Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1897)ILR24Cal881
Wilkins, J.1. The petitioner in this case, Tulsi Bewah, was charged before the Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta with ' having in her possession for sale certain crabs, suffering pain by reason of mutilation, on the 20th. April 1897 at the New Market.' The evidence showed that she had two hundred live crabs for sale, with all their legs pulled off, and the witness, Sweeney saw her break the backs of some living crabs with the shell of a dead crab to show purchasers that the living crabs were healthy.2. The accused admitted the facts charged, and was convicted under Section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (XI of 1890), and she was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20, and in default to undergo one month's simple imprisonment.3. Before us it has been contended on her behalf that the conviction is illegal, inasmuch as a crab is not an 'animal' within the meaning of the Act; that is, that it is not a 'domestic or captured animal.'4. The learned pleader who argued the case before...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1898)ILR25Cal54
Sale, J.1. Kumar Indra Chundra Singh of Paikparah died on the 14th of May 1894, leaving a will whereof he appointed the Administrator-General of Bengal the executor, and leaving also a very large estate valued for the purposes of probate duty at over 38 lakhs of rupees, It appears that at the time of his death the testator was indebted to the extent of about 14 lakhs of rupees, a very large portion of this sum, viz., 12 lakhs, being due to Maharajah Doorga Churn Law, a secured creditor.2. On the 30th June 1894 the Administrator-General obtained probate of the will of the testator and has since been engaged in the administration of his estate. On the 2nd October 1894 the plaintiff' gave notice to the Administrator-General of a claim against the estate for principal and interest due on a promissory note executed in his favour by the testator dated the 2nd April 1892. The principal sum secured by the note is Rs. 50,000 carrying interest at the rate of 71/2 per cent, per annum. The plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1897)ILR24Cal825
Maclean, C.J., and Banerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff (appellant) for declaration of his title to, and for confirmation of his possession of, an eight annas share of a certain jote, on the allegation that the said share, which belonged originally to defendants Nos. 5 and 6, was purchased by the plaintiff from these defendants for Rs. 1,000 on the 18th Pous 1297, (1st January 1891), under a registered deed of sale; that defendant No. 4 having, in execution of a decree held by him against defendants 5 and 6, attached the said share, the plaintiff preferred a claim, but the same was disallowed; and that the property was sold in execution of the decree of defendant No. 4 and purchased by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 on the 21st March 1891. Two other persons were made defendants in the case, but subsequently, at the plaintiff's instance, their names were removed from the record.2. The suit was defended by defendants Nos. 1 to 4, and their defence, sag far as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 29Ind.Cas.859
Rampini, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sues to recover possession of a small plot of homestead land. He alleges that this plot of land formerly formed part of a jote, which belonged to an old resident cultivator named Haril Kahar. It devolved on his heir, Khuban, who sold the jote to defendant No. 5, who sold it to defendant No. 6, who sold the homestead land only to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then took possession but was dispossessed by the defendant No. 1 who is one of the landlords of the land--the others being defendants Nos. 1 to 3. Both the lower Courts have found that the plaintiff was dispossessed more than two years before suit, and that the suit, therefore, is barred by the two years' rule of limitation laid down in Article 3, Schedule III of the Tenancy Act. The plaintiff now impugns this finding. The question then is 'does the plaintiff sue as an occupancy raiyat'2. I do not think that he does. He does not do so expressly. He is a cultivator, it is true. But the land wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1897)ILR24Cal638
Ghose and Wilkins, JJ.1. We think that the Presidency Magistrate has taken a right view in the matter. 'It is the duty of the woman,' as observed by West, J., in In re the Petition of Fakrudin I.L.R. 9 Bom., 40, 'to reside with her husband, and it is her co-relative right to be maintained by him under his roof.' And when the husband fails in his duty, the proper Court to take cognizance of the complaint of the wife is the Court within the jurisdiction of which he may reside. The language of Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure itself favours this view; and it seems to us that, if the principle which underlies Section 177 of the Code may be applied to this case, the complaint should be enquired into by the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the husband neglected or refused to maintain his wife. Let the record be sent back with this expression of our opinion....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1897)ILR24Cal642
Rampini, J.1. This is a suit brought by a person who alleges that he is the transferee of an occupancy holding against the landlord of the jote, and who seeks to have it declared that he is entitled to have his name registered in the serishta of defendant No. 1, and to have the name of defendant No. 3, his transferor, expunged.2. The lower Courts have gone into the merits of the case, and they have dismissed the suit, on the ground that the plaintiff has not established his purchase of the jote in question against defendant No. 3.3. The only point found in favour of the plaintiff is that the jote is a transferable one. The plaintiff now appeals to this Court and impugns the finding of the Lower Appellate Court. We do not, however, think it is necessary to enter into the merits of this case, as it appears to us that the suit is not maintainable under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff is, on his own showing, an occupancy raiyat. He is not a permanent tenure-holder, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1897)ILR24Cal759
Macpherson and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. On an appeal from an order allowing execution of a decree, this Court held that the decree-holder was not entitled by the decree to the particular relief claimed, and remarked that if the decree was not in conformity with the judgment, the proper course for him to take was to get it brought into conformity by an application under Section 206 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff who was the decree-holder then applied to the District Judge who had made the decree in question to bring it into conformity with the judgment. The District Judge held that as the decree of the District Court had been the subject of an appeal to this Court, he had no jurisdiction to deal with it. This rule was then obtained by the petitioner to show cause why the District Judge should not be directed to alter the decree under the provisions of Section 206. The Judge was not right in saying that this Court altered the decree of the Lower Appellate Court, as admittedly it d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1898)ILR25Cal85
Trevelyan and Stevens, JJ.1. This was a suit to set aside a sale for arrears of road and public work cesses on the ground that no notice had been served under Section 10 of Bengal Act VII of 1880, and that no sale proclamation had been published on the land, and that the property had been sold for a very inadequate price. The findings of fact arrived at by the Lower Appellate Court are in favour of the plaintiff.2. The only question before us is whether such a suit would lie without a previous appeal to the Commissioner from the order of the Collector.3. It has been contended that Section 33 of Act XI of 1859 applies to cases like the present. Section 2, Bengal Act VII of 1880, says: 'This Act, so far as is consistent with the tenor thereof, shall be construed as one with Act XI of 1859.'4. We think that this contention is not correct. Arrears of road cess are recoverable under Section 98 of Bengal Act IX of 1880, 'by any process provided by any law for the time being in force for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1897)ILR24Cal751
Macpherson and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. The suits which have given rise to this and the two analogous appeals Nos. 108 and 186 of 1895, have been dismissed on the statements contained in the plaints, and without going into any evidence, on the ground that under Section 154, Clause (e) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation (I of 1886) the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain them, and also because certain ijmali lands and jalkars had been excluded. It is sufficient to deal with appeal No. 279 (suit No. 280 of 1892), which has alone been argued, as it is admitted that the decision in this will govern the decision in the other cases.2. In suit No. 280 the plaintiffs ask for the partition of about 170 plots of land situated in one or other of the eleven mouzahs mentioned in the first 11 schedules to the plaint and appertaining to one or other of six revenue-paying estates, which may be described as No. 1, 7, 11, 22, 23 and 26. The plaintiffs and the three defendants are the owners, and,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1897)ILR24Cal755
Ghose and Wilkins, JJ.1. We think that this rule must be made absolute. The District Registrar has made an order directing the prosecution of the petitioner in respect of certain statements made by him before the Sub-Registrar with reference to a certain document presented for registration. It appears that the Sub-Registrar had refused to register the document, and under Section 73 of the Registration Act an application was made to the District Registrar for the purpose of obtaining registration. The District Registrar, without inquiring into the matter himself, as enjoined by Section 74 of the Act, delegated his functions to the same Sub-Registrar, who took the evidence of the petitioner, Mata Dayal, on oath, and made a report to the District Registrar that the document was not true. The District Registrar, relying upon that report, ordered the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 82 of the Registration Act.2. It seems to us that the District Registrar was not competent to dele...
Tag this Judgment!