Kolkata Court August 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.
Satyendra Nath Thakur Vs. Nilkantha Singha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal383
Banerjee, J.1. In this appeal, which arises out of a suit for arrears of rent, two grounds have been urged on behalf of the plaintiff, appellant,--first, that as the title of the defendant who purchased the tenure at a sale in execution of a decree for rent had become perfected by confirmation of the sale before the date when the Assin instalment of rent for the year 1296 fell due, the Courts below ought to have decreed the claim for that instalment in full, instead of giving the plaintiff a decree only for a part thereof which was proportionate to the time intervening between the date of confirmation of the sale and the date when the instalment fell due; and second, that the Courts below were wrong in granting the defendant abatement of rent in respect of 57 bighas, when the former tenant had by a solehnama agreed to pay rent for the whole area of 4,300 bighas, and not to claim remission of rent on any account whatever.2. We think the appellant is entitled to succeed on both these gro...
Moher Sheikh and ors. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal392
Trevelyan and Rampini, JJ.1. In this case the first appellant, Moher Sheikh, has been convicted of murder and sentenced to transportation for life; and the other appellants have been convicted of rioting and each sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The case has been argued at great length both on the facts and on certain points of law which are said to arise in the case.3. The lower Court has accepted in evidence three documents which were objected to at the trial by counsel for the accused. This objection has been repeated before us.4. The three documents consist of an information given to the police by the accused, Kailash Haldar, and depositions given in a counter case by the appellants, Kailash Haldar and Bhagaban Haldar.5. There is no doubt that the information given by Kailash is not evidence, as it was given while he was in the custody of the police. The depositions stand upon a different footing. We heard oat the arguments as to their admis-sibility, but thought it...
Queen-empress Vs. Sukee Raur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR21Cal97
Pigot, J.1. In this case the prisoners are charged thus: That Sukee-Raur, Dinoo Das and Gungarain Das on or about the 22nd day of July 1893, in Calcutta, let to hire, or otherwise disposed of, one Prosunno otherwise called Lukhi, a minor under the age of 16, to wit, of the age of 11 years or thereabouts, with intent that she might be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution, or for an unlawful and immoral purpose, and thereby the said Sukee Kaur, Dinoo Das and Gungaram Das committed offences punishable under Section 372 of the Indian Penal Code. 2ndly --That the said Sukee Raur, at or about the time and in the place aforesaid, abetted the said Dinoo Das and Gungaram Das in committing the offence in the first charge mentioned, which offence was committed in consequence of such abetment, and thereby she, the said Sukee Raur, committed an offence punishable under Sections 109 and 372 of the Indian Penal Code. 3rdly--That the said Dinoo Das abetted the said Sukee Raur and Gungaram ...
Mohesh Chunder Ghose and ors. Vs. Saroda Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal433
Banerjee, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for declaration of his right to a 10 annas, 15 gundas, 1 cowri, 1 krant, (that is a two-thirds) share in a mokurrari holding, and for possession of the same, after setting aside a sale held in execution of a decree for rent, to which he was no party.2. The defence was that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit; and that the holding in question had been purchased by the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 at a valid sale held in execution of a decree for rent obtained by them against their registered tenant.3. The Courts below have found for the plaintiff, and given him a decree declaring that the execution sale is not binding as against him, and ordering that the entire sale be set aside.4. On second appeal it is contended on behalf of the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 that the decision of the Lower Appellate Court is wrong in law, being opposed to the provisions of Section 88 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which provides that th...
Dolegobind Chowdhry Vs. Dakhyani Debea
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal430
Banerjee, J.1. The only question raised in this appeal is, whether a decision in a former suit between the same parties should operate as res judicata upon the issue whether the kobala set up by the defendant as the basis of her title is a bond fide document.2. The Courts below have held that it operates as res judicata; and the defendant appeals, contending that the Courts below are wrong.3. We are of opinion that this contention is not correct. It was argued for the defendant-appellant that the decision in the former suit could not operate as res judicata for two reasons, first, because the former suit was one of the Small Cause Court class, and the decision therefore must be taken to be one by a Court not of jurisdiction competent to decide the present suit; and, secondly, because the question of the bona fides of the kobala was not a matter directly and substantially in issue in the former suit, but arose, if at all, only incidentally.4. The former suit was bought by the present de...
