Kolkata Court February 1895 Judgments
Karbari Rawat and anr. Vs. S.E. Coffin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal501
Macpherson and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. The facts as stated are these : Some of the plaintiff's land was sold in execution of a decree which had been made against him for costs, and was purchased by the defendant, the decree-holder. The decree was afterwards reversed and the plaintiff, who had got back his land, brought this suit to recover from the defendant the value of the crops which the defendant took while the land was in his possession. The defendant, in addition to denying that the plaintiff has any case on the merits, has contended from the first that Section 244 is a bar to the suit, and that a claim such as this can only be made to, and dealt with, by the Court executing the decree as a part of the execution proceedings.2. Both the Courts have overruled this contention, and on the merits have given the plaintiff a decree, although not to the full extent of the claim. It is now contended, and this is the only contention in the appeal, that Section 244 is a positive bar to a separate ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Surun Singh and ors. Vs. Rasul Jehan Begum
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal589
Ghose, J.1. This was a suit for recovery of possession of certain properties covered by a deed of gift executed by one Mussamat Akalo Koer in favour of defendants 1 and 2 on the 9th March 1880, or in the alternative, for a declaration that the said deed of gift was invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed as reversionary heirs to the estate left by one Bhima Singh. They alleged that they and Bhima Singh formed members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, and that, after Bhima Singh's death, they were in possession of the entire joint-family property, but that Mussamat Akalo, the mother of Bhima Singh, unlawfully executed the said deed of gift in favour of defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff's further stated that the said lady had executed an ikrarnama in September 1889 in favour of the plaintiffs, admitting their title to the property in question. The suit, we may here mention, was commenced in the life-time of Mussamat Akalo, but she died pend...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kawal Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Kishore Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal506
Macpherson and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. These two appeals, which arise out of one suit, are preferred by the plain tiffs and by the defendant respectively.2. The plaintiffs are the reversionary heirs of Kuldip Narain Singh, who died a good many years ago, leaving a widow, Dhanesh Kunwar. She, having inherited his estate, died in 1886. The defendant is the pujari of an idol to which Mouzah Ahmadpore Khas, which it is sought to recover in this suit, was dedicated and given by Danesh Kunwar in 1865.3. The plaintiffs allege that the permanent alienation of her husband's property for such a purpose is invalid. The defence is that the mouzah was the self-acquired property of the widow, and, that even if it was not, the alienation was good and effective.4. The Subordinate Judge found that the mouzah belonged to Kuldip Narain, and devolved on his widow as heiress, and that she had no power to alienate it permanently by dedicating and giving it to the idol. He consequently gave the plaintiff's a decree...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Mandle Vs. Jafar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal457
Beverley, J.1. In April last three persons were detected in the act of butchering and skinning a calf. One of them, a boy named Doman, was arrested at the time; the other two, Shaik Jafar and Shaik Narain, escaped, and were not arrested till some time afterwards. Doman was convicted on the 26th April by the Deputy Magistrate of Contai of an offence under Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to undergo six weeks' rigorous imprisonment. Upon appeal, the Sessions Judge, Mr. Pratt, upheld the conviction, but in consideration of the youth of the appellant and the fact that he appeared to be a tool in the hands of the other two men, reduced the sentence to three weeks' rigorous imprisonment. On the 4th July, Jafar and Narain were tried in respect of the same occurrence by the same Deputy Magistrate at Contai, and they were convicted by him of the offence of theft under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Up...
Tag this Judgment!Maduray Pillay and anr. Vs. H.T. Elderton
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal487
Norris and Beverley, JJ.1. The facts out of which these rules arise are these : One Gool Mahomed was charged with assaulting a person of the name of Elderton, and Maduray Pillay and Soobramony Pillay were charged with aiding and abetting Gool Mahomed in the assault. They were tried before the City Magistrate of Rangoon, who convicted them. All three appealed to the Recorder of Rangoon, and the conviction of Gool Mahomed was upheld, and that of the two Pillays was sot aside; and we are told by the learned Counsel who has just addressed us on behalf of the petitioners that practically the Government Advocate withdrew the case as against these two persons, or at any rate intimated that in his opinion the evidence was not sufficiently strong to support the conviction. Subsequently Elderton filed a suit in the Recorder's Court in which be claimed 20,000 rupees damages against the two Pillays for assault. That case was tried, and the two Pillays, who were of course unable to give evidence on...
Tag this Judgment!Nam NaraIn Singh Vs. Lala Roghunath Sahai, Minor, Through His Mother a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal467
Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for cancellation of a mokurari pattah, under which the defendant holds, in terms of a decree passed by the Deputy Collector of Hazaribagh on the 22nd of July 1892. The decree runs as follows: 'That a decree be passed for the sum of Rs. 4,973-15 as., besides the costs of the Court. Should the defendants fail to pay the amount of decree within fifteen days the mokurari pattah shall be cancelled. In case the decretal amount be not paid within fifteen days, interest shall be charged at the rate of Rs. 6 per cent. per annum.' This decree was made according to the provisions of Section 88 of Bengal Act I of 1879, which is as follows: 'Any person desiring to eject a rayat, or to cancel a lease on account of non-payment of arrears of rent, may sue for such ejectment or cancelment and for recovery of the arrear in the same action, or may adduce any unexecuted decree for arrears of rent as evidence of the existence of such arrears in a suit fo...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Narayan Singh and anr. Vs. Lala Pryag Lal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal419
Prinsep, J.1. This is a suit brought by Darsanbati Koeri and her husband, Jai Narain Singh, to obtain possession of a revenue-paying taluk which had been sold under a certificate issued under Bengal Act VII of 1880 and purchased by the defendant, who, on his death, is represented by his legal representatives.2. It seems that the name of Jai Narain Singh was recorded on the Collector's register, but that on the 22nd November 1884 Darsanbati obtained an order for registration of her name in the place of her husband as purchaser from him. The certificate under Act VII of 1880 bears date the 10th December 1884, but notwithstanding the order for registration of Darsanbati's name proceedings were taken against Jai Narain, and not against Darsanbati. Darsanbati then applied to the Collector to set aside the sale, but her application was refused on the 4th June. She next applied for a review of that order, but this was also refused on the 24th of the same month. An appeal was made to the Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Nanda Lal Laik and ors. Vs. Ramranjan Chuckerbutty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal473
Ghose and Rampini, JJ.1. This suit arises out of proceedings taken for the record of rights under the provisions of Regulation III of 1872 (Sonthal Pergunnahs Settlement). A contest then arose between the plaintiff on the one hand, and the defendant, who is the zemindar, on the other hand, whether certain lands held by the former were his lakhiraj or rent-paying mal lands of the zemindar. There wore various proceedings in connection with the determination of this matter, and ultimately it was ordered that they should be recorded as mal, and assessed with the rent, the Commissioner of the Division at the same time (26th January 1889) stating that the plaintiffs might, if they chose, bring a suit in the Civil Court.2. Subsequently, a suit for rent was brought by the zemindar against the plaintiff, upon the basis of the jummabandi prepared by the settlement officer, and an ex-parte decree was obtained.3. The present suit is by the plaintiff to have it declared that the lands are his lakhi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›