Kolkata Court January 1890 Judgments
Hurri Churn Mozoomdar Vs. Ahsanulla Khan Bahadoor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal474
Norris and Macpherson, JJ.1. The Subordinate Judge upon a consideration of the whole of the evidence gave the plaintiff a decree setting aside the sale. And his judgment is based upon the ground that the notice required to be published in the mofussil upon the land or at the kutcheri of the defaulting putnidar was not, as a matter of fact duly published.2. Against that decision the defendant has appealed to this Court. I shall presently consider the judgment of the Subordinate Judge and the evidence which has been given by the defendant to prove the due publication of the notice in the mofussil. But whilst we are of opinion that the view taken by the Subordinate Judge of that evidence is not correct, we are still obliged to arrive at the conclusion that this decree must be upheld, upon a ground to which I shall presently refer. It will be convenient probably in the first place to deal with the points which were argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent, Mr, Woodroffe, in support...
Tag this Judgment!Lutf Ali Khan Vs. Asgur Reza and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal455
Wilson and Pigot, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order made by Mr. Justice Chunder Madhub Ghose, granting a certificate to the respondent to the effect that the case is a proper one for appeal to the Privy Council. Mr. Woodroffe has raised a preliminary objection that such an appeal does not lie to us has been decided in three cases that that is so. It was decided, first, in the case of Mowla Buksh v. Kishen Pertab Sahi I.L.R. 1 Cal. 102 by Mr. Justice Macpherson and Mr. Justice Jackson. The same view was taken by Chief Justice Garth and Mr. Justice Ainslie in the case of Amirrunnessa v. Behary Lall 25 W.R. 529, and again by Sir Richard Garth and Mr. Justice Mcdonell in the case of Manly v. Patterson I.L.R. 7 Cal. 339; and I may observe that the last decision was given with a full knowledge of the decision in this Court of a case on which reliance bad been placed, the case of In re Rally Soondery Dabia I.L.R. 6 Cal. 594.2. These decisions are binding upon us and we have not been as...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen-empress Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Bit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal485
O'Kinealy and Trevelyan, JJ.1. In this case Bibhuti Bhusan Bit was charged before the Sessions Judge of Bankura with having committed an offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and was acquitted. Against that acquittal the Government have now appealed, and it remains for us to determine whether the judgment arrived at by the Court below ought to be reversed or not, Some cases have been cited before us by the learned Counsel who appeared for Bibhuti Bhusan Bit in this Court, and he has argued upon the strength of them, that this Court should not interfere with an acquittal by a lower Court unless the judgment of that Court was manifestly absurd or perverse.2. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure the Government have the same right of appeal against an acquittal as a person convicted has to appeal against his conviction and sentence. There is no distinction made in that Code as to the mode of procedure which governs the two sorts of appeals, or as to the principles u...
Tag this Judgment!Okhoy Coomar Bonnerjee Vs. Koylosh Chundor Ghosai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal388
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is a reference from the Small Cause Court in a case in which two Judges of that Court have differed. The suit was a suit in which the plaint was in these words: The plaintiff states that one Durgamoney Dassee, late of so and so, duly made her last will, dated 28th August 1887, and codicil, dated 3rd December 1887, and thereof appointed the defendants abovenamed executors, and by such will bequeathed to the plaintiff a legacy of Rs. 300; that probate of the said will was granted by the High Court on 13th January 1888; that the defendants had possessed themselves of the moveable properties of the deceased as also the proceeds of the moveable property, and had not paid-the plaintiff his said legacy though demanded;' and the question which arose for consideration was whether the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to try that suit.2. The jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court, as given by Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Court Act of 1882, is limited by...
Tag this Judgment!Kabuli Vs. Bhuli
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal289
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Pigot, J.1. After the case of Hurrosoondery Dosee v. Kallypoddo Dutt 14 B.L.R. App. 11 had been brought to their notice, dismissed the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Gubboy Vs. Avetoom
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal450
W. Comer Petheram, Knight, C.J.1. The faces of this case sufficiently appear from the judgment of the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court in the reference which has been sent up to us, and it is not necessary to re-state them here, and the argument on the law is also very fully dealt with, so it is not necessary for us to say very much. The point which war-; most pressed before us by the learned Counsel for the defendant was that this contract on the face of it shows that the presumption which arises under the Contract Act is rebutted in this case, because it is said that from the words of the contract itself it was not intended that the broker should himself be liable. The case of Soopromonian Setty v. Hcilgers J.L.R. 5 Cal. 71, decided by Mr. Justice Wilson, shows that the presumption which arises under Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act may be rebutted, and with that, view we entirely agree; but the, question here is whether that presumption has been rebutted in this case. It...
Tag this Judgment!Bhubun Mohun Biswas Vs. Beni Madhub Chuckerbutty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal393
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Tottenham, JJ.1. This was a suit brought by a ryot to recover four bighas of land of which he had been dispossessed by his landlord, the putnidar, and in which he claimed a right of occupancy by virtue of more than twelve years' continuous holding.2. It was the case of both parties that the land had been held under the utbundi system; and the landlord's defence included these two points: first, that the land in question was part; of his khamar lands held from year to year, in which, by Section 116 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, no right of occupancy can accrue; and secondly, that, if the land was not khamar, the plaintiff, an utbundi ryot, had never held it for twelve years continuously, and therefore had not acquired in it any right of occupancy.3. The first point is settled by the finding that the land is not khamar; and with that finding there is no ground for interference in a second appeal. As to the second point, the Court has found that the plaintiff's po...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Sook and anr. Vs. Dhurum Chand and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal321
W. Comer Petheram, Knight, C.J.1. This is a reference from the Small Cause Court upon which a question of law arises. The suit was a suit brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants to recover the price of six bales of twist at the rate of Rs. 10-15 a bundle.2. The defendants paid into Court a sum of money calculated at the rate of Rs. 9-15 a bundle, and the question between the parties was, what was the sum which, according to the contract between them, the defendants were to pay the plaintiffs for these goods, it being admitted that they had received them.3. The goods were sold by the plaintiffs to the defendants under a written contract (here followed the contract above set out, ante p. 320).4. After that contract had been entered into, it appears that the defendants resold these parcels of goods in the Calcutta market to some other dealer, and the person to whom the defendants sold them, I believe, though that fact is not material to the decision of this case, resold them agai...
Tag this Judgment!Hilliard Vs. Mitchell
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal324
Wilson, J.1. This is a petition by a husband for a decree of nullity of marriage, on the ground that the parties to the marriage are within the prohibited degrees of affinity. The marriage was duly proved; and it was proved that the petitioner had been formerly married to an illegitimate sister, since deceased, of the second wife.2. The petitioner was born in England, of parents having an English or Irish domicile, and he is and has always been a member of the Church of England. He came to this country, he thinks, in 1867, as assistant in a shop in Calcutta. He has now no intention of ever returning to England; but what his domicile was at the date of the marriage, in 1871, is not clear, nor is it, I think, material to determine it. Upon any view, I think, the decree asked for must be made.3. If the domicile of the petitioner was English, the English law of prohibited degrees was applicable to his marriage, and under that law, this was a prohibited marriage. If the petitioner's domicil...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›