Kolkata Court September 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.
Munglai Mundul and ors. Vs. Khodabuksh Mundul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal60
Prinsep and Beverley, JJ.1. On information given by the defendants the Magistrate proceeded under Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and directed the plaintiffs to remove a hut that they had erected on land found by him to be a public thoroughfare. The plaintiffs now sue for a declaration of their title and confirmation of their possession of the land as their private property as against these defendants.2. The defendants pleaded that the suit will not lie to set aside the order of the Magistrate that the land forms part of a public thoroughfare.3. Both Courts have relied on the judgment in the case of Mutty Ram Sahoo v. Mote Lal Roy 6 C. 291, in which it was held that a Civil Court can, irrespective of such an order by a Magistrate, try the question whether the land, which formed the subject of that order, is private property and not a thoroughfare or public place as between the parties to such suit and those who claim under them. Field, J., one of the learned Judges who dec...
issur Lochun Roy Vs. Gokool Nath Guha and anr. and Sham Das Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal222
Prinsep, J.1. These three appeals arise out of a suit which was brought by the plaintiff Issur Lochun Roy, in respect of the proper construction of the Will of his elder brother Rai Rajib Lochun, Rai Bahadur, of which Will probate was taken out in 1881 by defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the executors. The plaintiff who instituted his suit on the 19th March, 1884, alleged that certain provisions of the Will were void for uncertainty, and that ha as heir-at-law was entitled to the whole residue of the estate of the testator which, upon a proper construction of the Will, might be found co have been undisposed of. Defendant No. 3 is the son of a sister of the testator, and was made a defendant after the institution of the suit.2. In answer to this suit, the defendants alleged that the plaintiff by becoming a purnvishikta lingi in the testator's lifetime had rendered himself incapable of succeeding as heir, and that the preferential heir was defendant No. 3. They further maintained that the provis...
Doya NahaIn Tewary Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal256
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff in this case was appointed at Cawnpore in the North-Western Provinces, in the month of October 1879, as a purchasing agent and gomastah of the Commissariat Department of the Government of India to purchase stores, miscellaneous articles, &c.;, required for the troops assembled for the Second Cabul Expedition on a salary of Rs. 100 per month. His employment, which was in the Punjab Province, lasted till the month of October 1880.2. His case is that the Commissariat Department, from time to time, made advances to him, but that, as a rule, he had to advance money out of his own funds to carry out his duties as such purchasing agent and gomastah.3. He sues the Secretary of State for India in Council to recover the sum of Rs. 2,52,034-14-5, or such other sum as may be found due to him on taking of an account of the sums paid to him, and of the sums spent by him in the course of his employment.4. The suit was instituted on the 19th of April 1884, on the Original Si...
Baidya Nath Singh Vs. Muspratt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal141
Mitter and Grant, JJ.1. This rule was issued on the 17th of August last upon the Magistrate to show cause why his order, dated the 21st of July last, dismissing the complaint of the petitioner who obtained this rule, should not be set aside. That order of the Magistrate came to be passed under the following circumstances. The petitioner filed a petition before the District Magistrate on the 5th of July last complaining of certain offences having been committed by the three accused persons. He was examined on the same date, and after recording his examination, the Magistrate passed the following order on the same date: 'Forwarded to the Assistant Superintendent, who is requested to state the circumstances under which the house of Gopi Mohun Baboo was searched, if it was searched at all.' It may be mentioned here that the Assistant Superintendent who was requested to state the circumstances was the accused person No. 3. Upon that the Assistant Superintendent submitted his report, we are ...
Abdul Hamid Vs. the Empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal349
Mitter and Grant, JJ.1. The learned vakeel for the appellant has not contested the finding of the Sessions Judge, but has contended that upon that finding the Sessions Judge ought not to have held that the appellant made a false document within the meaning of Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of documents X, C, and K, which formed the subject of the charges framed against the appellant. The facts of the case are these: The third clerkship in the Sub-Divisional Office at Budruck having fallen vacant, an application, purporting to have been made by the appellant who was a copyist in that office, reached the Collector of Balasore applying for the post. At the foot of this application there was an endorsement, purporting to have been made by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Budruck, recommending the applicant for the post. The document marked X is the endorsement in question, and it has been found to have been falsely made by the appellant. The document marked C purports to be a...
In Re: F.W. Gibbons
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal42
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. I quite agree with the remark of Mr. Evans that this is a matter of very grave importance, and it was because I thought that it was a matter of very grave importance and not because I bad any doubt about the law, that I constituted this Bench for the purpose of hearing it argued, and I was all the more led to do so by the fact that I was told that a Division Bench of this Court had expressed a doubt as to whether there was not a power inherent in the Court itself to review a judgment of a Division Bench in a criminal case; and when I say, to review a judgment of a Division Bench, I mean, to review a judgment of a Division Bench by itself, because, in my opinion, every Division Bench constitutes a Court in itself for the purpose of its judgment, and every judgment of a Division Bench is a judgment of the Court; and speaking for myself, and (as to this I wish to guard myself, from expressing any opinion but my own) I do not think any difference exists between on...
Krishna Kinkur Roy and anr. Vs. Rai Mohun Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal37
Norris, J.1. It was contended before us by the learned pleader for the appellants that Act v. of 1881 has altered the law as laid down in Bharti v. Bharti 6 C.L.R. 138, and that it is now competent to the Mofussil Courts to grant probate or letters of administration in respect of a will not coming within the provisions of the Hindu Wills Act, that is to say, of wills of Hindus, Jainas, Sikhs, and Buddhists in the territories subject to the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal and in the towns of Madras and Bombay made prior to 1st September 1870.2. In order to determine this point, it was necessary to see what the course of legislation has been.3. In 1865 the Indian Succession Act was passed. Section 331 of that Act provided that 'the provisions of this Act shall not apply to intestate or testamentary succession to the property of any Hindu, Mahomedan, or Buddhist.' * * * In 1870, the Hindu Wills Act was passed ; Section 2 of that Act, provided that certain portions of the Indian Succession A...
In Re: Indian Companies Act, 1882; in Re: T.F. Brown and Company, Limi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal219
ORDERTrevelyan, J.1. The question which I reserved for consideration was as to how I should dispose of the costs of the examination of the witnesses who had been examined, and the reason why I reserved the consideration of this question was that Mr. Pugh, who appeared for the Official Liquidator, asserted that there was no report of any case in any book, as far as he remembered, or any record in this Court, or any case in England, where any witness examined under this section, or a simitar section of the Companies' Act in England, or any witness examined under the similar section of the Insolvency Act, could be given costs for attendance of counsel or attorney. I have not been able to find any case, with the exception of, perhaps, the case, cited during the argument, of Hurruck Chund Golicha. On examination I do not think that that is an authority on this question. Since the adjournment granted for the purpose of ascertaining whether such an order had ever been made I have not been ref...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›