Lukhi NaraIn Roy Chowdhry Vs. Radha Madhub Santra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal428
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Cuttack, dated the 6th of January 1892, reversing the decision of the Deputy Collector.2. The narrow point for decision in this case is whether Section 373 of the Code of Criminal Civil Procedure applies to suits before the Revenue authorities under Act X of 1859.3. We think the point has been virtually decided by the reasoning in the Full Bench decision in Nagendro Nath Mullick v. Mathura Mahun Parhi I.L.R. 18 Cal. 368, in which it was held that Act X of 1859, where it is still in force, is a complete Code in itself.4. We, therefore, think that the decision of the Lower Appellate Court is correct, and that this appeal should be dismissed with costs....
Ram Sunder Mozumdar Vs. Brindabun Chunder Nundi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal375
Banerjee, J.1. Two points have been raised in this appeal, first, that the Lower Appellate Court ought to have held that the suit was not maintainable by reason of the provisions of Section 36 of Act XI of 1859; and, second, that the Lower Appellate Court ought not to have used Exhibit X as evidence in this case, the same not having been proved.2. As to the first point, Section 36 of Act XI of 1859 enacts that 'any suit brought to oust the certified purchaser as aforesaid on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf of another person not the certified purchaser, or on behalf partly of himself and partly of another person, though by agreement the name of the certified purchaser was used, shall be dismissed with costs.' But the present suit is not one brought to oust the certified purchaser. Indeed, it is a suit to which the certified purchaser is no party. It has been brought against the defendant-appellant for the delivery of papers and accounts to the plaintiff in respect of the...
Pandit Sardar Vs. Meajan Mirdha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal378
Banerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, appellant, for a declaration of his jote right to, and for confirmation of his possession of, two plots of land on the allegation that the land had been wrongly entered in the name of the defendant in a record of rights prepared by the Revenue Officer under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The defence was that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata and also by limitation; and that the jote right in the land was with the defendant, and not with the plaintiff.3. The first Court held that the pleas in bar were not valid, and that the plaintiff had made out his title, and accordingly gave him a decree. On appeal that decree has been reversed and the suit dismissed on the ground that the decision of the Revenue Officer operates as res judicata and is a bar to the present suit.4. On second appeal it is contended for the plaintiff that the decision of the Lower Appellate Court is wrong; and we are of...
Damu Senapati and Seven ors. Vs. Sridhar Rajwar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal121
Prinsep, J.1. In this case the rule was granted on the ground that prima facie no proper judgment had been recorded in accordance with law by the Magistrate, raising the question whether in such a case a re-trial should be had.2. It appears that a re-trial on a charge of rioting was conducted by the Magistrate at a somewhat unusual length, the prisoners being represented by Mr. K. B. Dutt, an Advocate of this Court. Late in the day, the trial being completed, the Magistrate proceeded to deliver judgment. It is beyond doubt that at the time that he passed sentence on the accused he bad not, in accordance with law, delivered his judgment by pronouncing it in open Court, When Mr. K. B. Dutt asked leave to read it, it was refused, but the judgment was read out to him by the Court Head-Constable under the orders of the Magistrate. At the end of the judgment, under the signature of the Magistrate, there is a note recorded in the following terms: 'At the request of the accused's counsel, the ...
Sahdeo Pandey and anr. Vs. Ghasiram Gyawal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR21Cal19
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application made by the decree-holder on the 7th April 1892 for the purpose of executing a decree dated the 18th August 1888.2. It appears that a previous application had been made by him for the same purpose on the 17th March 1881, upon which application an order was passed for a warrant of arrest against the judgment-debtor : but nothing further was done, and eventually the proceedings were struck off on the 17th April 1891. We may take it therefore that the last application by the decree-holder, and the last order that was made by the Court against the judgment-debtor, was on the 17th March 1891, and it follows that in accordance with the provisions of Section 248 of the Civil Procedure Code it was necessary to issue a notice calling upon the judgment-debtor to show cause why the decree should not be executed against him, before further proceedings could be taken upon the present application of the decree-holder, which, as already...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »