Kolkata Court August 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.
Tarita Moyi Dabia and ors. and Nachan Mandal and ors. Vs. Dwarkanath M ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal120
1. This suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover possession of certain plots of land which they claim as appertaining to their resumed taluk No. 4830. The claim was resisted by the putnidar who claimed the lands as appertaining to his zemindari.2. The Court of first instance found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their title, and also to prove their possession within twelve years prior to the institution of the suit.3. The lower appellate Court reversed that decision, holding that a certain resumption chitta, which was filed by the plaintiffs, afforded sufficient and conclusive evidence of the plaintiffs' title; and relying upon this proof of their title, the Sub-Judge went on to presume that the plaintiffs had been in possession within twelve years.4. It is contended before us that the chitta relied upon by the lower appellate Court was not evidence in the case, and that it was certainly not such evidence as concluded the parties. We think that this contention must pre...
Lalit Mohun Roy Vs. Binodai Dabee, Minor, Moharani of Burdwan, by Her ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal14
1. Two questions have been raised before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 1st, that under the terms of the kabuliat, creating the tenancy between the parties, the landlord is bound to sell the tenure itself in the first instance ; 2nd, that under the provisions of the Rent Law (Bengal Act VIII of 1869) the decree-holder is not entitled to sell any other immoveable property before bringing to sale the tenure itself.2. As regards the first of these two contentions we are of opinion that it cannot be sustained. The decree was an ordinary decree for rent; and no reference whatever was made in it to the kabuliai or to the terms thereof, and it does not appear that the kabuliat was even filed in the rent suit. That being so, it is not open to the judgment-debtor to go behind the decree, and to insist that the terms of the kabuliat should regulate the rights and liabilities of the parties as regards the mode in which the decree should be realized.3. The second point is by no mean'...
Umer Ali Vs. Safer Ali and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal334
Prinsep and Ghose, JJ.1. The Joint Magistrate has taken an erroneous view of the law regarding proceedings to be taken on receipt of a complaint made under Section 191 of the, Code of Criminal Procedure. He is not competent to refuse to take cognizance of an offence on receipt of a complaint of facts constituting an offence, but he is rather bound to examine the complainant. He can then proceed to issue summons on the accused or to order an enquiry under Section 202, or to dismiss the complaint under Section 203. The use of the term 'may take cognizance of any offence' does not make it optional with a Magistrate to hear the complainant. It refers rather to the action of a Magistrate in taking cognizance of an offence, in either of these specified courses in which the facts, constituting an offence, may be brought to his notice. The case must be tried....
Abdul Wahab Vs. Chandia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal305
Prinsep and Ghose, JJ.1. This case has been referred to the District Magistrate under Section 349 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Assistant Magistrate who exercises powers of the second class, and has found the accused guilty under Sections 406, 417 of the Penal Code, the sentence which he can pass being in his opinion inadequate. The District Magistrate is of opinion that the offence committed is under Section 420 of the Penal Code, which is an offence beyond the jurisdiction of the Assistant Magistrate to try.2. Section 349 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the District Magistrate to pass such judgment, sentence or order in the case as he thinks fit, and as is 'according to law.' Now, although the Assistant Magistrate was not competent to Hold a trial of an offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code, he was competent to hold an inquiry, and commit to the Court of Sessions, so that he was not entirely without jurisdiction, and could have committed the case instead o...
Fahamidannissa Begum and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal67
Wilson, J.1. The lands to which this suit relates are a part of Chur Mohun Sureswar, and are included within a permanently-settled estate of the plaintiffs. At the time when the first survey map was made, the whole chur had become diluviated ; when a second survey map was made under Act IX of 1847, the part of the chur now in question bad re-formed on the old site. The Revenue Authorities have assessed the land with land revenue under Act IX of 1847. This suit was brought to establish the plaintiffs right to hold the land as part of their permanently-settled estate, free from liability to any such additional assessment as has been imposed upon it. The first Court gave the plaintiffs a decree, the lower appellate Court reversed it. Against that reversal the present appeal has been brought, and the case has been referred to us by the Division Bench. The questions which we have to decide are substantially two: (1) Has a Civil Court jurisdiction to inquire whether the lands in question wer...
