Kolkata Court November 1894 Judgments
Lachhan Kunwar and ors. Vs. Manorath Ram and Anant Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal445
R. Couch, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits brought by the appellants, Lachhan Kunwar and Narind Singh and Munno Singh, now deceased, the one against the respondent Anant Singh and the other against the respondent Manorath Ram. The suits were for the recovery of portions of certain property claimed to have been the ancestral property of one Mangal Singh. Mangal Singh died in 1859, leaving a widow, Mussummat Jit Kunwar, and a son, Pablad Singh. Pahlad Singh died in 1861, leaving a widow, the appellant, Lachhan Kunwar. The other plaintiffs in the suits claim to be the reversionary heirs, both of Mangal Singh and of his son Pablad Singh.2. The case as stated in the plaints is that Jit Kunwar, the widow of Mangal Singh, as a Hindu widow, got possession of the property in dispute, as well as of other property, for her life-time without power of alienation, and that a deed of gift and a will made by her of the property in question are void against the reversioners. It is clear upon t...
Tag this Judgment!Sidheswar Teor Vs. Gyanada Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal291
Banerjee and Sale, JJ.1. It appears that the petitioner in this case was directed by an order, dated the 28th of April last, to pay maintenance to his wife, Gyanada Sundari and his son, at the rates of Rs. 6 and Rs. 3 a month, respectively. The amount due for the last three months having remained unpaid, an application was made for the enforcement of payment, and a warrant for levying the amount by distress was issued on the 10th of August last. The amount not having been realised under the warrant, the arrest of the defendant was ordered on the 1st September, and on the 7th September the following order was made: 'Brought up to-day to pay Rs. 27 or in default to be imprisoned for one month. Allowed bail to the amount to pay in fifteen days.' The amount not having been paid the following order was made on the 17th October: 'Defendant appears to-day. He has not paid the money. Warrant of commitment to jail for one month under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be issued.' ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Dhan Mandal and ors. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal377
Banerjee and Sale, JJ.1. The appellants in this case were tried by a jury before the Sessions Court of the 24-Pergunnahs on charges under Sections 148 and 304, read with Section 149, of the Indian Penal Code, and they have been convicted under Sections 304 and 149 of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, by causing the death of one Mahabir Singh, and sentenced to ten years transportation each. In appeal it is contended on their behalf that the conviction is wrong, first, because there is a previous acquittal which is a bar to the present trial; and, secondly, because the verdict of the jury is erroneous, owing to material misdirection by the Judge to the jury, the misdirection consisting in (a) the Sessions Judge not pointing out properly the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, and (b) the Sessions Judge further not pointing out properly the circumstances under which Section 149 of the Penal Code applies.2. The facts upon which the first contention is based are as fo...
Tag this Judgment!Lolit Mohan Sarkar Vs. the Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-02-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal313
Banerjee and Sale, JJ.1. The appellant in this case has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Jessore of offences punishable under Sections 408, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 408, and to a further term of two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 471.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that, as regards the charge under Section 408, there having been no direction to the appellant as to the way in which he was to apply the money that had been remitted to him, and the account between the appellant and his employer being, according to the practice prevailing, adjustable at the end of the year, and it being further in evidence that it was not known whether at the date of the alleged breach of trust the appellant was indebted to his employer, or the reverse, the conviction is not sustainable. As regards the charge under Section 467, the contention is, that there is no evidence to p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›