Kolkata Court November 1891 Judgments
Bhupendro NaraIn Dutt and ors. Vs. Debendro Kumar Bundopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal182
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.1. We agree with the referring Bench that the present application does not come within the scope of Section 158 of the Tenancy Act, and we think the application should have been rejected, and that the present appeal must be allowed on that ground.2. Upon the statements contained in the petition as recited in the order of reference, it is, we think, clear that the petitioners assert that no tenancy in fact existed between themselves and the opposite party at and before the date of the petition, and the admission of a tenancy, we think, merely amounts to an expression of willingness on their part that a tenancy should now be treated as existing, in order to give jurisdiction under Section 158, and so to enable them to remove the opposite party from the land. This admission does not, in our opinion, bring the case within the meaning of the section; the object of which is to enable the Court to ascertain what are the incidents of the existing arrangements betwee...
Tag this Judgment!Matungini Gupta Vs. Ram Rutton Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal289
Petheram, C.J.1. The question submitted for the opinion of this Bench, as stated by Mr. Justice WILSON, is as follows:In this case a Hindu widow inherited the property of her husband, taking therein the estate of a Hindu widow. She afterwards married a second husband, not a Hindu, in the form provided by Act III of 1872, having first made a declaration, as required by Section 10 of the Act, that she was not a Hindu. The question is whether, by that marriage, she forfeited her interest in her first husband's estate in favour of the next heir.2. I think that the decision in Gopal Singh v. Dhungazee 3 W.R. 306 is wrong, and I agree with the learned Judges who referred the question that it must be answered in the affirmative. It is, I think, concluded by Section 2 of the Hindu Widow's Marriage Act, XV of 1856, and I do not think it necessary to express any opinion on the other points which have been mentioned in argument and which are discussed in the judgment of the Judges who constituted...
Tag this Judgment!Puran Chand and ors. Vs. Roy Radha Kishen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal132
W. Comer Petheram, C.J., Prinsep, Pigot, O'Kinealy and Ghosh, JJ.1. It appears that the appellants in this case obtained a decree on the 31st May 1884 for possession of certain lands, with a direction that the amount of mesne profits should he ascertained in execution of the decree. An application for execution was made on the 22nd June 1886 in regard to the immoveable property. It was renewed on the 27th May 1887, and on the 17th of August of that year, possession of the real property was delivered to the appellants. The costs of the suit were also realized. In the applications of June 1886 and May 1887, the appellants also asked that the mesne profits might be ascertained according to the direction in the decree. Another application to the same effect was made on the 3rd August 1889 and was met by the objection that no mesne profits had been awarded by the decree. This objection was overruled, and, on the 19th July 1890, the decree-holders applied to have the mesne profits ascertaine...
Tag this Judgment!Ashutosh Bannerjee Vs. Lukhimoni Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal139
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J., Peinsep, Pigot O'Kinealy and Ghose, JJ.1. In this case a reference has been made to the Full Bench by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice BEVERLEY sitting as a Divisional Bench of this Court, in connection with a decree obtained by the respondent, Srimati Lukhimoni Debya, against the appellant, Ashutosh Bannerjee. It appears that Lukhimoni had sued the appellant, Ashutosh, for maintenance. The litigation was carried up to the High Court, and, on the 4th January 1889, a decree was entered up by consent in the following terms: 'It is ordered and declared by consent of parties that the decree of the lower Court be, and it hereby is, set aside, and, in lieu thereof, that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 do pay, out of the estate of the late husband of the plaintiff, Rs. 2,000 on account of maintenance from September 1882 to December 1885, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from the date of the lower Court's decree until payment; and it is further orde...
Tag this Judgment!A.B. Miller Vs. the National Bank of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal146
Trevrlyan, J.1. This case depends upon how far the defendant Bank can make use of the provisions of Section 39 of the Insolvent Act.2. Although the written statement raises a question of banker's lien, no question of lien arises or has been argued before me. The determination of this case in no way depends upon any peculiar law incident to banking.3. The Official Assignee of the Insolvent branch of this Court as assignee of the insolvent estate of Leo Zander and Company is suing to recover the balance of that firm's current account with the defendant Bank at the time of the vesting order.4. The Bank contends that it is entitled to set off the amount of 12 bills drawn in their favour by the insolvents, and not accepted by the persons on whom they were drawn. Of these 12 bills, 8 were dishonoured by non-acceptance before the date of the vesting order. The remaining four were dishonoured after that date. There is no conflict of fact in this case. These bills were all drawn against shipmen...
Tag this Judgment!Lalessor Babui and ors. Vs. Janki Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal615
Prinsep and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. The plaintiffs obtained a decree for possession of certain immoveable property on the 25th May 1888. They have not yet executed that decree or taken possession, but fearing that a portion of their claim for mesne profits would become barred, they, on the 26th June 1888, brought this suit for mesne profits for the years 1292 to 1295 Fusli.2. The District Judge has dismissed the claim for mesne profits for the period antecedent to the date of the institution of the suit for recovery of possession, and has, in this respect, modified the decree of the Court of First Instance in favour of the plaintiffs. He relies upon the cases of Venkoba v. Subbana I.L.R. 11 Mad., 151 and Lalji Mal v. Hulasi. I.L.R. 3 All. 660 for holding that a portion of the claim for mesne profits is barred by the operation of Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code.3. The question raised before us, therefore, is whether a person suing for recovery of immoveable property and entitled at that...
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Chandra Bhuttacharjee Vs. Carr Stephen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal127
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This was a rule which was obtained for the purpose of revising an order of the District Magistrate of Mymensingh, dated the 15th September in this year, and which, on its face, professed to be made under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The order was an order forbidding a person who claimed an interest in certain properties from collecting any rent from the raiyats on the properties; and the only question which it appears to us necessary to decide is whether such an order can be made under that section at all.3. The section appears in the chapter which' is headed 'Temporary Orders in Urgent Cases of Nuisances,' and reading the whole chapter we think it clear that it relates to interference or dealing of some kind with the land itself or with something erected or standing upon it; and the section is directed to the prevention or direction by prompt order of some definite act on the part of an individual so that injury or nuisance may not be caus...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Baburam Kansari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal190
Norris and Beverley, JJ.1. In this case we think that the prisoner must be acquitted and discharged. He was tried upon a charge framed under Section 413 of the Indian Penal Code of habitually dealing in stolen goods, and has been unanimously acquitted by the Jury.2. The very essence of that offence, as was pointed out by the learned Judges who set aside the former conviction of the prisoner, he having been previously tried and convicted, and directed him to be re-tried, is the habitual, that is to say, constant, receipt of or dealing in goods which the prisoner knew or had reason to believe were stolen.3. There is no evidence on the record to show that the goods which are alleged to have been stolen, assuming them to have been stolen, and assuming that their identity has been satisfactorily established, were received on different occasions. There is some evidence, indeed, namely, the prisoner's own admission, to show that the goods were received from various persons. And not only is th...
Tag this Judgment!Ferasat and ors. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-09-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal105
Beverley and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of the first of the trials in connection with the riot that took place in the northern part of the town of Calcutta last May. In that trial the eight appellants were convicted by a jury of various offences, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, as set out below. The names of the eight appellants are--1. Shaik Ferasat.2. Shaik Ismail.3. Shaik Masand.4. Shaik Hisabul.5. Shaik Manir Khan.6. Shaik Abdul.7. Shaik Jan.8. Shaik Shairu.2. In the first place all the appellants have been convicted of rioting, being armed with deadly weapons, and under Section 148 of the Penal Code have been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment for that offence. In the next place they have all been found guilty of assaulting and obstructing the police when endeavouring to suppress the riot, and, under Section 152 of the Penal Code they have all (with the exception of Shairu) been sentenced to an additional term of two years' imprisonment fo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›