Kolkata Court December 1898 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.
Hurbullubh NaraIn Singh Vs. Luchmeswar Prosad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal189
Prinsep and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. A rule was granted by a Bench of this Court requiring the Maharaja of Durbhunga to show cause why an order passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be set aside--first, on the ground that section was not applicable to the subject of the dispute between the contending parties, and, secondly, on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to make the order under Section 145. Proceedings under that section were instituted by the District Magistrate of Purneah in consequence of a dispute between the Maharajas of Durbhunga and Sonbarsa which, he found, was likely to cause a breach of the peace, arising out of claims to use certain land for the purposes of a private ferry; and the objection taken, on which that rule was granted, may be shortly stated to be that a claim to a ferry is not cognizable under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate's action, therefore, being without jurisdiction, and that consequentl...
Nilmadhab Bhuttacharjee and ors. Vs. Chandra Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal236
Maclean, C.J.1. In this case the statements in the potta--statements by way of recital--were properly admitted, in my opinion, as relevant facts under Section 32, Sub-section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act. The statements were recitals as to pedigree, and they supported the plaintiffs' case. The potta was executed by three sisters, two of whom are dead, and one of whom is still living. It was urged for the appellant that these recitals were not admissible, because they were not statements made by a person who was dead, but the joint statements of three persons, two of whom only were dead, and consequently that Section 32 did not apply. This argument was based entirely upon that provision of the General Clauses Act which says that 'person' shall include co-persons, and it was contended that 'person' in Section 32 must be read 'persons.' I do not think this ingenious argument is entitled to succeed. Each of the sisters executed the potta and each of the sisters made the statement in that p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›