Kolkata Court February 1888 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.
In Re: Khoda Bux Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal639
ORDERW. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is a rule which has been obtained by the learned Advocate-General for the purpose of setting aside certain orders which have been made by Mr. Kirkwood, the District Judge of Patna. We have heard in opposition to the rule Mr. Evans as amicus curia. He appears in that character at the request of the mukhtears practising at Patna, I suppose, or for the mukhtears generally, and we have been very glad to hear him, because it is very desirable in a case of this kind that the Court should have all the assistance possible to enable us to understand what the facts of the case are and what the law in this country is with reference to these matters so that we may be able to come to a proper decision.2. The orders referred to in the rule were as follows (here followed the orders as set out above).3. It will be noticed on reading these orders that the learned Judge assumes to have the right to do two things. He assumes to have the right to regulate the transactio...
Tupsee Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Sarun Koeri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal376
Wilson, J.1. (Pigot, O'Kinealy, and Ghose, JJ., concurring).--This is a suit brought by a landlord against his tenant to eject him from certain lands, in respect of which he alleged that he had given a notice to quit. The service of the notice has been found as a fact. But the defendant resists his landlord's claim to eject him on the ground that he is entitled to a right of occupancy in the land in dispute. Under the law in force prior to the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, the defendant would not have had a right of occupancy.2. The facts of the case are these : The defendant is a settled ryot, within the meaning of Section 20 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, of the village within which the lands in dispute are situated. The suit was filed in June, and the written statement in July, 1885. The Bengal Tenancy Act came into operation on the 1st November, 1885. The ease was decided by the Munsif in January, 1886. The defendant has been a tenant of the land in dispute from before the 2nd of Mar...
Uzir Ali Vs. Ram Komal Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal383
Wilson, J.1. I cannot distinguish this case in principle from the former Full Bench decision of Lal Mohun Mukerjee v. Jogendra Chunder Roy 14 C. 636. Section 174 was there held to be not a matter of mere procedure, but to confer substantive right. In the absence of any indication of intention that the provision is to operate retrospectively, it does not, I think, by the ordinary rules of construction, apply to the proceedings under a decree passed before the commencement of the Act. I should answer the question referred to us in the negative and set aside the order complained of....
Gobinda Ram Mondal Vs. Bholanath Bhatta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal432
1. The rule has been argued before us to-day, Dr. Rash Behari Ghose showing cause against it, and Baboo Uma Kali Mookerjee appearing in support of it. In support of the rule reliance has been placed upon a Full Bench decision in the case of Nasiruddin Khan v. Indronarayan Chowdhry B.L.R. Sup. Vol. 367. That was a decision upon Section 378 of the old Code of Civil Procedure, the corresponding section to Section 629 of the present Code. In showing cause Dr. Rash Behari Ghose has urged that the reasons which led the Judges who were in a majority in the Full Bench case to put the interpretation they did upon the word 'final' do not operate for giving the word the same meaning now, because Section 629 of the present Code is drawn in an entirely different manner from Section 378 of the old Code, and has created a considerable alteration in the law. Dr. Rash Behari Ghose further urges that the last paragraph of Section 629 was really introduced to meet the point which has now arisen; he argue...
ishan Muchi and ors. Vs. the Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal511
1. The prisoners are convicted of dishonestly receiving stolen property, first, under Section 411, in respect of the goods belonging to one person, and, second, in respect of goods belonging to another.2. They were separately tried and sentenced on each of these charges.3. There is no proof against them save the fact that the goods found in their possession were stolen from different persons, and were found in their possession under such circumstances as to prove a guilty knowledge on their part.4. There is no proof as to their receipt of the goods; nothing to show that they received them at different times or from different persons. All the goods in the possession of each prisoner may have been stolen by the same thief, and may have been by him delivered to that prisoner at the same time, although stolen on different occasions.5. If each prisoner received the goods found in his possession together at the same time, that would constitute only one offence.6. There is nothing in the fact...
Sarbananda Basu Mozumdar and anr. Vs. Pran Sankar Roy Chowdhuri and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal527
1. This matter under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, relates to nearly 10,000 bighas of chur land in the district of Faridpore. The parties are zemindars; and the question at issue is the right to receive rent from the cultivators. None of these ryots is a party to these proceedings. It has been found by the Magistrate, after a long and careful investigation, and in a well-considered judgment, that up to the end of the Bengali year, March or April 1886, the ryots on this chur paid rents to the Teota Rajahs, party No. 1; that subsequently disputes arose, and the Rajahs, being unable to obtain enhancement of rent from the tenants, declared the lands to be their khas khamar, and unsuccessfully endeavoured to make settlements with some other tenants for a portion, at least, of the lands. The tenants, on the other hand, told the Rajahs that they would not pay them any rents. The tenants probably finding themselves unable, unless supported by some person of influence, to resist the ...
Kali Charun Singh and ors. Vs. Balgobind Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal497
Ghose, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether a security bond executed by a surety on behalf of an appellant for the costs of an appeal, under Section 549 of the Code of Civil Procedure, can be enforced against the surety in execution of the decree of the Appellate Court, without a separate suit being brought against him.2. The lower Appellate Court has held that it cannot be so enforced, and has accordingly disallowed the application of the decree-holder.3. The main contention in appeal before us has been that the surety, by reason of the security bond executed by him in the Appellate Court, became as it were a party to the appeal, and that when Section 583 of the Code of Civil Procedure directs that the decree of an Appellate Court shall be executed according to the rules prescribed for the execution of decrees in suits, it can be summarily executed against a surety in accordance with Section 253 of the Code.4. In order to be able to deal satisfactorily with this conten...
Surendro Keshub Roy Vs. Doorgasoondery Dossee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal253
ORDERTrevelyan, J.1. This suit was brought in 1884 for the purpose of establishing the plaintiff's right to a share of the property left by the late Bajah Bejoy Kesbav Roy.2. At an early date in the suit the Court Receiver was appointed Receiver of the property, the subject-matter of the suit.3. On the 15th August, 1885, a decree was made in favour of the plaintiff.4. On the 16th September, 1886, this Court made an order, the effect of which has been much discussed at the hearing of the present application. That order provided that the Receiver should be at liberty to accept the offer made by Baboo Sarodapersaud Soor for a lease to him of all the properties appertaining to the said estate with certain exceptions for a term of five years from the date of Pooneah in the month of Assur 1293 at the annual rental of Rs. 75,000. It was further ordered by the same order that all necessary parties as the Registrar of this Court should direct do join in the lease, and it was further ordered tha...
Mon Mohun Roy Vs. Durga Churn Gooee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal502
1. Two points have been decided in the lower Court: first, it has been held that the order for payment by installments made in May 1883 was improperly made on the ground that more than six months had elapsed after the date of the original decree. I do not think this is sustainable, inasmuch as the order was made with the consent and on the application of both parties, and it is not open to either to say now that it was an improper order. But the lower Court has decided, secondly, that the application is out of time on the ground that in July 1882, when the first default was made, the whole of the money secured by the decree became payable, and might have been recovered by execution, and that the present application was barred by the provisions of Article 179, Sub-Section 6 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act. I think it unnecessary, and it would be unprofitable, to enquire how we might decide a question of this kind if it were a new question, for it is a question which has ari...
Ram Pitam Shah Vs. Shoobul Chunder Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal259
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. These are actions brought by various carriers or coke merchants for the purpose of recovering tolls, which have been levied from them for passing over the bridge, in excess of the powers created by the Act and the notification of the Lieutenant-Governor. The facts of these cases are as follows : At the Howrah station large quantities of goods come in which have to be brought into Calcutta by vehicles which pass over the bridge, in respect of which tolls are levied. When that bridge was constructed provision was made by the Legislature for the levying of tolls, and for the issuing of notifications by the Lieutenant-Governor with reference to those tolls ; and one of the provisions was, that certain charges might be made for railway-borne goods coming to Howrah which were to be paid by the Railway Company, and when paid that was to be sufficient, and the goods were to be brought into Calcutta across the bridge without the payment of any extra toll.2. Now the eas...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »