Kolkata Court April 1890 Judgments
Nil Madhab Sikdar and ors. Vs. Narattam Sikdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal826
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Rampini, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs are tenure-holders, and they seek to eject the defendants from some bastu land which was leased by the plaintiff's predecessors in the tenure to one Jai Chandra Kundu by a registered lease on the 9th Joisto 1282 or 22nd May 1875. The lease is a permanent and maurasi one at a fixed rent of Rs. 2-8 per annum, and in the kabuliyat executed by Jai Chandra Kundu there is a clause by which he stipulates that he will not transfer in writing in any way to any person the aforesaid bati (or homestead land), adding-' If I do so, it (i. e., the transfer) shall become void.' The land was, however, in 1879 sold in execution of a decree obtained against Jai Chandra Kundu, and the defendants then purchased it and have since then been in occupation of it. The plaintiffs accordingly contend that the covenant in the lease restraining the lessee from alienation has been broken, and that they are therefore entitled to re-enter and eject ...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Narayan Rai Vs. the Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal862
Macpherson and Hill, JJ.1. The prisoner has been convicted of the murder of Mahabir Rai on the evidence of a Sub-Deputy Magistrate who deposes to a confession which the prisoner made. His evidence is this-' He (the prisoner) told me that he had killed a man named Mahabir, because Mahabir had admitted to the Magistrate that he had killed his (the prisoner's) father Suroop. He said he had cut the throat of Mahabir in the night with a qharasa as he slept on a bed. He pointed out the gharasa, which lay on the ground in front of him.'2. There is no other proof against the prisoner, as the direct evidence which implicated him was disbelieved by the Judge, who says it was not relied on by the prosecution, that he has no manner of doubt it is manufactured, and that the murderer, whoever he was, got clear off without any sort of detection, the prisoner being afterwards denounced on mere suspicion. There is, however, evidence that the prisoner's father had been killed in a riot which took place ...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh NaraIn Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Gopal Chunder Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal695
Norris and Macpherson, JJ.1. This is a suit under the Bengal Tenancy Act to enhance the rent of the tenant defendant, and to obtain additional rent for land which he is said to hold in excess of the area for which rent has been previously paid by him.2. The plaintiffs are the proprietors of an eight-annas share of the mehal to which the holding of the defendant appertains, and the defendants 2 and 3 are proprietors of the remaining eight annas.3. The plaint sets out that the plaintiff's and the co-sharer defendants are in joint possession by making separate collections; that the tenant defendant is in possession of a temporary ryotty jote of 218 bighas 15 cottahs at a variable rent of Rs. 95-7, which jote is recorded in the name of his father in the sheristah of the plaintiffs and of their co-sharers; that the land which the defendant really holds amounts to 242 bighas 1 chattack; that they are entitled to rent for the excess area and to enhanced rent for the land in the holding, the g...
Tag this Judgment!Romesh Chunder Sannyal Vs. Hiru Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal852
Norris, J.1. The facts of this case are as follows:At the ceremony of the Adya Sradha of the mother of Raja Jogendra Nath Rai of Nattore, which was performed about twenty months ago, a bull was dedicated and set at large after being branded on the hind part. After the dedication and setting at large the Rajbari cowherd tended the bull under the supervision of the Rajbari sirdar; he gave it a seer of rice a day and used to drive it away if he found it eating any one's crops. The bull was used by the villagers for breeding purposes, and there is some evidence to show that it was not so used without permission having been obtained from the Rajbari. Some eighteen months after the bull had been so dedicated and set at liberty, Hiru Mondal, and Modhu Mondal, both Mahomedans, with others killed it. The killing took place at night in a straw-field some distance from the village, and was not witnessed by any Hindu.2. Information of the slaughter of the bull reaching the Rajbari, a complaint was...
