Kolkata Court March 1889 Judgments
Mahabeer Sing Vs. Rambhajjan Sah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal545
Tottenham, J.1. The question referred to us by the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Chupra is, whether or not that Court was Tight; in deciding that the suit before it was barred by Section 13 and by Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure2. The suit was brought to recover damages in respect of the crop cut by the defendants and carried away from the plaintiff's land in the month of December 1885. It seems that the plaintiff, in 1886, brought a suit in the Munsif's Court to recover from the defendants possession of the land of which the crop had been cut and also for the value of the crop. The Munsif held that there had, in fact, been no dispossession, and that the act of cutting the plaintiff's crop and carrying it away did not disturb him in his possession of the Jand. He, therefore, dismissed the suit and referred the plaintiff to the Small Cause Court for recovery of the damage which he had sustained. Subsequently, in the month of August 1886, the plaintiff was actually disposse...
Tag this Judgment!Abraham Vs. Mahtabo and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal488
Mitter and Macpherson, JJ.1. Section 551 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers a District Magistrate, upon complaint made on oath of the abduction or unlawful detention of a woman or of a female child under the age of 14 years, for any unlawful purpose, to make an order for the immediate restoration of such woman to her liberty, or of such female child to her husband, parent, guardian or other person having the lawful charge of such child, and to compel obedience with such order, using such force as may be necessary.2. In pursuance of an order made under that section, the girl Luchminia was taken from the petitioner, who is the Superintendent of the Patna Zenana Mission, and made over to her mother Mahtabo.3. The case comes before us in the exercise of our revisional powers on a rule to show cause why that order should not be set aside, and why the girl should not be restored to the charge of the petitioner, or such other order made as the facts of the case may warrant and justify.4....
Tag this Judgment!Baijnath Sahai Vs. Moheep NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal535
Tottenham and Banerjee, JJ.1. The first point should, we think, be decided in favour of the appellant. Section 293 of the Code of Civil Procedure enacts, amongst other things, that the deficiency of price happening on a re-sale shall be recoverable by the decree-holder from the defaulting purchaser under the rules contained in Chapter XIX for the execution of a decree for money. Questions like the one disposed of by the Court below in this case, must, therefore, be taken to be of the nature of questions arising between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor relating to the execution of decrees, such as are contemplated by Clause (c) of Section 244. And as an appeal is allowed from the decision of any of these questions, there is no reason why an appeal should not lie against the decision of the Court below in this case, This view is in accordance with the decisions of this Court in the cases of Sree Narain Hitter v. Mahtab Chund 3 W.R. 3, Sooruj Buksh Singh v. Sree Kishen Doss 6 W.R...
Tag this Judgment!Nilmony Poddar and ors. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal442
W. Comer Petheram, C.J., Mitter, Prinsep and Wilson, JJ.1. We are of opinion that the questions referred in this case should be answered in the negative.2. The appellants Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 were found guilty of rioting, armed with deadly weapons, under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, and each of them was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment for that offence. Two of their co-appellants, whose appeals are not before us, are found to have committed, in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly of which they were all members, acts which amounted to voluntarily causing hurt under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 were, therefore, also found guilty of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, coupled with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. For this offence each of them was sentenced to a further period of rigorous imprisonment for one year. We think that under the first paragraph of Section 7...
Tag this Judgment!Shama Charan Patitanda Vs. Akshaya Kumar Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal587
Tustick Wilson and Tottenham, JJ.1. In this case the first thing that is important is to ascertain, as accurately as we can, what the facts as found by the Lower Appellate Court are to which we have to apply the law. The suit is brought by an izarahdar to recover rent from tenants at an enhanced rate. The case made is that the property on which the tenants hold is a Khas Mahal of Government; that the plaintiff and another formerly held an izarah of the Mehal; that then it fell into the Khas possession of Government, and that in about the year 1876 a fresh settlement was made under which the rent of these tenants was enhanced; that subsequently the plaintiff and another again took an izarah, and the plaintiff alleges his title to sue for and recover rents from the tenants at the enhanced rate.2. The District Judge, before whom the case came on appeal, says this:The Deputy Collector, Baboo T.C. Mitter, who made the re-settlement on behalf of Government, raised the jummas to 'so and so.' ...
Tag this Judgment!Joggobundhu Mitter Vs. Purnanund Gossami and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal530
W. Comer Petheram, C.J., Mitter, Prinsep, Wilson and Tottenham, JJ.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is stated in these words: 'Is this suit barred by limitation?' And the reason for the reference is that the learned Judges doubt the correctness of the case of Krishna hall Dutt v. Radha Krishna Surkhel I.L.R. 10 Cal. 402, followed by the Lower Appellate Court in the present case.2. The suit was brought to recover possession of a 4 annas share of Mouzah Mukannagur, upon the allegation that the defendant No. 2 had dispossessed the plaintiff on the 31st of Assar 1292 (which was some day in July 1885); and the suit was instituted on the 7th of August following. The plaintiff's case was that he had purchased the property at auction in execution of his own decree against one Gopal Das Banerjee on the 3rd of March 1875; that he had obtained possession through the Court, and had enjoyed possession by the receipt of rent until disturbed and ultimately ousted by the defendant No. 2.3. G...
Tag this Judgment!Kristo Gobind Majumdar Vs. Hem Chunder Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal511
Prinsep and Wilson, JJ.1. Decrees for arrears of rent were obtained against Brojosundari, a Hindu widow, which are now put into execution after her death against properties forming her father's estate in which she had only a life interest. The question raised on these appeals is, whether they are decrees merely against her personally, and, therefore, to be satisfied out of whatever she left at her death, or whether the estate which has passed to the next heirs, is liable.2. We are of opinion that the principle laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Baijun Doobey v. Brij Bhookun Lall Awusti L.R. 2 I.A. 275 : I.L.R. 1 Cal. 133 should be adopted, and that the debt cannot be regarded as other than a personal debt, payment of which can be enforced only against the property left by the widow. The case decided by the Full Bench of this Court-Hurry Mohun Rai v. Gonesh Chunder Doss I.L.R. 10 Cal. 823 is not in point, as the debt of the Hindu widow was contracted under ...
Tag this Judgment!Hukum Chand Oswal Vs. Taharunnessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal505
Prinsep and Ghose, JJ.1. A decree was obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant No. 1, as the legal representative of one Darwar Buksh, in respect of a certain sum of money. The decree provided that the amount was payable in instalments with interest at a certain rate. The defendant No. 1, however, failed to pay in accordance with the terms of the decree; and the plaintiff thereupon accepted a bond executed by the father of defendant No. 1, viz., Tarikulla, as surety for the debt. But nothing apparently came out of this transaction, and eventually a bond was executed on the 18th Bhadro 1289, both by defendant No. 1 and Tarikulla, making themselves jointly liable for the balance of the decretal money with interest at Rs. 18-12-0 per cent, per annum. The original decree is not forthcoming, but there does not seem to have been any dispute between the parties in the lower Courts as regards its terms, excepting however in one particular, viz., as to the rate of interest decreed. The L...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chunder Sreemany Vs. Herembo Chunder Holder and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal524
W. Comer Petheram., C.J. and Wilson, J.1. This suit has been brought to have it declared that two mortgages, dated the 29th of November 1882 and the 14th May 1884, in favour of the Plaintiff, have priority over a mortgage, dated 3rd of January 1884, in favour of the defendant, Bindobashinee Dossee, and to realize such two mortgages by bringing the mortgaged property to sale.2. The facts are as follows: On the 29th of November 1882, Herembo Chunder Holdar, one of the defendants, mortgaged his one-third share of a house in Calcutta and a garden in the 24-Pergunnahs to the plaintiff to secure Rs. 1,000 and interest at 12 per cent.3. On the 3rd of January 1884, Herembo Chunder Hoidar mortgaged his one-third share of the Calcutta house to the defendant Bindobashinee Dossee to secure Rs. 1,000, with interest at 18 per cent.4. On the 14th of May 1884 the defendants, Herembo Chunder Holdar, Surut Chunder Holdar, and Benayak Chunder Holdar, mortgaged the whole sixteen annas of the two propertie...
Tag this Judgment!Sowdamini Dassi Vs. Broughton and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal575
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of three proceedings. The first of them was a petition for obtaining the probate of the will of a person called Badam Kumari, which is numbered 58 of 1887; the second was a suit brought by Grish Chunder Roy against Mr. Broughton, the Administrator-General of Bengal, Surut Kumari Dassi and Sowdamini Dassi to carry out the trusts of two deeds, dated the 12th July 1886, and that is numbered 64 of 1887; and the third was a suit brought by Sowdamini Dassi against. Mr. Broughton. Grish Chunder Roy and Surut Kumari Dassi to obtain a declaration that the deed of trust of the 12th July 1886 is void, and that the plaintiff Sowdamini is entitled to a share of the funds dealt with by that deed, and that suit is numbered 141 of 1887.2. The property which is in dispute in these suits are the savings from the income of an estate left by a person called Nobo Kumar Mullick. Nobo Kumar Mullick died on the 16th March 1856, leaving him surviving his widow B...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »