Kolkata Court June 1896 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.
Augada Ram Shaha and anr. Vs. Nemai Chand Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal867
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Rampini, J.1. The question we have to consider is, whether a statement made in the pleadings in an action, and which effects the caste of the person of whom it is made, is absolutely privileged in accordance with the rule of the English Common law, or whether it is subject only to the Indian Statute law which relates to defamation. The decisions of the various Courts in India on the point have not been uniform. The High Court of Bombay, in the case of Naihji Muleshvar v. Lalbhai Ravidat I.L.R. 14 Bom. 97, has held that the privilege is absolute; that of Allahabad, in Abdul Hakim v. Tej Chandar Mukarji I.L.R. 3 All. 815, that it is not; while that of Madras, though it has never decided the question judicially, would seem to agree with the High Court of Bombay : See Hinde v. Baudry I.L.R. 2 Mad. 13. The point does not appear to have ever come before this Court in a civil suit; but it has twice decided that, in such a case, the only privilege in a criminal proc...
Protap Chunder Sen Vs. Tunsook Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal967
Sale, J.1. This application raises the question as to the meaning of the last clause of Section 70 of the Small Cause Court Act. The plaintiff obtained judgment in the Small Cause Court for a portion of his claim. So far as that portion of his claim as is based on an alleged breach of contract is concerned it was dismissed, and it appears from the record of the suit that judgment, allowing only a portion of the plaintiff's claim, was given by the learned Chief Judge contingent on the opinion of the High Court.2. The plaintiff, not desiring to proceed with the reference, did not furnish security, but within the period allowed for that purpose applied for a new trial. When that application came on for hearing it was objected that, having obtained a judgment contingent on the opinion of the High Court, and having failed to furnish security under Section 70, the plaintiff must be deemed to have submitted to the judgment of the Small Cause Court in the sense that it was final and conclusive...
Roghobur Das Vs. Bengal Indigo Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal272
Lord Watson, J.1. The appellant-company are owners of the Barouli Indigo Factory, which they acquired in April 1890. The respondent is proprietor of the entire 16 annas of Mehal Barouli, portions of which were occupied by the owners of the Factory, from the 14th September 1867, until September 1890, under a series of leases from the respondent and his predecessors. These were, (l) a ticca pottah of 105 bighas I cottah and 8 dhoors, for five years ending in September 1872; (2) a peshgi patowa ticca, for nine years ending in September 1881, of the 105 bighas I cottah and 8 dhoors included in the preceding lease, together with additional land bringing up the total area to 240 bighas; (3) a ticca pottah, of same date with the last, of 25 bighas for ten years ending in September 1882; and (4) a zur-i-peshgi ticca patowa pottah, of the whole 65 bighas included in the two previous leases, for an additional term ending in October 1890.2. The first and third of these documents were in the ordin...
Asutosh Gossami and ors. Vs. Gunga Kumar Mitter and anr. and G.M. Reil ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal863
Hill and Rampini, JJ.1. This suit, which was instituted on the 10th December 1888, was for the recovery of possession of three plots of land. The suit, as at first brought, was for the possession of a 14-annas' share of these three plots of land. Afterwards, the plaintiff's acquired the title to the remaining 2-annas' share in these plots, and the plaint was accordingly amended on the 21st June 1892.2. The plaintiff's claimed these plots of land as re-formations of their villages of Monia and Kewagram, which, it is said, had been swept away by the river Madhumati. The defendants, on the other hand, claimed them as reformations of their village of Chandani.3. The District Judge has found in favour of the plaintiffs. He has decided that the three plots are re-formations of the plaintiffs' villages, Monia and Kewagram, and that the suit is not barred by limitation.4. The defendants now appeal, but their appeal has been admitted only on the question of limitation, so that is all that we ne...
Beejraj Vs. Bhyropersaud
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal912
Amber Ali, J.1. This is an application on summons for revival of a suit on the death of the plaintiff. The defendant's attorney contends that the applicants, not having obtained letters of administration, or a Certificate under Act VII of 1889, are not entitled to ask that the suit may be revived as against them. In my opinion it is not necessary that either letters of administration, or a certificate under Act VII of 1889, should be obtained in order to. entitle the applicants to ask that they may be permitted to proceed with this suit. They are members of a. Mitakshara family, of which the deceased plaintiff was a managing member. As such, they bad, jointly with the deceased, a subsisting interest in the subject-matter of the suit. It follows that, on the death of the plaintiff, his interest parsed to them by survivorship, and not by succession. This view is in accordance with the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Raghavendra Madhav v. Bhima I.L.R. 16 Bom. 349.2. The p...
Queen-empress Vs. Jabanulla and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal975
O'Kinealy, J.1. The circumstances out of which this case has arisen are as follows : The appellants with a large number of men armed with spears and tatties went near the house of a man named Ayat Ullah and abused him, and Safat Uilah, the deceased, spoke to them, and then a man from the party of the appellants named Najib Ullah directed him to be beaten. It is said that the appellant Abdul Hakim speared Safat Ullah in the chest, and the appellant Jaban Ullah speared him on the left side as he was falling. Safat Ullah was speared through the heart and died instantaneously.2. The appellants were charged with offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 149 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, and there was an additional charge laid against the appellant Abdul Hakim for an offence punishable under Section 302/149 of the Code.3. The assessors in the Court below found the appellants guilty of an offence punishable under Section 148 of the Code, and they held that the common object was to take...
Dhunpul Singh Vs. Satyesh Chunder Sircar and anr., Minor, by His Mothe ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal20
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. It appears that the defendants father obtained a putni lease from the plaintiff, on the 26th Assin 1286 at a jama of Rs. 1,501. The plaintiff, however, states in his plaint that subsequently the defendants, upon a false representation that the gross rental of the property had decreased, obtained a letter from him, the plaintiff, reducing the jama by Rs. 100 a year, on the 18th Jeyt 1296, corresponding to the 31st May 1889; but that they did not execute afresh kabuliyat agreeing to pay the reduced jama. The plaintiff adds that the said letter, granting an abatement of the jama, was obtained by fraud and without any consideration; and that, being an unregistered document, it is inoperative according to law. He accordingly claims rent from 1297 to 1300, at the full rate, namely Rs. 1,501, plus cesses, etc.2. The defence of the defendants is that the abatement of rent by Rs. 100 a year was not obtained by any misrepresentat...
Rajkeshwar Deo and anr. Vs. Bunshidhur Marwari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal873
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. The question that arises in this appeal is whether, in execution of a decree against a ghatwal, the rent of the ghatwali tenure due to him can be attached for the satisfaction of the claim of the decree-holder.2. The application of the decree-holder in this case is not to attach and sell the ghatwali mehal itself, nor the whole of the rents due to the ghatwal; but what he asks for is, that so much of the rents as may be left after the payment of the Government revenue, the wages of the chowkidars employed by the ghatwal, and other like charges, might be attached for the satisfaction of his decree.3. The Court below has allowed the prayer of the decree-holder, and the ghatwal has appealed to this Court.4. The learned vakil for the ghatwal has contended before us, upon the authority of the case of Bally Dobey v. Ganei Deo I.L.R. 9. Cal. 388, that inasmuch as the ghatwal holds the estate in lieu of service, it is inalienable, and, necessarily, the rents due to him ...
Shama Charan Das Vs. Kasi Naik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal971
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. The subject-matter of this rule is an order by the Deputy Collector of Cuttack, acting under the provisions of Act X of 1859. The order was an order giving sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 210 of the Indian Penal Code. An application was made to the District Judge for the revocation of this sanction; but that officer declined to entertain it, being of opinion that, inasmuch as appeals against judgments passed by a Deputy Collector under Act X of 1859 would not ordinarily lie to him, but to the Collector, he was not competent to entertain the application and afford any relief to the petitioner in the matter. Thereupon, an application was made to this Court, and a rule was granted calling upon the other side to show cause why the order of the District Judge should not be set aside, or why, in the alternative, this Court should not make such an order, if any, in respect of the sanction as to this Court might seem just.2. We might here me...
Nicholas Vs. Asphar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal216
Ameer Ali, J.1. The plaintiff seeks in this suit to recover possession of two houses situated in Calcutta, being No. 97, Canning Street, and No. 2, Portuguese Church Street. Originally she had also included in her claim No. 96, Canning Street, but when the case came on for trial that portion of the claim was abandoned.2. The circumstances which have given rise to this suit are shortly these.3. On the 9th of February 1816 a deed of settlement in contem(sic)tion marriage was executed by a gentleman named Moradkban, belonging to the Armenian community. The lady whom he was going to marry, together with the trustees of the settlement, were parties to the deed.4. By that deed Moradkhan assigned a sum of Rs. 25,000, which he had lent out to some people, to the aforesaid trustees, named Manuk and Gasper, upon certain trusts, to which I shall refer more particularly later on, with a power to them to invest the money when realised in 'real or Government securities.' In pursuance of or acting un...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »