Kolkata Court September 1891 Judgments
Badal Aurat and anr. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal79
Ameer Ali, J.1. In this case the first prisoner has been convicted under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and the second under Section 494/114, and they have been sentenced to three months and six months rigorous imprisonment respectively. The facts of the case are shortly these:The girl Badal, when only five years old, is alleged to have been given in marriage by her mother, Atar, to the complainant. Before the girl had attained puberty, the complainant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of four years and six months and whilst he was in jail the girl attained puberty and married the second prisoner. The Judge and assessors find that the second prisoner was aware of the first marriage with the complainant, and they have accordingly convicted the two accused as mentioned above.2. This is not a case involving a question as to the legitimacy of a child or the validity of a marriage contracted by two adult persons where a legal union may be presumed from continued relationship or...
Tag this Judgment!Jibanti Nath Khan and Hemandri Nath Khan, Minor, by His Mother and Nex ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal760
Pigot and Banerjee, J.1. In this case we think the District Judge was right in holding that as to the claim in respect of 1292 and 1293 the suit is barred.2. When the infant was first made a party-defendant, he was made a party in violation of the rule applied in the case of Dwarka Nath Mitter v. Tara Prosunna Roy I.L.R. 17 Cal. 160 cited before us and the suit was not properly brought. When he was made a party-plaintiff the claim in respect of 1292 and 1293 was barred. It is not necessary to decide whether, if the suit in its original form had been properly framed, the change of the infant from a defendant into a plaintiff would have been in violation of the Limitation Act. Perhaps not. But he was not properly on the record at all; and when he was made a plaintiff, after the claim had been barred, the effect of doing this was practically to institute a new suit. This was an attempt to evade the Limitation Act; it cannot be done; and as to the claim in respect of 1292 and 1293, the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Sham Kuar Vs. Mohanunda Sahoy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal301
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Shahabad rejecting an application to appoint a guardian in respect of the property of a minor, who is a member of a joint and undivided Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law. The minor in question is the youngest of four brothers; the eldest of whom has, since the death of their father in 1886, been managing the entire joint family property. Admittedly the minor has no separate property. The Judge in the Court below has held that Act VIII of 1890 (the Guardians and Wards Act) does not contemplate or authorize the appointment of a guardian in respect of the property of such a minor. And the sole question is whether that view is correct. It is not denied that under Act XL of 1858 it has been uniformly held in this Court that no guardian could be appointed in respect of the property of a minor member of a joint Mitakshara family, owning no separate estate. The learned Judge has referred to and relied on those ...
Tag this Judgment!Bindu Bashini Dasi Vs. Peari Mohun Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1891
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal107
Pigot and Banerjee, JJ.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, who is a fractional co-sharer in the superior tenure, is entitled to maintain this suit for rent in respect of her share under the terms of the lease by which the tenancy was created.2. The lease provides as follows:After the land in question is fully brought under cultivation you shall pay rent without default, according to kists, year after year, as per measurement and jamabandi, at the said rate of Company's 10 annas and 10 gundas for the quantity of land that will be left after deducting beds of khals, pasture lands, lands unfit for cultivation, places of worship, hajats, pujai basha batis, and your remuneration for reclamation upon measurement of all the lands by the standard rod used in the abads of the said taluk. On no account shall any larger amount be demanded.3. This shows that after the land in question is fully brought under cultivation there shall be a measurement and an adjustment of t...
Tag this Judgment!Banku Behari Bose and anr. Vs. Dwarka Nath Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal651
Pigot, J.1. Defendant No. 2 had a sixth share in a jama, comprising; 9 bighas 9 cottahs of land.2. Defendant No. 4 obtained a decree against defendant No. 2 and another person in the Court of the Second Munsif of Bagirhat on the 3rd November 1884 for Rs. 268-12-0, and on 6th August 1887 sold that decree to the plaintiff.3. On 8th August 1887 the plaintiff applied in that Court for execution of his decree. The property in question in this, suit was attached on 5th September 1887, was sold in execution on 20th October 1887, and was bought at the sale by the plaintiff.4. Defendant No. 3 obtained a decree against defendant No. 2 and another person in the Court of the First Munsif of Bagirhat on 6th May 1875. That decree was purchased by defendant No. 1 in January or February 1887. In execution of this decree the property in question in this suit was attached. The order for attachment was made on 16th July 1887, and the property was actually attached on the 28th July 1887, an objection put ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chunder Chuckrabutty Vs. Giridhur Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal755
Pigot and Banerjee, J.1. The only question raised in this case is whether the plaintiff who is a fractional shareholder in the superior tenure, in separate receipt of rent from the tenant-defendant in respect of his share, is entitled to maintain this suit for arrears of rent in accordance with the terms of a kabuliyat executed by the predecessor of the defendant. The First Court decided the question in favour of the plaintiff, but the Lower Appellate Court has reversed that decision.2. It is contended before us, on behalf of the plaintiff, that this is not a suit for enhancement in the ordinary sense of the term, nor even is it a suit for additional rent for land found in possession of the tenant in excess of what he was paying rent for, but it is a suit for arrears of rent under the terms of the kabuliyat, at the original rate specified in that document in respect of the land demised, part of which was left unassessed at the time by reason of its not being then culturable; and that, ...
Tag this Judgment!Golak Nath Roy Chowdhry Vs. Mathura Nath Roy Chowdhry, on His Death Hi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1891
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal273
Pigot and Banerjee, JJ.1. This is a suit for possession of a piece of land, which was leased in osathowla by plaintiff's father to Boikant Nath Saha Roy, whose executor the 3rd defendant is. The osathowla was sold in execution of a decree against Boikant in January 1887 shortly after Boikant's death, and the plaintiff's case is that thereby by reason of the terms of the lease the auction-purchaser and his principal defendants 2 and 1 got nothing, and this suit is brought to eject them; no relief is expressly asked for against the executor.2. The lease, addressed to Boikant in the usual manner, is by Sri Nath Roy, and commences thus: 'I*** do execute this osathowladari putta without the power of disposing of the property of the patta, either by sale, gift or transfer to the effect following':It recites: 'You have applied to me for an osathowladari patta of the said house in order to dwell therein without the power of transferring the said house either by sale or gift.' 'According to you...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›