Kolkata Court December 1892 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Queen-empress Vs. Chandra Bhuiya and 12 ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal537
Prinsep, J.1. This is an appeal from the Sessions Judge of Mymensingh, sitting with assessors. The appellant, Chandra Bhuiya, was convicted of the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Panai Sarkar by means of a dangerous weapon, namely, a gun, an offence punishable under Section 326, Penal Code, and was sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted of the offence of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon, under Section 148, Penal Code, but no further sentence was passed upon him for this offence.2. The other appellants were convicted under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, and each of them was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. They were also convicted of the offence of rioting, being armed with deadly weapons, under Section 148, Penal Code, but no further sentence was passed for this offence.3. The riot arose out of a dispute about some land which was alleged, on the one hand, to be the property of the first appella...
BepIn Behari Bose and ors. Vs. Ali Ahammad Sirdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal595
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Norris, J.1. This was a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 402 as being due from the defendant to the plaintiffs for rent of a holding with cesses and interest.2. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint state the claim as follows:3. That the rent of the said jama from the year 1292 to 1295, together with interest and cesses, amount, as per account given below, to total of Rs. 402, and is justly due to the plaintiff's, and that the defendants have not paid the same even on repeated demands.4. In the disputed mehal it is the practice to pay the rent according to the following instalments, viz., half-anna share of the entire rent in the month of Bysakh, half-anna in Jeit, one anna in Assar, 2 annas 6 gundas in Srabun, 4 annas in Bhadro, half-anna in Assin, half-anna in Kartik, 3 annas 6 gundas in Aughran, 2 annas in Pous, half-anna in Magh, half-anna in Falgun, and the rent is paid accordingly. The cause of action arose at the expiration of each year and at the lapse of eac...
Debkamini Debi and anr. Vs. Barahi Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal682
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Norris, J.1. Rama Nath Goswami, a Hindu governed by the law of the Bengal school, and possessed of considerable property, died on the 12th of October 1884, leaving two sons, Debendro Nath Goswami and Jogendro Nath Goswami and a widow Barahi Debi. Amongst the properties left by him was an undivided two-sixths share in two houses at Barrackpore.2. On the 13th of April 1886, one of the sons, Debendro Nath Goswami, sold and conveyed an equal undivided one-sixth share in these houses to the plaintiff Debkamini Debi. A question was raised whether or not she was a benamidar for her husband; but as he has since been added as a plaintiff, that question is not now material.3. She had before acquired shares in the houses equal to four-sixths, so that after the purchase of April 13th, 1876, she was the owner of the whole sixteen annas, except the undivided one-sixth which had been inherited by Jogendro Nath from his father Rama Nath. On the 16th of September 1889, the p...
Ram Gopal Bysack and ors. Vs. NurumuddIn Alias Noor Mahamed Mundul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal446
Norris and Macpherson, JJ.1. The only question argued in this second appeal by the learned pleader for the appellant is that the Lower Appellate Court has erroneously held that the jalkar right in dispute between the parties in this suit was immoveable property within the meaning of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. We think that the decision is a correct one. We are of opinion that this jalkar right is immoveable property within the definition of immoveable property as set out in the General Clauses Act; that it is a benefit to arise out of land covered by water; and this conclusion we think is justified by the expression of opinion of at least three of the learned Judges who were parties to the Full Bench decision of Badu Jhala v. Gour Mohun Jhala I.L.R. 19 Cal. 544.3. The appeal therefore fails and must be dismissed with costs....
Girish Chunder Kuadu Vs. Maqbul Ahmed Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1892
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal634
Norris and Macpherson, JJ.1. The question that we are called upon to decide in this case is whether a person who has been appointed the manager of an estate under the provisions of Section 95 of the Bengal Tenancy Act must have his name registered under the provisions of Section 78 of the Land Registration Act before he can recover rant due from tenants of the estate of which he has been appointed manager.2. Section 78 of the Land Registration Act says: 'No person shall be bound to pay rent to any person claiming such rent as proprietor or manager of an estate or revenue-free property in respect of which he is required by this Act to cause his name to be registered, or as mortgagee, unless the name of such claimant shall have been registered under this Act.'... In order to see who is required by this Act to cause his name to be registered within the meaning of Section 78, we must go back to Sections 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42, and the material section we have to consider is Section 42, whi...
Futteh NaraIn Chowdhry Vs. Chundrabati ChowdhraIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal551
Ameer Ali, J.1. We were at first under the impression that the various applications from the 10th February 1883 to September 1888 were in respect of the decree which was made in the High Court on the 28th March 1882, and this impression arose from the translation of the decree-holders' application of the 19th November 1890, which in some places is no doubt ambiguous; but upon a careful perusal of the petition itself it is clear that all the applications were in respect of the execution of the Privy Council decree.2. The judgment-debtors contend, in the first place, that the decree of which execution is sought is not an Order of Her Majesty in Council within the meaning of Article 180 of the Limitation Act. Mr. Advocate-General, who appeared for the appellants, urged that the orders mentioned in Article 180 refer to orders made in suits going up to the Privy Council on appeal from the High Court in the exercise of its Original Civil jurisdiction. He also urged that the decree was barred...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Jadub Dooley
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal605
ORDERPigot and Hill, JJ.1. The defendant in this case having been convicted on March 22nd, 1892, for not taking out before 1st December 1891 a half-yearly permit in accordance with bye-laws (C) 4, 6, made under the provisions of Section 412 of Bengal Act II of 1888, by the Municipal Commissioners of Calcutta (and which are in force), was charged with continuing his offence by failing for the space of seven days subsequent to the said conviction to take out the permit for the half-year ending 31st March 1892, whilst still carrying on his business as a milkman.2. The questions referred by the Magistrate are as follows:1. Whether a failure to take out a permit as and when directed by Section C, Sub-sections 4, 6 and 7 of the bye-laws, made and confirmed under Section 412 of Bengal Act II of 1888, constitutes a complete offence covering the entire half-year in respect of which such failure was committed.2. Whether, after conviction for failure to take out such permit, a person can again be...
Bakshi and anr. Vs. Nizamuddi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal505
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants to recover the rent of a jote, and the rent claimed is at the rate of Rs. 52-12 a year. The defendant Nizamuddin his written statement, admits the holding, but states that the rental is Rs. 15-6-6 instead of the larger sum, and goes on to say that everything has been paid. The matter came before the Munsif in the first instance, and he decreed the suit at the rental alleged by the plaintiffs on the ground that, in a prior suit brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants in respect of the same holding, the first Court of Appeal had decreed the plaintiffs' rent at that rate. From that judgment the defendants appealed, and the matter then came before the Subordinate Judge, and he decreed the appeal and modified the decree by giving the plaintiffs a decree for the amount of rent at Rs. 15-6-6 only, on the ground that the decree, upon which the plaintiffs had relied in the first Court, had in the ...
Chunder Nath Nag Chowdhry, Executor to the Estate of Raj Mohun Nag Cho ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal590
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Norris, J.1. The plaintiff is the owner of 14 annas of a zemindari in which, prior to the year 1884, a person named Delu had a right of occupancy in about 26 bighas 16 cottahs, at a rental of Rs. 30, and before that year Delu sold half of his holding to the defendants one to four, the sons of his deceased brother Kalu. In 1884 the plaintiff brought a suit against Delu for arrears of rent of the land, and in answer to that suit Delu pleaded that half the land had been sold by him to the defendants one to four, and that they were in possession of it. What the result of that action was does not appear, but we are told by the plaintiff's pleader--and I understand that the statement is not disputed by the defendant--that since that time no rent in respect of this holding has been accepted by the plaintiff from any one, but that as it has become due, the rent of the entire 26 bighas 16 cottas has been paid into the Collectorate to the credit of the plaintiff in th...
Lakshimoni Dasi Vs. Nittyananda Day and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal464
Tottenham and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. The plaintiff in these suits sued to recover possession of certain properties on the ground that they were covered by a deed of gift executed in her favour many years ago by her brother, one Pran Krishna.2. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suits on the ground that the deed of gift propounded by the plaintiff was not operative in law.3. The deed in question bears date the 26th Aghran 1284. It is a registered document, and purports to cover, so far as can be gathered, all the properties belonging to Pran Krishna. Four years later, namely, some time in 1288, Pran Krishna sold a portion of the same property, for a consideration of Rs. 160, to the defendants in one suit, and shortly afterwards another portion, for a consideration of Rs. 290, to the defendants in the other suit; and he appears to have died six years after the execution of the deeds of sale. The present suit was brought, as appears from the judgment of the appellate Court, five years aft...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »