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.
Durga Charan Das Vs. Sashi Bhusan Guho and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal275
Prinsep and Beverley, JJ.1. The majority of the jury contemplated by Section 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is, in our opinion, a majority of the jurors appointed, arrived at after due deliberation amongst themselves. In the present case the majority consists of the only jurors who took the trouble to attend the meetings held. The report so submitted cannot therefore be regarded as a finding of the majority of the jurors under Section 139 on which the Magistrate can act. But at the same time the Magistrate is competent to act under Section 141 and pass such orders as he may think fit. And as matters now stand, we think that we may take the order before us as one so passed on the further materials supplied by the parties.2. We find no valid objection to the order regarding the 'char' or bamboo bridge over the ditch. The petitioner has been found to have removed it, and its removal is an obstruction to the passage hitherto enjoyed. We accordingly decline to interfere....
Kala Chand and ors. Vs. Gudadhur Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal304
Prinsep and Beverley, JJ.1. For the reasons given in the case of Pitchi v. Aukappa I.L.R. 9 Mad. 102 in which we concur, the award of compensation under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code, ordered by the Magistrate to be paid by the petitioner in consequence of his having made a frivolous and vexatious complaint of illegal seizure of his cattle, must be set aside, and the fine, if paid, must be refunded....
Brojendro Kumar Roy Chowdhry Vs. Rash Behari Roy Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal300
Norris, J.1. The facts of this case are shortly as follows: The predecessor of one Bhogowan Chunder Roy granted a miras settlement of certain lands in Kaunnara to the plaintiff and certain of the defendants. The ekrar contained a covenant by the grantees of the settlement not to interfere with or disturb a ferry ghat belonging to the grantor. In breach of this covenant the grantees established a ferry ghat near that of the grantor, who thereupon brought an action against the grantees for breach of covenant and obtained a decree. In execution of his decree the grantor attached certain property of the plaintiff, who, to avoid the sale of his property, satisfied the decree by paying the damages and costs amounting to Rs. 352-14.2. The plaintiff's share in the maliki rights under the settlement was four annas, and he admitted that he was liable for 1/4th of the Rs. 352-14, one of his co-sharers paid him Rs. 24 odd in respect of his 1a-2g-2k share, and the plaintiff brought this suit to rec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›