Bhaba Pershad Khan, Minor, by His Guardians, Ramsakhi Dabi ChowdhraIn ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal159
1. The learned Judges, who heard this case in Special Appeal, have held on the construction of the plaint that the minor was the real plaintiff. They have, however, referred the following question to the Full Bench:2. Where a suit is brought by a next friend on behalf of a minor and for his benefit, and where the Court of first instance allows it to proceed, whether the objection that the minor was not properly described according to Section 440 of the Civil Procedure Code, or that the next friend was not a certificated guardian under Act XL of 1858, or that no express permission was granted to him by the Court to sue on behalf of the miner, is fatal to the suit.3. In regard to the first portion of this question, we are of opinion that the fact that the Judge allowed the suit to proceed is evidence that the Court trying the case allowed the institution of the suit, and the referring Judges have found to that effect.4. In regard to the next part of the question, namely, whether the obje...
Brojo Nath Pal Chowdhry and anr. Vs. Surender Nath Pal Chowdhry and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal352
Mitter, J.1. I would answer the question referred to us in the affirmative. For the reasons given by me in my judgment in Gajju Lall v. Fatteh Loll 1 Bing. N.C. 606 I think that the judgment in the previous case is evidence under Section 9 of the Evidence Act bearing upon the question of the identity of the tenure in respect of which the present suit has been brought with the tenure in respect of which the previous suit was brought.Petheram, C.J.2. The plaintiffs claim to be entitled, by purchase, to a 1 anna 8 gundas share of an estate, under which estate they allege that the defendants hold certain tenures; and this suit is brought to recover their share of the rent of the tenures. The question referred to us is whether a decree obtained in a former suit by another sharer in the same estate against the same defendants is admissible in evidence, the object being to prove the defendants' possession of the tenures.3. When that decree is examined, all that appears from it (and nothing bu...
J.C. Macgregor, Receiver of the Estate of the Late Bejoy Keshub Roy Vs ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal124
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. I think that this appeal must be allowed.2. The question here is from what period a particular application is to date, with reference to the period of limitation.3. The application in this case was an application to execute a decree which was dated on the 10th July 1873. and on the 8th July 1885 an application was made to execute that decree. The decree-holder applied to execute the decree by arresting the judgment-debtor and by the attachment and sale of his property.4. It is perfectly clear that this is an application not to attach and sell any specific portion of the judgment-debtor's property, but to attach and sell the whole wherever it is; and the question is, whether this is an application to attach and sell his property within the meaning of Sections 235 and 237 of the Code of Civil Procedure.5. Section 230, which is the first section that applies to this matter, provides that when the holder of a decree desires to enforce it, he shall apply to the Cou...
Yacoob Vs. Adamson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal272
Prinsep and Beverley, JJ.1. Captain Adamson, commander of the Queen of Scots, lost some currency notes from the pocket of his trousers which were in his cabin. He says that he fetched the petitioner before us who was the steward of the ship, and some others, and sent for the Police. The matter, however, proceeded no further at that time, as no sufficient evidence was obtained. The petitioner then left his service, but a fortnight afterwards, in consequence of the changing of some notes, suspicion fell upon him, and he was placed with another man before the Presidency Magistrate on trial for the same theft. In the result, the Presidency Magistrate held that the stolen notes had not been satisfactorily traced, and he consequently acquitted the other person. But with regard to the petitioner, the steward, the Presidency Magistrate stated that he had 'no doubt whatever that it was he who had committed the theft, and the order is that he do undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.' There ...
Hem Chunder Chowdhry Vs. Bissessuri Debi Chowdhrain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal133
Mitter and Grant, JJ.1. With reference to the first point it has been urged (a) that in 1851 the plaintiff's predecessor in title having obtained a decree for enhancement under Section 5, Regulation XLIV of 1793, by virtue of his auction purchase right, it would be contrary to the intention of the Legislatureis expressed in that Regulation, to allow the plaintiff to raise the rent, again ; (6) that under the provisions of Regulation VIII of 1793, it was intended that a zemindar should have the power of enhancing the rent of a dependant taluk where he establishes such right under Section 51 of the said Regulation, once for all, and that he has no right to enhance the rent second time ; (c) that supposing the contention (d) is untenable, a zemindar seeking to enhance the rent of a dependant taluk a second time, on the ground that he is entitled to enhance the rent by the speeial custom of the district, cannot succeed by proving the existence of such custom generally, but must establish t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »