Kolkata Court April 1887 Judgments
Sukaroo Kobiraj Vs. the Empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal566
Tottenham and Ghose, JJ.1. The appellant is a kobiraj who has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Rungpore of an offence under Section 304A, of the Penal Code, and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprison meat for one year. He caused the death of a patient by performing what in shown to be a very dangerous operation, namely, the cutting out of internal piles. He was unable to stop the consequent bleeding, and the patient died the following: day. This has been held by the Sessions Judge to be a rash act within the meaning of Section 304A.2. Baboo Ishar Chunder Chuckerbutty for the appellant contended before us that it was not a rash act within the meaning of that section, inasmuch as the prisoner was a kobiraj and had previously performed surgical operations in one or two cases of the same nature and in other cases of a different character ; and that it has not been shown that he ever before caused the death of a patient. The vakeel also contended that if, notwithstanding thes...
Tag this Judgment!Jogessur Das and ors. Vs. Aisani Koyburto and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal553
1. This appeal relates to a part of the subject-matter of the original suit which was brought by the appellant as landlord to recover possession of certain plots of land which are in the possession of the defendant, as tenant under the plaintiff, on the ground that the tenancy has terminated by a notice to quit served upon the defendant, the tenant, some time after the 2nd of March 1883. As regards the plots involved in this appeal the finding of the lower Appellate Court is that they have been in the possession of the defendant for less than 12 years, and that he is a ' settled raiyat' within the meaning of those words in Section 20 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The suit was brought on the 6th October 1885, that is to say, before the new Tenancy Act came into operation. The lower Appellate Court has held that, under Section 21 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the defendant-respondent before us his acquired a right of occupancy. This suit was a pending suit when the Bengal Tenancy Act came into...
Tag this Judgment!Fekoo Mahto Vs. the Empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal539
1. This case has been referred to this Court by the Sessions Judge of Birbhum under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code for confirmation of the sentence of death passed by him on the prisoner. The prisoner has also appealed against the conviction and sentence. He has been convicted of two murders-that of his sister named Basseja, and of her child. The sentence of death has been passed in respect of the murder of Basseja, and in respect of the other murder the prisoner has been sentenced to transportation for life. He appeals against both convictions.2. The case depends, we may say, mainly upon the confessions put in evidence in the Sessions Court. There were two confessions made by the prisoner before the Magistrate. The first was apparently under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code while the case was still under investigation by the police. This confession was made on the 22nd of November last. The other confession was made in prisoner's examination before the Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!Basudeo NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Seolojy Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal640
1. The question whether the decree-holder was entitled to sell the whole 8 annas or a 3 annas 12 dams share of the mortgaged premises, was decided by an order, dated 7th September, 1885. The Court which made the order had full authority to make it under Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By reason of that order not being appealed from, it became final, The question disposed of by it is, therefore, no longer an open question between the decree-holder and the appellants before us. We, therefore, set aside the decision of the lower appellate Court so far as the appellants are concerned. We do not interfere with the decision of the lower appellate Court so far as the original judgment-debtors are concerned, as they have not appealed against it.2. The appellants are entitled to recover the costs of this appeal and in the lower appellate Court from the respondents. We assess the costs of both hearings at Rs. 50....
Tag this Judgment!Mookoond Lal Pal Chowdhry and anr. Vs. Mahomed Sami Meah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal484
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The question which arises here is whether a Court, which has given a wrong decree, which has been afterwards reversed, for the possession of land, has power to order the restitution of the thing which had been improperly taken under its decree with the mesne profits which have been derived from that thing whilst it was in the possession of the party who was not entitled to it.2. A decision of the Allahabad Court in which I took part has been cited, in which it was held that the section of the Coda does not prevent the person who has been wrongfully deprived of his property by this proceeding from bringing an action to recover the profits during the time he has been wrongfully kept out of possession ; and speaking for myself I still adhere to the opinion which I then expressed that such an action maybe maintained ; but, if such an action can be maintained, it by no means follows that the Court which has given possession under the wrong decree, which has afterwa...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Aziz Khan Vs. Ahmed Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal795
1. This is a suit for recovery of rent at an enhanced rate after service of notice. The finding of the lower Courts is that the holding, in respect of which the enhanced rent is claimed had, before the institution of the present suit, been transferred by the defendant to a third party who is not a party to it, and that such transfer without the previous sanction of the plaintiff, the landlord, is valid.2. The main object of a suit for enhancement is to have the contract between the landlord and tenant as regards the rate of rent re-adjusted. The law allows this re-adjustment in certain cases. In this case the plaintiff, as found by the lower Courts, was fully aware that the holding is now the property of a third party and not of the defendant. That being so, a suit for enhancement of rent will not lie against the defendant who has now no connection with the holding. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs of both hearings....
Tag this Judgment!Nobodip Chunder Shaha Vs. Ram Krishna Roy Chowdhey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-13-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal397
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendants upon a bond executed by the defendants[399]in his favour to secure payment of a sum of money by instalments ; and the bond contains a proviso, the effect of which is that, in the event of any of the instalments being unpaid, the whole amount shall become due at once....2. The instalments have been unpaid for some time, and, as a matter of fact, the time the last payment was made was so long ago that, if the whole amount became due at that time, the cause of action would become barred ; and upon that state of things the question that arises is, whether the mere fact that the creditor has done nothing but simply allowed the matter to sleep, without enforcing his remedy against the debtor, is any evidence of waiver within the meaning of Article 75 of the Limitation Act.3. We do not think it necessary to say what opinion we might have formed on this matter if it had not been already decided by judic...
Tag this Judgment!Ganee Mahomed Sarkar Vs. Tarini Charan Chuckerbati
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal546
Norris, J.1. The facts of this case appear to be as follows:The decree-holder, respondent, obtained a decree against the judgment debtor, appellant, in one of the Courts of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar on the 12th of September, 1874. Subsequently the decree-holder applied that the decree might be sent for execution to the District Court of Rung pore. This application was granted, and a copy of the judicial record of the suit was sent to the Rung pore Court, and reached there on the 6th of February, 1886.2. It is now admitted in argument at the Bar that the copy of the judicial record in the suit was defective, inasmuch as it did not 'purport to be certified in the manner certified by the representative of the Government of India resident in Cooch Behar to be the manner commonly in use in that country for the certification of the copies of judicial records.' The decree was made in the Court of the Civil Judge of Cooch Behar, and the copy of the record should have been signed by the Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Horendra Chundra Gupta Roy and ors. Miners, by their Mother and Next F ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal544
1. We are of opinion that this appeal must be dismissed. The only point urged before us is that the lower Courts are in error in holding that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation, and the learned pleader for the appellants relies upon Article 127 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act in support of his contention. We find, however, that in the ease of Bam Lakhi v. Durga Charan Sen 11 C. 680 it has been decided that that article will not apply to a case like the present, where a stranger has purchased the share of a member of a joint family, so that even supposing that the presumption which applies to a Hindu joint family would be applicable to the present case in which the parties are Mahomedans, we think that the contention relied upon by the pleader for the appellants must fail.2. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Chandi Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal395
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. We think that this rule must be made absolute and made absolute on the legal ground alone. With reference to the merits of the case they have not been gone into, and therefore this Court is not in a position to form any judgment whatever, but the ground upon which we base our judgment is that these two charges have been tried in one trial, and that is an illegal proceeding under Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The charges were, first of all, a charge against five men of having committed a riot on the 5th December, 1886, and against four out of the five men of having committed criminal trespass on the 9th December, 1886. These two charges were tried together in one trial and were decided by one judgment.3. In our opinion this proceeding was illegal within the terms of Section 233, and does not, as the Judge supposes, come within the terms of Section 234. The only matter which is common to both charges is that the dispute in each case arises out...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »