(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Digest of Indian Law Reports and Law Reports Indian Appeals"

Google 



This is a digital copy of a book lhal w;ls preserved for general ions on library shelves before il was carefully scanned by Google as pari of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

Il has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one thai was never subject 

to copy right or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often dillicull lo discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher lo a library and linally lo you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud lo partner with libraries lo digili/e public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order lo keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial panics, including placing Icchnical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make n on -commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request thai you use these files for 
personal, non -commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort lo Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each lile is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use. remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 

countries. Whether a book is slill in copyright varies from country lo country, and we can'l offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through I lie lull lexl of 1 1 us book on I lie web 
al |_-.:. :.-.-:: / / books . qooqle . com/| 



D,oiti«d b» Google 



HARVARD LAW LIBRARY. 



^L&i.jt/f*^ 



^*] 



Dialed b V Google 






D,„i„.db»Googlc 



D,„i„.db»Google 



DIGEST OF CASES C 



THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS, 



By the same Author. 

DIGEST OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT REPORTS, Vols. I to 12 ; and 

INDIAN LAW REPORTS, BOMBAY SERIES, Vols. 1 and a, Price Rs. 15. 

To be had of the " Times of India," Bombay ; 
Messrs- Thaoker, Spink & Co., Calcutta ; and 
Messrs. Higginbotham & Co., Madras. 



DIGEST OF ALL THE CASES RELATING TO INDIA DECIDED BY THE 
PRIVY COUNCIL AND OTHER COURTS IN ENGLAND. Price Rs. ao. 

To be had of the Superintendent, Education Society's Press, Byoulla; 
The Manager, "Times of India," Bombay; 
Messrs. Thaoker, Spink & Co., Calcutta ; and 
Messrs. Higginbotham & Co., Madras. 



Vol. IL— DIGEST op INDIAN LAW REPORTS and LAW REPORTS 
INDDA.N APPEALS— Price Rs. ao. 

To be had at the Education Society's Press, Byoulla. 

Vol. III.— NOW IN THE PRESS. Orders are being registered at the 
Education Society's Pmss, Bvculla. 



PKINTED AND PUBLISHED AT THE 

EDUCATION SOCIETY'S PRESS, BYCULLA. 



1881. 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



,.db,Google 



DIGEST OF CASES 



REPORTED IN 



THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS, 

CALCUTTA SERIES. Vols. 1 to 4; BOMBAY SERIES. Vols. 1 to 3: 
ALLAHABAD SERIES. Vols. 1 & 2; MADRAS SERIES. Vols. I&2: 



LAW REPORTS, INDIAN APPEALS, 

VOLS. 1 TO 6. 



COMPILED BT 

REGINALD M. A. BRANSON, 

OF TEE MIDDLE TEMPLE. BARRISTER-AT-LA.W. 



VOL. I. 

SECOND EDITION. 



PRINTED AND PUBLISHED AT THE 

EDUCATION SOCIETY'S PRESS, BYCULLA. 
1884. 



D,„i„.db»Googlc 



C/U-. Aj^c- 7. H?°^7 



D,„i„.db»Googlc 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. , 


Volume and Page. 


Column ol 


Digest. 


A. 
Abadi Begam v. Asa Ram 


I. L. R. II. All. 


162 


860 




Abadi Begam v. Inam Begam 


I. L. R.I. All. 


521 


951 




Abasi v. Dunne 


I. L. R. 1. All. 


598 


949 




Abba Haji Ishmail v. Abba Thara 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


£53 


107 




Abdool Ban v. Ramdass Coondoo 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


607 


SO 




Abdool Hamed, In rt 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


94 


772 




Abdool Aziz v. Wall Khan 


1. L. R. 1. All. 


838 


G8 




Abdul Karim v. Manji Hansraj 


I. L R. I. Bom. 
L. R. V. Ind. App. 


295 
116 


865, 1062 
) 




Abdul Azeez v. Dorab Ally Khan ... ? 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 
II. Cal. Rep. 


806 
5*9 


£ 1393 




Abdul Rahim v. Racha Rai 


I. L. R. I. All. 


863 


1289 




Abdul Samad v. Rajindro Kishor Singh 


i- L. R. 11. AIL 


357 


121 




Abedonissa Kbatoon v. Ameeroonissa Khaloon ? 


L.R. IV. Ind. A pp 
I. L. R. II. Cal. 


66 
327 


I 531 




Abhassi Begum v. Moharanee Rajroop Koonwar 


I. L. R. IV. CaL 


33 


1025 




Ablakh Rai v. Udit Narain Rai 


I. L. R. I. All. 


853 


1308 




Ablakh Rai v. Salim Ahmad Khan 


I. L. R. II. All. 


43- 


555 




Abul Munsoor v. Abdool Hamid 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


98 


690 




Adhiranee Narain Coomary v. Shona Malee Pat 










Mahadai 


I. L. R, I. Cal. 


885 


637 




Administrator- General of Bengal (The) v. Jug- 










geswar Roy 


I. L. R. III. Call. 


192 


707 




Administrator-General of Bengal v. Apcar 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


553 


1503 




Administrator-General v. Hawkins 


I. L R. 1. Mad. 


287 


1459 




Adurmoni Deyi v. Chowdhry Sib Narain Kur ... 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


1 


1067 




Advocate-General of Bengal v. Mayor of Lyons. 


L. R. III. Ind. App 


32 


1512 




Afatoola Sirdar v. Dwarka Natb Moitry . S 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 
IV. Cal. Rep. 
I. L. R. I. All. 


814 
95 


| 179 




Alzal-un-nissa v. Tej Ban..." 


785 


480 




Agra Savings Bank, Limited, v. Sri Ram Mitter. 


1. L. R. I. All. 


388 


35 




Ahmed Bakhsh v. Gobindi 


I. L. R. II. All. 


216 


1230 




Ahmed Mahomed Pattel v. Adjen Dooply 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


323 


896 




Ahmedabad Municipality v. Mahamad Jama! ... 


1. L. R. III. Bom. 


146 


1442 




Ahamudeen v. Grish Chunder Shamunt 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


350 


336 




Ajnasi Kuar v. Suraj Prasad 


I. L. R. 1. All. 


601 


242 




Akbar Khan v. Sheoratan 


I. L. R. 1. All. 


373 


i 410 




Akhe Ram v. Nand Kishore 


1. L. R. 1. All. 


236 


134S 




Akilandammal v. Periasami Pillai 


1. L. R. I. Mad. 


309 


891 




Ali Muhammad v. Lalta Bakhsh 


I. L. R. I. AIL 


655 


1028 




Ali Muhammad v. Taj Muhammad 


1. L. R. 1. All. 


283 


1157 




All Shah v. Hiisain Bakhsh 


1. L. R. I. All. 


EBB 


1370 





D,„i„.db»Googlc 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest. 


AUumuddy v. Braham 


I.L.R. IV.Cal. 


140 


Sfli 


Altaf Ali v. Lalji Mai 


1. L. R. 1. All. 


518 


976 


Ahikfnonee Dabee v. Banee Madhub Cbucker. 








butty 


1. L. R. IV. CaL 


677 


1358 


Ambika Dab v. Sukhmani Kuar 


1. L-R.l. All. 


437 


857 


Ameeroonissa Khatoon v. Abedoonissa Kha- C 


l_ R. 11. Ind. Ap 


. 87 


J 949 


toon ... 1 


IV. 


<W 


Anakaran Kasmi v. Saidmadath Avulla 


1. L. R. II. Mad. 


79 


1411 


Anandaji Visram v. Tbc Nariad Spinning anc 








Weaving Company 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


320 


86 


Aiiandr.iv Bapuji v. Shekh Baba 


1. L. R. II. Bom. 


662 


1274 


An<in t Das v. Ashbumer and Co 


I. L. R. I. All 


287 


319 


Ananta v. Ramabai 


1. L. R. (. Bom. 


654 


611 


Annath Natb Deb v. Bistu Chunder Roy 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


783 


484 


Annapurnabai, In re ... 


1. L R. 1. Bom. 


630 


373 


Annoda Clium Roy v. Kally Coomar Roy 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


89 


614 


r 


1. L. R. III. Cal. 


767 


1464 




1. L. R. 1. Mad. 


133 


1416 


Anonymous -I 


Do. 

Do. 


55 
305 


351 

379 


i 


Do. 


G4 


475 


I 


Do. 


56 


1496 


An too Misree v. Bidhoomookhee 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


605 


528 


Apaji Bhivrav v. Shivlal Khubchand 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


201 


829, 1450 


Apaji Chintaman Devdhar v. Gangabai 


1. L. R. 11. Bom. 


632 


649, 1399 


Apaya v.Rama ... 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


210 


750 


Appasami v. Aghilanda ... ... 


I. L. R. II. Mad. 


113 


875 


Apu Budgavda v. Narhari Annajee 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


21 


819 


Ardesir Nasarvanji v. Muse Natha Amiji 


1. L: R. I. Bom. 


601 


191 


Arfunnessa v. Peary Mohun Mookerjee... 


1. L. R. I. Cal. 


378 


1063 


Ashgar Ali v. Delroos Banoo Begum ... 


I. L R. HI. Cal. 


324 


1078 


Ashutosh Dutt v. Doorga Churn Chatterjee ... 


L. R. VI. ind. App 


182 


686 


Assamatbem Nessa Bibee v. Roy Lutchmeeput 








Singh 


1. L. R. IV.Cal. 


142 


941 


Attorneys, In the matter of the Petition of the.. 


I. L. R. 1. Mad. 


24 


1334 


Audh Kumari v. Chandra Dai 


I. L. R. II. All. 


561 


620 


Aumirtolall Bose v. Rajoneekant Mitter 


L. R. II. Ind. App 


113 


72, 019, 620, 868 


Aurokiam, In the matter of 

B. 
Babaji v. Nana 


I. L. R. II. Mad. 


38 


360 


1. L R. I. Bom. 535, n. 


417 


Babaji and Nanaji v. Narayan 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


340 


307,981,1141,1394 


Babaji Hari v. Raj a ram Ballal 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


75 


1092, 1108 


Babaji Lakshmaii v. Vasudev Vinayek 


I. L. R. 1. Bom. 


95 


674 


Babaji Mabadaji v. Ktishnaji Devji 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


606 


BOO 


Baban Mayacha v. Nagu Shravucha 


I. L. R. 11. Bom. 


19 


773, 1252, 1801 


Baboo Doorga Pershad v. Mussumat Kundun 








Koowar 


I.. R. I. Ind. App. 


55 


658 


t 


L. R. I. Ind. App. 


317 


i 


Baboo Lekraj Roy v. Kanbya Singh ... < 


1. L. R. III. CaL. 


810 


> 135,587 


( 


L. R. IV. Ind. App 


£33 


) 



D,„i„.db»Googlc 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest. 


Babshetti v. Venkataiamana 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


154 


980,1407 


Badan Bebajea v. Kala Chand Bebajea 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


8'2S 


536 


Badri Prasad v. Muhammad Yusuf 


I. L. R. I. All. 


381 


246 


Bhana Nahana v. Parbhu Hari 


I. L. R. 11. Bom. 


67 


604 


Bai Mahkor v. Bulakhi Chaku 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


G38 


112, 416, 730, 1280 


Baij Nath v. Mahabir 


1. L R. I, All. 


SOS 


621 


Baijoo Lall, /» the mailer of the Petition of ... 


1. L. R. I. Cal. 


450 


877 


Baijun Doobey v.Brij Bhookun Lall Awusti .{ 


I. I.. R. I. Cal. 
L. R. 11. Ind. App. 


133 
275 


(mo 


BakhatRamv.WazirAli 


I. L. R. I. AIL 


448 


63 


Balaji Baikaji Pinge v. Gopal bin Raghu 








Kuli 


I. L.R. III. Bom. 


S3 


475 


Baldeo Das v. Sham Lai 


I. L. R. !. All. 


77 


673 


Baldeo Pandey v. Gokul Rai 


I. L.R. I. All. 


003 


742 


Baldeo Sahai v. Bateshar Singh 


1. L. R. 1. All. 


76 


1257 


Balkrishna v. Lakshman 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


219 


171. 


Balkrishna Bhalcbandra v. Gopal Raghunath... 


1. L. R. I. Bom. 


73 


632 


Balkrishna Trimback Tendulkar v. Savitribai... 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


54 


661 


Ball v. Stowell 


I. L. R. 11. All. 


322 


873 


Ballabh Das v. Sundar Das 


1. L. R. 1. All. 


429 


614 


Balwant Singh v. Gokaran Prasad 


l.L. R. I. All. 


433 


1347 


Bam v. Survey Commissioner and Collector of 








Ratnagiri 


1. L. R III. Bom. 


134 


470 


Banapa V. Sundardas Jagjivandas 


1. L. R I. Bom. 


333 


504 


Bank of Hindustan, China, and Japan v. 








Shoroshibala Debee 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


311 


1013 


Bannoo v. KasseeRam 


1. L. R. III. Cal. 


315 


678 


Bapuji Apaji v. Senavaraji Marvadi 


I. L. R. 11. Bom. 


2S1 


1339 


Barkat-ul-lah Khan v. Rennie ... n. 


I.LR.L All. 


17 


1370 


Basant Ram v, Kolahal 


I. L. R I. All. 


392 


1181 


BasantRaiv. Kanauji Lai 


I. L. R. 11. All. 


455 


1023 


Basapa v. Maraya 


1. L. R 111. Bom. 


433 


917 


Basawa and Gurbasawa v. Kalkapa, Shaibana, 








and Sidoji 


I. L. R 11. Bom. 


489 


1228 


Basappa bin Malappa Aki v. Dundayabin Shiv- 








lingaya 


I. L. R. 11. Bom. 


640 


1300 


Basapa bin Murtiapav. Lakshmanapa bin Mare- 








tamapa 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


624 


192 


Bazayet Hosseinv. DooliChund_ 


1. L. R, IV. Cal. 


402 


052 


Beresfoid v. Hurst 


1. L. R 1. All. 


77B 


907 


Behari Lai v. Salik Ram 


I. L. R. I. All. 


875 


908 


Behary Lall Sandyal v. Juggomohun Gossain ... 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


1 


1176 


Bejoy Chunder Banerjee v. Kally Prosonno 








Mookerjee 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


827 


569 


Bemolasoondury Cbowdhrain v. Punchanun 








Chowdhry 


1. L. R. HI. Cal. 


705 


204,1266 


Beresford v. Hurst 


I. L. R. I. All. 


772 


907 


Bhagirath v. Naubat Singh 


I. L. R. 11. All. 


115 


1006 


Bhagirthibai v. Radhabai 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


208 


585 


Bhagvandas Kishordas v. Abdul Husein Maho 








med AH 


1. L. R. HI. Bom. 


49 


164,1414 



D,„i„.db»Googlc 



INDEX OF CASfiS. 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest. 


Bbagavan Dullabh v. Kala Shankar ... *;'■ ... 


I. L. R. L Bom. 


641 


685 


Bhagbutti Deyiv. Bholanath Thakoot ... \ 


1. L. R. I. Cal. 

L. R. 11. Ind. App. 


10* 

250 


| 602 


Bhago Bibee v. Ram Kant Roy Chowdhry 


l.L.R-l.CaL 


£93 


1887 


Bhagvan Chunder Dass v. Sudder Ally... i 


I. L. R. IV. CaL 

II. Cal. Rep. 


41 
857 


\ 18S 


Bhagwandas Kishordas v. Abdul Husein Maho 








medAIi 


I. L. R, III. Bom, 


49 


168 


Bhagvan Singh v. Murli Singh 


1. L. R. 1. All. 


459 


63 


Bhagwanti v. Rudr Man Tiwarj 


1. L. R. II. All. 


14S 


54 


Bhala Nahanav. ParbhuHari 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


67 


591 


Bhaskarappa v. The Collector of North Kanara.. 


1. L. R- III. Bom. 


152 


804 


Bhawan Mulji v. Kavasji Jahangir Jasawala anc 








Perosha Merwanji 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


643 


731 


Bhawani v. Mahtab Kuar 


I. L. R. II. All. 


171 


611 


Bhawani Kuar y. Rikni Ram 


I. L. R. II. All. 


354 


872 


Bheeka Lall v. Bhuggoo Lall 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


23 


1284 


Bheknarain Singh v. janok Singh 


I. L. R. II. CaL 


438 


1066 


Bhichuk Singh v. Nagcshar Nath 


I. L. R. 11. All 


HE 


36 


Bhikaji Sabaji v. Bapu Sajn 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


650 


280 * 


Bhikam Das v. Pura 


I. L. R. II. All. 


141 


694 


Bbikhan Khan v. Ratan Kuar ., 


I. L. R. I. AIL 


512 


55,68 


Bhimul Doss v. Choonee Lall ... 


I. L. R. II. CaL 


879 


628 


Bhola Nath v. Baldeo 


I. L. R. 11. All. 


196 


1232,1887 


Bhoobuneshwar Dutt, In the matter of 


I. L.R.III. Cal. 


621 


1097 


Bhoobun Chunder Sen v. Ram Soonder Surma 








Mozoomdar 


I.L. R. III. Cal. 


300 


1887 


Bhoobun Mohun Debya v. Hurrisb Chunder J 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


23 


) 


Chowdhry t 


L. R. V. Ind. App. 


138 


$ 57 ° 


Bhugeeruth Berah v. Moneeram Banerjee 


I. L. R. IV. CaL 


855 


1365 


Bhuggobutty Dossee v. Shamachurn Bose 


1. L. R. I. Cal. 


837 


1395 


Bhupal v. Jag Ram 


I. L. R. 11. All. 


449 


1022 


Bhyrub Chunder Bundopadhya v. Soudamin 








Dabee 


I. L. R. 11. Cal. 


141 


1344 


Bhyrub Chunder v. Golab Coomary 


1. L. R. III. Cal. 


517 


113 


Biddomoye Dabee Dabee v. Sittaram... J 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 
III. Cal. Rep. 


497 
398 


I 325 


Bijai Ram v. Kallu 


I. L. R. I. All. 


692 


889 


Binda Prasad v. Ahmad Ali ... 


I. L. R. I. All. 


368 


527 


Binda Prasad v. Madho Prasad 


I L. R. II. AH. 


129 


426 


Birchunder Manickya v. Hurrisb Chunder 








Dass 


I. L R. III. Cal. 


383 


760, 1259 


Bishan Dial v. Manni Ram 


1. L. R. i. All. 


297 


1014 


Bishan Chand v. Ahmad Khan 


1. L. R. I. AH. 


263 


860 


Bisheshar Singh v. Sugundhi 


I.L.R. I. All. 


380 


66 


Bisheswari Debya v. Govind Persad Tewari ... 


L.R III. Ind. App 


194 


1113 


Bish Nath, In the matter of the Petition of ... 


I. L. 11. I. All. 


318 


1S34 


Bissessur Lall Sahoo v. Maharajah Luchmessur 








Singh 


L. R. VI. Ind. App 


233 


534,675 


Bittan, In the matter of... 


I. L. R II. Cal. 


357 


672 


Bollye Satu v. Akram Ally [ 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


961 


1310 



Di,iii,.db»Goo<^le 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation, Limit. ^ 
ctf, v. Mirza Mahomed Ally and The £ 
Burmah Company, Limited J 

Bonomali Bajadui v. Ko y 1 ash Ch under Mozoom- 
dar 

Bonomalee Nag v. Koylash Chunder Day 

Boonjad Mathoor v. Nathoo Shahoo... 

Boydonath Bag v. Grish Chunder Roy 

Boyle Chund Singh v. Maulard 

Brammoye Dassee v. Kristo Mohun Mookerjee 

Brijnath Dass v. juggernath Dass 

Brij Indar Bahadur Singh v. Ranee Janki \ 
Koer. — Lai Shunkur Box v. Ranee Janki > 
Koer.— Lai Setla Bus v. Ranee Janki Koer ) 

Brindabun Chunder Dey Chowdhry v. Brindabun 
Chunder Sircar Chowdhry 

Brojender Coomar v. Bromomoye Cbowdhrain... 

Brojendro Coomar Ray v. Rakbal Chunder Roy. 

Brojo^ishore Singh v. Bharrut Sing Mohaputter 

Buogseedhur Khettry, In the natter of ... 

Bunwaree Lall Sahoo v. Mohabeer Proshad J 

Burmah Trading Corporation, Limited, v 
Mirza Mahomed Ally Sherazee and Thf 

Burmah Company, Limited 

Bussun Lall Shoofeul v. C\undee Dass 
Byjaath Lall v. Raniooden Chowdhry ... j 

Byraddi Subbareddi v. D&sappa Rau .,-, 



Carvalho v. Nurbibi 

Cassum Jooma v. Thucker Liladhar Kessowje 
Chadami Lai v. Muhammad Baktish ... 

Chamaili Knar v. Rain Prasad 

Chamaili Rani v. Ram Dai 

Cham pabaty v. Bib i Jibun 

Chandu v. Chathu Nambiar 

Chatur Jagsi v. Tulsi 

Chemminikara Muppil Nair v. Kiliyanat Ukona 
Menon ... 



Chedambara Chetty v. Renga Krishna Muthut 
Vira Puchaiya Naicker \ 

Chidambaram Chettiar v. Gouri Nachiar. 5 
Chin Hong & Co. v. Seng Moh & Co. ... 5 

Chinna Nagayya v. Pedda Nagayya 

ChinnaSnbbaraya Mndali v. Kundaswami Reddi 



Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest. 


L. R. V. Ind. App. 


130 


•1160 


. L. R. IV. Cal. 


ne 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


186 


811 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


69: 


1S1 


. L. R. HI. CaL 


875 


118 


1. L. R. III. Cal. 


26 


3S7 


L L. R- IV. CaL 


B72 


97,1468 


. L. R. II. Cal. 


222 


1263 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


712 


1029 


L. R. V. Ind. App 


1 


\« 


I. Cal. Rep. 


318 


L.R.I. Ind. App. 


178 


1200 


1. I_ R. IV. Cal. 


885 


1415 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


791 


862 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


968 


1437 


LL.R-II.Cal. 


359 


73a 


L. R. I. Ind. App. 


89 


I * 


XII. Beng. L, R. 


29 


I. L R. IV. Cal. 


116 


J 896 


L. R. V. Ind. App. 


130 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


686 


1260 


L. R. 1. Ind. App. 


106 


j 


XXI. W. R. 


233 


1 1007 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


103 


141 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


202 


842,480,744 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


570 


1403 


I. L. R. I. All. 


5B3 


1153 


I. L R. II. AIL 


267 


601 


I. L. R. I. All. 


552 


316 


I. L. R. IV Cal. 


213 


1115 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


381 


411 


I.L.R. II. Bom. 


230 


835 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


88 


959 


L. R. 1. Ind. App. 


241 


) 


XIII. Beng. L. R. 


509 


> 226 


XXU. W. R- 


148 


S 


I. L. R. 11. Mad. 


83 


I 660 


L. R. VI. Ind. App 


177 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


736 


\ 190 


III. Cal. Rep. 


585 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


62 


584 


I. L. R. 1. Mad 


5 


731 



Di,iii,.db»Goo<^le 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 

Chinna Ummayi v. Tesgarai Chetti 
Chinnimarigadu, In the matter of 
Chinto Abaji Kulkarni v. Lakshroibai kom 

Sakharam Antaji 

Chinto Joshi v. Krishnaji Narayan 
Chokalingapesfaana Naicker v. Achiyar... 

Cbotay Lall v. Chunnoo Lall 

Chova Kara v. ba bin Khalifa 

Cbowdry Chintamun Sing v. Mussamut 

Nnwlukho Konwari 

Cbowdhri Murtaza H ossein v. Mussamut Bibi 

Chummun Shah, In the natter of 

Chunder Caunt Mookerjee v. Jodoonath Khan 

Chunder Coomar Roy *. Bhogobutly Prosonno 

Roy ... 

Chunder Mohun Roy v. Bhubon Mohini Dabea. 

Chunder Narain v. Farquharson 

Chunder Nath Sen, In the matter of the Petition 

«f 

Chunder Nath Chowdhry v. TirthanundThakooi 
Chunder Sekhur Mookerjee v. The Collector of 

Midnapore 

Chunni v. Thakur Das 

Chunia v. Ram Dial 

Cbunilal Sobharam v. Purbhudas Kursandas 
Chuttenlharee Lall v. Rambelashee Koer 

Cohen v. Cassim Nana 

CollectorofMoradabadv.MuhammadDainiKhan 
Collector of Sea Customs v. Punniar Chitham- 

Collector of Thana v. Bat Patel 

Collector of Thana v. Dadabhai Bomar.ji 
Collector of Trichinopoly v. Lekkamani 
Collins v. Maula Baksh ... 

Collis v. Manohar Das 

Coringa Oil Company v. Koegler 

Corporation of Calcutta v. Bheecunrarn Napit... 

Crosthwaite v. Hamilton 

Court of Wards v. Gaya Prasad 

Cowasjee Nanabhoy v. Lallbboy Vullubhoy J 

D. 

D. R. Bam v. The Survey Commissioner and 

the Collector of Rat nagiri 

Daia Chand v. Sarfraz 

Daia Chand v. Sarfraz Ali 

Dalip Singh v. Durga Prasad 



Volume and Page, 



I. L. R. I. Mad. 


168 


702 


I. L. R. 1. Mad. 


£89 


362 


1. L. R. II. Bom 


875 


416 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


214 


IIS 


I. L. R. I. Mad 


40 


408 


I. L. R.IV. Cal. 
L R IV. lnd. App 


744 
15 


I 620,752 


1. L. R I. Bom. 


209 


1480 


L. R. II. Ind. App. 


286 


149, en . 


L. R. III. Ind. App. 


209 


149 


I. LR.IU.CtL 

II. Cal. Rep. 


766 
317 


f 371,509 


I. L. R III. Cal. 


468 


1465 


I. L. R III. Cal. 


235 


909 


I.LR. II. Cal. 


889 


880 


I. L. R IV. Cal. 


887 


881 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


293 


1421 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


604 


895 


1. L. R, III. Cal. 


464 


1410 


I. L. R I. All. 


126 


1016 


[. L. R 1. AIL 


360 


345,848 


I. L R. II. Bom. 


560 


260 


I. L.R. Ill.Cal. 


318 


1876 


LLRI. Cal. 


2B4 


395 


I. L. R. II. All. 


198 


1164 


1. L. R. I. Mad. 
I. 1- R 11. Bom. 


89 
110 


28, 770, 1272 
1301 


LLRI. Bom. 


852 


195,845 


L. R. I.lnd.App.282,293 


632,1118 


I. L. R. II. All. 


2S4 


535 


1. L. R. I. All. 


7*5 


120 


I. L.R.I. CaL 


406 


819 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


290 


576 


I. L. R. 1. All. 


87 


1102 


I. L R. II. All. 


107 


10S4, 1344 


L. R. III. hid. App 


200 


?28i 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


408 


1. L. R. III. Bom. 


134 


476 


1. L. R I. All. 


117 


16 


(. L. R. I. All. 


425 


17 


I. L. R 1. AIL 


442 


1280 



Di,iii,.db»Goo<^le 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest. 


Dalpatbhai Bhagubhai v. Amarsang Khema 








Bhai 


1. L. R. 11. Bom. 


553 


855, 261 


c 


L. R. III. Ind. App 


102 


i 


Damodhar Gordhan v. Deoram Kanji ... < 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


3157 


{ 224 


( 


L. R App. Ca. 


33^ 


3 


Damodnr Parsotam v. Ishvar Jetha .. 


I. L. R. HI. Bom. 


89 


203 


Darbbha Venkamma v. Rama Subbarayadu 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


387 


1121 


Darbo v. Kesho Rai 


I. L. R. II. All. 


35(1 


237 


Darshan Singh v. Hanmanta 


1. L. R. I. All. 


274 


1280 


Daudaha v. Ismalsha 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


72 


789 


Dayal Jairaj v. Jivraj Ratansi 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


237 


478 


Dayal Mistree v. Kupoorchand 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


818 


799 


Debendronath Mullick v. Odit Churn Mullick... 


I. L. R III. Cal. 


890 


132G 


Debi Dutt Sahoo v, Subodra Bibee 


I. L. R 11. Cal. 


283 


1026 


Debi Prasad v. Thakur Dial 


1. L. R I. All, 


105 


618 


Debi Singh v. Bhup Singh 


I. L. R. I. All. 


709 


1116 


Deen Doyal Lall *. Het Narain Singh 


I. L. R. 11. Cal. 


41 


741 


Deendyal Lai v. Jugdeep Narain Singh... J 


L. R. IV. Ind. App. 
I. L. R. III. Cal. 


247 
198 


I 672 


Deen Doyal Poramanick v. Kylas Chunder Pa: 








Cbowdhry 


I. L. R I. CaL 


92 


743 


Delhi and London Bank, Limited, v. Orchard, j 


L. R IV. Ind. App. 
I.L.R. HI. Cal. 


127 
47 


( 304,879, 1252,1439 


Delhi and London Bank v. Wordie 


I. L. R. I Cal. 


249 


1261 


Denobundhoo Cbowdhry v. Kristomonee Dossee. 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


152 


1014 


Deojit v. Pitambar 


I.LRI. All. 


275 


1014 


c 


L. R. III. Ind. App 


102 


1 


Deoram Kanji v. Damodhar Gordhan ... 7 


L. R. I. App. Ca. 


332 


> 221 


( 


I. L. R. 1. Bom. 


367 


) 


Desputty Singh, tn the matter of the Petition 








of 


I. L. R. II. Cal 


208 


1177 


DessaiKallianraijiHekoomutraiji v. Maharana t 


L. R. 1. Ind. App. 


34 


) 


Fattehsangjijaswatsangji \ 


H. C. R. X. Bom. 


281 


> 1461 


Dcvrav Krishna v, Halambhai 


I. L. R I. Bom. 


87 


1352 


Dhanjibhai Bomanji Gujrat v. Navazbai 


I. L. R 11.' Bom. 


75 


39, 68, 608, 966 


Dhondu Gurav v. Gangabai 


1. L. R. III. Bom. 


309 


Q29 


Dhonender Chunder Mookerjee v. Mutty Lai 








Mookerjee 


L. R II. Ind. App. 


18 


1198 


Dhonessur Kooer v. Roy Gooder Sahoy 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


83 H 


909 


Dhuronidhur Sen v. The Agra Bank, Limited ... 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


380 


678 


Dijahur Dutt, In the matter of the Petition of ... 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


647 


362 


Dildhar Hossein v. Mujeedunnissa 


I. L. R. IV. CaL 


629 


241 


Dinanath Abaji v % Sadashiv Hari Mad have 


1. L. R. III. Bom. 


a 


1329 


Dirgaj Singh v. Debi Singh 


1. L. R I. All. 


499 


182 


Doolar Cl.and Sahoo v. Lalla Bisheshur Dyal ... 


L. R. VI. Ind. App. 


47 




Doolar Chand Sahoo v. Lalla Chabeel Chand ... 


L.R. VI. Ind App 


47 


> 530 


Dooli Chand v. Syud Bazayet Hossein 


L. R. V. Ind. App. 


211 


952 


Doorga Persad Singh v. Doorga Konwari < 


L. R. V. Ind. App. 
1. L. R IV. Cal. 


190 
190 


) 410,616 


Doorga Prosbad Mytse v. Joynarain Hazra ... 


1. L. R IV. Cal. 


96 


330 


Doorga Ptoshad Mytee v. Joynarain Hazrah ... 


I. L. R 11. Cal. 


474 


474 



Di,iii,.db»Goo<^le 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name oE Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest. 


Dorab Ally Khan v. The Executors of Khajah f 
Moheeooddeen t 


I. L. R. 111. Cal. 


80ft 


?I392 


L. R. V. Ind. App. 


11H 


Dorab Ally Khan v. Abdool Azeez 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


££9 


1214, 1393 


Dorab Ally Khan v. Khajah Moheeoodeen 


1. L. R. 1. Cal. 


6S 


1392 


Doss Money Dossee v. Jonmenjoy MulUck 


1. L R.I11. Cal 


8R3 


1205 


Dubey Sahai v. Ganeshi Lall 


I. L. R. I. All. 


84 


1457 


( 


[. L. R. IV. Cal. 


649 




Dukharam Bharli v. Luchman Bharti ... i 


IV. Cal. Rep. 


49 


i 218 


Dular Chand v. Balram Das 


1. L. R. 1. All. 


468 


108* 


Dulsook Rattanchand v. Cliugan Narrun 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


156 


90S 


Durga Prasad v. Asa Ram 


I. L. R. II. All. 


18b 


874 


Durga Prasad v. Nawazish All 


I. L. R. I. All. 


591 


98 


Durga Prasad v. Khairati 


1. L. R. I. All. 


645 


1S8 


Dwarka Das v. Husain Bakhsh 


I. L. R. I. All. 


56* 


1152 


Dwarka Natli Misser v. Hurrish Ch under 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


925 


1809 


Dwarkanath By sack v. Burroda Persaud Bysack 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


448 


1507 


Dyebukee Nundun Sen v. MadhooMutly Goopla 

E. 
East India Railway Company v. The Bengal 


1. L. K. I. Cal. 


123 


1402 








Coal Company ... 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


95 


1488 


Ebrahim v. Fuckhrunnissa Begum 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


531 


830 


Ede v. Kanto Nath Shaw 


1. L. R. 111. Cal. 


820 


95 


Eidanv. Mazhar Husain... ... 


I. L. R. I. All. 


*S3 


915 


Ekram Mundul v. Hobdhur Pal 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


271 


474, 1260 


Elahi Buksh v. Marachow j 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


ML'." 


) 


III. Cal. Rep. 


593 


J 120 


Ellem v. Basheer 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


1N4 


1287 




1, L. R. IV. Cal. 


m 




Elliott, In the Goods of 1 


II. Cal. Rep. 


4SH 


I 453 


Empress v. Abdool Karim ... ,„ J 


I. L. R, IV. Cal. 
III. Cal. Rep. 


10 

81 


I i, 144S 


Empress v. Abul Hasan 


I. L. R, 1. All. 


4<>7 


1098 


Empress v. Acharjys 


1. L. R. I. Mad. 


884 


1100 




I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


6li3 


1 


Empress v. Achiraj Lall ... J 


III. Cal. Rep. 


87 


f 355 


Empress v. Ambigara Hulagu 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


lf>3 


499 


Empress v. A miruddeen 


1. L. R. III. Cal. 


41 : 


1099 


Empress v. Ashgar Ali 


I. L. R. II. All. 


200 


49B 


Empress v. Ashootosh Chuckerbutty 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


488 


498 


Empress v. Baidanath Das 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


is 


359 


Empress v. Baldeo Sahai 


I. L. R. II. All. 


25a 


165, 1148 


Empress v. Banni 


I. L. R. II. All. 


849 


334 


Empress v. Bhawani 


I. L. R. 1. All. 


0B4 


499 


Empress v. Bhup Singh 


I. L. R. II. All. 


570 


1295 


Empress v. Budh Singh 


I.LR. II. All. 


101 


37S, 385 


Empress v. Brojonath Dey 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


425 


173 


Empress v. Burah 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


172 


824,825 


Empress v. Burah 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


63 


823 


Empress v. Butlo Kristo Doss 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


497 


1189 


Empress v. Cham Nayiak 


I. L. R. 11.- Cal. 


354 


385 



Di,iii,.db»Goo<^le 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest. 


Empress v. ChatUr Stngh 


I. L. R. II. All. 


83 


1086 


Empress v. Darba 


I. L. R. I. All. 


461 


370 


Empress v. Dedar Sircar 


I. L- R. II. Cal. 


S84 


1377 


Empress v. Dharam Das 


I. L. R. I. All- 


0B5 


700 


Empress v. Diljour Misser 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


225 


1054, 1294 


Empress v. Donnelly 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


495 


886,606 


Empress v. Dononjoy Broj ... 


I. L. R. HI. Cal. 


540 


376 


Empress v. Dossaji Gulam Husein 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


834 


1064 


Empress v. DwarkanathtChowdhry 


I. L. R. II. CaL 


39« 


906, 1414 


Empress v. Pox ... 


I. L.R.II. All. 


ht. 


1100,1491 


Empress v. Putteh Jyab Khan. 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


I7U 


778 


Empress v Gangadhar Bhunjo 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


622 


1181 


Empress v. Gauraj ... 


I. L. R. II. All. 


444 


498 


Empress v. Halodhur Poroe 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


883 


1099 


Empress v. Harai Mirdha and Umed Sardar .. 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


1B9 


3li0 


Empress v. Hary Doyal Karmokar 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


10 


1294 


Empress v. Hematulla. 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


389 


338 


Empress v. I rad Ally 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


8fi9 


1370 


Empress v. Jogessur Mochi 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


SBC 


E69 


Empress v. Joy Hari Kor 


I. L, R. II- Cal. 


851! 


932 


Empress v. JudbonathGangooly... 


I. L.R. II. Cal. 


273 


WO 


Empress v. JyadulU 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


48(5 


130 


Empress v. Kampta Prasad 


1. L.R.I. All. 


53( 


1097 


Empress v. Kanchan Singh 


1. L. R. I. All. 


413 


13SS 


Empress v. Karan Singh, 


I. L, R. I. All. 


BBC 


1147 


Empress v. Karim Bakhsh 


I. L. R. II. All. 


38(1 


196 


Empress v. Kasbi 


1. L. R. II. All. 


4*7 


3SS 


Empress v. Kashmiri Lai 


1. L. R. I. All. 


625 


379 


Empress v. Ketabdi Mundul 


1. L. R. IV. CaL 


7H4 


388 


Empress v. Kudratoollah 


I.L. R. III. Cal. 


495 


359 


Empress v. Lach man Singh ... 


I. L. R. II. All. 


398 


779 


Empress v. Lalai ... 


1. L.R. II. All. 


301 


1108 


Empress v. Mahindra Lai 


I.L. R. I. All. 


688 


700 


Empress v. Malka 


I. L. R. 11. Bom. 


648 


355 


Empress v. Manyu 


1. L.R.II. All. 


8+0 


131 


Empress v. Mannoo Tamovlee ... 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


oeo 


501 


Empress v. Megha ... 


1. L. R. I. All. 


837 


1096 


Empress v. Miyaji Ahmed 


1. L. R. III. Bom. 


IPO 


307 


Empress v, Mohim Chunder Rai... 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


765 


14B8 


Empress v. Mohindra Lai 


I. L. R. I. All. 


638 


701 


Empress v. Mula 


1. L. R- II. All. 


105 


545 


Empress v. Mulna 


I.L. R. I. All 


59H 


1055 


Empress v. The Municipal Corporation of (he 








Town of Calcutta 


I. L.R. Ill.Cal. 


758 


1035 


Empress v. Murli 


I. L.R. II. All. 


33h 


809 


Empress v. Nadua 


1. L. R. II. All. 


53 


352 


Empress v. Nipcha 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


71L 


357 


Empress v. Nilambar Babu 


I. L. R. II. All. 


27 ( 


8B9, 374, 781 


Empress v. Nobin Chunder Dutt 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


BfM 


380 


Empress v. Nurul Huq . ... 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


757 


12IO 


Empress v. Partab 


1. 1. R. 1. All 


(161 


1495 



Di,iii,.db»Goo<^le 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Nunc of Cue. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest. 


Empress v. Projonath Dey 


I. L. R. 11. Cal. 


428 


178 


Empress v. Rajcoomar Singh 


I. L.R. Ill.Cal. 


678 


878. 798, 1483 


Empress v. Raguha 


1. L. R. II. All. 


SSI 


380 


Empress v. Ramanyiya 


1- L.R.II. Mad. 


B 


40,856,609 


Empress v. Ram C hand 


I.LR.I. All. 


675 


498 


Empress v. Ram Adhin ... 


I. L. R. II. All, 


189 


1056 


Empress v. Rama Qirapa... 


I.L R. III. Bom. 


11 


487, 60S 


Empress v. RamesbarRai 


1. L. R. I. AM. 


I7B 


in 


Empress v. Sabsukh 


I. L, R. II. All. 


833 


1371 


Empress v. Safatulla 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


815 


1101 


Empress v. Sahao Rae 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


nas 


861,571 


Empress v. Salik ... 


I. L. R.I. All. 


587 


10B8 


Empress v> Sarmukb Singh 


1. L.R. 11. All. 


218 


867,1058 


Empress v. Sashi Bhusan Chuckrabutty 


I. L. R. IV. Cal, 


683 


305 


Empress v. Seymour 


I. L. R. I. All. 


630 


700 


Empress v. Sukhari 


1. L.R. 11. All. 


405 


880 


Empress v. Thacoor Dyal Singh 


1. L.R. III. Cal. 


820 


381 


Empress v. Thompson 


I. L. R. II- AH. 


say 


268 


Empress v. Troylukho Nath Chowdhry 


I. L. R. IV. Cal, 


Bill 


S 


Empress v, Tsit Ooe 


I.L. R. IV. Cal. 


607 


778 


Empress v. Umsadbaksh 


I. L.R.I1I. Bom. 


178 


790 


Eravanni Revivarman v. Iltapu Revivarman ... 


1. L. R. I. Mad. 


158 


HO 


Eshan ChunderRoy. v. Monmohini Dassi 


I. LR. IV. Cal. 


Q3B 


1580 


P. 
Fakharoodeen Mahomed Ashan v. Porjoso 


I. L. R. IV. CaL 


20D 


BBS 


Fakir Muhammad v. Gholam Husain 


I.L. R.I. All. 




909 


Fakir Muhammad v. Tirumala Caarriar 


1. L. R. 1. Mad. 


BOS 


1308 


Farzand Ali v. Alim-ul-lah 


I. L. R. I. All. 


273 


1148 


Fateh Singh v. Sanwal Singh ... 


I. L. R. I. All. 


761 


828 


Fatima Begam v. Sakina Begam 


1. L. R. I. All. 


51 


769 


Fazal Haq v. MahaChand 


1. U R. 1. All. 


557 


1324 


Fazal Muhammad v. Phul Kuar 


I. L. R. II. AIL 


192 


827 


Feda Hossein, In the matter of the Petition of 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


481 


6a 


Fehrsen v. Simpson 


1. L R. IV. Cal. 


614 


ISOfi 


Fernandez (D.) v. R. Alves 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


882 


714 


Fleming v. Koegler 


I.LR. IV. Cal. 


237 


826. 


Fleming Spinning and Weaving Company 








(Limited), In re ... 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


29a 


882 


Forbes (C. H. B.) and others v. Tullockchand 








Manockchand and Shapurji Burjorji 


1. L. R. III. Bom. 


38H 


816 


Foresterv. Secretary of State for India in. 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


101 


| 745 


Council \ 


L. R. IV. Ind. App. 187 


Fowle v. Fowle 


I. UR.IV.Cal. 


260 


453 


Framji Bezanji Dastur v. Hormasji Pestanj 










1. L. R- II. Bom. 


256 


13B8 


Fuckurodeen Mahomed Ashan v. Mohima 








Chunder Chowdhry ... 


I. L R- IV. Cal. 


529 


895 


Furzund Hossein v. Janu Bibee , 


I. L. R. IV. CaL 


588 


844,1277 


Futeek Paroee v. Mohender Nath Mozoomdar... 


I. L. R. 1. Cal. 


3S& 


342, 3U4 



nHt Google 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name o[ Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest. 


G. 

Gabriel v. Mordakai 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


148 


714 


Gadgeppa Desai v. Apaji Jivanrav 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


237 


832 


Gajadhur Pershad v. The Two Widows of 








Emam Ali Beg ... 


L. R. II. Ind. App 


520 


1188 


Gajapathi Nilamani v. Gajapathi Radhamani j 


I. L. R. 1. Mad. 290 
L. R. IV. Ind App. 212 


J 030 


Ganendro Mohun Tagore v. Rajah juttendro 








Mohun Tagore 


L. R. I. Ind. App. 


387 


1509 


Ganga Bai v. Sita Ram 


I. L. R. I. All. 


170 


641 


Gangadhar Shivkaran v. The Collector of Ah- 








mednagar 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


028 


196,780 


Gangajati v. Ghasita 


I. L. R. I. All. 


48 


610 


Ganga Prasad v. Kusyari Din ... 


I. L. R. I. All. 


611 


1070 


Gangs Ram v. Bansi ... 


I. L. R. II. All. 


431 


1237 


Ganpat Pandurangv. Adarji Dadabhai 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


812 


160 ■ 


Ganpal Pataya v. The Collector of Kanara ... 


I. L. R, I. Bom. 


7 


251 


Ganpat Rai v. Sarupi 


I. L. R. I. All. 


440 


1029 


Ganpatgir Guru Bholagir v. Ganpatgit 


I. L. R- III. Bom. 


230 


415 


Gasper, In the Goods of 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


733 


847 


Gauri v. Chandramani ... 


I. L. R. I. All. 


262 


075 


Gauri Dat v. Gur Sahai 


I. L. R. II. All. 


41 


1444 


Gauri Shankar v. Mumtaz Ali Khan 


I. L R. II. All. 


411 


696 


Gaya Prasad v. Bhup Singh 


I. L. R. I. All. 


180 


234 


Gehanji Kes Patil v. Ganpati Lakshman 


1. L R. II. Bom. 


464 


1324 


Ghasi Ram v. Nuraj Begam 


I. L. R. I. All. 


81 


827 


Ghazi v. Kadir Bakhsh 


I. L. R. I. All. 


212 


1343 


Girdharee Lall v. Kantoo Lall 


L. R. I. Ind. App, 


S21 


595 


Girdhari Singh v. Hurdeo Narain Singh 


L.R. III. Ind. App 


230 


1357 


Girdhari v. Sheoraj 


I. L. R. I. Ali. 


431 


770 


Gladstone, In the Goads of ... 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


168 


1179 


Gobind Chunder Koondoo v. Tamck Chunder 








Bose 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


146 


12«4 


Gobind Prasad, In the matter of lie Petition of. 


I. L.R. 11. All. 


465 


380 


Gobind Ram Marwary v, Mathoora Sabooya ... 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


839 


890 


Goculdas Jagmohandas and The National 








Financial Company (Limited) v. Lakh mi das 








Khimji and others 


I.L. R. III. Bom. 


402 


230 


Gogon Manjy v. Hashish wary Deby 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


4SI8 


1436 


Golabdas v. Lakshman Narhar 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


221 


917 


Golabolee v. Kootosboollah Sircar. 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


E27 


176 


Golap Chand Marwaree v. Thakurani Mohokoom 








Kooaree 


I, L. R. UI.CaL 


341 


497 


Golokemoney Dabia v. Mohesh Chunder Mosa. 


I. L. R. HI. Cal. 


547 


178 


Goluck Chunder Masanta v. Nundo Coomar Roy. 


1. 1. R. IV. Cal. 


699 


409 


Golucknath Misser v. Lalia Prem Lai 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


307 


973 


Goma Mahad Patil v. Gokaldas Khimji and 








Tapidas Khimji 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


74 


834 


Goodrich v. Venkanna 


1. L. R. II. Mad. 


104 


936 


Gopat v. Nanku 


1. L. R. I. All. 


246 


537 


Gopal Narayan v. Trimbak Sadashiv 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


267 


1227 



,.db,Google 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest 


Gopal Narhar Safray v. Hanmant Ganesl 










Safray and Ganesh Kamchandra Safray 


I. L.R. III. Bom. 


273 


E85, 


607,622,777 • 


Gopal Singh v. Dnlar Kuar ... 


I. L. R. II. All. 


352 


121 




Gopee Mohun Mozoomdar v. Hitls 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


789 


1273 




Gopee Nath Dobey v. Roy Luchmeeput Singl 










Bahadur 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


542 


1848 




Gopi Wasudev Bbat v. Marfcande Narayan Bhat 


1. L. R. III. Bom. 


30 


lOOfi 




Gordhan Pema v. Kasandas Balmukundas 


1. L. R. 111. Bom. 


179 


203 




Goshain Girdhariji v. Durga Devi 


I. LR. II. All. 


119 


145 




Gossain Dass Ch under v. Issur Ch under Nath 


I. L.R. IILCal. 


2S4 


409 




Gosto Behary Pal v. Johur Lai] Pal 


1. L.R.IV. Cal. 


836 


1140 




Gouree Lall Singh v. Joodhisteer Hajrah 


I. LR. 1. Cal. 


359 


184 




Gouri Shunker v. Maharajah of Bulrampore J 


I. L. R. IV. Cat. 639 
L. R. VL Ind. App, 1 


45 
43 




Gourmonee Debla v. Krishna Chunder Sannyal 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


397 


483 




Govind Raghunath v. Govinda Jagojl 


I. L R. I. Bom. 


600 


662, 


1313 


Govind Vaman v. Sakharam Ramchandra 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


42 


488, 


529 


Govindan v. K anna ran 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


351 


961 




Greender Chunder Ghose v. Mackintosh 


I. L R. IV- Cal. 


897 


884 




Groom v. Wilson 


I. L R. III. Cal. 


539 


271 




Gujar v. Barve 


I. L R. II. Bom. 


873 


900 




Gulab Dai v. Jiwan Ram 


I.LR. II. All. 


318 


233 




Gulabdas Jugjivandas v. The Collector of, 


I.. R. VI. Ind. App 


51 






Surat i 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


186 


{ 56S 




Gulabdas v. Lakshman Narhar 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


221 


917 




Gulab Singh v. Amar Singh 


I.LR. II. All. 


237 


917 




Gulab Singh v. Lachman Das 


1. L. R. I. All. 


748 


120 




Gulzari Mai v. Jadaun Rai 


I. L.R. II. All. 


t!3 


345 




Gulzari Lai v. The Collector of Bareilly 


I. L. R. I. All. 


596 


251 




Gumani v. Ram Charan 


I.LR I. All. 


555 


985 




Gumna Dambershet v. Bhiku 


1. L. R. I. Bom. 


125 


876 




Gungapersad v. Gogun Singh ... 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


322 


454 




Guni Mahomed v. Moran 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


96 


336 




Gunnoo Singh v. Latafut Hossein 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


836 


102O 




Gunpat Narain Singh, In the matter of 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


74 


728 




Guracharya v. Svamirayacharya 


1. L R. III. Bom. 


431 


213 




Gur Dayal, In the matter of the Petition of ... 


1. L. R. II. All. 


205 


305, 


1378 


Guru Shidgavda bin Rudragavda v. Rudragav- 










date kom Dyamangavda 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


631 


1105 




Hadjee AMooteh, In the matter of the Petition of. 


I. L R. II. Cal. 


131 


> 




Hadjee Abdoollah v. Meer Reasut Hossein ... 


L. R. I. Ind. App. 


72 


£ 1145. 


28B 


Hadjee Abdoollah v. Reasut Hossein 


L.R. III. I»d. App 


221 


S 




Haidri Bai v. The East India Railway Company. 


I. L. R. I. AH. 


087 


1376 




Haji Esmail Hajee Sidick v. Shamjee Poonjani. 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


550 


737 




Haji Hasan Ibrahim v. Mancharam Kaliandas... 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


137 


1256 




Haji Jakaria v. Haji Casim 


I. L. R. 1. Bom. 


■196 


735 




Hamid Ali v. Imtiazan 


1. L. R. II. All. 


71 


£41 




Hamir Singh v. Zakia 


I. L. R. I. All. 


57 


!i50 




Hanmantmal Motichand v. Ramabhai 


1. L. R. III. Bom. 


198 


888 





b, Google 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest. 


Haimman Prasad v. Kauleshar Pandey 


I. L. R.I. All. 


801 


472 


Hannroan Tiwari v. Oiirai 


I. L. R. II. All. 


164 


58U 


Har Sahai Mai v. Maharaj Singh 


1. L. R. II. All. 


294 


1273 


Harasatoollah, In the matter of, v. Brojonath 








Ghose 


1. L R. III. Cal. 


729 


1350 


Hatbhaj v. Gumani 


1. L. R. 11. All. 


493 


1470 


Hirdeo, In Ike matter of 


I. L. R. I. All. 


1SS 


3U5 


Hardeo Das v. Hukum Singh 


I. L. R. 11. All 


820 


200 


Haribhat v. Damodarbhat 


I. L.R. Hi. Bom. 


171 


iiI9 


Harris v. Harris 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


285 


695 


Harshankar Parshad, In the matter of the Peti- 








tion of 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


178 


1421 


Harsukh v. Meghraj ... 


I. L. R. 11. All. 


345 


4.'4 


Hasam Shah v. Gopal Bai ... 


I. L. R. 11. All. 


428 


1*73 


Hasan Ali v. Mehdi Husain 


I. L. R. I. All. 


533 


958 


Hasan Ali v. Naga Mai 


1. L. R. I. All. 


288 


588 


Hasoon Arra Begum v. Jawadoonuissa Satooda 








Khandan 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


ay 


250 


Hear n v. Bapu Saju Naikin 


I. L. R. 1. Bom, 


605 


894 


Heera Lall Pramanick v. Barikunnissa Bibee ... 


1. L. R. III. Cal. 


501 


1067 


Heeralall Rukhit v. Ram Surun Lall 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


835 


735 


Heera Lall Mookhopadya v. Dhunput Singh ... 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


500 


791 


Hera Chunder Chunder v. Prankristo Chunder... 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


403 


1210 


Hem Latta v. Shreedone Borooa 


1. L. R. III. Cal. 


771 


217 


Hemnath Dutt v. Ashgur Sindhur 


I. L. R, IV. Cal. 


894 


543 


Hemendro Coomar Hullick v. Rajendrolall 








Moonshee 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


353 


755 


Hendry v. Mutty Lall Dhur 


I. L. R. 11. Cal. 


395 


1359 


HewSOQ, In ike Goods of 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


770 


70 


Hinde v. Baudry 


1. L. R. II. Mad. 


13 


42 


Hingan Khan v. Ganga Prasad 


I. L. R. I. All. 


293 


1148 


Hira Chand v. Adbal 


I. L. R. I. All. 


153 


332 


Hira Lall v. Ganesh Prasad 


1- L.R. II. All. 


455 


1*88 


Hirdy Narain v. Syed Allaoollah 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


72 


143 


Hirji Jina v. Naran Mulji 


1. L. R. I. Bom. 


1 


9 


Honamma v. Timanbtiat 


I. L. R. 1. Bom. 


55(1 


611, 044 


Horro Narain v. Shoodha Kristo Berah 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


890 


132S 


Howard v. Wilson 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


231 


127, 1171 


Hukumchand v. Hiralal 


I. L. R. HI. Bom. 


159 


505 


Hurpurshad v. Sheo Dyal 


L. R. III. Ind. App 


253 


891, 757, 1076 


Hurrish Chunder Roy v. The Collector of Jessore 


1. UR. III. Cal. 


712 


179 


Hunodurga Chowdhrani ». Sharrat Soondery 








Dabea 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


074 


530 


Hunogobind Raha v. Rararutno Dey 


I. L. R. IV. CaL 


87 


221 


Hurronath Bhunjo v. Chunni Lall Ghose 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


877 


911 


Hurronath Roy v, Gobirid Chunder Dutt 


L. R. II. Ind. App. 


193 


4,71 


Hurropersaud Roy Chowdhry v. Shamaper- r 
saud Roy Chowdhry .,- \ 


L. R. V. Ind. App. 


31 


) _ 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


654 


\ ™ 3 


Hurro Proshad Roy v. Gopaul Diss Dutt 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


817 


sea 


Hurro Soondery Chowderain, la the matter of 








the Petition of 


I. L. R. IV. CaL 


IS 


987, 1077 



nHt Google 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest. 


Hurry Doss Bonnerjee, In the Goods of... 


I. L. R. IV. Cat 


87 


69 


Harrymohun Shaha v. Shonatun Shaha 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


275 


629 


Hursahai Singh v. Syud Loot! Ali Khan 


L. R. Il.Ind. App. 


28 


1214 


Horst v. The Mussoorie Bank 


I. L. R. I. All. 


762 


967 


Husiin Bakhsh v. Madge 


I. L. R. I. All. 


625 


DM 


Hasain Shah v Gopal Rai 


1. L. R. I. All. 


428 


908 


Hasaini Bibi i. Mohsin Khan 


I. L. R. I. All. 


126 


117, 148 


Hjda Aliv. Jafar Ali 

L 
llahi Bakhsh v. Imam Bakhsh 


I. L. R. I. Cat 


188 


179 


I. L. R. I. AH. 


384 


235 


Imam Ali v. Dasaundhi Ram 


I. L. R. I. All. 


608 


906 


Imbichi Koya v. Kakunnat Upakki 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


891 


246 


Imperatrix v. Baban Khan walad Mhaskoji 


I. L. R. 11. Bom. 


142 


231 


Imperatrix v. Bhawani bin Panduji and Sakha 








. ram bin Khundoji 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


625 


300 


imperatrix v. Dongaji Andaji 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


504 


3 


Imperatrix v. Gowdapa bin Venkugowda 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


634 


1298 


Imperatrix v Hari Ganu 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


628 


130 


Imperatrix v. Khimchand Narayan 


I, L. R. III. Bom. 


384 


197 


Imperatrix v. Lakshman Sakharam, Vaman 








Hari, and Balaji Krishna 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


481 


276,1372 


Imperatrix v. Malka 


I. L.R.II. Bom. 


643 


356 


Imperatrix v. Padamanabha Pa! 


I. L. R II. Bom. 


S84 


1872 


Imperatrix v. Pitamber Jina 


L L. R. II. Bom. 


01 


467 


In re Abdool Hamid 


I. L. R. IV Cal. 


94 


772 


In re Annapurnabai 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


630 


373 


In re Empress v. Mannoo Tamoolee 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


696 


501 


/nr<r]agjivan Nanabhai 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


82 


537 


In re Keshav Lakshman 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


175 


284 


In re Murray 


1. L. R. III. Cat 


S( 


733 


In re Muse AH Adam 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


653 


857 


In re The Fleming Spinning and Weaving 








Company (Limited) 


I. L. R III. Bom. 


299 


282 


In re Tukaram Vithal 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


527 


190 


In the floods ■>/ Elliott 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


IOC 


453 


In ths Goods oj Gasper 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


7S0 


317 


In the Goods ff / Gladstone fc Son 


I. L. R. I Cat 


168 


1179 


In the Goods of Hewson 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


770 


70 


Inthe Goodsof Hurry Doss Bonerjee and Sree- 








mutty Gungamony 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


87 


69 


In the Goods 0/ J. White 


I.LR. IV. Cat 


682 


1177 


In the Goads o/Murch 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


725 


69 


In Ike Goods of Roy money Dossee 


1. L. R. I. Cal. 


150 


166 


In the Goods of Rushton ... 


I. L. R- HI. Cal. 


736 


347 


In the Goods o/Shamchurn Mullick 


I. L. R. I. Cat 


52 


1176 


In the Goods 0/ Sir John Wemyss 


I. L. R. IV. Cat 


721 


1177 


In the Goods o/ Wilson 


I. L. R. 1 Cat 


149 


715 


In the matter of 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


305 


379 


In the mailer o/Act XVIII. of 1869 and of The 








Uncovenanted Service Bank 


I L. R. IV. Cal. 


829 


1416 



Di,iii,.db»Goo<^le 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest 


In the matter o/Abdool Hamed 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


94 


772 


In the matter of Bish Nath 


I. L. R. I. All. 


318 


1239 


In the matter of B'UX&n 


I. L-R.lI.Ca1. 


357 


S72 


In the matter c/Chinamarigada 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


289 


862 


In the matter p/Cliumman Shah 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


756 


871,503 


In the matter of Doyal Mistree v. Kupooi 








Chund 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


818 


759 


In tie matter of Harden 


1. L. R. I. All. 


139 


S65 


In the matter of Hanihankar Prasad 


I. L. R. 1. All. 


178 


142* 


In the matter of Mathra Prasad 


I. L. R. I. All. 


200 


1420 


In the matter of PurGOOram Boroah ... 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


117 


353 


In Ike matter ef Rukmin 


I. L. R. I. All. 


387 


119 


In the matter of The Empress v. Abdool Kur. 








reem 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


10 


6,1140 


In the matter of The Empress v. Futteh Jyab 








Khan 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


570 


778 


In the matter of The New Fleming Spinning 








and Weaving Company (Limited) 


I. LR. III. Bom. 


489 


282,1125 


In the matter of Umhica Nundun Biswas 


1. L. R, III. CaL 


134 


788 


In the matter of the Petition of Chunder Narain 








v. Farquharson ... 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


837 


384 


/■ the matter of the Petition o/Desputty Sing.. 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


280 


1177 


In the matter of the Petition of Dijahur Dutt ... 


I. L. R. IV. CI. 


647 


362 


In the matter of the Petition of Gur Daya! 


I. L. R. II. All. 


205 


305, 1373 


In the matter of the Petition of Hurro Sounder; 








Chowdhrain 


I.LR. IV. Cal. 


20 


987, 1077 


In the matter of the Petition o/Jotharam Davay 


I. L. R. II. Mad. 


30 


677, 689,1168 


/a the matter of the Petition of Kanund Narain. 


I. LR.IV.CaV 


650 


383 


In the matter of the Petition of Mackenzie v 








Shere Bahadoor Sahi 


I. L. R. IV. Cat. 


378 


381 


In the matter of the Petition of Modun Mohun.. 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


370 


1095 


In the matter of the Petition o/Mohesh Chunder 








Khan 


I. L R. IV. Cal. 


417 


383 


In the matter of the Petition o/Milo 


1. L. R. 11. All. 


299 


283 


/■ (** matter of the Petition of Narain Das ... 


I. L. R. I. All. 


610 


157 


In the matter of the Petition of Nursey Kessow. 








i« 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


270 


1330 


In the matter of the Petition o/Oodovchurri 








Miner 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


ill 


214 


In the matter of the Petition of Ratansi Kalianj 








and six others 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


148 


270 


In the matter of the Petition of Rukmin 


I. L R. I. All. 


287 


119 


la the matter of the Petition of Shibo Prosad 








Pandah 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


124 


411 


In the matter of ike Petition o/Soorja Kan 








Achraj Chowdhry 


I. L R. I. Cal. 


383 


1S8, 1420 


In the matter of the Petition of Sabba Attala .. 


I. L. R. 1. Mad. 


304 


. 130 


/■ ike matter of the Petition and Schedule of Var 








dulaCharri 


1. L. R. 11. Mad. 


15 


734 


In tie matter of The Sarawak and Hindustan 








Banking and Trading Company (Limited) .. 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


704 


Z83 



D,„i„.db»Googlc 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest. 


In the matter of the WillofC. M. Hunter 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


4S0 


1606 


Inayat Khan v. Rahmat Bibi 


1. L. R. II. All. 


97 


1267 


Irvine v. The Union Bank of Australia ... j 


1. L R. ill. Cal. 
L. R. IV. Ind. App 


880 
86 


J 1128 


Ishwardas Culabchand v. The G. I. P. Ry 








Company ... 


1. L. R. III. Bom. 


IS) 


UM 


Issunee Dassce v. Abdool Khalak 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


415 


904 


Ittapu Revivarman v. Eravanni Revivarman 

J. 
Jadu Dass v. Sutherland 


I. L. R. 1. Mad. 


163 


960 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


659 


337 


Jadu Lai v. Ram Gholam... 


1. L. R.I. All. 


311 


12f!7 


Jagan Nath v. Lalman 


I. L. R.I. All. 


861 


118 


Jagan Nath Panday v. Prag Singh 


I. L. R. II. All. 


515 


1S7H 


Jageshar Singh v. Jawahir Singh 


I. L. R. I. All. 


311 


1157 


jagesri Kuar v. Ram Nath Bhagat 


I. L. R. I. All. 


871 


410 


Jagjivan Nanabhai, In re 


1. L. R. 1. Bom. 


80 


537 


Jagjivan Nanabhai v. Shridhar Balkrishna 








Nagarkar 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


252 


1027 


Jai Shankar v. Tetley 


I. L. R. I. All. 


58t 


907 


Jaikisondas Gopaldas v. Harkissondas Hullo. 








chandas and Muthuradas Purshotamdas 


I.L. R. II. Bom. 


9 


843, ess 


Jallidar Singh v. Ram Lai 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


723 


600 


Jamal walad Ahmed v. Jamal walad Jallal 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


633 


788 


jamna v. Machul Sahu 


1, I.. R. II. All. 


315 


050 


Jamnadaa v. Lalitaram 


1. L R. II. Bom. 


294 


913,1104 


jamnadas Shankarlal and Vrijbhuknan Shan 








karlat v. Atmaram Harjiwan ... 


I. L. R. 11. Bom. 


133 


964 


Jan Muhammad v. Ilahi Bakhsh 


1. L. R. I. All. 


390 


249 


Janokee Debea v Gopaul Acharjea 


1. L. R. II. Cal. 


305 


664, 1141 


Janokey Nath Roy, In the matter of the Petition 








of 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


466 


1158 


Janokinath Mookerjee v. Ramrunjun Chucker 








butty 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


349 


985 


Jardine, Skinner, & Co. v. Rani Surat Soondar 








Dcbi 


L. R. V. Ind, App 


164 


1309 


Javati Ramasami v. Sathambakam Theruven 








gadasami 


1. L. R. I. Mad. 


340 


771 


Jawahir Lai v. Narain Das 


I. I- R. I. All. 


644 


914 


Jeoni v. Bhagwan Sahai 


1. L. R. I. All. 


HI 


240 


Jibhai Mahipati v. Parbhu Bapu 


1. L- R. I. Bom. 




902 


Jiviv. Ramji 


1. L. R. 111. Bom. 


207 


638 


Jiwan Baksh v. Imtiaz Begam 


I. L. R. IL All. 


93 


947 


jiwan Singh v. Sarnam Singh 


I. L. R. I. All. 


97 


884 


Jodoo Lai Mullick v. Kali Kishen Tagore 


L. R. VL Ind. App 


190 


1331 


jogendro Mullick Nauth v. Sreemutty Nitto- 








kissoree Dosaee 


L. R. V. Ind. App. 
I.L. R. III. CaL 


55 


639 


Jogesh Cbunder Dutt v. Kali Chum Dutt ". 


SO 


991 


Jogeshar Singh v. Jawahir Singh 


I. L. R. I. Alt. 


911 


1167 


Johurra Bibee v. Sreegopal Misser 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


470 


643 


Joshi v, Joshi 


I. L. R. II Bom. 


660 


1002 



D,„i„.db»Googlc 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest 


Jotharam Davay, In the matter of the Petition of. 
joli Bhimrao v. Balu 


1. L. R. 11. Mad. 
I. L. R. 1. Bom. 


30 

209 


677, 6S9, 1168 
2,982 


1. L. R. IV. Cal 


434 


) „,. 


Joy Narain Giri v. Girish Chunder. Myti ... i 


1. L. R. V. Ind. A. 


888 


f 660 


Joykislo Cowar v. Nittyannund Nundy 


1. L.R-III. Cal. 


738 


262,807 


I 


L. R. IV. Ind. App 


147 


J 673 


Jugdeep Narain Singh v. Deendyal Lai ...< 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


10B 




Juggernauth Doss v. Brijnath Doss 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


322 


743,844,1460 


juggernath Sahoo Sheosahoy Sahoo v. Syud 








Shah Mahomed H ossein 


LR. II. Ind. App. 


48 


866 


Juggobundhoo Shaba v. Promothonath Roy 


I, L.R. IV. Cal. 


767 


761 


Juggut Chunder Chuckerbutty, In the matter of. 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


110 


862 


Juggut Narain Singh v. The Collector of Man- 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


413 


618 


Jugmohun Haldarv. Sarodamoyee Dossee 


I. L. R. 111. CaL 


149 


856,666 


jumoona Dassya v. Bamasoondari Dassya 


I. L. R. 1. Cal. 


289 


) 


Jumoona Dassya Chowdrani v. Bama sounder a 






> 586, 1SS7 


Dassya Chowdrani 


L. R. III. Ind. Ap. 


72 


) 




I. L. R. I. Cal. 


163 


I 877 


Juneswar Dass v. Mahabeer Singh -. 


L. R. 111. Ind. App 


1 


E. 

Kabir walad Ram j an v. Mahadu walad Shiwajj. 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


360 


1388 


Kachubhai v. Krishnabhai ... 


1. L. R. II. Bom. 


635 


604,1140 


Kadir Baksh v. llahi Bakifa 


I. L. R. 11. All. 


233 


63S 


Kadumbinee Dosseev. Koylash Kamince Dossee 


I. L. R. 11. Cal. 


431 


1436 


Kaleshar Prasad v. Jagan Nath ... 


I. L. R. I. All. 


650 


236 


Kali Charan Rai v. Ajudhia Rai 


1. L. R. II. All. 


14S 


180 


Kali Kishen Tagore v. Jodoo Lall Mullick 


L.R.VI. Ind. App 


190 


1381 


Kali Kishore Roy v. Dbununjoy Roy 


I.L. R. III. Cal. 


886 


113, 899 


Kali Prasad v. Ram Charan 


I. L. R. I. All. 


159 


655 


Kalian Das v. Nawal Singh 


1. L.R.I.A11. 


620 


122, 777 


Kalian Das v. Tika Ram... .- 


I. L.R. II. All. 


137 


B7 


Kaliprosad Rai v. Meher Chandro Roy 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


■AT. 


1405 


Kalipiosonno Ghosev. Kamini Soonduri Chow- 








drain 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


475 


1008 


Kallapa v. Venkatesh Vinayak 


1. L_ R- II. Bom. 


676 


249 


Kally Prosonno Ghose v. Gocool Chunder Mitter 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


295 


5S9 


Kally Prosonno Hazra v. Heera Lall Mundle ■■ 


I. L. R. 11. Cal. 


168 


886 


Kalo Nilkanth v. Lakshmibai 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


637 


877 


Kalova kom Bhujangrav v. Padapa walad Bhu 








jangrav 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


84S 


918 


Kalu bin Bhiwaji v. Visbram Mawaji 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


543 


781, 1285 


Kamal Singh v. Batul Fatima 


I. L. R. II. All. 


460 


1469 


Kamalam v. Sadagopasarat 


1. L. R. I. Mad. 


860 


897 


Kamayya v. Leman 


1. L. R. II. Mad. 


3" 


768 


Kanahi Ram v. Biddya Ram 


I. L. R. I. All. 


64 


932 


Kanahia v. Ram. Kishen 


1. L. R. II. AH. 


42 


772 


Kanahia Lall v. Kali Din 


I. L. R. II- All. 


88 


1222 



Kanchan Singh v. Sheo Paraad 

Kdtigal Chandra Ruj v. Kanya Ull Ruj 



zedbyGOOgle 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Kanhaiya Lai v. Domingo 

KanthiRamv.BankeyL.il 

Kantoo Lall v. Gintharee Lall ... 
Kantoo Lall v. Muddun Thakoor 

Karam All V. Halima 

Karan Singh v. Ram Lai ., 

Karim v. Muhammad Kadsr 

Karim Bakhsh v. Budha 

Kartick Chunder Sett; v. Gopaulkisto Paulit 
Kasturbai v. Sbivajiratn Devkurna 
Kavasji Nartabhai v. Lallubhoy Vullabhoy 

Keltic v. Fraser 

Kennellyv. Wyman 

Keshava v. Keshava .,. 

Keshao Lukshimon, In re .. 

Keval Ruber v. The Talukdari Settlement Officer 
Khajah Ahsanoollah v. Kajee Aftabooddeen 
Khajah Ashanoollah v. Ramdhonc Bhuttacharj. 
Khajooroonissa v. Rowshan Jehan 
Khando Narayan Kulkarni v. Apaji Sadashiv 

Kulkarni 

Khandas Dulabdas v. Tarachand Omarchand ... 
Kherodemoney Dossee v. Doorgamoney Dossee. 

Kheta Mai v. Chuni Ul 

Khoblall Baboo v. Ram Chunder Bose 

Khoob Lall v. Jungle Singh 

KhubChandv. Kalian Das 

- Khuggender Narain Chowdhry v. Sharupgir 

Oghorenath ... ... ... t 

Kinmond v. Jackson 

Kirath Chand v. Ganesh Prasad 

Kirtee Chunder Mitter v. Struthers 

Kishen Gopaul Mawar v. Barnes 

Ko Byaw v. Moung Shoay Att 

Koeglerv. Prosonno Coomar Chalterjee 

Koegler v. The Coringa Oil Company 

Komollochun Dutt v. Nilruttun Mundle 
Konwar Doorganath Roy v. Ram Chunder Sen) 

Kooer Gujraj Singh v. Runjeet Singh 

Koonj Behary Chowdhry v. Gocool Chunder 

Chowdhry 

Koonjo Mohun Dass v. Noho Coomar Shaba .. 
Koylash Chunder Dass v. Boykoonto Nath 

Chundra 

Koylash Chunder Paul Chowdhry v. Preonath 

Roy Chowdhry 

Krisha Behari Roy v. Brojeswari Chowdranee.J 
Krishna Kishore Shahav. Bireshur Mozoomdar 
Krishna Mohun Bose v. Okhilmoni Dossee 



I. L. R. 1. All. J 

I. L. R. II. All. i 

L. R. 1. hid. App. i 

L. R. I. lad. App. f 

I. L, R. I. All. ( 
I. L. R. II. All. 
I. L. R. II. Mad. 

I. L. R. 1, All. ! 

I. L. R.HI.CaL i 

I. L. R. III. Bom. I 

I. L. R. I. Bom. • 

I. L. R. ll.Cel. < 

I. L R. I. Cal. ] 
I. L. R. II. Mad. 

I. L.R. l.Bom. ] 

I. L. R.I. Bom. t 

I. L. R. IV. Cal. ( 

I. L. R. I. Cal. I 

I. L. R. II. Cal. I 

I. L. R. II. Bom. i 

I. L. R. I. Bom. i 

I. L R. IV. Cal. < 

1. L. R. H All. 1 

I. L. R. II. Cal. * 

I. L. R. III. Cal. ! 

l.L. R. I. All. 1 

I.L.R. IV- Cal. t 
I. L. R. lit Cal. 

