Kolkata Court May 1890 Judgments
Satis Chunder Mukhopadhya, Minor, Through His Guardian, Patu Mondul Vs ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal849
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. It is contended before us that neither the certificate of guardianship nor the horoscope upon which the District Judge relies, and upon which alone he relies, is evidence in this case for the plaintiff at all.2. We think that this contention is well founded, and that neither of those documents is evidence. And first as to the certificate of guardianship. A certificate of guardianship is a document which is issued to a person appointing him the guardian of a certain person on the ground that that person is a minor, and it is said that the document is evidence of the age of that person under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. It is only necessary to read Section 35 to see that it is nothing of the kind. That section relates to entries made in public or official books, registers, or records, which are kept in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country. This certificate is neither a book nor a register, nor a record kept by any officer in ...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Kader Syud HossaIn Ali Vs. Gobind Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal840
Wilson J.1. The plaintiff in this suit seeks to recover a plot of land and sets out his alleged title to it in the plaint. The defendant, in answer, relies upon the law of limitation as a bar to the plaintiff's claim and also asserts a title in himself, the particulars of which are given in the written statement. The plaintiff obtained leave to interrogate the defendant, and filed his interrogatories accordingly. The defendant, by his affidavit, answered certain of the interrogatories, and objected to others as being questions which he was not bound to answer. Those objected to are the second, part of the third, part of the fifth, the sixth, seventh, eighth, and eleventh. The matter comes before us on a summons taken out by the plaintiff to consider the sufficiency of the answers. And the question is whether the defendant is bound to answer the interrogatories to which he has objected. As to some of these interrogatories it was admitted by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the...
Tag this Judgment!Nursing Chunder Dawn Vs. Nuffer Chunder Dutt and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal832
Wilson, J.1. The defendants have applied for an order directing that the arbitrators appointed to decide the mattera in difference in this suit should give up certain documents which came to their hands as arbitrators.2. The order of reference was made on the 6th December 1888. It prescribed a time, with a limited power of extension by the arbitrators, for the arbitrators to make and file their award, 'together with all proceedings, depositions and exhibits.' The Registrar was by the same order directed to deliver over to the arbitrators the original records of the suit. By another order of the Court the time for making an award was extended beyond the period to which the arbitrators could have extended it. Ultimately the extended period expired without any award being made, and the parties have since settled their differences amicably. There remain in the hands of the arbitrators certain documents filed as exhibits while the arbitration proceedings were pending. They do not and could ...
Tag this Judgment!Rubiun-nessa Vs. Gooljan Bibee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal829
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is a suit which was brought in consequence of money having been paid into Court by a tenant under Section 149 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. One of the defendants to the present suit sued a ryot to recover some rent. The ryot stated that the rent was claimed by the present plaintiff, and paid the amount into Court under Section 149. When that was done, the plaintiff brought the present suit against the defendants to establish her right to the land in respect of which she said that the rent was payable to her.2. The matter came before the Munsif. He went into the matter and decreed the plaintiff's claim. The defendants appealed to the Subordinate Judge, and the Subordinate Judge has dismissed the plaintiff's suit, not because he found that the plaintiff was not entitled to the rent as an incident to the title to the land, but because ho says you have not proved that you had been in possession in the sense that you were getting this rent from these tenants for ...
Tag this Judgment!Tarini Churn Sinha and anr. Vs. Watson and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal963
Ameer Ali, J.1. The point involved in this appeal is whether a right of jalkar in a public navigable river can exist apart from the right to the bed of the river, or must it necessarily follow that right. Both these questions have been raised and discussed in other cases; still they are of some difficulty. The facts of the case are these: The river Howlia, which is a public navigable river, flowed, prior to 1283, in a certain course; and it seems to have in 1283, or thereabouts, adopted a different channel, and is now running over a portion of the plaintiffs' land. The plaintiffs sue to establish their jalkar right over that portion of the river which flows over their land. Admittedly, the defendants have a jalkar right by grant from Government over this river within certain specified limits; and there is no question that the jalkar, which is claimed by the plaintiffs, falls within that limit; it is also undisputed that the river in its. present channel is a public and navigable river....
Tag this Judgment!Koylashpoti NaraIn Singh Vs. Salimatul-fatima Alias Bibi Hossaini
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal904
Pigot and Gordon, JJ.1. Upon the question raised as to the proof of the execution of the power-of-attorney, it is clear, and is. indeed admitted, that the respondents' case rests alone upon the fact of registration. There is no proof unless that be proof. And as to the sufficiency of this, a note in the case of Kristo Nath Koondoo v. Brown I.L.R. 14 Cal. 176, at p. 180, a ruling by Trevelyan, J., is relied on, as showing that registration of such a document is enough without further proof of execution. It is relied on very properly in the judgment of the District Judge, and was referred to, but without any argument or attempt to explain it, by the learned Counsel for the respondents. It is unnecessary to say that a reported decision of the learned Judge on the Original Side after argument must be treated as an authority of importance. But we do not think that the note in question is one by which we should be guided. There is no report of either argument or judgment; as the note appears...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Shyam Sircar Vs. Joy Ram Senapati and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal896
Prinsep and Rampini, JJ.1. The plaintiffs are the purchasers of an 8 annas share in certain property from the defendants Nos. 4 and 5, who, together with the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, inherited the entire property as heirs of Joy Narain Ghose on the death of his widow Avimani Dasi.2. It appears that Avimani Dasi sold an 8-annas share to the defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs' vendors, who ordinarily would inherit an 8-annas share of the estate of Joy Narain Ghose, are found by both the lower Courts to have never been in possession of their share. Since Avimani's death it has been held by defendant No. 1 in respect of the half-share bought by him, and by defendants Nos 2 and 3 in respect of the remainder by right of inheritance. The plaintiffs now sue to recover possession as against the defendant No. 1, the purchaser from Avimani, and the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who were co-heirs with their vendors, and are charged with having colluded with the defendant No. 1 in keeping the plaintiffs ou...
Tag this Judgment!Stephen Vs. Stephen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal571
Wilson, J.1. In this case I shall follow the view of the law taken in the Bombay High Court in King v. King I.L.R. 6 Bom. 416. The result will be that the affidavits filed by the respondent and others in this matter will be put up with the record of the suit. Following the Bombay case, I shall not, when the matter comes on for the decree to be made absolute, allow the respondent to be heard; but, as in the Bombay case, information will be given to the attorney for the petitioner that the decree will not be made absolute till the matters set out in the affidavits alleging collusion have been cleared up. She may take what course she may be advised for the purpose of clearing up the matters alleged in the affidavits on that subject....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›