Kolkata Court August 1891 Judgments

Niloomal Pramanick and ors. Vs. Kamini Koomar Basu

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal269

Pigot and Banerjee, JJ.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiffs for possession of some land on the allegation that the same was mortgaged by the defendant's father on the 20th Assar 1256 (corresponding with some time in July 1849) to the predecessor of the plaintiffs by way of conditional sale by a deed which was drawn up as a deed of out-and-out sale, that the mortgagor made payments on various dates down to 1282 or 1875, that foreclosure proceedings were thereafter instituted and the mortgage foreclosed in Joist 1284 or May 1877, and that the plaintiffs were consequently entitled to possession. The defendant pleaded limitation, denied the mortgarge, and the regularity of the foreclosure proceedings, and raised other objections not necessary to be considered now.2. The first Court found for the plaintiffs and gave them a decree for possession in default of the defendant to pay off the mortgage debt with interest within six months from the date of the decree.3. On appeal by the def...

Kristo Churn Dass and ors. Vs. Radha Churn Kur

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal750

Pigot and Macpherson, J.1. The respondent obtained a decree against the appellants on March 23rd, 1886. On appeal the decree was modified: the claim for one-third share of the property claimed by the defendants 2 and 4 was dismissed, and the decree for the remaining two-thirds affirmed on the 13th July 1886. On appeal to the High Court the appeal was dismissed on June 16th, 1887.2. In this appeal all the defendants were made respondents, and not merely those in respect of whose one-third claim the plaintiff's suit had been dismissed.3. The plaintiff decree-holder now seeks for execution of the decree to the extent of a two-thirds share of the property and costs. Judgment-debtors Nos. 1 and 5 object that execution is barred because not applied for within three years from the date of the order of the Lower Appellate Court of the 13th July 1886. The Courts below have both rejected this objection and the defendants appeal.4. They rely on the principle laid down in the case of Wise v. Rajna...

H.H. the Nizam of Hyderabad Vs. A.M. Jacob

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal52

Beverley, J.1. 'This was a rule obtained by the Advocate-General in the case of His Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad v. Alexander Malcolm Jacob now under enquiry by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, calling upon the Magistrate to show cause why a certain order of his, by which he refused to direct the production in his Court of certain currency notes, &c;, should not be set aside, and why an order should not be now made for their production. [His Lordship here stated the facts out of which the application arose.] It appears that on the 17th instant it was elicited from a witness in cross-examination that fifteen out of these seventeen notes had been produced by Jacob and his solicitor at the Bank that very morning for identification, for what purpose is not very clear nor very material. Upon this fact coming out in evidence, viz., that Jacob still had in his possession fifteen of the notes for Rs. 10,000 which were paid to him on the 27th July, an application was made to the Magistrate f...

Sukurmoni (Widow of Bhupal) and anr. Vs. Kirpal NaraIn Tewari

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal91

Tottenham and Ghose, JJ.1. One Sheodyal Sahu died many years ago, leaving two sons by a lawfully married wife, viz., Nund Lal Sahu (now dead) and Bhupal Sahu, the plaintiff No. 1, and a third son, Doma Sahu, the defendant No. 1, who, it is alleged, was born of a concubine. He owned a certain mocurruree property, mouzah Jhari, and it was a dispute which took place between the parties in 1887 as regards the possession of the said property that led to the institution of this suit.2. The main question which was discussed between the parties in the Courts below was whether Doma Sahu was a legitimate son of Sheodyal, the plaintiff's contending that he was not, while the defendant asserted that he was. There was no contention raised in either of the Lower Courts that, supposing Doma Sahu was illegitimate, he was entitled to a share of the estate left by Sheodyal. That contention, however, has been raised before us and argued at some length.3. Both the Courts below have found as a fact that Do...

Queen-empress Vs. Jogendra Chunder Bose and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal35

W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.1. I shall direct the Jury as to the meaning of the section.2. Mr. Jackson. I submit that it is for the Jury to decide with regard both to law and fact.W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.3. It will be my duty to direct the Jury on the construction of the section.4. Mr. Jackson.-There is no case to go to a Jury under Section 124-A. The offence under that section really consists in writing a seditious libel, and the publishing it or causing it to be published is no offence under the Penal Code. The prosecution admit that they have been unable to discover who is the writer of these articles. The only person liable is the composer of the articles, if Section 124-A be read by the side of Section 499, it will be seen that no mention is made of publication in the former section, and its omission must have been intentional, as the framers of the law had already the defamation section before them. In England, under Lord Campbell's Act, the publication of the libel itself ha...

Yakutun-nissa Bibee Vs. Kishoree Mohun Roy and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Pigot and Banerjee, J.1. We think this appeal must be dismissed. We need not deal with the case referred to by the District Judge Balkaran Rai v. Gobind Nath Tiwari I.L.R. 12 AIL 129 as to which we say nothing save that it is in some respects not on all fours with the decision f this Court in Syud Ambur Ali v. Kali Chand Doss 24 W.R. 258 but quite apart from that case we think that the present case does not come within either the spirit or the letter of Section 28 of the Court Fees Act. The memorandum of appeal was presented on the last day with an 8-anna stamp, it was received with a memorandum upon it, 'the appeal within time; stamp duty insufficient Rs. 204 odd.' That was on the 24th of May, the last day. On the 27th an endorsement was made upon it, signed by the District Judge, allowing the appellant one week; on the 5th of June there is a further endorsement allowing him a fortnight, and he appears to have paid the full stamp duty on the 13th of June. We think that the District Ju...

Piran Vs. Abdool Karim and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal203

Ameer Ali, J.1. This appeal raises some important questions of Mahomedan law. It appears upon the evidence that the property, which forms the subject-matter of the present suit, has been in the possession of the plaintiff's family from the latter end of the last century; that in the year 1835 it was resumed by Government and settled in 1839 with the plaintiff's mother Hamida. The proceeds of the property appear to have been applied in the maintenance of a shrine or durgah of a saint called Shah Budhan, from whom the plaintiff's family seems to be descended. In 1855 the father of the plaintiff, named, Rahimuddin, who at that time held the office of sajjadanashin or curator of the shrine, made a division of all the family properties among his two sons, Abdur Ruzzack, now deceased, and the plaintiff, and a daughter, named Wasia, expressly reserving the property in suit for the expenses of the durgah. Rahimuddin died in 1856 and was succeeded in the office by Abdur Ruzzack, who, in the yea...

H. Lucas Vs. T. Lucas and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal245

Pigot and Banerjee, JJ. 1. No authority has been shown to us for holding that an order of this kind is appealable on the ground suggested. We find that this Court has directed that the District Judge shall require security to an amount laid down by this Court, the security being such as in his discretion he shall consider sufficient for that amount. It appears to us that it would be in the highest degree inconvenient to treat such an order as has been passed by the Judge as appealable. The India Succession Act provides by Section 263t that orders made by the District Judge shall be subject to appeal to the High Court under the-rules contained in the Code of Civil Procedure so far as these rules are applicable. So far as that section furnishes us with a guide by analogy as to whether this order is appealable or not, the conclusion is that it is not so, because no provision is made by the Code of Civil Procedure for an appeal against an order made, whether in pursuance of the directions ...