and mother Khyama Sunduri Chowdhrani. An appeal was preferred against the decision of the Subordinate Judge by the plaintiff against the defendant No. 5, the suit having been dismissed as against him. There was no appeal by the other defendants against whom the decree was passed. The District Judge, on an application being made by the minor on attaining majority for discharging the guardian under the provisions of the Procedure Code, allowed an objection to be taken to the frame of the suit based upon a statement contained in the afore said application. That statement amounted to this, that on the date of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1886)ILR13Cal208
Wilson and Porter, JJ.1. The present suit is brought by the plaintiffs, who are the owners of a share of the property known as Mehal Roypatti, to set aside a sale for arrears of Government revenue which took place on the 6th of January 1883. A number of points have been raised which must be considered separately.2. The point which it will be convenient to consider first is this: It is said that there was no authority to sell at all, because there was no arrear in the Government revenue. Of course, if that were so, the sale would be absolutely and totally void. The way it is sought to make out this point is this: There were two mehals, one numbered 3142, and the other 3143. The present plaintiffs were shareholders in each of those mehals. In mehal 3142, there were a number of other shareholders, one of whom had obtained from the Collector the opening of a separate account of revenue in respect of his own share. In mehal 3143 there were also a number of shareholders, and no less than fif...
Tag this Judgment!