Kolkata Court August 1895 Judgments

The Legal Remembrancer on Behalf of the Local Government Vs. Shama Cha ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal52

Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Government of Bengal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of the Deputy Magistrate of Satkheria, acquitting the accused Shama Charan Ghose, who was prosecuted under Section 146 of the Bengal Municipal Act (Bengal Act III of 1884), for not registering his cart according to the provisions of Section 142 of that Act.2. The facts of the case, which are few and simple and are admitted on both sides, are given in the following words in the judgment of the Court below:It is admitted that the accused does not live within the Municipality and keeps his cart outside its limits. It is also admitted that the accused brings his cart twice every week within the Municipality throughout the year. A hat is held on Sunday and Wednesday within the Chanduria Municipality, and the accused brings his cart there on those days.3. Upon these facts the registration of the cart of the accused under Section 142 of th...

Dina Nath Patak Vs. Ram Lal Patak

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal200

Pigot, J.1. We think the decision of the Judicial Commissioner must be affirmed. The case cannot be distinguished, in our opinion, from the case of Hem Chunder Ghose v. Radha Pershad Paleet 23 W.R. 440 which was decided by Officiating Chief Justice Macpherson and Mr. Justice Morris, in which the correctness of such a decree as is made in this case, under circumstances practically the same as those in the present case, is distinctly affirmed. It is true that in the case of Jubraj Roy v. Mackenzie 5 C.L.R. 231, Chief Justice Garth expresses some dissatisfaction with the decisions in the cases of Mahomed Rasid Khan Chowdhry v. Jadoo Mirdha 20 W.R. 401 and Hem Chunder Ghose v. Radha Pershad Paleet 23 W.R. 440, which we have just mentioned; but at the same time the learned Chief Justice says that the Court is bound by them so long as they are not touched by a Full Bench, and Mr. Justice Prinsep, who took part in the decision of that case, says that he concurs with those decisions.2. We thin...

Burna Moyi Dassee Vs. Burma Moyi Chowdhurani and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal191

W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. This is an action to recover the sum of Rs. 5,010-8-10, the balance of the rent of a putni to the end of the Bengali year 1297.2. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation, and the plaintiff has appealed.3. On the first day of the Bengali year 1298 the plaintiff filed a petition in the Court of the Collector to sell the putni under the provisions of Regulation VIII of 1819, and on the 1st of Jeyt 1298, equivalent to the 14th of May 1891, purchased it herself for Rs. 100.4. The sale proceeds not being sufficient to liquidate the rent in arrear, this action was commenced on the 14th of May 1894 to recover the balance of the putni rent to the end of 1297 (which was equivalent to the 12th of April 1891), after giving credit for the sum of Rs. 100, for which the putni had been sold, and the question we have to consider is whether the period of limitation runs continuously from the 12th of April 1891,...

Mahomed Majid and ors. Vs. Mahomed Ashan and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal205

Prinsep and Ghose, JJ.1. There is only one point on which our decision in this appeal is required. The plaintiffs ejected the defendants, their tenants, which made it necessary that the tenants should bring a suit to recover possession. They succeeded in that suit, and also obtained mesne profits for the period during which they were out of possession. In execution of the decree for mesne profits, the plaintiffs claimed to set-off the rent due from the defendants. Their application was refused, and they were referred to a suit which they have now brought. A portion of the rent claimed in this suit is for a period more than three years from the date on which the last arrears of rent fell due within the terms of the Act.2. Both Courts have held that the claim for rent for this period is barred.3. Dr. Rash Behari Ghose, on behalf of the appellants, contends, under the authority of the case of Sivarnamayi v. Shashi Mukhi Barmani 2 B.L.R. P.C. 60 : 11 W.R. P.C. 5 : 12 Moo. I.A. 244 that lim...

Damri Thakur Vs. Bhowani Sahoo

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal194

Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. This case has been decided by a Bench consisting of three Magistrates, only two of whom heard the entire evidence. The third Magistrate was absent on the first day of the trial. We think it is clear that only those Magistrates who have heard all the evidence can decide the case; and although two of the Magistrates who took part in this decision have heard the evidence throughout, it is impossible to say to what extent their opinion may not have been influenced by the third Magistrate, who had only heard a portion of the evidence.2. There is no provision of law which provides for a change in the constitution of Benches of Magistrates, and in the absence of any such provision we must hold that only those Magistrates who have heard the whole of the evidence can decide the case. Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that under certain circumstances a Magistrate who has not heard the evidence may decide the case; but that section cannot apply ...

Ananda Mohan Roy Vs. Hara Sundari

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal196

W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. The decree, in execution of which these proceedings have arisen, was made on 13th June 1890. On 8th June 1891 an application was made to execute that decree, and certain property was attached and advertised for sale. On 3rd August the decree-holder applied for permission to bid at the sale, which was granted, and on the 5th the property was sold and purchased by the decree-holder. On the same day he put in an application depositing the poundage fee, and praying that the purchase-money, instead of being paid into Court in cash, might be set off against the decree, and an order was made to that effect.2. On the 6th August 1894 (the 5th August being a Sunday) another application was made to execute the decree, and the question before us is whether this application is barred by limitation under Article 179.3. The learned District Judge has held that the application of August 3rd, 1891, for leave to bid does not affect the question, it not having b...

Jaipal Gir and ors. Vs. H. Dharmapala

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal60

Macpherson, J.1. The three petitioners, who are described as Hindu sannyasis of the monastery of Bodh-Gaya, have been convicted under Section 296 of the Penal Code of disturbing the worship of the complainant and other Buddhists of Ceylon in the temple of Mahabodhi at Bodh-Gaya on the 25th February last, and the conviction has been upheld by the Sessions Judge. They were tried and acquitted on other charges under Sections 295, 297 and 143.2. The Magistrate says: 'The case is one of importance, as the disturbance in sought to be justified by the defendants on the ground that their superior, the Mahant of Bodh-Gaya, claims the right, though a Hindu, of regulating what worship shall be performed in this famous shrine, known as the Great Temple of Mahabodhi, and regarded by the Buddhists, that is, by about one-third of the human race, as the most sacred spot on earth.' That I think is rather misleading. No such broad question arises, and it is desirable to keep the case within its proper l...

NobIn Chunder Roy and ors. Vs. Mohimah Chunder Bhuttacharjee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal49

W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. In this case we think that the judgment of the Subordinate Judge is quite eight.2. The suit is a suit brought by the purchaser from the purchaser from a third person who bought an estate at an auction. As a matter of fact the original purchaser never got into possession of the property, although it is found here that the judgment-debtor was in possession at the time of the sale. The present suit is brought more than twelve years from the date of the actual sale but less than twelve years from the date when the sale was confirmed; and the question is whether, under these circumstances, his right is barred by limitation. It is quite clear that if the suit were brought by the auction-purchaser the right would be barred by Article 138, which provides for twelve years limitation from the date of the sale; but that Article is limited, in so many words, to the purchaser himself, and consequently does not apply, necessarily or at all, to persons other...

Suja HosseIn Alias Rehamut Dowlah Vs. Monohur Das

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal921

Norris and Gordon, JJ.1. The material facts of this case, so far as it is necessary to set them out for the purposes of this judgment, are as follows : On the 19th December 1881 the respondent obtained a decree for Rs. 51,242 and costs against the appellant on the Original Side of this Court. On the 11th December 1893 the respondent applied under Section 223 of the Civil Procedure Code for 'transmission of a certified copy of the decree to the District Judge's Court of the 24-Pergunnahs, with a certificate that no portion of the decree has been satisfied by execution within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court,' and alleging that 'the said defendant has no property within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, but has property in the 24-Pergunnahs.' This application was headed as follows: 'The plaintiffs have obtained a decree in the case mentioned below, and the surviving plaintiff craving to have execution in accordance with Act XIV of 1882, he submits in a tabular form the follow...

Mahomed Akram Shaha and ors. Vs. Anarbi Chowdhrani and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Gordon, J.1. The subject-matter of this suit is a share of certain properties which belonged to one Panchu Shaha. Panchu died in 1264, leaving him surviving a widow, Bibi Anarbi, and two minor daughters, Zinnatunnessa and Izatunnessa. Izatunnessa married Akram Shaha, who is plaintiff No 1 in this suit. She died in 1287 leaving two minor sons and a minor daughter, who are plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The plaintiffs allege that on the death of Panehu his widow and two daughters inherited his properties and were in joint possession and enjoyment of the same; that on the death of Izatunnessa, whose share was 7 annas the plaintiffs inherited a share of 5 ans. 6 gundas 2 karas and 2 kranii 11, and were in joint possession of it with the defendants Bibi Anarbi and Zinnatunnessa up to 1293, when they were dispossessed. They accordingly sue to recover possession of their share. The defence is that on the death of Panchu Shaha his widow Anarbi took possession of all his properties, and has been e...