Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1894)ILR21Cal437
Macpherson, J.1. The plaintiff' is one of the heirs of Mahomed Saleh, against whom and others the defendant obtained a decree for money in January 1877. The decree was executed in that year, and partial satisfaction was obtained. In March 1890 the defendant again applied to execute the decree for the whole outstanding balance against the plaintiff and other judgment-debtors or their representatives; the plaintiff objected to the execution, on the ground that the decree had been adjusted in so far as she was concerned, but her objection was disallowed, as the adjustment had not been certified to the Court. The plaintiff brings this suit for a declaration that the defendant has no right to execute the decree as against her and for an injunction to restrain him from so executing it. She says that in August 1887 they adjusted their accounts; that her share of the amount which had been realized in satisfaction of the decree and her share of the amount which was still outstanding were apport...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1894)ILR21Cal732
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The question we have to consider is whether the executor appointed by a Hindu testator who made his will in 1889, and died in 1891, can, after he has obtained probate, transfer the estate, effects and interests, vested in him by virtue of such probate, to the Administrator-General under Section 31 of the Administrator-General's Act (II of 1874). Mr. Justice SALE has come to the conclusion that he cannot, as he thinks that the estate of a Hindu is not within any of the provisions of the Act, except Sections 17 and 1.8, which are expressly made applicable to such estates. The argument on both sides has dealt, not only with the Act upon which we have now to put a construction, but with the history of the office of Administrator-General, and with the conditions under which the various Acts by which it has been constituted have been passed, and in what I have to say on the subject I propose to follow the same course.2. The office was first constituted by Act VII of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1894)ILR21Cal955
Beverley, J.1. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of fourteen Kabulis, who have been convicted by a Jury in the Court of Session at Hooghly, of offences under Sections 148 and 325, read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, and the appeal is preferred on the ground that the verdict is vitiated by reason of misdirection by the Sessions Judge in his charge to the Jury.2. The fourteen appellants were committed to the Sessions Court upon the following charges: 'First, that you, on or about the 20th day of April 1894, at Bhadresar P. S., Serampore, committed murder by causing the death of Khan Ghalib, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognisance of the Court of Session. Secondly, that you, on or about the same day and at the same place by causing death of Khan Ghalib, committed culpable homicide, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 304/149 of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognisance of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1895)ILR22Cal131
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. This is a rule obtained on behalf of one Chandi Pershad to show cause why certain proceedings taken against him by the Deputy Magistrate of Monghyr should not be quashed, or why the case should not be transferred to some other district. The facts are these: On 5th May last Chandi Pershad applied to the Municipal Commissioners of Monghyr for a license for two carriages and six ponies, making the usual statement as required by Section 133 of the Bengal Municipal Act III of 1884 of the Bengal Legislative Council. A license for two carriages and six ponies was granted, but at the same time the statement was sent for verification to the overseer, who, on the 7th May, reported that Chandi Pershad had eight ponies and one horse. Thereupon the Chairman of the Municipal Commissioners on the 8th May made an order to 'prosecute Chandi Pershad for making false statement in the schedule regarding the number of animals'. On the following day Chandi Porshad ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1895)ILR18Mad99
Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J.1. The question referred to a Full Bench is whether the provisions of Section 7 of the Limitation Act are applicable to, and govern, a suit for which special provision is made by Section 77 of the Registration Act.2. Act III of 1877 appears to be a Special Act complete in itself, and according to a well-established rule for the construction of statutes it should be presumed that the Legislature did not intend by a general enactment to interfere with it. Lord Hatherley, when Vice-Chancellor in Fitzgerald v. Champneys 50 L.J. (Ch.) 777 at page 782, thus states the proposition of law: 'The reason is that the Legislature having had its attention directed to a special subject and observed all the circumstances of the case and provided for them, does not intend by a general enactment afterwards to derogate from its own act when it makes no special mention of its intention to do so.'3. Section 77 of Act III of 1877 enacts that, when the Registrar refuses to order the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1895)ILR22Cal692
Norris, J.1. This appeal, and the analogous appeals, Nos. 951, 952 and 953 of 1893, were heard by Banerjee and Rampini, JJ., and the learned Judges having differed on a point of law, the appeals have, under Section 5751 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 587, been referred to me by order of the Chief Justice.2. The facts out of which the appeal arises are as follows: In 1292 B.S., six persons, viz;., the defendant No. 5, the husband of the defendant No. 2, the husband of the defendant No. 25, and brother-in-law of defendant No. 26, the father of the defendants Nos. 11 and 12, the defendant No. 9, and one Kebulram Shaha, entered into partnership for the purpose of carrying on a business in hemp at Sunamgunge. The defendant No. 10 was the gomasta of the business. He was remunerated by a 2 annas 10 gundas share of the profits; the remaining profits were divisible amongst the six partners in certain shares which are set out in Schedule I of the plaint. In 1293 B.S., the cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1895)ILR22Cal943
Hill, J.1. This is a suit by a firm of solicitors carrying on business under the style of Watkins and Co., and the legal representative of Mr. Algernon F. N. Watkins, a deceased member of the firm, for the recovery of the costs of certain proceedings in this Court, under Section 24 of Act XY of 1859. The object of those proceedings was to effect the revocation of a patent held by two persons, named Thomson and Mylne, for a sugar-crushing machine.2. The plaintiffs' case is that the first defendant, Mr. Neil Fox, consulted their firm so far back as the year 1885, with respect to the revocation of Messrs. Thomson and Mylne's patent, representing that he did so, not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of other persons, who were interested in getting the patent set aside, and that in pursuance of his instructions the proceeding mentioned above was instituted on the 26th May 1887. In consequence, however, of the circumstance that Mr. Neil Fox was himself a licensee under the patent it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1898)ILR25Cal160
Maclean, C.J.1. On the 17th December 1892, the Vice-Chairman of the Hooghly and Chinsurah Municipality wrote and sent to the plaintiff in this suit the following notice:Sir,---By a resolution of the Commissioners at a general meeting held on the 9th September last your prayer to allow the sajah to be made was disallowed. I therefore request that you will be good enough to remove the iron brackets put up against your house within eight days from the date of receipt of this letter, otherwise necessary steps should he taken for their removal.2. I understand and I have specially asked the question that no other notice was sent by the defendants to the plaintiff.3. The first question which we have to decide is whether, having regard to the terms of Section 204 of Bengal Act III of 1884, the Municipality were justified, under the circumstances of this case, in giving a notice, which admittedly the above document purported to be, under that Section. The Municipality admit that they considered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1897)ILR20Mad407
Benson, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Letters Patent against an order of Mr. Justice Shephard, dismissing an appeal against an order of the District Judge of South Canara, in Appeal Suit No. 279 of 1893, remanding a suit to the Court of First Instance under Section 562, Code of Civil Procedure, for disposal on the merits.2. A preliminary objection is raised that no appeal lies inasmuch as the order of Mr. Justice Shephard was passed in an appeal under Section 588, Code of Civil Procedure, and the last paragraph of that Section provides that 'orders passed in appeals under this Section shall be final' In reply it is contended that the Section does not apply to a case like the present where a Judge of the High Court sitting alone makes the order, and that, by virtue of Section 15 of the Letters Patent, an appeal does lie notwithstanding the provisions in Section 588. In a word, the question is whether the right of appeal given by Section 15 of the Letters Patent against ...
Tag this Judgment!