Kolkata Court March 1889 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.
Ashanulla Sardar Vs. Topa Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal509
Wilson, J.1. The only question argued before us, and the only one properly open upon second appeal, is, whether a suit will lie on the part of a purchaser to compel registration of his kobala in a case in which the value of the property conveyed is under one hundred rupees, and registration is therefore not made compulsory by the Registration Act.2. We think it clear that under the present Registration Act III of 1877 the suit lies. Section 17 of the Act says, 'that certain documents shall be registered.' Section 1(3 says, 'that certain other documents may be registered.' Section 32 says that 'every document to be registered whether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented.....by some person executing or claiming under the same.' The effect seems to be that any person therein described may exercise the option given by Section 18.* The following sections lay down rules as to whose presence is ordinarily necessary to justify registration. And Sections 36 to 39 prov...
Abhayessari Debi Vs. Shidhessari Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal514
Mitter and Macpherson, JJ.1. This rule arises out of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code instituted in the Deputy Commissioner's Court of Goalpara, between the two Ranis of the late Koomood Narain Bhpop, Raja of Bijni.2. It appears that the aforesaid Raja died on the 9th March 1883, when the second party, junior Rani, was about 19 years of ago. The elder Rani, the first party, was allowed by the authorities to assume management of the estate left by the Raja, which consisted of two very extensive pergunnahs, viz., Habraghat and Khotaghat, comprising over 300 villages. It is admitted that the first party remained in sole possession of the said two pergunuahrs from the death of the Raja to the month of February 1887 by receipt of rent from the tenants of the said pergunnahs. The second party lived in the Rajbari with the first party till August 1886. About that time there having arisen a serious difference between the two Ranis, the second party left the Rajbari...
In Re: T.A. Pearson, Officiating Receiver of the High Court and Receiv ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal383
Wilson and Tottenham, JJ.1. The course which the proceedings in this case have taken is in many respects unfortunate and it has led to very undesirable results. It appears that land was taken up for a public purpose and that some part of the land so taken up belonged to an estate of which the Official Receiver of this Court on its Original Side was appointed Receiver. The usual notices were issued, and particularly a notice issued calling upon that gentleman to put in his claim and to nominate his assessor, if he desired it, and be prepared to proceed with the hearing, all of which events were fixed for the 19 th January of this year, the notice having been issued on the 22nd December.2. Two days before the 19th January, that is to say, on the 17th, the pleader who represented the Receiver applied to the Judge, to whom a reference to assess compensation had been made, and asked for somereasonable postponement to a day later than the 19th, but he omitted to give notice of that applicati...
Ramen Chetty Vs. Mahomed Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal433
Wilson, J.1. In my opinion the authorities which are referred to by the learned Recorder in his order of reference are conclusive upon the question which is now before us. The cases of Bull v. O'Sullivan L.R. 6 Q.B. 209, and Catty v. Fry L.R. 2 Ex. D. 265, which cases are entirely in accordance with the earlier authorities, are clear to show that in determining whether a document is sufficiently stamped for the purpose of deciding upon its admissibility in evidence, you must look at the document itself as it stands, and not at any collateral circumstances which may be shown in evidence; and exactly the same law is laid down in this Court in the judgment of Sir Barnes Peacock in the case of Chandra Kant Mookerjee v. Kartik Charan Chaile 5 B.L.R. 103 in the passage at page 105 of the report. That is conclusive of the present case; for it is clear, I think, that the present Stamp Act in India ought to be construed according to the same principles of construction as the Stamp Act in Englan...
Boistub Churn Nairn and ors. Vs. Wooma Churn Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal436
Wilson, J.1. The principal question which has Been raised before us in this reference is whether a contract for the sale of fermented liquor, by a person who has not obtained a license under Bengal Act VII of 1878, is illegal and therefore void.2. The sections bearing upon the matter are these: Section 4 has defined exciseable articles as including spirituous and fermented liquors. Section 11 says that no person shall sell any exciseable article without a license from the Collector. Section 53 says whoever manufactures or sells any exciseable article without a license shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Rs. 500 for every such manufacture or sale, and then come the provisos, with the last of which I shall deal presently.3. A number of cases have been cited to us from the English Courts upon the question, in what cases and under what statutes the imposition of a penalty is to be construed as intended to prohibit the act to which the section refers, and in what cases that penalty shou...
Heilgers and Co. Vs. Jadub Lall Shaw and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal418
Wilson, J.1. We do not think there is any necessity for us to call on the defendants in this case.2. The point is a very small one. The contract out of which the suit arises was a contract for delivery of certain bales of jute, so many in October and so many within certain days of November. The contract was a written one, and contains only a few words having any bearing on the question in dispute. The amounts and price are set out. The goods are to be delivered free on board, and the sellers undertake to deliver as soon as possible. Then under the heading, ' Terms and conditions, 'come the words' Gash on delivery.' Then it is provided that 1,000 bales are to be shipped during October, and 1,000 bales between the 1st and 28th November, in lots of 250 at a time. The real point now is, what is the meaning of 'Cash on delivery'? What happened was this: Some days before the 28th November, I think on the 23rd, plaintiffs wrote to the vendors (defendants) and said they desired a certain quant...
Shama Dass Vs. Hurbuns NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal426
Tottenham, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the lower Court setting aside an ex parte decree.2. A preliminary objection was taken on the part of the respondents by Mr. Gregory, that from such an order no appeal lies under Section 588 of the Code.3. This question was argued at considerable length; and reserving our judgment upon it, we also heard the appeal on the merits. Upon consideration, I am of opinion that Mr. Gregory is right, and that no appeal lies. When Act XIV of 1882 was passed, the wording of Section 588, el. 9, was to this effect: 'Orders rejecting applications under Section 108, or an order to set aside a decree ex parte.' Under this clause, apparently, an appeal would lie from the order now before us; but I find that the word 'or' in the clause after Section 108 was by an error placed for the word 'for.' In August 1882, that is, one month after the Act came into force, a corrigendum was published in the Gazette of India, under the signature of the Secret...
The Empress Vs. Baikanta Bauri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal350
Mitter and Macpherson, JJ.1. The Sessions Judge of Burdwan, dissenting from the verdict of acquittal of the jury, has referred this case under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The charge against the accused was under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, of giving false evidence, and is to the following effect: ' That he, on or about the 31st day of October 1888, at Purulia, Tharmah Eanigunge, in the course of the inquiry into the case of arson of Empress v. Rambandhu Glyise and others, before Anadinath Bundopadhya, head constable of outpost PaVid-pore, stated in evidence that he had seen Eambandhu Ghose set fire to the house, and that he, on or about the 23rd day of November 1888, at Bharra, Thannah Assensole, in the course of the inquiry into the case of arson Empress v. Rambandhii Ghose and Ors. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Eanigunge, stated in evidence: ' I did nob see anybody set fire to the house. I was a mile off at home,' one of which statements he eith...
Abdul Wahed and ors. Vs. Fareedoonnissa
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal324
Tottenham and Banerjee, JJ.1. The question in this appeal is purely one of law, and that law relates, we think, simply to procedure.2. We think that the Court below has made a mistake in dealing with that question. The appellants before us were in a former suit respondents in this Court in an appeal from an original decree. In that appeal the appellant was required by this Court to furnish security for costs. The present respondent became surety. That appeal was ultimately dismissed with costs; and the respondents, who are now before us as appellants, seek to recover their costs from the surety. They applied to the lower Court for execution of the decree for costs against the surety. On the 9th June last the lower Court rejected their application, holding that, under the law as then laid down by the Civil Procedure Code, the security bond could not be enforced by means of execution of the decree, and that the judgment-creditors must have recourse to a fresh suit against the surety. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›