Kolkata Court April 1894 Judgments
Queen-empress on the Prosecution of Thomson Vs. Gunning
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal782
O'Kinealy and Hill, JJ.1. This is a reference made by the Chief Presidency Magistrate for the town of Calcutta under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In it he states that Henry Thomson, a steward of the British ship 'Lord Brassey,' charged Captain Gunning, master of the said ship, with offences committed on the high seas under Sections 323 and 504, Indian Penal Code, and he asks whether the accused must be tried under the English law, or whether he can be tried under the Indian Penal Code.2. It would appear from the case of Queen v. Andersen L.R. 1 C.C.R. 161 if Captain Gunning is guilty of any offence, it is because of the general Admiralty Jurisdiction or under 17 and 18 Vic, cap. 104, Section 267, or 18 and 19 Vic, cap. 91, Section 21. In each case the offence of which he must be tried is an offence under English law. In the case of Reg. v. Mount L.R. 6 P.C. 283, a question arose not as to the nature of the offence but as to the amount of punishment that should be infl...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kamineymoney Bewah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal697
Sale, J.1. On the 11th July 1893 one Debnath Dey, as the sole executor appointed by the will of Kamineymoney Bewah, dated the 26th March 1893, applied for and obtained probate thereof from this Court.2. Subsequently Hem Chunder Dass, alleging himself to be the husband's sister's son of the deceased, obtained a rule calling on Debnath Dey to show cause why the probate granted to him should not be revoked, and why the alleged will should not be proved in solemn form.3. In showing cause against the rule, Debnath Dey alleged that Kaminey-money Bewah was a woman of the town, and had been so for thirty-five years previous to her death; that she had lived under his protection for the past thirty years; and that when she came under his protection, she had no property whatever, and that the property left by her at her death was acquired by her during the period she was living under his protection, and represented her savings from gifts' of money and ornaments made by him to her. Under these cir...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Nath Masant and ors. Vs. Adoita Naik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal777
Trevelyan and Rampini, JJ.1. The facts of these oases have not been fully or clearly stated by the lower Courts. It has, therefore, been very difficult for us to understand what has actually taken place.2. We find, however, that there were two suits, Nos. 42 and 43, under Section 104 (d) of the Bengal Tenancy Act brought before the Settlement Officer of Midnapore on the 26th September 1891.3. The plaintiff's in these suits were (1) the Masants who were co-sharer-landlords to the extent of 13 annas in respect of the lands held by the defendants; and (2) the Court of Wards who represented two minors who were the co-sharer-landlords of the remaining 3 annas share. The defendants in suit No. 42 were 119 ryots, and in suit No. 43 were 311 ryots of the mouzahs Maguri and Jagannathchak, pargana Kashijora.4. The parties in the proceedings before the Settlement Officer were at issue as to two points: (1) as to the status of the defendants, and (2) as to the rates of rent payable by them. The Se...
Tag this Judgment!Romanath Sen Vs. Russick Lall Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal792
W. Comer Petheram, C.J., Norris and O'Kinealy, JJ.1. The only question which we think it is necessary to decide in this case is whether the assignee can recover the whole of the debt assigned to him, in an action brought by him against the debtor, or whether he is precluded by Section 135 of the Transfer of Property Act from recovering in the action more than the amount which he paid for the debt, notwithstanding that, though the smaller sum is admitted to be due, it has not been paid and is not paid into Court in the action.2. If the matter were new there is no doubt that it might be argued with much force that the words, 'be against whom it is made is wholly discharged' by paying to the buyer the price and incidental expenses of the sale with interest, etc.,' must mean that the debtor cannot be compelled to pay any larger sum, but it may equally be argued that as the section takes away a right it must be strictly read, and that it only gives the discharge upon actual payment. As appe...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeshwar Pershad Singh Vs. Burta Koer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-13-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal807
Ameer Ali and Rampini, JJ.1. This is a case under Section 158 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs are the landlords, and they apply for the determination of the incidents of the defendant's tenancy.2. The only point raised before as in this appeal is that the lower Courts, in determining the rent payable by the defendant, have not fixed that rent in accordance with the rates paid for similar lands in the vicinity, but have calculated it at the rates hitherto paid by the defendant. In short, the objection is that the Courts below have not enhanced the defendant's rent. We, however, think the lower Courts are right. Section 158 (d) lays down that a Court dealing with an application under Section 158 is to determine the rent payable by the tenant 'at the time of the application.' It, therefore, could not have been intended that in a case under this section the Court should pass a decree for enhancement which can ordinarily only take effect from the beginning of the agricultural year...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: F. De Momet, an Insolvent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal634
Sale, J.1. I think I must hold that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition. The insolvent was an indigo planter for many years and subsequently a tea planter. Some time in 1879 a decree was obtained against him for a large sum of money. It was provided in that decree that a certain sum should be paid by him towards satisfaction of the decree. Every month the amount payable under that decree has been paid in, and payments were continued till the end of December 1893. Early in 1893 the insolvent, then Superintendent of a garden in Darjeeling District, went to England on leave accompanied by his daughter. The family of the insolvent consists of himself, daughter and wife. The wife appears to be mentally affected and has been for some time past in St. Vincent's Home. While in England, the insolvent obtained the information that the garden which formed part of the estate of Doctor Brougham was to be sold in course of administration, and accordingly on 1st November 1893 he co...
Tag this Judgment!Sham Chand Giri Vs. Bhayaram Panday
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal92
Sale, J.1. After the elaborate arguments which have been addressed to me, I should have preferred stating the conclusion to which I have come and my reasons in a considered judgment, but the circumstances of the case show that it is important that delay should, if possible, be avoided.2. The applicant is one Keshub Chunder Giri, who asks that his name may be entered in the record of this suit in the place of the deceased plaintiff, and that he may be allowed to amend the plaint as may be required by reason of the substitution of his name as plaintiff in place of the original plaintiff.3. It is clear from the facts as stated by the applicant that, if the substitution be allowed, it would be necessary to alter very materially the case made in the plaint to enable the applicant, as the substituted plaintiff, to proceed with the suit.4. The argument in support of the application is, first, that the right to sue has not abated by reason of the death of the plaintiff, and, next, that there h...
Tag this Judgment!Muchiram Barik Vs. Ishan Chunder Chuckerbutti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal568
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Norris, J.1. In his plaint the plaintiff states that the first defendant and the father of the second borrowed Rs. 1,250 from the third defendant on the 2nd of Kartick 1287 at Re. 1-12 a month's interest; that they gave a mortgage bond to secure the loan; that he on the 2nd Assar 1294 bought the claim from the mortgagee for Rs. 725, and that there was due on the bond at the time the suit was brought the sum of Rs. 5,610-9, but the plaintiff claims Rs. 2,500 only, in consequence, as he says, of the defendant's inability to pay.2. The first and second defendants plead, amongst other things, that the money was not borrowed, nor was the bond executed by the alleged borrowers, and that if it were so, the plaintiff did not pay Rs. 725 for the claim, and cannot get more than he may be found to have paid.3. The District Judge on appeal has found that the advance was made, and the bond duly executed, but that the plaintiff paid Rs. 500 only upon the sale of the bond ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagbut Lall Vs. Narku Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal789
Ameer Ali and Rampini, JJ.1. The question involved in this appeal is extremely simple, although a considerable time has been occupied in its argument. The decree-holder appears to have purchased the property belonging to his judgment-debtor in execution of his decree. The judgment-debtor applied to have the sale set aside on various grounds-amongst others on the ground that the decree-holder had purchased the property without obtaining the permission of the Court. The Munsif before whom this application was made rejected it. On appeal the District Judge has, on the ground that the purchase was made by the decree-holder without the permission of the Court, set aside the sale. So far as the question of permission is concerned, whether the permission was obtained or not, the finding of the learned Judge is one of fact into which we cannot enter. The decree-holder has appealed to this Court, and an objection has been taken on behalf of the respondent that no second appeal lies from the ord...
Tag this Judgment!NobIn Chand Nuskar Vs. Bansenath Paramanick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal722
Ghose, J.1. (Petheram, C.J., concurring).-We are of opinion that Mr. Justice Rampini is right in the conclusion which he has arrived at.2. Chapter XIV of the Bengal Tenancy Act must, we think, he read with Section 65 of the Act; and the word 'rent' as used in that section includes, by reason of the definition given in Clause 5 of Section 3, road cess payable to the landlord by the tenant. That being so the sale in execution of the decree obtained by the landlord for cess was a sale of the tenure under Chapter XIV, and the purchaser at that sale acquired the property free from the incumbrance created by the former tenant in favour of the plaintiff, it not being a registered and notified incumbrance within the meaning of Section 161 of the Act.3. As regards the question discussed before us, that no notice was served upon the plaintiff so as to avoid the incumbrance in question, it was not raised in either of the lower Courts. We cannot assume, in the absence of facts, that no notice was ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›