Kolkata Court January 1895 Judgments
Shyama Churn Khawas and ors. Vs. Biru Mahata
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal483
Ghose and Rampini, JJ.1. The plaintiff in this suit sued for the possession of certain jungle lands as belonging to his village Sealgazra. The defendant pleaded in his written statement that the claim was barred by limitation; that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code by reason of a decree in suit No. 434 of 1880, which he (the defendant) had obtained against the plaintiff; and that the lands appertained to his mokurari village Chaksha.2. The Munsif found for the plaintiff. He held that the lands belonged to the plaintiff, and were not covered by the decree which the defendant had obtained against the plaintiff, and that the claim was not barred by limitation. On appeal by the defendant, a question was raised for the first time whether the suit was not barred by the provisions of Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure by reason of the defendant having been put in possession of these lands in execution of his decree. The Subordinate Judge s...
Tag this Judgment!Jaga Singh Vs. Chooa Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal480
Ghose, J.1. This suit arises out of proceedings taken by the landlord under the provisions of Sections 69 and 70 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for the appraisement and division of certain crops raised by a certain tenant. It appears that under the orders of the Collector an Amin was deputed for this purpose; and, on the 6th January 1887, the Amin reported that he had made a division of the crops, but that the landlord would not take his share thereof. Upon that, on the 11th January 1887, the Collector ordered the crops to be deposited with two independent persons,. and- accordingly the Amin deposited them with the. defendants, Chooa Singh and Jhummon Singh, who became depositaries of the plaintiff's share of the crops under a receipt which they executed and delivered to the Amin. That receipt runs thus: 'We herewith take in deposit 427 maunds 39 1/2 seers of paddy, which is the share of Jaga Singh, ticcadar of Mahabatpore, and agree that we shall deliver up the paddy as soon as we are call...
Tag this Judgment!Padmanand Singh Bahadur and ors. Vs. Chandidat Jha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal459
Ghose and Rampini, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order for the appointment of a receiver pending the result of a suit.2. The suit was instituted by Rajah Padmanand Singh and others, sons of the late Bajah Lilanand Singh Bahadur, for recovery of possession of various properties, moveable and immoveable, which the defendant is in possession of, and which he claims by right of heirship to his son, Anantanand Jha, deceased. The plaintiffs' claim is founded mainly upon an alleged custom, both in the family of the plaintiffs and among Maithil and Suti Brahmins generally, that custom being that, when a provision is made for the support and adornment of a female member of the family, by grant of properties, she holds such properties for her life; that they devolve upon her death upon her lineal descendants; but that, on failure of lineal descendants, the properties revert to the family of the grantor. And it is stated that this custom obtains also in the case of a girl belonging to a fami...
Tag this Judgment!Chundra Nath Gossami Vs. Gurroo Prosunno Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal375
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. In this case both Courts have held that the execution is barred by limitation under Article 179 of the Limitation Act, and they have cited as an authority for the conclusion arrived at a case of Nilmony Singh Deo v. Biressur Banerjee I.L.R. 16 Cal. 744. It seems that the decree was passed on the 7th of August 1889 in the Golaghat Court, and on the 6th of August 1892 the decree-holder applied for a transfer of the decree to the Sibsagar Court on the ground that the judgment-debtor was residing there, and that the decree would have to be executed in that Court. This application was complied with, and on a formal application for execution being afterwards made, in the Sibsagar Court, that Court held that the execution was barred under the article referred to The question, therefore, is whether the application to transfer the decree to another Court under the circumstances stated in Section 223 is or is not a step in aid of execution within the meaning of Art...
Tag this Judgment!Gunwanti Koer Vs. Devi Persad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal410
Banerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, respondent, to establish her right to maintenance out of the family estate of the defendants, and to recover arrears of maintenance for the last fifteen months at the rate of Rs. 100 a month, on the allegation that the defendants Nos. 1 to 3, the father of the defendant No. 4 and the late Babu Ajudhya Persad, husband of the plaintiff, were the five sons of one Babu Sant Lal, forming a joint family governed by the Mitakshara law; that after the death of her husband, the plaintiff continued to live as a member of the family in joint mess with the other members down to December 1889, when the defendants refused to maintain her, and she was obliged to go to her father's house; and that having regard to the position and means of the family, the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 100 a month for her maintenance.2. The defence was that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintenance, her husband having predeceased his father; t...
Tag this Judgment!Binoda Sundari Chowdhurani Vs. Kali Kristo Pal Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal387
Beverley and Banerjee, JJ.1. This rule arises out of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in which Binod'a Sundari Chowdhurani, the petitioner before us, was one of certain objectors, described as Soshi Mohun Pal Chowdhury and others, the applicants in the proceeding being Kali Kristo Pal Chowdhury and others. The proceedings terminated in favour of the applicants on December 19th 1893, and two days after, namely on December 21st 1893, the applicants applied for costs under Section 148. This application was not taken up and disposed of at once, but was postponed at the request of Soshi Mohun Pal Chowdhury and others, pending the result of an application to this Court in the original proceedings, but on June 16th 1894, the costs were assessed and were adjudged to be payable by the objectors Soshi Mohun Pal Chowdhury and others to the applicants.2. On the 14th August Soshi Mohun Pal Chowdhury and Lal Mohun Pal Chowdhury applied to this Court to have the order set...
Tag this Judgment!Giridhar Chatterjee, Agent of NabIn Chandra Ganguly Vs. Ebadullah Nask ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal384
Beverley, J.1. The facts in this case are these : On the 13th December 1893 an order was made in favour of the petitioner under Section 145 of the Code of Civil [Criminal?] Procedure, and by the same order he was allowed the costs of the proceeding under Section 148. The costs, however, were not assessed till the 14th March 1894, when the second party was directed to pay a certain sum. That order was set aside by this Court on the 9th May, on the ground that it had been made in the absence of the second party, and the case was sent back in order that the Deputy Magistrate might deal with the case according to law upon notice to the petitioner.' The Deputy Magistrate, who made the order for costs, had, however, in the meantime been transferred to another district, and his successor on the 27th August refused to assess the costs, the order for which was made by his predecessor.2. On the 26th October the petitioner obtained this rule, calling on the other side to show cause why the Deputy...
Tag this Judgment!Dhani Ram Shaha Vs. Bhagirath Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal692
Norris, J.1. This appeal, and the analogous appeals, Nos. 951, 952 and 953 of 1893, were heard by Banerjee and Rampini, JJ., and the learned Judges having differed on a point of law, the appeals have, under Section 5751 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 587, been referred to me by order of the Chief Justice.2. The facts out of which the appeal arises are as follows: In 1292 B.S., six persons, viz;., the defendant No. 5, the husband of the defendant No. 2, the husband of the defendant No. 25, and brother-in-law of defendant No. 26, the father of the defendants Nos. 11 and 12, the defendant No. 9, and one Kebulram Shaha, entered into partnership for the purpose of carrying on a business in hemp at Sunamgunge. The defendant No. 10 was the gomasta of the business. He was remunerated by a 2 annas 10 gundas share of the profits; the remaining profits were divisible amongst the six partners in certain shares which are set out in Schedule I of the plaint. In 1293 B.S., the cons...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Nath Misser and ors. Vs. Barinda Nath Misser
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal425
Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application made on the 1st August 1891 for the purpose of giving effect to an order which was drawn up in the form, and which has in law the effect, of a decree. The order in question was made on the 10th of March 1885 in a suit for partition. At the time when it was passed, the Court determined the rights of the respective parties, but no partition by metes and bounds was then come to. Subsequently an application was presented by both the parties to the suit on the 19th January 1886, asking the Court to appoint a certain individual as an arbitrator for the purpose of dividing the properties between them. The Court, in compliance with the prayer thus made, sent the record to the person whom the parties nominated; but it appears that, after certain steps had been taken by the parties for the purpose of partition, they made default, the result being that the arbitrator appointed returned the papers to the Court, which, on the 26th August 1886, st...
Tag this Judgment!Dewan Singh and ors. Vs. the Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal805
Norris and Beverley, JJ.1. In this case the following eight persons, namely (1) Dewan Singh, (2) Nag Singh, (3) Bhairo Singh I of Gothuni, (4) Harbons Singh, (5) Harkat Singh, (6) Bhairo Singh II of Kansara, (7) Madho Singh, and (8) Ishur Singh have been convicted of being concerned in a riot, in which one man Kali Singh was killed and Nemdhari Singh and several others were wounded. They were all charged with having committed offences under (1) Section 148; (2) Section 302/149; (3) Section 326/149, the murder charge being in respect of the death of Kali Singh and the grievous hurt that caused to Nemdhari Singh. The assessors found all the accused guilty under the first charge but not guilty under the other two charges, because they could not implicate any of them in the injuries caused either to Kali Singh or to Nemdhari Singh. The Sessions Judge, on the other hand, has found all the accused guilty on all three charges, but as he finds that certain only of the accused, viz., Dewan Sing...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »