Kolkata Court March 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.
Ram Kishen Sahu Vs. Chunilal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal461
Wilson, J.1. We must take the facts before us to be that the plaintiff is the owner of a piece of land, that the substantial defendant alleges that that piece of land forms part of a public highway, that he took proceedings before the Magistrate under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the plaintiff for obstruction to the alleged highway, and that an order absolute was made by the Magistrate under Section 137 directing the removal of the obstruction. The present suit has been brought practically for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the land free from any right of highway. The questions referred to us are these:[His Lordship here read the questions referred and continued.]2. It seems convenient to examine this matter under two separate heads, and to consider first whether, upon general principles, the present suit, either in its existing form or with any modifications, can lie, and what relief, if any, can be given in it; and, sec...
Khoshdeb Biswas Vs. Satar Mondol and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal436
1. In this case we are of opinion that the plaintiff can recover the whole amount due on the bond, notwithstanding Section 135 of the Transfer of Property Act. We agree with the decision of this Court in Grish Chandra v. Kashisauri Debi 13 C. 145, that the section does not apply where the money is recovered by suit after a contest as to the liability of the defendant. We think, however, that if the money paid by the plaintiff for the claim, with interest and expenses, were paid into Court immediately on the suit being brought, that would be a payment within the meaning of the section, and would release the defendant from further liability....
Luckher NaraIn Banerjee and ors. Vs. Ram Kumer Mukharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal564
1. It is a rule of English law that a bona fide claim of title ousts the jurisdiction of Justices proceeding in a summary way; this does not depend on enactment, but is a qualification which the law itself raises in the execution of penal statutes, save when the terms of the statute, under which the Justices proceed, show that the Justices are not to hold their hands even if a right be set up.2. Under the Criminal Procedure Code of 1872 it was held by this Court, in revision, that in proceedings under Section 521 of that Code, which is similar to Section 133 of the present Code, if a claim of private right were set on in respect of what was alleged to be a thoroughfare or public place, the Magistrate should not mike any order under Section 521 and the following sections, but should proceed under Section 532, so that the person claiming such private right should have an opportunity of having the question raised by him duly enquired into and determined; it being no part of the duty eithe...
Rash Behari Bosu Vs. Hara Moni Debya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal555
Tottenham, J.1. We think this case must go back to the lower appellate Court for a fresh trial of the appeal.2. The plaintiff sued to eject the defendants from an under-tenure held within a taluk which had been sold for arrears of revenue and had been leased by the auction-purchaser to the plaintiff.3. The substantial pleas raised for the defence were that the plaintiff was only a benamidar for one of the original defaulters, and therefore had no right to take advantage of Section 37 of the Revenue Sale Law (Act XI of 1859) that the tenure in question was one of those expressly protected under that section; and that neither the plaintiff nor any other auction-purchaser could set it aside under its provisions.4. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff was a benamidar for one of the defaulters. The Munsif also found that the defendants had failed to make out that the tenure in question was one protected by Section 37.5. The plaintiff having appealed to ...
Hari Dass Sanyal and ors. Vs. Saritulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal608
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives power of revision, and is in these terms:The High Court, or any Court of Session, or District Magistrate, or any Sub-divisional Magistrate empowered by the Local Government in this behalf, may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within the local limits of its or his jurisdiction, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior Court.If any Sub-divisional Magistrate acting under this section considers that any such finding, sentence or order is illegal or improper, or that any such proceedings are irregular, he shall forward the record, with such remarks thereon as he thinks fit, to the District Magistrate.Orders made under Sections 143 and 144 and proceedings under Section 176 are not proceedings ...
Queen-empress Vs. Mekher Ali Mullick and Two ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal589
Wilson, J.1. Is there any authority for saying that admissions and confessions are one and the same2. Mr. Gasper. There is the case of Empress v. Pandharinath 6 B. 34, which lays down that a statement made to a Police officer, although made in self exculpation, may still be an admission of a criminating circumstance, and thus a confession and inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26.Wilson, J.3. That case fallsrfar short of holding that admissions and confessions are the same thing.]4. Mr. Gasper.--Another case bearing on the question is that of The Queen, v. Hurribole Ghunder Ghose 1 C. 207, and the precise nature of the statement in that case is to be found in Hume's Criminal Digest, page 310. There is also the case of Queen v. Macdonald Unreported See 10 B.L.R. Appx. 2. referred to in that case. The real question here is, does the statement contain an admission of a material face necessary for the prosecution to prove or material for them to prove If it does then, it amounts to a confe...
Doorgadhur Biswas and ors. Vs. Huro Mohinee Dabee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1888
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.184
1. The plaintiff in this suit is the purchaser at an execution sale of a tenure or an interest in a tenure. The defendants are persons who prior to her purchase were sharers in the tenure. Their co-sharer Sharitulla was the registered tenant, that is to say, his name was registered in the zemindar's sherishta The suit for rent was brought against him alone by a person who had been ijaradar of the property at the time when the rent for which the suit was brought became due but whose ijara had expired when the suit was brought. He obtained a decree against Sharitulla and in execution of that decree he proceeded to sell the right, title and interest of the defendant Sharitulla in the tenure. The sale took place, the plaintiff became the purchaser and her sale-certificate indicated what she purchased as the right, title and interest of Sharitulla. The defendants, the co-sharers, are still in possession and the plaintiff brings this suit claiming to oust them from the tenure and to be put i...
Syama Sunderi Dassya and anr. Vs. Jogobundhu Sootar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal186
W. Comer Petheram, Kt. C.J. and Tottenham, J.1. We think that the Subordinate Judge has taken a wrong view of what is, or is not a question of title, and it is necessary that this case should be returned to him for re-trial.2. The suit is a suit brought by the purchasers at a revenue sale of a taluq against the holder of a neighbouring taluq, to recover possession of a piece of land which, he says, belongs to his taluq, and which the defendant says belongs to the owner of another taluq, under whom he holds. The only question to be tried is, where is the boundary line between the two properties?3. The plaintiffs, as I said just now, bought at a revenue sale, and the effect of that sale was to put them in the same position as that which the person occupied with whom the property was originally settled, that is to say, on default of payment of the revenue, the Government puts up for sale the whole estate out of which the revenue which had defaulted was payable, and the purchaser at such s...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›