Kolkata Court August 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.
Chaudhari Mahomed Izharul Huq Vs. the Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal349
Pigot, J.1. This case arises either under Section 195 or under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If under Section 195, and for myself I do not think it possible that a general sanction issued forth of his own motion by the magistrate irrespective of any application for sanction to prosecute can be contemplated by that section, then we think it is a case in which sanction ought not to have been granted. If it is a case under Section 476, it is laid down by a decision In the matter of the petition of Khepu Nath Sikdar v. Grish Chunder Mukerji I.L.R. 16 Cal. 730 differing apparently from the case of Queen-Empress v. Rachappa I.L.R. 13 Bom. 109, that this Court has jurisdiction to interpose in the case of an order made by a Court under that section, If the Court has jurisdiction to interpose, and we are here dealing with a rule which has been granted in this Court, then it appears to us that the Court must have the power to determine whether the discretion given by that section h...
Joymoni Devi Vs. Jagadishur Bhuttacharji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1892
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal533
Maclean, C.J.1. The question for our decision on this reference is whether a receipt for rent granted by the landlord or his agent containing a recital that a tenant's name is registered in the landlord's sherishta as the tenant of a portion of the original holding at a rent which is a portion of the original rent amounts to a consent in writing by the landlord to a division of the holding and a distribution of the rent payable in respect thereof within the meaning of Section 88 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The matter was referred to a Full Bench by reason of a difference of opinion which was regarded as existing between the case of Aubhoy Churn Maji v. Shoshi Bhusan Bose (1888) I. L. R. 16 Cal. 155 and an unreported decision of Norris and Beverley, JJ. in S. A. No. 1537 of 1891, dated 9th August 1892, which is set out in the Paper Book. I am not myself quite satisfied that, as between these two cases, there is any real difference of opinion, for it is not very clear what the actual fo...
Rafikunnessa Bibi and anr. Vs. Tarini Churn Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal279
Macpherson, J.1. In this case the appellants obtained a decree for the foreclosure of a mortgage. The respondent appealed, and on the 7th February 1890 the District Judge made a decree in the following terms: 'That this appeal be dismissed with costs; that the defendant Tarini Churn Sarkar do on or before the 28th February 1890 pay the plaintiffs the Rs. 3,000 expended by them with interest at 12 per cent. from the 25th May 1887 to the 28th February 1890, aggregating Rs. 997, the Lower Court's costs Rs. 454-2-0, and interest thereon at 6 per cent. from the date of the Lower Court's decree, viz., the 30th November 1889 to the 28th February 1890, aggregating Rs. 6-12-9, and the costs of this appeal Rs. 183-11-0, and interest thereon at 6 per cent. from this day to the 28th February 1890, aggregating annas 11-3, in all Rs. 4,642-5-0, and that in the event of the defendant's default the defendant's interest in the property in suit be extinguished, and the plaintiffs obtain possession there...
Abdul Gani Vs. A.M. Dunne, Receiver of the Estate of Satya Ghosal Baha ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal418
Beverley, J.1. This rule was granted under the following circumstances : The appellant before us alleges that he and his brother Abdul Aziz Meah held a taluk in the name of their servant Kali Prosunno Ghose; that in execution of a decree for arrears of rent against Kali Prosunno Ghose, the taluk in question was put up to sale and was purchased by the appellant's brother in the name of one Abdul Karim. The appellant then applied to have the sale set aside under Section 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but both the lower Courts have held that he has no locus standi under that section. The question before us is whether a person claiming to be the beneficial owner of property which has been sold as the property of the ostensible owner, can apply to have the sale set aside under Section 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. I am of opinion that the matter is concluded by the Full Bench decision in the case of Asmutunnissa Begum v. Ashruff Ali I.L.R. 15 Cal. 488. If, as is contended by th...
NaimuddIn Mahomed Vs. Huri Mohun Chuckerbutti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal41
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Ghose, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the Subordinate Judge of Dacca on the 19th June 1891. It appears that the plaint in this case was presented in the Court of First Instance on the 6th May 1890; but, it being found that it was insufficiently stamped, the following order was recorded: 'The plaint having been filed insufficiently stamped, ordered that the deficient Court-fee be paid within seven days.' Within the time appointed, the plaintiff paid the deficient Court-fee stamp, and the plaint was duly registered; but it so happened that during that time the period within which the plaintiff was bound to institute his suit under the law of limitation had expired, although, upon the date that the plaint was originally presented, it was within time.2. Objection having been raised by the defendant on the score of limitation, the Munsif held that the plaint should be regarded as having been filed not on the 6th May 1890, but on the ...
Kali Churn Dey and anr. Vs. Muddun Mohun Sircar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal37
Ghose, J. 1. This is an appeal from an order revoking the probate of a will granted to Muddun Mohun Sircar, the appellant before us. The will is said to have been executed by the deceased Hurro Mohun Sircar on the 14th Assar 1297 B.S. The application for probate was made on the 14th July 1890. On the 25th idem Bishtu Charn Sarma Sircar, alleging that he was one of the heirs of the late Hurro Mohun Sircar, executed a byana patra for the sale of the properties left by the deceased; and this document states that Bishtu Charn has received from the respondents before us, Kali Churn Dey and Srinath Dutt, Rs. 220 out of the sum of Rs. 300 which was fixed as the consideration for the sale. On the 4th August following, a caveat was entered by Bishtu Charan; and upon that day he filed a petition asking for a month's time to put in objections to the application for probate. This request was granted, and the 4th of September was fixed for the hearing of the matter. But it appears that on the 29th ...
Bashi Chunder Sen Vs. Enayet Ali and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal236
Macpherson and Beverley, JJ.1. This is a suit for possession of property the mortgage of which is said to have been foreclosed under Regulation XVII of 1806, or, if the proceedings under that Regulation are found to he defective, as they have been, for foreclosure under the Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882).2. On the 6th January 1876, the first defendant, Enayet Ali, the son of Ahmad Ali, mortgaged the property by way of conditional sale to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 150. In July or August 1878 he received a further advance of Rs. 30, and executed a fresh deed of the same character to secure that sum, as well as the principal and interest due under the first deed. Title deeds, consisting of a kobala by which Enayet Ali is said to have purchased the land, and some kabuliyats were made over when the first transaction took place, and have been produced by the plaintiff. In 1876, Enayet Ali and his father, Ahmad Ali, borrowed some money from the second defendant, Rabat Baksh, who g...
Makhan Lal Pal Vs. Bunku Behari Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal623
Prinsep, J.1. This reference to a Full Bench has been made by me, sitting with Mr. Justice BANERJEE, because we had reason to doubt the correctness of the opinion expressed in Khatu Bibi v. Madhuran Barsick I.L.R. 16 Cal. 622 decided by Mr. Justice Trevelyan and myself. The first question referred, and this is the only question which it is necessary for us to answer, having regard to the opinion at which we have arrived, is:Can the transfer by sale of tangible immoveable property of a valueless than Rs. 100 be effected only by one of the two modes mentioned in Section 54, paragraph 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, i.e., either by a registered instrument or by delivery of possession, and in no other way?2. In the case of Khatu Bibi v. Madhuram Barsick I.L.R. 16 Cal. 622 it was held that a transfer by sale of tangible immoveable property of a value less than Rs. 100 could be effected by an unregistered instrument not accompanied by delivery of possession. The judgment proceeded on the ...
Shuk Lal Poddar and anr. Vs. Bikani Mia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal116
Ameer Ali, J.1. The question raised in this reference is of such vital importance to the Mahomedans of India and so materially affects their law and religion, the enjoyment of which has been guaranteed to them by the British Government, that I must state at some length the reasons that have compelled me to differ from my colleagues.2. The facts of the case are as follow:One Bikani Mia, a Mahomedan inhabitant of Dacca, shortly before his departure in 1874 on a pilgrimage to Mecca, executed a wakfnama in respect of a considerable portion of his property and registered the document in accordance with the law.The deed recites that the executant was in the full possession of his sense and power of understanding,' that he was not indebted to anybody, that the property to which it related was acquired by Bikani himself, and that he had an 'exclusive right, ownership and possession therein.3. The executant then goes on to say--I now think it advisable to lay down, according to our Mahomedan sh...
Ram Doyal Banerjee Vs. Ram Hari Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal32
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Ghose, JJ. 1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of a decree for money. Upon the application being made, the judgment-debtor put in an objection to the effect that he had executed a kistbundi in favour of the decree-holder for the amount of his claim, and that, therefore, the decree could not be executed. It appears that this satisfaction or adjustment of the decree, whatever it may be called, was not certified to the Court, but, notwithstanding this, both the Courts below have held that, by reason of the kistbundi having been executed, it is not open to the decree-holder to execute the decree.2. It seems to have been contended before the Judge of the lower Court that the instalment bond, not having been made with the sanction of the Court, was void under Section 257-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the learned Judge overruled that contention, relying upon a decision of this Court in Jhabar Mahomed v. Modan Sonahar I.L.R. 11 Cal. 671...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›