Kolkata Court March 1895 Judgments
Assanulla Khan Bahadur Vs. Tirthabashini and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal680
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant, who is the zamindar of mouza Panch Pukhuria, to recover from the defendants respondents, putnidars under him of an eight-annas share of the mouza, a sum of money payable to him under the terms of the putni settlement on account of a moiety of the chowkidari tax of the mouza for certain years.2. The defence was that a part of the claim, namely, that for the year 1294, was barred by limitation; that the amount claimed on account of the chowkidari tax is in excess of what is really payable annually, and has hitherto been paid to and received by the plaintiff; and that he is not entitled to claim any interest.3. The first Court overruled the plea of limitation, holding that the claim was not one for rent, but was one based on a registered contract; and having found for the plaintiffs on the merits, it decreed the claim in full.4. On appeal, the defendant for the first time raised the objecti...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Henderson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal491
ORDERSale, J.1. In this case an application was made for letters of administration under a power of attorney as to the execution of which a declaration was made before the Chief Magistrate of Glasgow. On the question whether that declaration is sufficient evidence of the execution of the power, I have been furnished with a very full note by the Registrar, Mr. Belchambers, I entirely approve of that note, and for the reasons therein stated, I think the declaration is sufficient proof of the execution of the power....
Tag this Judgment!Sham Lal Pal and ors. Vs. Modhu Sudan Sircar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal559
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. In this case a decree of this Court on its Original Side was sent to the Backergunge Court for execution. While the proceedings were pending there, one of the judgment-debtors died, and an application was made to the Backergunge Court to execute the decree against the legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor. Upon that, notice was issued under Section 248, calling upon the legal representatives to appear and shew cause why the decree should not be executed. They did appear, and the only objection they took was that the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter, as the application to execute the decree against them should, under Section 234 of the Procedure Code, have been made to the Court which passed the decree. This objection was overruled, and they then appealed to the District Judge, who held that the objection was good and allowed the appeal. Whatever the precise meaning and effect of Section 234 may be, it is quite clear that when the enf...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Progash Tewari Vs. Bhoop NaraIn Prosad Pathak and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal759
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. We are of opinion that this case cannot be distinguished from the case of Dharam Chand Lal v. Queen-Empress (ante, p. 596) decided by a Bench of this Court on the 6th instant, and this rule must, therefore, be discharged.2. The point whether the escape of a prisoner from arrest is or is not an obstruction of a public servant within the meaning of Section 186 of the Penal Code does not arise in this case, as it was proved that the petitioner being present abetted four other persons in obstructing a public servant.3. We may refer to the case of Queen v. Bhagas Dafadar 2 B.L.R. F.B. 21 as showing that a peon of a Court of Justice, whose duty it is to execute any judicial process, is a public servant within the meaning of the definition in Section 21 of the Penal Code, Clause 4....
Tag this Judgment!Gyanund Asram Vs. BepIn Mohun Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal734
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order granting a review of a judgment of the Appellate Court under Section 629 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The suit was one of a nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, and the value of the subject-matter of it was below Rs. 500. The suit was tried by the Munsif in his ordinary jurisdiction. After the appeal had been disposed of, the defendant applied for a review of the Appellate Court's judgment. This application was made on the 11th of November 1893. Notice issued upon the opposite side, and, after several adjournments, the 16th' March 1894 was fixed for the hearing of the application. On the 10th March the review was allowed and a date fixed for the hearing of the arguments : by which we understand the arguments bearing on the appeal which was to be reheard. Obviously if the case on the 9th was adjourned till the 16th, but was disposed of on the 10th instant without notice to and in the absence of the opposite-par...
Tag this Judgment!Anunda Lal Chowdhuri and anr. Vs. Jugul Kishori Chowdhurani and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal545
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. In this case a decree has been made against the infant defendant Jugul Kishori Chowdhurani, who is the appellant before us, for the specific performance of a contract made on her behalf, and with the sanction of the District Judge, by Peary Sarkar, her father and guardian duly appointed under the provisions of act XL of 1858.2. The main point taken is that the suit for specific performance is not maintainable against the infant. No relief is asked for against her guardian, who is not in his own person a party to the suit.3. The contract sought to be enforced is for a putni lease of certain properties belonging to the infant, at an annual rent of Rs. 487-4-8, on the payment of a bonus of Rs. 1,400. The facts found are these: The estate, which the infant inherited from her husband, being involved in debt, the defendant Enayatoolia agreed with the guardian to pay a bonus of Rs. 2,200, and to take a putni lease of the properties at an annual rent of Rs. 498-6...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Chand Lal Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal596
Beverley, J.1. The petitioner, Dharam Chand Lal, has been convicted under Section 186 of the Penal Code of obstructing one Miyajan, a Civil Court peon who was attaching his property in execution of a decree, and he has been fined Rs. 100. Against this conviction the petitioner has appealed to the Sessions Judge, and he has also obtained a rule from this Court to show cause why the proceedings should not be quashed as bad in law, or, why the appeal should not be transferred to be heard by some other Judge. The principal point urged before us is that, at the time of the occurrence, Miyajan was not acting in the discharge of his public functions, inasmuch as the warrant of attachment was addressed to the Nazir of the Court, and the Nazir had no authority to delegate its execution to the peon; nor, in fact, did he so delegate its execution.2. A further point was raised that the Deputy Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the case, inasmuch as there was no formal complaint or sa...
Tag this Judgment!Tejendro NaraIn Singh Vs. Bakai Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal658
Prinsep, J.1. This is a suit for rent due to the plaintiff as part proprietor of an estate.2. The defendant Bakai Singh held 42 bighas 15 cottas of land at a rent of Rs. 10 for seven years, which expired in Asin 1296 (F.), and in a kabuliat executed by him, he agreed that, 'on expiration of the term fixed, I shall execute a fresh kabuliat in favour of the proprietors, and then cultivate the said lands,' and further that, should I cultivate the lands without executing a fresh kabuliat, I shall, without any objection, pay rent to them at one and the same rate of Rs. 4 per bigha.'3. The defendant did not execute a fresh kabuliat, and accordingly the plaintiff has brought this suit, claiming rent at Rs. 171 instead of at Rs. 10 as formerly.4. It has been found that the tenant defendant had acquired rights of occupancy under the Rent Act then in force before the execution of that kabuliat,5. The Munsif was evidently of opinion that the agreement to pay at the rate of Rs. 4 per bigha in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramhari Sahu and ors. Vs. Madan Mohan Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal339
Prinsep J.1. This is a rule obtained for the re-admission of an appeal dismissed for default in consequence of the failure of the appellant to deposit the necessary costs of the preparation of the paper book in accordance with Rule 17. On the merits we are satisfied that the appeal should be restored, and that its preparation for a regular hearing should proceed on the appellant depositing, as it is said he is prepared to do, the necessary money to-morrow.2. It has, however, been contended by the learned vakil for the opposite party that this application being an application under Section 558 of the Code of Civil Procedure is barred under the Limitation Act, it having not been presented within thirty days from the date when the appeal was dismissed for default. An order of this Court dismissing an appeal under Rule 17 for default in depositing the costs necessary for the preparation of the paper book operates no doubt as an order dismissing an appeal for default of prosecution under th...
Tag this Judgment!Shib Chunder Mukerjee and anr. Vs. Anand Lal Paria and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal477
Rampini, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Special Judge of Midnapore, affirming an order of a Settlement Officer made in the course of a settlement under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs and the defendants disputed as to the length of the rod to be used in the measurement. The plaintiffs contended that it should be a rod of 18 inches, while the defendants said it should be one of 20 inches. Both the lower Courts have found in favour of the plaintiffs, and the defendants appeal to this Court.2. A preliminary objection has been raised that no second appeal lies to this Court, and I think this objection must prevail. It is evident that a second appeal only lies to this Court from an order passed under Section 106 (not being an entry of a rent settled), and the decision of the Settlement Officer in this case was not such a decision for the sufficient reason that no record of rights has yet been prepared or published, and, therefore, there can have been no d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›