Kolkata Court April 1893 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.
Ramjan Ali and anr. Vs. Amjad Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal903
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. The only question raised in this case is whether Section 111 of the Bengal Tenancy Act is a bar to the suit.2. It appears that in October 1890 the Government made an order, under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act, for a record of rights and settlement of rents in the part of the country in which this land lies. The present suit was brought in April 1891 to recover rent due for the Maji years 1249, 1250, and 1251, corresponding with the years 1887 to 1889 A.D. The plaintiff claims under the terms of a kabuliat which provides that if it is found that the defendant holds land in excess of the area specified in the kabuliat, he shall pay excess rent at a stipulated rate. It is urged in the present case that a measurement was made previous to the time for which rent is claimed, that excess land was found, and that the defendant is liable to pay the additional rent claimed.3. The Lower Appellate Court has held that the suit cannot be maintained without a viol...
Wasi Imam and anr. Vs. Poonit Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal696
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. The sole question involved in this appeal is whether the application that was made by the judgment-debtors, and consented to by the decree-holders, on the 23rd April 1888, was an application to take some step in aid of execution of the decree obtained by the decree-holders.2. We are disposed to think that this was a joint application by both the judgment-debtors and the decree-holders; and what was asked for in the said application was, as we understand it, that a certain amount of money paid to the decree-holders out of Court might be certified in accordance with the provisions of Section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code, and that six months' time might be allowed to the judgment-debtors for payment of the balance of the decretal money, the attachment that had been put upon the property of the judgment-debtors being allowed to continue.3. The Court upon this application made an order in accordance with the request of the parties.4. The question whether an applic...
Kasinath Das and ors. Vs. Sadasiv Patnaik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal805
O'Kinealy and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff's under the following circumstances: The defendants 1 and 5 and the father of the defendants 2 to 4 had, on the 27th of August 1878. executed a mortgage bond for Rs. 6,000 in favour of one Bhagawan Sahu, since deceased, by which various immoveable properties were hypothecated as a collateral security for the debt. Bhagawan was himself indebted to one Bishnath. Upon Bhagawan's death, the plaintiff's, who represent Bishnath, brought a suit against his (Bhagawan's) representatives (defendant 6 and one Moyna Bibee, since deceased), and in execution of their decree on the 19th of November 1890 purchased the bond held by Bhagawan. They now seek to enforce the bond in question. In paragraph 6 of the plaint they state as follows:Although a large sum would be due to us if calculation is made of the principal and interest of the money covered by the bond in suit, still there being no likelihood of the whole ...
Ram Chandra Das Vs. Monohur Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR21Cal29
Trevelyan and Rampini, JJ.1. We have heard together these two rules--one granted to show cause why an order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, should not be set aside, and the other referring to the conviction of three men under Sections 143 and 379 of the Penal Code. The charge was in respect of theft of crops on a portion of the land which was in dispute in the 145 section case, and so far as the question of possession of the crops said to have been looted is concerned, it follows that the case is connected to some extent with the Section 145 proceedings. The rule was granted on several grounds, but after hearing the learned Counsel in support of it, we thought that so far as the Section 145 proceedings are concerned there are only two grounds which we have to consider, and we think that on both those grounds the application must be successful. The first ground is this. It is said that the persons before the Court in the 145 proceedings did not include all persons who were c...
Abdul Majid Vs. Krishna Lal Nag
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-13-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal724
Rampini, J.1. This is a rule calling on the other side to show cause why the order of the District Judge of Noakhali sanctioning the prosecution of the applicant under Sections 193 and 199, Indian Penal Code, should not be set aside. It appears that the District Judge appointed a common manager under Section 95 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and that the applicant was called upon to deliver certain accounts and papers to the common manager so appointed. The manager reported that the applicant would not furnish him with these accounts and papers, and the District Judge then instituted a miscellaneous proceeding in respect of this matter. In this proceeding the applicant made a certain statement and filed two affidavits, alleging that he had not the accounts and papers called for. It is held that this statement before the District Judge and the allegations made in the affidavits were false, and upon these grounds the District Judge has sanctioned the prosecution of the applicant under Sectio...
Hardwar Sing or Lall Vs. Khega Ojha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal870
Trevelyan and Rampini, JJ.1. The only point for consideration in this case is whether the change of Magistrates operates to invalidate the conviction. The facts are stated in the petition. It appears that the evidence was taken before two Honorary Magistrates, Mr. L. J. Crowdy and Mr. H. E. Crowdy. The evidence for the defence was taken by Mr. L. J. Crowdy and Baboo Grish Chandra Sarkar. The two latter gentlemen delivered judgment. There is no doubt that, apart from any statutory provision, the only persons who can decide a case are those who heard the evidence and the arguments. The question remains whether the Code of Criminal Procedure permits this to be done in this case. The only section of the Criminal Procedure Code which expressly empowers one Magistrate to act upon the evidence recorded by another is Section 350, which clearly has no application to the present case. That applies only to a case where a Magistrate ceases to exercise jurisdiction and is succeeded by another Magis...
Panchanan Chowdhury Vs. Nrisingha Prosad Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1893
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.264
1. The question involved in this case is one of limitation. The respondent decree-holder obtained the decree on the 12th May 1888. In execution of that decree, he set up certain properties of the judgment-debtor to sale and purchased the same himself. On the 22nd October 1888, he as auction-purchaser applied to have the sale confirmed, and that was accordingly done. The present application for execution was made in May 1891. It is objected that the present application is barred. The judgment-creditor contends that in considering the period of limitation, the application for the confirmation of sale, dated the 22nd October 1888, should be taken into account; aid if that regarded as a step-in-aid of execution under the provisions of Article 179 of Schedule II the present application could not be barred.2. That argument, however, is not valid; because that application, we find, was made on their behalf as auction-purchasers to have the sale confirmed in their favour; and we have been refe...
HafizuddIn Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Abdool Aziz
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal755
O'Kinealy and Banerjee, JJ.1. In this case the decree-holder, a Mahomedan lady, died, leaving as heirs and residuaries ten persons. After her death these ten persons applied for execution of the decree, and the application was registered, but as they were . not in a position to file a certificate such as is required by Section 4, Clause (b) of the Succession Certificate Act, the application was dismissed. That was an application to arrest the debtor. The present application is of a different nature, and it is admitted on all hands that if the former application was such as is contemplated by Article 179 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act, the decree-holders are not barred.2. The point I think is very easy of decision. Both the Civil Procedure Code and the Limitation Act were passed long before the Succession Certificate Act. Therefore, whatever interpretation may be put on the word 'application' as used in the Civil Procedure Code and the Limitation Act, it could in no way de...
Tarini Charan Chowdhry Vs. Amulya Ratan Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal867
Trevelyan and Rampini, JJ.1. This is an application to set aside an order made under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby possession of the land in dispute was declared to be in the second party. We have had the advantage of hearing Mr. Woodroffe with regard to the whole case, and have come to the conclusion that, as matters stand, it is impossible to support the order. The proceedings with regard to this land under Section 145 began so far back as the 17th May 1892. They were based upon a Police report which is dated 11th April 1892. Written statements were filed in the ordinary course, and matters went on until the parties presented petitions asking for an opportunity either to have their boundaries demarcated under the Survey Act or to settle their dispute (as to boundaries apparently) by arbitration. An order was made by the Magistrate on the 23rd June 1892 in these terms: 'Both parties have filed petitions to the effect that until the dispute is settled, either under t...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›