Kolkata Court March 1890 Judgments
In Re: Act I of 1879; in Re: Reference from the Board of Revenue Under ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1890
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal499
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.1. The question referred to us by the Board of Revenue is, what is the stamp which an Entrance Certificate under the rules of the Uncovenanted Service Family Pension Fund should bear. By the contract which is evidenced by the document, the person to whom the certificate is issued in consideration of a money payment secures an income after his death for a time to another person, subject to certain contingencies. This is, I think, a contract of assurance, and the document which evidences such a contract is, I think, a life policy, and is within Section 3 and Sub-Section 15 of the Stamp Act. The amount insured is quite uncertain in every case, and it is impossible to predict whether anything, or if anything what, will ever become payable by the Fund under the contract, and the contract cannot, I think, be defined as an insurance for any particular amount, and therefore cannot be for an amount which exceeds Rs. 1,000. That being so and it being an insurance, it ...
Tag this Judgment!Brojendra Coomar Roy Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Debendra Coomar Roy Chowdhr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal887
Tottenham and O'Kinealy, JJ.1. These two appeals have been instituted by the three defendants in the original suit which was brought against them all by the plaintiff for the partition of family property left by his father, who died in January 1875.2. The father was Raj Coomar Roy Chowdhry: the plaintiff is the youngest son: defendant No. 1 was the third son; defendant No. 2 is the son of Raj Coomar's second son, who predeceased him; and defendant No. 3 is Raj Coomar's widow. The eldest son and his son are both dead.3. The matter now in dispute arises out of the provisions of the will of Raj Coomar. and the question is whether the widow, defendant No. 3, is entitled to any share of the estate on the partition now sought. The plaintiff in his plaint did not question her claim to a share, but alleged that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 disputed it. And these defendants have contested it throughout the suit and appeal, while they do not deny her right to maintenance.4. The widow herself clai...
Tag this Judgment!MaizuddIn Biswas and anr. Vs. Krishna Prosad Nag and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal708
Tottenham and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. The question involved in this rule is whether, having regard to the provisions of Article 31 of the second schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Court Act (Act IX of 1887), a suit for damages for the forcible cutting and carrying away of grass is cognizable by the Court of Small Causes. The plaintiffs instituted this suit in the Small Cause Court of Furreedpore upon the allegation that they were the lessees of a piece of land, and that the defendants had wrongfully trespassed on the same and cut and carried away the grass growing thereon.2. The defendants had, among other pleas, raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court, and also denied plaintiffs' title to the land. The Judge, however, found as a fact that the defendants had no sort of connection with the land in question, and that they bad wrongfully taken the grass as alleged in the plaint, and accordingly decreed the plaintiffs' claim. The defendants, thereupon, obtained a rule from a Divi...
Tag this Judgment!ZohiruddIn Sheik Vs. Hamidunnessa Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal670
Banerjee, J.1. This was a suit by a Mahomedan husband for restitution of conjugal rights. The defendant No. 1 amongst other things, which it is not necessary now to consider, urged that the plaintiff was not entitled to succeed, first, because he had entered into a stipulation to live with the defendant, his wife, in the house of her father; and, secondly, because he had not paid the exigible portion of the dower due to the defendant.2. The First Court overruled these objections, and gave the plaintiff a decree which was made conditional, however, as regarded execution, upon payment of the prompt part of the dower. On appeal, the learned District Judge has modified that decree by striking out the condition and making it a decree absolute. In second appeal it is contended on behalf of the defendant, the wife, first, that the Courts below are wrong in giving the plaintiff a decree for restitution of conjugal rights when they ought to have held that he was not entitled to such a decree by...
Tag this Judgment!Mojey and ors. and Sabya Nashyo and ors. Vs. the Queen Empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal606
Norris and Macpherson, JJ.1. In this case the appellant Mojey has been convicted by the Deputy Magistrate of Rungpore of an offence under Section 419, Indian Penal Code, and the appellants Yar Nashyo and Nejebullah of abetment of that offence.2. The first petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months, and the other two to rigorous imprisonment for a month and a half each. On appeal to the Sessions Judge the convictions and sentences were upheld.3. We granted a rule to show cause why the convictions should not be set aside.4. The facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner Mojey falsely pretended to a Registrar appointed under the provisions of Bengal Act I of 1876, 'an Act to provide for the voluntary registration of Mahomedan marriages and divorces,' that he was one Samir, and fraudulently caused the Registrar to register a fictitious deed of divorce, whereby Samir purported to divorce his wife. The other petitioners identified Mojey to the Registrar as Samir w...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chunder Vs. Suddasook Kootary
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal620
Pigot, J.1. The principal questions before us are five:On the part of the appellant it is contended that he ought to have been, allowed, in account with the plaintiff, the sum of Rs. 5,298-1, being the residue of the sum of Rs. 7,273 (after deducting the sum of Rs. 1,975 found to have been actually paid) due by the estate of Teicum Chand to Sara Bibee, the widow of his deceased brother Luchmun Chand, and for which residue of Rs. 5,298-1 he alleged that he had become liable by agreement with her; and he also contends that having succeeded on the reference to the Assistant Registrar, he ought to have been allowed his costs of the reference out of the money in the hands of the receiver, or that, at any rate, he ought not to have been ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of that reference.2. The respondent in his cross objections objects - 1st, that the marriage expenses, Rs. 3,755, of Rookmai ought not to have been allowed; 2nd, that Rs. 2,507 for the shrad of Teicum Chand at Bikaneer was...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Bissessur Sahu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal562
Norris and Macpherson, JJ.1. In this case Kharag Narain Singh and others complained to the District Magistrate under Section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure, against Bissessur Sahu, Ram Sarun Sahu, and Piyar Chand Sahu, alleging that they had obstructed a certain public way by placing bricks and erecting a shed thereon. The District Magistrate ordered a police enquiry to be made. The police reported that Bissessur and Ram Sarun had obstructed a path by a mud wall, the stacking of bricks and the erection of a shed. The District Magistrate thereupon issued an order under Section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure, requiring Bissessur and Ram Sarun to remove the obstructions, or to appear and show cause against such order. The defendants filed written statements; Bissessur denied the existence of the path obstructed; Ram Sarun admitted its existence, but denied having obstructed it.2. The Deputy Magistrate, to whom the case was referred, visited the spot and examined a number of witnesses an...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Harridas San
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal567
ORDERNorris and Macpherson, JJ.1. This case comes before us on a reference from the Sessions Judge of Birbhoom; the facts are as follows:Bama Charan Saha is a licensed retail vendor of spirituous and fermented liquors under Bengal Act VII of 1878, and under the terms of his license he is not allowed to sell a larger quantity of pachwai than four seers. The accused Harridas San is a servant in the employ of Bama Charan Saha. Sriram Jugi went to the shop of Bama Charan and purchased 7 1/4 kutcha (5 seers purxa) of undiluted pachwai. The pachwai was handed to Sriram Jugi by the accused in the presence of his employer and at his (the employer's) request.The police regarding the accused as a partner with Bama Charan reported him (accused) for prosecution for sale of a quantity of pachwai in excess of that permitted to be sold under Bama Charan's license, an offence punishable under Section 60 of the Act, which says, inter alia, that 'every licensed retail vendor who sells by wholesale shall...
Tag this Judgment!Omerto Nauth Mitter Vs. Poreshnath Mookerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal614
W. Comer Pertheram. Kt., C.J. and Pigot, JJ.1. This is an appeal by five out of a numerous body of defendants in an action brought to enforce a charge upon certain estates belonging to all the defendants jointly, and which the, plaintiff contends was created by a deed dated 13th May 1886, executed by Mr. Broughton in the character of receiver, he having been appointed receiver of all the estates in question by an order of this Court dated 18th March 1886, made in two consolidated suits which were then pending between the various defendants to the present suit, for the partition of such estates, and who bad by another order of this Court, dated 6th May 1886, been authorised to raise the sum of Rs. 50,000 on the security of the estates which had been so placed in his hands for the purpose of paying the putni and mourasi rents which had fallen due on 1st May 1886: Neither of the present appellants was seeking partition in either of the two consolidated suits, and the applications upon whi...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Das Bundopadhya Vs. Khetter Chunder Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal557
Banerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the respondent to recover possession of some land. The plaintiff alleged that a portion of the disputed land was his ancestral property; that the remainder, which formed the debutter land of an idol named Sridhar, originally belonging to the defendants family called the Ghoses, was made over along with the idol to the grandfather and the granduncle of the plaintiff by a deed of gift executed by defendant No. 4 and the father of defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in 1254, or 1847, owing to their inability to carry on the worship with the profits of the endowed land; and that the plaintiff's predecessors, and after them the plaintiff', bad ever since been holding the land and performing the worship until 1291, or 1884, when the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants.2. The defendants pleaded limitation, questioned the genuineness and the validity of the deed of gift set up by the plaintiff, and claimed the land in suit as their own.3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »