Kolkata Court June 1895 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re: Joshy Assam
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal290
Sale, J.1. In this matter a rule was obtained by Assam, a Chinaman, and Levee, his wife, the natural parents of a girl named Joshy, calling upon Mr. and Mrs. John Allen to shew cause why they should not deliver the child Joshy, now in their custody, to her father and mother, and why they should not pay the costs of the application. A further order was made that Mr. and Mrs. Allen should produce the child on the hearing of the rule. Cause has now been shewn on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Allen and the child has been produced in Court.2. Affidavits by Mrs. Allen and by three other persons have been read in answer to the allegations made by the petitioners, and Counsel have been heard on behalf of both parties. Mr. Apcar, in the course of his reply on behalf of the petitioners, stated that there were certain allegations made in the affidavits used in showing cause which he was desirous of answering. These allegations were in respect of the conduct of another daughter of the petitioners, and al...
Chundra Nath Dey and anr. Vs. Burroda Shoondury Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal813
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. It is not necessary to go over the facts of this case, as they are fully stated in the judgments of the Courts below, and the only question we have to consider is whether a decree in this form, in a suit brought after the Transfer of Property Act came into operation, can be executed by sale of the mortgaged property.2. The suit was upon a mortgage deed to recover the money secured by the deed upon mortgage of various properties, of which that now in question was one, though at the time of the mortgage this particular property was in the possession of a tenant for life, the mortgagor having, at that time, only a reversionary interest in it.3. The operative part of the decree was as follows: 'The suit is decreed ex parte. The plaintiff to obtain the amount of his claim and costs of the suit with interest at 6 per cent, per annum until the date of realization, and the mortgaged property to remain liable for the satisfaction of the debt, etc.'4. T...
Jagernath Sahai and anr. Vs. Dip Rani Koer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal871
Prinsep and Ghose, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage bond in which a decree for sale was applied for under Section 88* of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit was instituted in the Second Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mozufferpore. Owing to pressure of work in that district, an Additional Subordinate Judge or a Third Subordinate Judge was appointed, and by an order passed under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code, the suit was transferred to that officer for trial. There is no question that the Additional Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to try the suit. The order for sale being passed and the sale being held, an objection was raised at the last moment by the judgment-debtor (mortgagor) that the Additional Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction, inasmuch as the properties which were brought to sale were within the local jurisdiction of the Second Subordinate Judge. We may take it that the Additional Subordinate Judge had no special local jurisdiction over t...
Torap Ali and anr. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal638
Norris and Beverley, JJ.1. The two accused were charged with the murder of one Moizuddeen, and also with causing the disappearance of his corpse with intent to screen the murderer from punishment under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The Judge found that there was no evidence to show which of the accused committed the murder, and he acquitted them both on that charge. He convicted them, however, on the charge under Section 201, and sentenced each of them to five years' rigorous imprisonment.3. There was no pretence for implicating any one except the accused in the murder of Moizuddeen, and the evidence for the prosecution pointed conclusively to one or other of them being the actual murderer; but it was impossible, upon the evidence, to say which of them caused the death.4. The accused have appealed against the conviction under Section 201, and their learned Vakil contends that it cannot stand.5. We think this contention must prevail. In Queen v. Ramsoondar Shootar 7 W.R. Cr. 5...
Surrut Coomari Dassee and anr. Vs. Radha Mohun Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal784
Sale, J.1. The question involved in this rule is as to whether the Judges of the Small Cause Court have power to hear more than one application for a new trial in the same cause. The question arises in this way: The plaintiff, on the 11th August 1894, obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 258-9-6, and in execution of the decree proceeded to attach certain property. Two claimants then applied to have the attachment set aside. On the 5th December 1894, the claim was dismissed. On the 7th December 1894 an application for a new trial was made by the claimants, and on the 21st January 1895, the Bench hearing the application made a decree in the claim, suit directing the property to be released from the attachment. On the 26th January 1895 the plaintiff applied to have a new trial of the application, which had been granted on the 21st January 1895, under which the property had been released from attachment. The learned Judges, before whom the application was made, thought they had no power to e...
Raghoonath Sahoo Vs. Chintamony Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal981
Pigot, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur, reversing a decree made by the Munsif, on the ground that an order made by the Munsif under Section 108 of the Civil Procedure Code, setting aside an ex parte decree previously had before him in favour of the plaintiff, was wrong.2. The Munsif, after setting aside the ex parte decree, heard the case upon the merits, decided in favour of the defendant, and dismissed the suit. The decision, therefore, of the Subordinate Judge setting aside (on the ground of limitation) the order of the Munsif under Section 108, and setting aside the decree arrived at by him at the subsequent hearing, substitutes for the decision on the merits an ex parte decision previously come to, without the defendant's case being heard at all.3. The Subordinate Judge, in setting aside the decree of the Munsif, and restoring the ex parte decree, did not, of course, go into the merits of the case. He dealt with the order made by the Mu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›