Tag this Judgment!Makhan Lal Adya Vs. Boidya Nath Adya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal681
Banerjee, J.1. This appeal and these rules arise out of an application by one Makhan Lal Adya for the appointment of a Receiver to take charge of certain properties, moveable and immoveable, which form the subject-matter of a suit for partition instituted by him against his co-sharers in the Court of the Third Subordinate Judge of Hughli. The suit was valued at Rs. 4,200, but defendants urged in both the Courts below, and stated in the affidavit upon which the Rule No. 8 of 1890 was granted, that the value of the property claimed was considerably over Rs. 5,000, and the correctness of this statement is not questioned before us.2. The Subordinate Judge rejected the application. On appeal by the plaintiff, the District Judge has reversed the order of the Subordinate Judge, and held that a Receiver should be appointed.3. Against that decision the defendants have come up to this Court by way of appeal and also by way of motion upon which the above mentioned Rule No. 8 of 1890 has been gran...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra Ghose Vs. the Bally Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal684
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Clause 5, Section 217, Bengal Act III, 1884, of obstructing a road. This road is nothing more than a path, but it has been found that the public have a right of way over it. The contention before us is that the conviction is bad, because the road referred to in the clause above mentioned means only a road which is vested in the Municipality, and that this road was not so vested. In the Act a road is defined to be 'any road, street * * or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not, over which the public have a right of way.' Section 30 enacts that all roads (not being private property and not being maintained by Government or at the public expense) shall vest in and belong to the Commissioners. We see no ground for holding that the word 'road' in Clause 5 of Section 217 is limited to roads vested in the Municipality, and does not include all roads within the definition given in the Act. There is nothing in the context wh...
Tag this Judgment!Gokhul Sahu and ors. Vs. Jodu Nundun Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal721
Pigot and Beverley, JJ.1. These appeals raise a very important question under the Bengal Tenancy Act, and it is to be regretted that the facts out of which they arise are not more fully before us.2. It would appear, however, that under the provisions of chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act a measurement was made and a record of rights prepared in respect of a certain local area within which the land in suit is situated. The terms of the order made under Section 101 of the Act and the particulars specified therein in accordance with Section 102 are not on the record; but it is admitted that one party (whom we shall call the Boys) claimed this land as rent-paying land appertaining to their estate, while the other party (whom we may call the Sahus) claimed it as their rent-free brohmutter land. This dispute having been enquired into by the Revenue Officer under Sections 106 and 107 of the Act, he decided that the land was mat land and liable to pay rent.3. Against this decision the Sahus a...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Mondul and ors. Vs. Mohendro NaraIn Chaturaj and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal769
Pigot, J.1. The cases of Brojo Gnpal Sarkar v. Basirunnissa Bibi I.L.R. 15 Cal. 179, and Gobind Chundra Majumdar v. Uma Charan Sen I.L.R. 14 Cal. 679 are relied on by the Suhordinate Judge as inconsistent with the previous decision of this Court mentioned in the reference. They are, in effect, liable to the interpretation put upon them by the Subordinate Judge, although not professing to overrule it; and for that reason, although the case may be disposed of without deciding upon that inconsistency, it is proper to deal with the questions put to us.2. Relying upon them, and upon previous decisions mentioned by him, the Subordinate Judge has set aside the sale, holding that the balance of authority is in favour of the suit being maintainable, though the execution-creditor may be the purchaser.3. The question is of greab importance, and ought, I think, to be determined in this reference. As to the first question, my opinion is as follows: When circumstances affecting the validity of a sal...
Tag this Judgment!Rajonimoni Dasi for Self and as Mother and Next Friend of Jagohundo Dh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal675
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Banerjee, J.1. The minor plaintiffs then being out of the record, the next question that arises is, whether the widow is entitled to the maintenance that has been decreed in her favour. Upon that question the finding arrived at is that she was leading an unchaste life at the date of the suit, and it is contended on behalf of the defendant, appellant, that whatever may be the rights of a Hindu widow who has taken one false step in her life but has afterwards repented, a Hindu widow who is actually leading an unchaste life is not entitled to maintenance of any sort, as against the heirs of her late husband, or those who represent his estate. On the other hand, it is contended for the respondent that if a widow is not unchaste at the date of her husband's death and becomes subsequently unchaste, the right to claim maintenance having once accrued, she is not divested of that right by her subsequent unchastity; and in support of this position the rule laid down i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›