Kolkata Court August 1887 Judgments

Queen-empress Vs. Itwari Saho

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal269

1. This case comas before us under the provisions of Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code. The charge against the prisoner was that on April 1st, 1885, he, at Naga Serai, Behar, dishonestly sold as genuine a forged valuable security which purported to be a currency note for Rs. 50 issued on behalf of the Government of India, which he knew or had reason to believe to be a forged document, and thereby committed an offence against Sections 467-471, Indian Penal Code.2. The prisoner was committed for trial on March 31st, 1887. He was tried at the Patna Sessions on the 16th, 17th and 18th June 1887. There was no question seriously raised as to the fact that the note, which the prisoner was charged with having dishonestly sold, was a forgery. The jury unanimously found that it was, and the appearance of the exhibit leaves no doubt of this. The questions raised in the case were : (1) whether the prisoner sold the note as alleged; and (2) whether he did so knowing, or having reason to believe,...

Abdul HosseIn Queen-empress Vs. Abdul Hossein

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal194

1. This is a case reported under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Sessions Judge of Singapore, who has also under that section suspended the sentence and let the petitioner out on bail.2. Petitioner, a police constable, was tried summarily by the District Magistrate of Singapore, convicted of the offence of disobedience of orders, and sentenced under Section 29 of the Police Act V of 1861, to six weeks' rigorous imprisonment. The Sessions Judge is of opinion that the conviction by the Magistrate is bad in law.3. The petitioner was sent up to the Magistrate for punishment by the District Superintendent with a memo which is attached to the record and runs as follows : '246 W.C. Abdul Hossein is again reported for absence from roll-call on the night of the 4th May, and says he went to eat at his house and fell asleep. In D.O. 385 he was fined ten days' pay for this very offence, and has been warned not to leave his lines.' 'His Disobedience of orders is willful and a defi...

issuri Dasi and ors. Vs. Haragobind Das Koiburto and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal187

Pigot, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Officiating Second Subordinate Judge of Tipperah, delivered on the 27th April last year, confirming a decree of the Munsif by which the sum claimed by the plaintiffs against the defendants as due to them in respect of monies realized in proceedings in execution in four several suits, viz., 22 of 1870, 37 of 1876 and 21 of 1877 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tipperah, and 1761 of 1877 in the Court of the Munsif of Brahmon-baria, had been allowed. The case is part of a dispute in which, during eight or nine years, the parties have been wandering in a wilderness of litigation arising out of questions upon the construction and effect of the sections of the Civil Procedure Code relating to the execution of decrees, and a vast mass of questions have, in the course of the multifarious proceedings that have taken place, bean debated and decided. We think it unnecessary to refer to any of the questions that have arisen in the suit o...

Gowri Sunkar and anr. Vs. Zaheun and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal198

1. The plaintiffs, as co-sharers in an estate, asked for a declaration that, under a private partition made between themselves and the other proprietors, 3 bighas 10 cottahs were allotted to them, and they also asked for a partition of the estate by giving them an area representing their share, 1 anna 5 dams 10 cowries. A short time before the institution of this suit an application for butivara was made to the Collector by the defendants, and about the date of the institution of this suit an order was passed by the Collector under Section 31, Bengal Act VIII of 1876, declaring the estate to be under partition. The matter for decision before the lower Courts as well as before us in second appeal is simply whether the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this description at the same time that a partition of the estate is pending before the Collector. The jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is restricted only in questions affecting the right of Government to assess and coll...

Kripamoyi Dabia and ors. Vs. Durga Govind Sirkar and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal89

1. The question arises, upon the respective allegations made by the plaintiffs and the defendants, whether the plaintiffs are bound to prove, before they can succeed, that the holding is of a non-transferable character, or whether they are entitled to recover, if the defendant Durga Govind fails to prove that the holding is transferable.3. It seems to us, upon the admitted facts of the case, that the onus lies upon the defendant, and that he cannot succeed in his defence unless it be proved that he has a title to hold the land as a tenant under the plaintiffs, or in other words that the holding is of a transferable character.4. The land in suit is admittedly a part of the plaintiffs' putni; and as such, they are prima facie entitled to the possession of it, and it is for the person who questions their right to possession, by setting up a subordinate tenure, to establish his title. The defendant, Durga Govind, in the present case, sets up as against the plaintiffs a permanent and transf...

Dinabundhu Surma and ors. Vs. Bodia Koch

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal100

1. In this case, the plaintiff, as the settlement holder from Government, sued to eject the defendant from certain lands held by him as tenant. The plaintiff's allegation was that the defendant was but a chookanee tenant, liable to be ejected at his pleasure ; while the case for the defendant was that the land was held by his family from generation to generation as pyker lands, and that he had a permanent right of occupancy and was not. liable to be ejected.2. It was not proved that the defendant was a tenant of the description alleged by the plaintiff; and in fact the lower appellate Court holds this to be the case.3. The facts that have been found in the case by Mr. L. Johnson, the Judge of the Assam Valley Districts, are (1) that the defendant is a descendant from one of the pykes who held lands under the Assam Rajahs; (2) that the Assam Rajahs granted the pyke to a certain lakherajdar; (3) that the pyke held the land in suit as before under the lakherajdar; (4) that the lakheraj wa...

Mamat Ram Bayan and ors. Vs. Bapu Ram Atai Bura Bhakat and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal159

1. This suit was brought for the purpose of obtaining a declaratory decree confirming the plaintiffs' hereditary title to the office of musicians in a satra at a village called Sundaridia, within the jurisdiction of the Sub-division of Barpita in Kamrup. The defendants resisted the claim upon various grounds, and objected also that the suit could not be maintained in any Court.2. The Munsif overruled the objection, holding that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature, and that the present suit is of a civil nature. The Court of first instance decided in favour of the plaintiffs on the merits also, and decreed the claim.3. On appeal by the defendants the District Judge, being of opinion that such an action as this would not lie under Section 11, decreed the appeal, and dismissed the suit. He says: 'It is not pretended that any emoluments attached to the position of musician. Defendants are entitled to their share (if any) of the proceeds of the temple propert...

Jagut Chunder Deb Vs. Suresh Chunder Wum Chowdhry, by His Mother Nitob ...

Court: Kolkata

Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff filed the plaint in this suit on the 13th May, 1885, to recover possession of 4 hals, 1 lader 4 joists and 3 reks of land appertaining to pottahs Nos. 50891 and 161, which he purchased in execution of a decree as the property of one Sham Pershad The suit was brought against Tarini, defendant No. 1, and three other persons. The second defendant is described in the plaint as Nitobashini Chowdh-rain, guardian on behalf of her minor son, Suresh Chunder Warn Chowdhry.2. The plaintiff alleged that defendant No. 1 and the husband of Nitobashini Chowdhrain and father of the minor Suresh Chunder, viz., Durga Churn, dispossessed him. All the defendants are stated in the plaint as living in commensality, i.e., are members of a joint family. On the 14th May the Subordinate Judge directed the plaintiff to produce within one day an affidavit to the effect that the mother of the minor defendant is his guardian. He, the Subordinate Judge, evidently understood from the plaint...

Grish Chunder Roy Vs. Broughton and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal861

Trevelyan, J.1. This case came before me for settlement of issues.2. Several issues, which I will afterwards mention, were raised, but before referring to them I must decide the question whether Mr. Bonnerjee is entitled to raise in this suit the following issue, proposed by him, namely, 'Did Nobocoomar Mullick leave a will or did he die intestate?'3. Nobocoomar Mullick died on the 16th of March 1856.4. On the 29bh of March 1856, the late Supreme Court in the exercise of its ecclesiastical jurisdiction granted to Shama Churn Mullick and Badamcoomary Dossee, the widow of the deceased, probate of an alleged will of Nobocoomar Mullick, dated the 15th of March 1856.5. This probate has never been revoked. The present suit is brought for the administration of trusts which were established by Bidamcoomary out of monies received by her under the provisions of the will of Nobocoomar. Mr. Bonnerjee for a defendant, an heir of Nobocoomar, suggests the issue I have mentioned, but Counsel for the p...

Prosono Coomar Ghose Vs. Administrator-general of Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal83

1. Monmothonath Dey died in December 1881, leaving a will of which he appointed his wife Lakhemoni Dassi and the plaintiff Prosono Coomar Ghose, executrix and executor.2. The will after the appointment of the executors provides for a legacy to the plaintiff in the following terms: 'My friend Prosono Coomar Ghose, whom I appoint executor, shall get Rs. 5,000 from my estate.' The plaintiff has not proved the will, and the question is whether, having regard to the provisions of Section 128 of the Succession Act, which is made applicable to the wills of Hindus by the Hindu Wills Act, he can take the legacy.3. Section 128 enacts that, 'if a legacy is bequeathed to a person who is named an executor of the will, he shall not take the legacy unless he proves the will, or otherwise manifests an intention to act as executor.' It is contended that the will itself shows that the legacy was not given to the plaintiff in his character as executor, and that it was the testator's intention that be sho...