Kolkata Court December 1894 Judgments
JahiruddIn Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal306
Beverley and Banerjee, JJ.1. The appellant has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Backergunge under Section 302, read with Section 149, and under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, of the offence of murder which was committed by some members of an unlawful assembly of which he was a member, in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, and of the offence of causing mischief by fire to a human dwelling, and he has been sentenced to transportation for life.2. In appeal it is contended before us first, that the evidence is insufficient to warrant the finding that the accused was present at the riot; secondly, that, oven if it be found that the accused was present at the riot, the evidence is insufficient to warrant his conviction for murder, the requirements of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code not being shown to have been fulfilled; and, thirdly, that the evidence is insufficient to warrant the conviction under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code.3. With reference to ...
Tag this Judgment!Profullah Chunder Bose and ors. Vs. SamiruddIn Mondul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal337
O'Kinealy and Trevelyan, JJ.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of the 24-Parganas, dated the 5th of December 1893, reversing a decision of the second Munsif of that District, dated the 11th of March 1893.2. The plaintiff in this case sued for rent, and at the hearing it appeared that the succession had opened out to him long before the Tenancy Act came into operation. The question is whether Sections 15 and 16 of the Tenancy Act apply to this case, so as to affect him. Section 16 certainly takes away a substantial right; and if we interpreted Sections 13 and 14 in the same manner as the Judge in the Court below has interpreted Sections 15 and 16, we should arrive at a most unreasonable conclusion. We think the sections have not retrospective effect.3. The order of the lower Court is set aside, and the case remanded to the District Judge in order that he may try it on the merits.4. The respondent will be entitled to the costs of this appeal....
Tag this Judgment!G.B. Mcintosh, Administrator to the Estate of Mr. A.R. Mcintosh Vs. Jh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal454
O'Kinealy and Trevelyan, JJ.1. The question raised in this second appeal is, whether a person, who is an administrator, and as such the representative of the deceased and the legal owner of his property, is bound to be registered under a. 42 of the Land Registration Act. Looking at the nature of the Act, and the purposes for which it was enacted, namely, to prevent people from realizing rent without being registered, we think that an administrator is bound to be registered under Section 42, and that this appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Soshi Bhusun Guha, Receiver of the Firm of Puddo Lochun Shah and ors. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal364
Norris and Banerjee, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, respondent, to recover money due on a mortgage-bond, executed by defendant No. 1, by the sale of the. mortgaged properties, which are six taluks; and if they are not sufficient to pay off the mortgage debt, then by the sale of other property of the mortgagor. Of the other persons joined as defendants, defendant No. 2 is the purchaser of three of the taluks, namely, Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the remaining defendants now represented by the appellant were the purchasers of two of the taluks, namely, Nos. 4 and 5, at sales in execution of decrees for the rents of the same. These defendants contested the suit on the ground that, as auction-purchasers of the taluks in execution of decrees for arrears of rent, they had purchased the same free of all incumbrances, and that the mortgage was no longer enforceable against the taluks.2. The first Court decreed the claim against defendant No. 1, but made a decree for s...
Tag this Judgment!The Katras-jherriah Coal Company Vs. Sibkrishta Daw and Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal297
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. There is really no dispute about the facts in this case, and the only thing we have to consider is what is the just and legal order to make, under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence of both parties.2. On the 13th of October 1893 Babu Purno Chunder Daw, the second party in these proceedings, let certain collieries at Sheebpur with their appurtenances to the Katras-Jherriah Coal Company, who are the first party, for the term of eight months on certain terms as to royalties, etc., and subject to a proviso that the company should be at liberty to purchase the whole of the property demised, at any time during the term, for the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand rupees, payable partly in cash and partly in debentures of the company. The company took possession of the property and proceeded to work the collieries, and on the 29th of December gave notice to the lessor of their intention to purchase the whole property in accordance with the...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Ranjan Chakerbati Vs. Ram NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal533
Shand, J.1. The appellant in this ex-parte case, in which two appeals have boon consolidated, is the Raja of Hetampur, in Zillah Zirbhum, and the zemindar of a taluk in the Sonthal Pergunnas called Koroya, within which are comprised the seven mouzas now in suit, of which the six mouzas embraced in the first suit, and the seventh, called Damdami, the subject of the second suit,, form a subordinate taluk or estate known as Sitamarhi. The appellant was plaintiff in both suits, which were instituted on the 20th December 1884, against the respective respondents in the first Court, which was that of the Sub-Divisional Officer of Jamtara. Both suits were, after a remand by the Deputy Commissioner of Sonthal Pergunnas, dismissed by the first Court on the 17th August 1889, and on the appellant's appeals in both suits to the Court of the Deputy Commissioner those appeals were dismissed on the 19th December 1889, and his second appeals from the judgments and decrees of the Deputy Commissioner's C...
Tag this Judgment!Sreenath Banerjee Vs. East Indian Railway Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal268
Sale, J.1. This is an application for admission of written statements on behalf of the East Indian Railway Company in four suits instituted against the Company by various parties. These written statements purport to be signed, 'The East Indian Railway Company, by their constituted Attorney and Agent Richard Gardiner,' and in the verification, which purports to be signed 'Richard Gardiner,' he is described as the 'Agent of the defendant Company.' That; the East Indian Railway Company is a Corporation appears from the title of the plaint in each suit. This therefore may be taken to be an admitted fact. That being so, Section 435 of the Civil Procedure Code becomes applicable. Under that section, in a suit by the East Indian Railway Company, the plaint may be verified by any Director, Secretary or other principal officer of the Company able to depose to the facts of the case. This provision is also applicable to a written statement required to be filed by the defendant Company, being made...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›