Kolkata Court June 1887 Judgments
In Re: Iswar Chunder Guho and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal653
ORDER1. This rule was obtained to set aside certain pending proceedings taken against two persons for perjury. They have been ordered to be prosecuted, but no commitment has taken place, and the question is whether there is any evidence of their having committed perjury. What is alleged is that they have made an affidavit under the sanction of an oath or affirmation before the Deputy Magistrate who was enquiring into the case of one of them for the purpose of intimating to him that he intended to apply under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to have the case removed for trial to some other Court.2. Upon that statement of the case the question arose whether he had power to administer an oath to a person for the purpose of swearing an affidavit so as to make it binding upon him under Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code.3. We have searched the Code and have enquired about this matter, but we can find no power in a Deputy Magistrate to administer an oath to a person making a d...
Tag this Judgment!Deefholts Vs. Peters and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal631
ORDER1. We think that this rule must be discharged. The rule was obtained for the purpose of compelling the Subordinate Judge to enquire into a claim which had been made by a person claiming to be interested in a certain property which had been ordered to be sold under a mortgage decree: the mortgage being a mortgage of that very property, and the decree sought to be exacuted being a decree passed upon the mortgage bond, and directing the sale of the property.2. We think that proceedings by way of claim are not applicable to a case of this kind. Proceedings by way of claim are applicable only in cases of money decrees where property of the judgment-debtor has been attached; that is, where some property of the judgment-debtor is attached for the purpose of satisfying any general money claim. In that kind of claim it is clear that there should be some speedy remedy for the purposes of ascertaining whether the property claimed is the property of the judgment-debtor at all; but in a case l...
Tag this Judgment!Altaf HosaIn Vs. Basarut Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal624
1. The only point taken in this second appeal is that the plaintiff's suit, which is one to recover land of which he had been dispossessed by the defendant, his landlord, is barred by limitation as not having been brought within one from the date year of dispossession.2. According to the plaintiff's case, as stated in the plaint, the suit was brought within one year from the date of dispossession. According to the defendant's case, dispossession took place some two years before the suit was brought.3. The Courts below, however, found it immaterial to decide which date of dispossession was correct, because they held that, as this was a suit to establish plaintiff's title to recover possession of land, the limitation would be 12 years and not one year. This question was decided only by the first Court. The lower appellate Court was silent in respect of that issue. We must conclude that the point was abandoned because the defendant-appellant must have acquiesced in the judgment of the fir...
Tag this Judgment!Nundo Lal Addy Vs. Jodu Nath Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal674
1. The point for decision in this appeal is one of limitation, which has been decided by the lower appellate Court adversely to the plaintiff' appellant before us.2. Baboo Bash Behari Ghose, in opening the appeal, complained that, in thus deciding, the District Judge had held that the plaintiff's possession of the property in dispute had bean adverse to himself, that possession having ceased only a few days before the present suit was instituted.3. This apparent anomaly is, however, explained by the fact that plaintiff's possession was held to be that of a mortgagee only, whereas in this suit he claims to establish his title as owner by purchase of an undivided one-third share of the mortgaged property. It was contended on his behalf that his possession, quoad that share, had been that of owner, and not that of mortgagee, from the date of the conveyance under which he claims, viz., the 29th Aughran 1282. It was alternatively contended that plaintiff's vendor should be held to have been...
Tag this Judgment!Harendra NaraIn Singh Chowdhry Vs. T.D. Moran
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal40
Prinsep and Beverley, JJ.1. The plaintiff, who jointly with others holds a zemindari interest in certain lands cultivated as a tea garden, sues the defendant to set aside a pottah granted by Kalinarain Singh, his guardian under Act XL of 1858, while he was a minor, and for ejectment in respect of his eight-anna share. He states that his guardian, without authority obtained from the Court, granted to the defendant in Magh 1281 (January 1875) a lease for twelve years with a condition of renewal, his power to grant any lease under such circumstances being limited by Section 18 of the Act to granting a lease for the term of five years. He states further that he attained majority in Bhadro 1289 (September 1882), that is to say about 7 1/2 years after the date of the lease, and he brings the present suit in August 1885 (Srabun 1292), after giving on the 23rd Joist 1290 (5th June 1893) notice to the defendant to relinquish possession of his share of the land within one month.2. The Subordinat...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Sham Lall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal707
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. After stating the facts, continued: Upon the above facts three questions arise:First.--Were the supplications made by Sham Lall to the Magistrate on the 24th or 25th of March and the 1st of April 'complaints' within the meaning of Section 191, Criminal Procedure Code, into which the Magistrate was bound to enquire ?;Second.--Had the Magistrate, upon the report of the police, dated 22nd March, 1887, jurisdiction to make the order of March 24th, 1887 andThird.--If he had jurisdiction to make it, did he exercise a sound judicial discretion in doing so?2. I am clearly of opinion that the first question must be answered in the affirmative.3. Sham Lall, on the days in question, appeared before the Magistrate, stated that the offence had been committed, and requested that it might be investigated by calling and examining his witnesses. This, it seems tome, was the only complaint he could make, and, having made it, he was entitled, as a matter of common justice, to ha...
Tag this Judgment!Neckram Dobay Vs. the Bank of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal703
Macpherson, J.1. I think the plaintiff is not bound to answer this interrogatory.2. The plaint alleges that the defendant improperly and without notice, and in violation of an agreement, sold some Government promissory notes which had been deposited as security for certain loans.3. The defence is a denial of the alleged agreement and an assertion that the notes were sold after due notice and on failure of the plaintiff to comply with the terms on which the loans were made.4. The parties are therefore at issue as to the plaintiff being in a position to recover any damages at all.5. If the interrogatory is intended to elicit the principle on which the damages are estimated, the defendant is not entitled to discovery on the point. This is a matter relating exclusively to the plaintiff's case, and, if the wrongful acts are established, as to the way in which he intends to shape it as regards the assessment of the damages; this the plaintiff is not bound to disclose beforehand. If the inter...
Tag this Judgment!Jowalla Nath Vs. Parbatty Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal691
1. We are of opinion that this appeal must be allowed, and the order of the District Judge refusing to declare Jowalla Nath, the judgment-debtor, an insolvent must be set aside.2. It appears that the judgment-debtor applied on the 26th of January last to be declared an insolvent; and the 28th of March was fixed for the hearing directed by Section 350 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That hearing took place, and the District Judge has refused the judgment-debtor's application on the ground that for two years he has taken no steps to realize the property set out in the schedule of assets and to make it available for the payment of the debt due by him to his creditors; and the Judge says he thinks that the applicant is not a man to whom any favour should be shown, and he points out that the amount of assets is Rs. 1,000 in excess of the liabilities.3. Now the Judge was not asked to show any favour to the applicant at all. He was asked to proceed according to law, and he was bound so to pro...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Prsad Chowdhey Vs. Umbica Churn Coondoo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal754
1. Baboo Ashotosh Dhur for the appellant before us admits the informality of the plaint in that suit. He admits that technically the widow was no party to it, but asks us to hold that substantially she was a party and was bound by the decree, and that consequently the sale held in execution of that decree did pass the property to the plaintiff. He appears to rely to some extent on the hardship of the case in the event of the lower Appellate Court's decree being affirmed, because the mortgage debt was found to be true so far back as 1878, and it is now too late for the plaintiff to bring a fresh suit against the proper party.2. We are unable to take any notice of the alleged hardship. The only question we have to decide is whether the lower Appellate Court was wrong in law. It appears upon the facts found that it is impossible to say that the Subordinate Judge committed any error. He found not only that the plaint as framed did not make the widow a defendant, but also that the mother An...
Tag this Judgment!Roghu Nath Shaha Vs. Poresh Nath Pundari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal54
Wilson, J.1. The circumstances out of which this suit arose are these: One Sukul Pundari executed a mortgage on the 9th Aughran 1279 in favor of Kristo Shaha, by which he charged certain property with money, and undertook to pay that money by instalments, the bond being what is described a kistbundi bond. The plaint sets out this, and shows that Kristo Shaha is now dead, and that the plaintiff is his heir which is not disputed. It shows that the mortgagor Sukul Pundari is also dead, and that certain instalments of the bond are due. The plaintiff made defendants, first, three persons, sons and heira of Sukul Pundari the mortgagor, and, secondly, other persons who have become purchasers of the property from the heirs of Sukul Pundari. The plaint then went on to pray in paragraph 'for a decree awarding payment of the above Rs. 625 with costs from the property entered in the kistbundi bond and specified below. The cause of action has accrued regularly from the 1st of Pous 1279. Both groups...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »