Kolkata Court April 1895 Judgments
Prosonno Kumar Patra Vs. Udoy Sant
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal669
Petheram, C.J., and Beverley, J.1. On the 19th January last, the petitioner, Prosonno Kumar Patra, was convicted of an offence under Section 380 of the Penal Code, and was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the Sessions Judge of Midnapore upheld the conviction, but reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for one day and a fine of Rs. 50. On the 21st ultimo, the petitioner obtained a rule from this Court to show cause why the conviction should not be set aside, on the ground that no offence under Section 380 of the Penal Code had been committed.2. The case for the prosecution was that, on the 13th December last, three head of cattle worth Rs. 60 were removed from the complainant's homestead under the immediate order of the petitioner, with a view to coerce the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 14, which he owed to the petitioner as rent. The defence was that the cattle were handed over to the petitioner's servants voluntarily in part-payment of a debt due by ...
Tag this Judgment!Jogodanund Singh Vs. Amrita Lal Sircar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal767
Banerjee, J.1. The questions which have been referred to the Full Court for decision in this case are:First.-Whether the case of Girish Chundra Basu v. Apurba Krishna Vass I.L.R. 21 Cal. 940 was rightly decided?Second.-Whether the cases of Lal Mohun Mukcrjee v. Jogendra Chunder Boy I.L.R. 14 Cal. 636 and Uzir Ali v. Ram Komal Shaha I.L.R. 15 Cal. 383 were rightly decided?2. In the case of Lal Mohun Mukerjee v. Jogendra Chunder Boy I.L.R. 14 Cal. 636, the earliest of the three cases referred to above, the question was whether Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act was applicable to a sale hold after that Act had come into operation, when the execution had been applied for, and sale proclamation issued, under Bengal Act VIII of 1869. The Full Bench answered the question in the negative, holding that Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act could not have any retrospective operation, as it conferred upon judgment-debtors a new right which they did not possess under the old Act, and as the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Nownit Lal Vs. Radha Kristo Bhuttacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal738
Prinsep and Ghose, JJ.1. The plaintiff was the proprietor of two estates being mouzahs Mohsimpur Kurtha and Kunchunrup. Apparently he has had some difficulty in the payment of Government revenue owing to the default of his co-sharer. The properties fell into arrears in the payment of Government revenue due on the 7th June 1890, and were accordingly brought to sale. The plaintiff unsuccessfully petitioned both the Collector and the Commissioner to set aside the sale of mouzah Mohsimpur Kurtha, but he succeeded in his application to the Collector in regard to the sale of Kunchunrup, which was in another district, and the Collector of which was more favourably inclined towards him. It would seem that after the sale the plaintiff had a communication with the purchaser, Babu Radha Kristo Bhuttacharjee, a pleader of the Judge's Court at Patna, who had been his pleader for some years past, and in consequence of what the plaintiff maintains was the result of this communication, and a promise r...
Tag this Judgment!Haramoni Dassi and ors. Vs. Hari Churn Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal833
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Khulna returning a plaint for amendment on the ground that it is bad by reason of misjoinder of different plaintiffs having different causes of action.2. The plaint alleges in substance that the properties mentioned in the schedule to it were owned and possessed in equal shares by Gadhadhur Bhunja Chowdhry, father of plaintiff No. 1, Haramoni, and his brother Protap Narayan Bhunja Chowdhry; that Protap died in 1245, leaving two sons, and Gadhadhur died in 1.246, leaving an infant son, an infant daughter, the plaintiff Haramoni, and a widow Chundramoni; that Gadhadhur's son died in his infancy, leaving his mother Chundramoni as his heir; that Chundramoni and Haramoni, plaintiff No. 1, lived in commensality with the sons and grandsons of Protap; that on the death of Chundramoni in Falgun 1295, the plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3 and 4, sons of Haramoni, plaintiff No. 1, became entitled to the eight annas shar...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Saday Mukerjee and ors. Vs. Dwarka Nath Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal644
Pigot, J.1. In this case a decree was made in a suit instituted under the Bengal Tenancy Act on the 26th May 1890, ordering the sum of Rs. 400 on account of rent claimed in the suit to be paid in the month of Sraban following, that is to say, the following August. We think there is no doubt upon the face of the decree that the suit was brought under the Bengal Tenancy Act; and although the decree was had by consent, that makes, we think, no difference upon the question arising before us.2. On the 9th August 1893 an application for execution was made, and it was contended that the application was barred by limitation under the provisions of Article 6, Part III, Schedule HI of the Bengal Tenancy Act, inasmuch as more than three years had passed since the date of the decree at the time when the application was made for execution, on the 9th August 1893, The First Munsif of Bankura accepted the contention that was raised, and dismissed the application; and on appeal his order was affirmed ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra NaraIn Singh Vs. Bhai Lal Thakur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal752
Prinsep and Ghose, JJ.1. Plaintiff, as proprietor of a share, claimed rent, under a verbal agreement, for a hat from defendants, his co-sharer being made a defendant by order of the Court, and the Munsif gave him a decree. On appeal the suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that a '' hat' being immoveable property, and the lease being for more than one year, no verbal agreement could be proved; hence it could, under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, be effected only by a registered instrument.2. In second appeal plaintiff contends that a hat is not immoveable property and that consequently Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act does not apply. But a hat is a benefit arising out of land, and therefore within the definition of immoveable property as given in Section 2, Clause (5) of the General Clauses Act, and consequently the lease of a 'hat' comes within Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, and can be effected only by a registered instrument...
Tag this Judgment!Darbari Mandar Vs. Jagoo Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal573
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. The facts out of which this rule arises are as follows : One Jagoo Lal, on behalf of Rajah Hurbullabh Narain Singh, applied in the year 1893, to the Munsif of Madhepura, for sanction to prosecute the petitioner, Darbari Mandar, for perjury and forgery, alleged to have been committed by him in a suit tried by the Munsif in the previous year. Sanction was at first refused, but upon appeal to the higher authorities, a further enquiry was ordered, and sanction was ultimately granted by the Munsif's successor on 10th March 1894.2. Against this order an appeal was preferred both to the District Judge and to this Court, but the order was affirmed, it being held by this Court that, notwithstanding his original refusal, the Munsif had jurisdiction to grant sanction subsequently upon fresh materials.3. The order of this Court was dated 16th August 1894, and on the 28th September Jagoo Lal instituted proceedings before the Deputy Magistrate of Madhepura....
Tag this Judgment!Nritto Lall Mitter Vs. Rajendro NaraIn Deb and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal562
Hill, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for the recovery of possession of a room situated on the first floor of the outer apartments in No. 35/1, Rajah Nobokissen's Street. It has boon objected, on behalf of the defendants, that the plaint discloses no cause of action. What the plaintiff says in effect is this : That originally the house to which this room belongs was the family dwelling-house of Rajah Sir Radhakant Deb, who died in 1868, having made a will in 1863; and that, under that will, the plaintiff's father and uncle are in possession and enjoyment of a portion of the house. It must be taken that they are so in possession of that portion of the house in which the room in suit is situated.2. Then in the fourth paragraph, and it is on this that the defendant founds his contention, it is said that, as representing his uncle (Shamlal Mitter) and father (Ruplal Mitter), the plaintiff was, until the date thereinafter mentioned, in...
Tag this Judgment!Debi Das Chowdhuri Vs. Bipro Charan Ghosal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal641
Pigot, J.1. We do not propose to call upon the respondents, and we do not think that this is a case in which it is necessary to put the parties to the inconvenience of awaiting a written judgment.2. It is not necessary for us to attempt any narrative of the circumstances of the case which are somewhat complicated in their detail. Those circumstances are fully set out in the judgment of the learned Judge, and we have only to deal with four points which arise upon the statements of the learned pleader for the appellant before us, and what we say will arise from the facts stated in the judgment of the learned Judge.3. The points with reference to Chandpara are twofold : As to one, it is said that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have not got as against the plaintiff a good title to the share held as a Hindu widow by Satanmani, inasmuch as under Section 54 of Act XI of 1859 no more than the right possessed by her passed to the purchaser, and that her right consisted only of that Hindu widow's e...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act (i of 1877),
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal717
Sale, J.1. This is a rule in the nature of a quo warranto calling upon Captain William Corkhill, and the Chairman and Commissioners of the Corporation of Calcutta to show cause why an order should not be made directing the Chairman to remove the name of Captain William Corkhill from the list of elected Com-miasioners for Ward No. 18, and to substitute, in lieu thereof, the name of Babu Rojoni Mohun Chatterji, the petitioner; why the said Chairman should not be restrained from publishing the name of Captain Corkhill in the Calcutta Gazette, under Section 19 of Bengal Act II of 1888, as an elected Commissioner for that Ward; why the name of Babu Rojoni Mohun Chatterji should not be published in the Calcutta Gazette, as the duly elected Commissioner of that Ward; and why Captain Corkhill should not be restrained from acting as an elected Commissioner for the said Ward.2. Cause has now been shown on the part of Captain Corkhill alone.3. The relief which the petitioner seeks is based upon t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »