Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1893)ILR20Cal693
Macpherson and Beverley, JJ.1. The sole question in this appeal is whether an execution creditor can attach and sell in execution of his decree, the share of his debtor in a partnership business. The decree-holder in this case applied for the attachment of a two-anna share belonging to the judgment-debtor in two trading firms, and the District Judge, after issuing notice of attachment, rejected the prayer for sale on the ground that a share in a partnership business could not be sold in execution of a personal decree against the partner. We are of opinion that this decision cannot be sustained. It is true that in the case of Dwarika Mohun Das v. Luchimoni Dasi I.L.R. 14 Cal. 384 it was held that a debt alleged to be due from one partner to another could not be attached and sold. But that case did not go so far as to lay down that a share in a partnership business could not be attached and sold in execution of a decree against one of the partners, provided that the execution proceeded i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1894)ILR21Cal180
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by five individuals, Roy Dhunput Singh Bahadur, Roy Boodh Singh Bahadur, Roy Budri Das Bahadur, Babu Hira Lal Johury and Babu Surbosukh Kootari, on behalf of the Jain Sitcumbary Society, against Rajah Paresh Nath Singh and Mr. R. H. Boddam.2. The case made in the plaint is, that the Jains following the Situmbary faith from a very ancient time, held under the Mahomedan Government, and still hold, exclusive possession of the Paresh Nath hill and the plain below, in the district of Hazaribagh; that they used the said hill as a place of worship, devotion, and pilgrimage, and have constructed buildings and set up thakurs at their own cost. The plaint then goes on to refer to certain suits and proceedings in Courts between the Jains and the Rajah defendant, which will be noticed later on in detail, as also to an agreement by way of amicable settlement, which was entered into between the parties on the 19th Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1893)ILR20Cal643
Trevelyan and Rampini, JJ.1. In this case it is complained that the accused were not allowed to use statements of witnesses taken by the Police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the way permitted by law. On the 3rd February 1893, a Bench of this Court made an order in the following terms: 'Let the record be sent for, and a rule issue on the Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence should not be set aside, or such order passed as to this Court may seem fit. The District Magistrate will be further requested to send, with the record, the Police diaries bearing on this matter, and to report whether, in addition to those diaries, any other record not embodied therein exists, or was made of statements taken by the Police officers from the witnesses in this case. Pending further orders in this case, the petitioners will be admitted to bail.' The documents have been sent up to us, and we have examined them. Although written in special diary form, we find th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1893)ILR20Cal857
Trevelyan and Rampini, JJ.1. This is a rule calling on the other side to show cause why the convictions of, and sentences passed on, the applicants, should not be set aside, on the ground that the case should not have been tried by the District Magistrate of Backergunge, as he was personally interested in the case.2. The applicants have been convicted under ss 150 and 143, Penal Code, of employing armed men for the purpose of taking part in an unlawful assembly.3. The case appears to have been instituted by the District Magistrate of Backergunge of his own motion under the provisions of Section 191, Clause (c).4. The facts which gave rise to the case are described by the Magistrate in his judgment as follows: 'The evidence of the Inspector of Police, Patur Khalo, shows that on the 19th instant accused Girish Chunder Ghose (hereafter styled accused No. 1) filed before him at Golachapa thannah a petition (Exhibit P 1), in which it was alleged that Mohini Baboo had collected some lathials...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1893)ILR20Cal719
Trevelyan and Rampini, JJ.1. We think it clear in this case that the conviction must be set aside. The conviction is under Section 82 of the Registration Act and Section 193 of the Penal Code. What happened is this. The District Registrar directed a Deputy Magistrate to make an enquiry as to certain matters which arose in regard to the registration of a document. This enquiry was made, and in the course of the enquiry certain statements made by the accused to the Deputy Magistrate were found to be false, and in respect of the making statements he has been convicted. It seems to us clear that section Registration Act has no application to the present case. That on false statement intentionally made before any officer acting in execution of the Registration Act. The Deputy Magistrate had no power whatever under that Act. It does not appear that he had any registering powers given to him by the Registrar under Section 11* of the Act. We cannot say, therefore, that Section 82 applies to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1893)ILR20Cal508
Norris, J.1. This is a suit brought by a minor, Fatima Bibi, through her father and natural guardian, Hafiz Abdool Kadir, as her next friend, for the specific performance of a certain agreement. I take the facts from the opening of learned Counsel, Mr. Chuckerbutty, that on the 16th September 1888, corresponding with the 1st Assin 1295, the defendant granted to the minor plaintiff a lease of a piece of land for the term of one year. On this piece of land there was a filed hut; that on the 24th January 1889, corresponding with the 12th Magh 1295, the defendant entered into a contract with the minor plaintiff in these words--ToSri Fatima Bibi and Azizunnissa.Know by (this) letter that I have given orders to construct a pucca building on my land, situate at No. 6, Rajmohun Bose's Lane. Having erected the same, you and your sons, grandsons, etc., shall continue to reside therein. I shall execute an agreement hereafter. I have no time now. Finis. Year 1295. Date 12th Magh.Sri Debnath Shaha....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1893)ILR20Cal714
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Hill, J.1. We are of opinion that this application was not barred by Section 4 of the Indian Limitation Act read with Article 179 of the second schedule, but that the operation of the Act was in this case arrested by Section 7.2. Article 179 provides several points of time from which the period of three years shall begin to run, and for the purposes of the Limitation Act we think that the period which begins from each point is a separate period, and that if the person entitled to execution is under a disability at the time when any one of such periods commences, the operation of the Act is suspended during the continuance of the disability by the operation of Section 7.3. The case of Mon Mohun Buksee v. Gunga Soondery Dabee I.L.R. 9 Cal. 181 supports this view, and with the decision of that case we agree.4. We desire, however, not to be understood as expressing the opinion that the limitation of 12 years from the date of the decree provided by section '230 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1893)ILR20Cal670
Trevelyan and Rampini, JJ.1. In this case the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta has referred for our opinion two questions--1st.--Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, under verbal instructions from the Commissioner, is empowered to issue search warrants under Section 46 of the said Act?2nd.--If so, whether such instructions must be issued in each specific case, or may be issued generally.2. The only section that bears directly upon this question is Section 5 of Bengal Act IV of 1866, which provides: 'The said Lieutenant-Governor may from time to time appoint one or more Deputies to the Commissioner of Police, who shall be competent to perform any of the duties assigned to that officer under his orders,' It seems to us that the meaning of that section is clear, that the Deputy Commissioner shall have all the powers of a Commissioner subject to the control of that officer, that is to say, the Commissioner may at any time set aside any of his orders, or he may give e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1893)ILR20Cal609
Pigot, J.1. These appeals are from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya in each of two cases heard before him. Appeal 300 is brought in suit 88 of 1889, appeal 244 in suit 25 of 1889 in the Sub-Judge's Court.2. The suits are brought to enforce claims said to arise in virtue of a stipulation contained in a bharnanama or deed of usufructuary mortgage, dated the 10th Assin 1288 (29th September 1880), between Sir Jai Prakash Singh, K.C.S.I., then Raja of Deo, and his son, defendant No. 1, who is the present Raja, on the one part, and the plaintiff on the other. By that deed 83 mouzahs were given in bharna for nine years, up to Jeth 1296 (May 1889), to the plaintiff to secure the sum of Rs. 3,35,000, with interest at eight annas per centum per mensem.3. The mouzahs mortgaged, which are set out in the schedule to the deed, are described in the instrument as held in mokurrari and lease on annual uniform and varied rentals. The deed provides that the mortgagee shall remain ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1893)ILR20Cal940
O'Kinealy, J.1. This is an action in ejectment, in which the plaintiffs, Shoshi Bhooshun Bose and another, sought to obtain a parcel of land from Girish Chunder Mitter and others.2. The plaintiffs succeeded in the first Court; but on appeal the learned Subordinate Judge came to an opposite conclusion, and dismissed the suit. In dealing with the case he rejected certain documents; and it is in connection with the rejection of these documents that this case comes before us in second appeal.3. The first documents in the order of time which have been rejected by the Lower Court may be said to be two kabuliats* * * * * *4. The next are extracts from what is called the Collector's register, kept under Bengal Act VII of 1876. Under that Act, the Collector is directed to keep up a register; and the form is set forth at page 28 of the Paper Book. It contains the name of the estate, its towji number, the names of the proprietors or managers, and other particulars regarding the estate, with a sta...
Tag this Judgment!