Kolkata Court July 1887 Judgments

Abdul Rahaman Sodagur Vs. Dullaram Marwari

Court: Kolkata

Macpherson, J.1. I think the Munsif's decision is right and that of he Subordinate Judge wrong.2. The decree is dated the 30th August 1880 and the first application to execute it was preferred on the 25th May 1881.3. Three days afterwards the judgment-debtor petitioned to be allowed to pay the amount due under the decree by instalments extending over many years, the instalments being set but in the petition, which was made with the consent of the decree-holder. The Court passed this order: 'According to the application of both parties it is ordered that the case be struck off and the decree be returned.' The present application to execute was made on the 7th March 1885. The Munsif has held that it is out of time, more than three years having expired since the date of the last application. The Subordinate Judge considered that the Court recognized the arrangement proposed by the parties, and that under Section 210 of Act X of 1877, which corresponds with Section 210 of the present Code,...

Thomson Vs. Thomson and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal580

ORDERTrevelyan, J.1. This is an application calling on the petitioner to show cause why he should not deposit the probable amount of costs to be incurred by the respondent in the suit brought against her by him. The parties were married before the Succession Act, and are of an Anglo Indian domicile. I think I must follow the rule formerly in force in England and require him to deposit the necessary costs. To this rule there are two main exceptions: (a) cases such as Proby v. Proby 5 C. 357, and (b) where the wife has separate property sufficient for her support and for the costs of suit. The husband must, however, satisfy me that the wife has sufficient separate property for those purposes, but there is nothing in his affidavit to show what the means of the respondent are. I am not satisfied with Mr. Pugh's argument that the considerations arising in Walker v. Walker 1 Curt. 560 do not arise at this stage; the husband there appears to have been a man of absolutely no means, but here th...

Gobind Chandra Majumdar Vs. Uma Charan Sen and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal679

W. Comer Petheram and Ghose, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application made by the appellant before us on the 22nd of December, 1886, under the provisions of Section 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside a sale which had been held on the 21st of September 1886. This sale was confirmed on the 20th November, 1886, and the application that was made to the lower Court to set it aside has been refused upon the ground that it is barred by limitation under Article 166 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act. It appears to us that the view taken of the matter by the lower Court is right. The sale in question having taken place on the 21st September 1886, it was open to the judgment-debtor to apply to the Court to set it aside upon the grounds mentioned in Section 311 within thirty days from the date of the sale, that being the period prescribed by Article 166 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act. If such an application had been made within thirty days it would have...

Queen-empress Vs. Kartick Chunder Das

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal721

Pigot, J.1. The question referred to us by the Chief Presidency Magistrate is whether, upon the trial of a person charged with being in dishonest possession of stolen property, evidence can be given of a previous conviction of the accused for attempting to receive stolen property, knowing it to be stolen, under Sections 511 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. There is not, in the law of this country, any such special provision as is made by 34 and 35 Vic, c. 112, Section 19, relating to the admission in evidence against a person charged with having received stolen goods knowing them to be stolen, of a previous conviction of such person, for any offence involving fraud or dishonesty. The question therefore involves the determination of the construction to be put on Section 54 of the Evidence Act.2. Section 54 is one of a group of sections, 52 to 55 inclusive, placed in the Act, under the heading 'character when relevant.' Sections 53 and 54 relate to criminal proceedings only; 52 and 55 t...

Janki Kunwar Vs. Ajit Singh

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal58

R. Couch, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is the widow of Raja Bijai Bahadur Singh, one of the talukdars of Oudh, who died on the 17th of June 1884. The question in the suit relates to the validity of a deed of sale executed by him on the 29th July 1872. By that deed he professed, on account of the exigency of payment of debts to bankers and decree-holders, and of revenue, to sell to the respondent, Raja Ajit Singh, 46 villages with 56 hamlets in consideration of Rs. 1,25,000. Before this transaction took place, proceedings in lunacy, under the law for that purpose in India, had been taken against him, which originated in a letter of the Deputy Commissioner of the 7th of January 1871. An inquiry was made into the state of his mind, which ended in an order being made on the 6th of November 1871, by which he was found not to be of unsound mind and incapable of managing his affairs, and upon that he was put into the management of his affairs.2. Now it is important to observe that this w...

Fazel Ali Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Abdul Mozid Chowdhry and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal659

W. Comer Petheram and Ghose, JJ.1. We think that the questions submitted by the Judge should be answered as follows:(1) There need not be as many applications as there are estates or tenures mentioned in the application. But in the circumstances as disclosed in the reference it would be necessary for the Judge to call upon the applicants to state whether all of them are entitled in common to the various estates and tenures mentioned in the application ; and if not to divide themselves into as many groups as there may be properties held by them in common. In this latter case it would be necessary that each group of shareholders should put in separate applications.(2) If such separate applications have to be put in and not otherwise, separate Court-fees should be levied upon each application.(3) The notice in the case of tenures will be as provided by Section 93 of the Bengal Tenancy Act; it will be of the same character and to the same effect as in the case of estates....

Punchanun Mullick Vs. Shib Chunder Mullick and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal835

Trevelyan, J.1. This is a suit for partition, but the real question is one of jurisdiction. Mr. Pugh contended on the first issue that I had no jurisdiction.2. The suit is brought apparently for partition of all the immoveable property formerly belonging to Gour Kissore, but the intention of the plaintiff is really to seek partition of the family dwelling house. It has been contended by the plaintiff that if a person sues for partition of a portion of a property held jointly between him and the defendant that suit must be dismissed. Authorities have been cited for this proposition, and there are some on the opposite side.3. The key to this proposition, however, is to be found in the case of Button Monee Dutt v. Brojo Mohun Dutt 22 W.R. 333, where the plaintiff brought a suit in reality to enable him to separate from the joint estate a small portion which he desired to occupy for his own convenience. This suit was dismissed as being not maintainable, but it was contended on his behalf t...

Lalji Sahoy Vs. Odoya Sunderi Mitra and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal757

1. The appellant in this case became surety in the Court of the Munsif of Gya, under Section 336 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for a judgment-debtor who had been arrested in execution of a decree, and who expressed his intention under that section to apply under Chapter XX of the Code to be declared an insolvent.2. The debtor was released on the security of the present appellant, and of another person who joined in executing the security bond. But he made DO application to be declared an insolvent, and the appellant failed to produce him, when called upon to do so, some six months after the transaction.3. The present appeal, is against the order of the Munsif, made with reference to the last clause of Section 336 and to Section 253, and confirmed by the District Judge in appeal, directing that the decree be executed against the sureties. One only of them appealed against this order. He relies upon the following facts as justifying his appeal: (After stating the facts as above the jud...

Maseyk Vs. Steel and Co. and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal661

W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is an application which arises out of a suit brought by Messrs. Steel and Co., against Mr. Maseyk for the purpose of realizing a sum of money secured by the mortgage of a number of properties. The properties consist of five mehals situate in the Nyadumka and Rajshaye districts and thirty-two pieces of land, known as jagirs.2. The suit was brought in the Rajshaye Court under the provisions of Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which gives jurisdiction to a Court to entertain a suit in respect of properties partly situated within its territorial limits and partly out of it, where the same relief is sought in respect of the whole of the properties, and a decree was obtained in the suit that a certain sum of money was due, and directing the sale of the properties.3. In pursuance of that decree the properties were sold by the Rajshaye Court, in which the suit was brought.4. Two of the mehals were situate entirely outside the Rajshaye district. The sale...

In Re: Umesh Chandra Kar and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1888)ILR14Cal656

ORDER1. This rule has been obtained for the purpose of setting aside a conviction and sentence passed upon the petitioners for committing a public nuisance by obstructing a navigable river. Now the facts which are absolutely undisputed are that there is a navigable river somewhere in Bengal across which the defendants in this case have set up a bamboo dam of some kind for the purpose of catching fish. That bamboo-dam seems to extend all the way across the river, but there is a place which is opened at times, and through which boats can then proceed. This place is also kept lighted and guarded by men for the purpose of seeing that no accidents happen. The first question, and in fact the only question, is whether this is a public nuisance under Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code. I do not think there can be the slightest doubt about it myself, because this being a navigable river, the public have a right to navigate over the whole place, and any one who interferes with the free navigat...