I. b. R. II. All. f 

I. L. R. II. Cal. i 

I. L. R. II. Cal. S 
L. R. III. Irjd. App. 

I. L. R. II. Cal. 4 
I. L. R. I. Cal. 

I. L. R. IV. Cal. } 

I. LR. II. Cal. I 
L. R. IV. Ind. App. 
L.R. I. Ind. App. 



I. L R. III. Cal. 619 

I. L. R. IV. Cal. 

L. R. II. Ind. App. 



L R. I. Cal. 
I. L. R. IV. Cal. 
I. L. R, III. Cal. 



mo 

1485 
IBM 

778 

OSS, 644, 651 



J 1257 
1*01 



.., Google 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest 


Krishnaji Ravji Godbole v. Raraachandra Sa- 








dashiv 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


70 


787 


Krislmama v. Krishnasami 


1. L. R- II. Mad. 


82 


455 


Krishnaieddi Govindareddi v. Stuart 


I.LRI. Mad 


m 


H 


Krishnarav v. Govind 


I. L.-R. II. Bom. 


25 


275 


Kristo lndvo Saba v. Huromonee Dassee 


L. R. L Ind. App. 


84 


1145 


Kudomee Dossee v.Jotteeram Kotita 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


B05 


612 


Kulo Nilkanth v. Lakshmlbai 


I. L. R. II. Bora. 


637 


877 


Kumarasami Nadan v. Palanagappa Chetti ... 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


985 


651 


Kiimood Narain Bhoop v. Purna Chunder Roy. 


I; L. R, IV. Cal. 


647 


.788 


Kuaund Narain Bhoop, In the matter of the 








Petition of 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


650 


883 


Kunhi Moidin Kutti v. Ramen Unni 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


203 


B7 


Kuray Mai v. Puran Mai 


I. L. R. II. All. 


585 


1084 


Kuvarji v. Moti Haridas ... 


I.LR. HI. Bom. 


£3 


843 


Kuvcrji Tulsidas v. The G. I. P. Railway Com. 








p»ny 

L. 
Lachnian Bibi v. Patni Ram 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


104 


1204 


I. L. R. I. All. 


510 


5SS 


Lachman Rai v. Akbar Khan ... 


I.LR.I. AIL 


410 


m 


Lacbman Singh v. Mohan 


I. L. R. II. All. 


497 


128 


Lachman Singh v. Sanwal Singh 


I. L. R. I. All. 


543 


235 


Lachmi Narain v. Rajah Partap Singh 


I. L. R. II. All. 


1 


221 


Lachmi Narain Lai. v. Shevambar Lai 


I. L. R. II. All. 


409 


878 


Lachmi Narain v. Wilayti Begam 


I. L. R. 11. All. 


433 


682 


Laidley v. Gunness Chunder Sahoo 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


438 


1306 


Lackmidas Vithaldas v. Ibrahim Oosman 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


644 


113 


Lakshman Ramchandra Josbi v. Satyabhamabai. 


I.LR. II. Bom. 


494 


641, 648, 1038 


Lakshman Dada Naik v. Ramachandra Dada 








Nailt 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


561 


497, 655, 686 


Laksbmibai v. Shridhar Vasudev Takle 


1. L. R. III. Bom. 


1 


615 


Lakhmi Chand v. Tori Lai 


1. L. R. I. All. 


618 


817 


Lai Das v. Nekunjo Bhaiihiani 


I. L. R. IV. CaL 


874 


961 


Lata v. Hira Singh 


I. L.R. II. All. 


49 


219, 819 


Lall Sahoo v. Deo Narain Singh. 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


781 


174 


LallaChoonee Lall v. Munnoo Lall 


L, R. I. Ind. App. 


144 


482—1143 


LalU Gopee Chand, In the matter of tht Petition 








»f 


I. L. R, 11. CaL 


128 


62 


Lalla Jogeshur Sahoy v. Mussumat Phoolbas 








Koonwur 


L R. III. Ind. App. 


7 


598,1144 


Lalla Kali Prasad v. Buli Singh 


I. L. R. IV. CaL 


780 


980 


Lalla Nowhut Lall v. LalU Jewan UII 


US. IV. CaL 


831 


951 


Lallab Barroomul v. The Official Liquidator .. 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


704 


283 


Lallah Ramesshur Doyal Singh v. Latlah Bissen 








Doyal 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


406 


894 


Lallbhoy Vullubhoy v. Cowasjee Nanabhay .. 


L. R. III. Ind. App 


200 


286 


Lallnbhai Bapubhai v. Mankuvarbai 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


888 


539, 809, 631 


Lallu Ganesh v. Ranchhod Kahandas 


I. L R. II. Bom. 


641 


256 


Lalubhai Snrchand v. Bat Amrit 


I. L. R. II. Bora. 


239 


Z081 


Land Mortgage Bank of India v. Vishnu Govini 








Patankar 


I. L. R. II. Bora. 


670 


467 



,.db,Google 



INDEX OF CASES 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest. 


Lali Kooer v. Subadar Kooer 




I. LR.III.CaI. 


720 


876 


Leelanund Singh Bahadoor v. Thakoor Mun 










jun Singh 




I. L. R. III. Cal. 


261 


M0 


Lekhraj Roy v. Kunhya Singh 




I. L. R. 111. Cal. 


210 


185,567 


Lekkamini v. Collector of Trichinopoly 


■1 


L. R. t. Ind. App. 


293 


! • 


Leman v. Damodaraya 




I. L. R. I. Mad. 


158 


930 


Lokenath Ghose v. Jugobundhoo Roy 




I. L. R. I. Cal. 


287 


817 


Lokhee Narain Roy v. Kalypuddo Bandopadhya 








and Shamapuddo Bandopadhya 




L. R. II. Ind. App. 


154 


248 


London, Bombay andMediten-anran Bank (Limit- 








ed) v. Bhanji Zutani and another 




I. U R. II. Bom. 


116 


283 


Luchmessur Singh v. Leelanund Singh... 




1. L. R. IV. Cat 


588 


650 


Luchmi Dai Koori v. Asman Singh 




MR. II. Cal. 


218 


674 


Luchmun Singh, Ajeet Singh, and Ramdeen 








Singh v. Shumshere Singh 




L. R. II. Ind. App. 


68 


671,1208 


Luckhy Narain v. Kally Puddo Banerjee 




I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


882 


976 


Lukhykant Bose, In the matters/ the Petition 


of. 


I. L. R. I. Cat. 


180 


1419 


Luckmidas Vithaldas v. Ebrahim Oosman 




1. L. R. II. Bom. 


014 


112 


Lungcssur Kooer r. Sookha Ojha 




I. L. R. III. Cal. 


161 


126 


Lyell v. Ganga Dai 




I. L. R. I. All. 


60 


1040 


K. 
MaeGillivary v. The Jokai Assam Tea Co. 




I. L. R. II. Cal. 


38 


969 


Mackenzie v. Shere Bahadoor AM 




I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


S78 


381 


Mackintosh v. Wingrove 




I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


137 


1476 


Mackintosh v. Hunt 




I. L. R. II. Cal. 


202 


824 


Madalatha, Ex parte 




I. L. R. II. Mad. 


75 


124 


Madhoji v. Vyankaji 




1. L. R. I. Bom 


197 


126 


Madhavan v. Achudu 




I. L. R. I. Mad. 


301 


80S 


Madhavrao Keshav Tilak v. Gungabai ... 




I. L. R. II. Bom. 


639 


649 


Madhavarayya v. Trithasami 




I. L. R. I. Mad. 


807 


60S 


Madho Das v. Kamta Das 




I. L. R. I. AH. 


639 


028 


Madho Das v. Rukman Sevak Singh ... 




1. L. R. II. All. 


287 


12MO 


Madhoo Proshaud Singh v. Purs ha n Ram 




I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


620 


1247 


Madhub Chunder Giree, In the matter of 


the 








Petition of 




I.L. R. III. Cal. 


143 


878 


Madhub Chunder Giree v. Sham Chand Giree... 


I. L.R. III. Cal. 


343 


1421 


Madras Railway Company v. Zemindar 


of 








Carvatenagaram ... 




L. R. I. Ind. App. 


364 


1462 


Mahabeer Singh v. Juneswar Dass 




1. L. R. III. Ind. App. 1 




Mahabir Parshad v. Debi Dial 




I. L. R. I. All. 


291 


1149 


Mahadaji v. Vyankaji , 




I. L. R. I. Bom. 


197 


126, 1326 


Mahadeva Rayar v. Sappani 




I. L. R. I. Mad. 


896 


1287 


Mahantappa v. Nilgangaura 




I. L. R. III. Bom. 


368 


6Z6 


Maharajah of Bulrampur v. Gouri Shunker 




L. R. VI. Ind. App 


1 


45 


Maharajah Luchmessur Singh v. Bissessur 


Lall 








Sahoo 




L. R. VI. Ind. App 


£38 


684,675 


Maharajah of Bulrampur v. Uman Pal S 


ngh 








and Ganesh Singh 




L. R. V. lad. App. 


226 


40 



Di,iii,.db»Goo<^le 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest. 


Maharajah Pertab Naraiii Singh v. Maharanee ( 
Subhao Koer and others ( 


L. R. IV. Ind. App 
L. R. V. Ind. App. 
i. L. R. HI. Cal. 


288 
171 
626 


I 47,1145 


Maharana Fattehsangji Jaswatsangji v. Dessa 








Kallianraiji Hekoomutraiji 


L. R. I. Ind. App. 


31 


1462 


Mahomed Arshad Chowdhry v. Sajida Banoo ... 


I. L. R, III. Cal. 


702 


950 


Mahomed Badsha v. Nicol, Fleming, & Co. ... 


I. L. R IV. Cal. 


855 


258 


Mahomed Elahee Buksh v.-Brojokisbore Sen ... 


I. L.RIV. Cal. 


497 


177 


Mahomed Ewaz v. Brij Lall 


L. R. IV. Ind. App 


166 


1231. 


Mahomed Hoasain Rowthen v. Thumbasawmy 








Mudelly 


L. R. II. Ind. App. 


244 


1 


Mahomed Shuffli v. Laid™ Abdula 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


227 


271 


Mahtab Chunder Bahadoor v. Ram Lall Mooker- 








j« 


I. L. R III. Cal. 


851 


74S 


Makundi Ul v. Kaunsila 


I. L. R. 1. All. 


5U8 


971 , 1352 


Malcolm v. Gasper, In thematter 0/ The Empress 








of India on the Prosecution of 


I. L. R. II. CaL 


27B 


567 


Man Kiiar v. Jasodha Kuar 


I. L, R I. All. 


478 


313 


Man Singh v. Narayan Das 


L L. R I, All. 


480 


1268 


Manally Chenna Kesavaraya v. Mangadu Vaide- 








Unga 


f. L R. Mad. 


S43 


89!) 


Mancherji Kawasji Davur v. Mithibai 


I.LR.1. Bom. 


50 a 


39 


Maneckji Limji Mancherji v. Goolbai 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


241 


1876 


Manessur Dass v. The Collector and Municipa 








Commissioners of Chapra 


I. L. R I. Cal. 


409 


173 


Mangal Khan v. Mumtaz Ati 


(. L. R. II. AH. 


239 


835 


Manickbai v. Hormasji Bomanji 


1. L. R. I. Bom. 


647 


714 


Manick Chunder Dutt v. Bhuggobutty Dossee... 


I. L. R III. CaL 


443 


584 


Manik Singh v. Paras Ram 


1. L. R. I. All. 


727 


1153 


Maniklal Atmaram v. Munchersha Dinsha 


I. L R. I. Bom. 


2fi9 


201, 388, 684 


Manna Lai r. Bank of Bengal 


I. L R. I. All. 


309 


318 


Manni Kasaundhan v. Crooke 


LLR II. All. 


29i! 


52 


Manohar Ganesh v. Bawa Ramcharandas 


I. L. R II. Bom. 


319 


S45, 346, 347 


Manohar Lai v. Gauri Shankar 


I. L. R. I. All. 


470 


27 


Manohar Doss v. Romanath Law 


L L. R. III. Cal. 


473 


168 


Maratib Ali v. Abdul Hakim 


I. L. R. 1. All. 


569 


1153, 1605 


Martin v. Lawrence 


I. K. R. IV. Cal. 


655 


'708 


Maseyk v. Fergusson , 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 804 


,670 


1504 


Mathappa Chetti v. Chellappa Chetti 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


196 


772 


Mathra Paishad, In the matter of the Petition of 


I. L.RI.AU. 


29ij 


1420 


Mattongeney Dossee v. Ramnarain Sadkhan ... 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


83 


1233 


Mathura Das v. Babu Ul.. 


L L. R. I. All. 


683 


15 


Matungee Churn Mitter v. Moorrary Mohun 








Ghose 


I. L. R 1. Cal. 


175 


186 


May oi of Lyons t. Advocate- General of Bengal. . J 


L. R III. Ind. App 
1. L. R 1. Cal. 


32 
80S 


J 1512 


Meer Mahomed Hossein v. A. J. Forbes 


L. R. II. Ind. App. 


1 


472 


Meer Reasut Hossein v. Hadjee Abdoollah 


L. R I. Ind. App. 


72 


1146 


Meghraj v. Zakir Husain 


I.LR.I. All. 


280 


23 


Memon Hajee Haroon Mahomed v. Molvi Abdul 








Karim and Moola Ahmed Moola Abdulla ,,. 


I.L.R III. Bom. 


91 


1171 



D,„i„.db»Googlc 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Cue. 


Volume and Page- 


Column of Digest. 


Mercer v. Narpat Rai 


I. L. R. I. All. 


786 


BH 


Miller v. Brindabun 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


910 


168 


Miller v. The A dministrator -General of Bengal 


1. L. R. t. Cal. 


411 


713 


Mina Ally Bebanee v, Syed Hyder Hoosein ... 


1. L R. 11. Bom. 


449 


849 


Mina Himmut Bahadoor v. Mussamat Saheb- 








zadee Begum 


L R. I. Ind. App. 


ts 


943 


Mirza Himmut Bahadoor, Mussumat Bismullah 








Begum, and Mussumat Sahibzadee Begum v. 








Ranee Sonet Kowar 


L. R. III. Ind. App 


92 


481 


MirzaJehanKadrv. AfsurBahu ... [ 


I.L. R. IV. Cal. 
L. R. VI. Ind. App 


787 
76 


J 298 


Mirza Mahomed Aga Ali Khan Bahadoorv.The 








Widow of Balmakund ... ... 


L. R. III. Ind. App 


241 


1434 


Mirza Mahomed Ally Sherazee and The Bur. 








mah Company (Limited,) v. The Bombay 








Burmah Trading Corporation (Limited) ■ 


L. R. V. Ind. App. 


180 


1180 


Mobaruck Shah v. Toofany 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


206 


1077 


Modalatha, Ex parte 


1. L. R. 11. Mad. 


7S 


124 


Modun Mohun, In ths matter of the Petition of. 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


870 


1095 


Mohabeer Hroahad Singh v. Bun wares Lai 








Sahoo 


L. R. I. Ind. App. 


89 


29 


Mohammed Ewaz v. Birj Lall ... 


L. R. IV. Ind. App 


ioe 


1231 


Mohanlal Jechand t. Amratlal Bechardas 


1. L R. III. Bom. 


174 


391, 481 


Mohesh Chunder Banerjee v. Ram Pursono 








Chowdhry ... 


I. L R. IV. Cal. 


539 


338 


Mohesh Chunder Khan, In the matter of the 








Petition of 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


417 


381 


Mohesh Mah to v. Sheikh Pirn 


1. L. R. 11. Cal. 


470 


126 


Mohesh Mistree, In the matter of tk* Petition 








f 


1. L. R. 1. Cal. 


28* 


IMS 


Mohima Chunder Dey Sircar v. Hurro Lall Sir- 








car 


1. L. R. 111. Cal. 


708 


861 


Mohiny Mohun Roy v. Ichamoyee Daasea 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


012 


181 


Mohummud Buhadoor Khan v. Collector o: 








Bareilly 


L. R. I. Ind. App. 


107 


28 


Mokoondo Lall Shaw v. Gonesh Chunder Shaw 


I.LR.I. Cal. 


104 


877 


Monmohinee Dossee v. Khetter Gopaul Dey .. 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


117 


IIS 


Monohur Doss v. McNaghten 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


281 


718 


Monohur Doss v. Romonauth Law 


t. L. R. III. Cal. 


478 


188 


Moran v. Mittu Bibee ... J 


1. L. R. 11. Cal. 


228 


f 62, 1020 




I. L. R. IL Cal. 


68 


* 


Moreshwar Bapuji Phatak v. Kushaba Shankroji 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


248 


t 


Morgan v. Kirby 


1. L. R. II. Mad. 


46 


484 


Mora bin Patlaji v. Gopal bin Satu 


1. L. R. II. Bom. 


120 


125,859 


Mothoora Mohun Roy v. Peary Mohun Shaw .. 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


£59 


1414 


Mothooranath Chuttopadhya v. Kristo Kumar 








Ghose 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


389 


S82 


Mothoormohun Roy v. The Bank of Bengal ... 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


892 


1187 


Mothoormohun Roy v. Soorendro Narain Deb.. 


1. L. R. I. Cal. 


109 


81, 147S 


Moulrie Mahomed Shurosool Hooda v. She- 








wukiain alias Roy Doorga Pershad 


L. R, II. Ind. App. 


7 


680 



D,„i„.db»Googlc 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 


j Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest. 


Moung Shoay Atl v. Ko Byaw ... •- , 


L. R. III. End. App 
I. L. R. I. Cal. 


01 
S3 1 


j 456 


Mowla Buksh v- Kishen Pertab Sahi 


I. L. R. I. Cat. 


103 


830 


Muddun Thakoor v. Kantno Lall 


L. R. I. Ind. App. 


321 


595 


Muhammad Abdool Kadar v. The E. I. Rail- 








way Company 


L. R. I, Ind. Mad. 


375 


770 


Muhammad Ali v. Kalian Singh 


1. L. R. I. All. 


659 


14-13 


Muhammad Ewaz v. Birj La] 


I. L. R. I. All. 


4«5 


1231 


Mulchand v. Balgobind 


1. L. R. I. All. 


mo 


1015 


Mul Chand Joharimal v. Suganchand Shivdas .. 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


28 


828 


Mulo, In the mailer of the Petition of 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


299 


2(iS 


Mumtaz Hossein v. Biij Mohun Thakoor 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


8RH 


270 


Mungol Prashad Dichit v. Shama Kanto Lahory 








Chowdhry 


LLR. IV. Cal. 


70S 


880 


Munia v. Balak Ram 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


513 


1129 


Municipal Committee of Moradabad v. Chattri 








Singh 


I, L. R. II. AIL 


209 


50 


MunnooLall v. Lalla Choonee Lall 


L. R. I. Ind. App. 


144 


482, 1113 


Munsuk Mosundas v. Shivram Devising 


I. L. R. 11. Bom. 


532 


637 


Murarji Gokuldas V. Parvatibai ... 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


177 


609, (ilO 


Murch, In the Goods of 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


725 


09 


Muili Dhar v. Parsotam Das 


I. L. R. II. All. 


91 


122, 528 


Murlidhar and Vasudev v. Supdu and Balkrishna 


1. L. R. III. Bom. 


149 


193 


Murray, In re 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


5S 


7B3 


Murugayi v. Viramakali ... 


I. L. R.I. Mad. 


m 


em 


Muse Ali Adam, In re ... ... 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


653 


357 


MussamatBhagbutti Dae« v. Chowdry Bhola- 








nath Thakoor 


L. R. II. Ind. App, 


256 


603 


Mussamat Bhawani Kuar v. Gulab Rai 


1. L. R. I. All. 


348 


1340 


Mussumat Bibi Bechunnissa v. Chowdhri Mur- 








taia Hossein 


L. R. III. Ind. App 


209 


252 


Mussumat Phoolbas Koonwur v. Lalla Joge- J 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


226 


j 597,1141 


shur Sahoy ... ., ' 


L. R. III. Ind. App 


7 




Mussamut Ganga Jati v. Ghasita 


I. L. R. I. All. 


46 


071 


Mussamut Jagesri Kuar v. Ram Nath Bhagat ... 


I. L. R. I. All. 


.371 


410 


Mussumat Kundu Koowar v. Baboo Doorga 








Pershad 


L. R. I. Ind. App.. 


55 


658 


Mussumat Sahebzadee Begum v. Mirza Him- 








mut Bahadoor 


L. R. 1. End. App. 


23 


943 


Muthora Nalh Pal v. Chunder Money Dabia ... 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


817 


1004 


Muthrav. Jawahir 


1. L. R. I. All. 


527 


384,440 


H. 








Nana bin Lakshman v. Anant Babaji 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


353 


1224, 1237 


Nanak Chand v. Ram Narayan ... 


I. L. R. II. All. 


181 


147 


Nanak Ram v. Mehin Lai 


I. L. R. 1. All. 


487 


305, 325 


Nanchand Hansraj v. Bapusaheb Rustambhai... 


I. L. R. 111. Bom. 


131 


631,744 


Nand Kuma. v. Radha Kuari 


I. L. R- 1. All. 


181 


1267 



Nanku v. The Board of Revenue ( I. L. R. 1. All. 

Narandas v. Bai Manchha i I.JL. R. llI^Bom. 

Narain Chunder v. Tayler 1 1. L. R. IV. Cal. 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Ci.se. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest. 


Narain Das, In Ike mailer of the Petition of .. 


I. L. R. I. All. 


010 


157 


Narain Dhara v. Rakhal Gain 


I. L. R. 1. Cal. 


1 


623, 662 




L.R. IV. Ind. App 
1. L. R. 1. AH. 


15 




Narain Singh v. Shimhhoo Singh ... \ 


3B5 


{ «*1 


Narain Singh v. Mohammad Faruk 


I. L. R. 1. AIL 


177 


1147 


Narayanacharya v. Nurso Krishna 


I. L. R. 1. Bom. 


282 


632 


Narayan Bharthl v. Laving Bharthi 


I. L. R. 11. Bom. 


110 


392, 625, 9SS 


Narayan Madhavraa Naik v. The Collector o 








Thana- 


1. L. R. II. Bom. 


14 


8*8 


Narayan Undir Pate] v. Motilal Ramdas 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


« 


200 


Narayanrao Ramchandra Pant v. Ramabai j 


L. R. VI. Ind App 


114 


{ F40.877 




1. L. R. III. Bom. 


41 3 


i 


Naranji Rhikhabhai v. Dipa Umed 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


1 


494 


Narhar Singh v. Dirgnath Kuar 


I. L. R. II. All. 


407 


660 


Na.rs.iyya Chetti v. Guruvappa Chetti 


I. L. R. L Mad. 


878 


1128 


Narhar Govind Kulkarni v. Narayan Vilh.il 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


607 


589 


Narsinbhat bin Bapubkat v. Chenapa bin Nin- 








gapa 


I. L. R. 11. Bom. 


479 


67S 


Narsingdas Rughunathdas v. Tn I si ram bin 








Doulatram ... 


L L.R.II. Bom. 


55B 


268 


Narsingrav Ramachandra v. Lmumanrav 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


318 


195 


Nam Pira v. Maro Shidheshvar 


1. L. R. III. Bom. 


as 


173 


Natha Hira v. Janardhan Ramachandra 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


603 


894 


Nathu Ganesh v. Kalidas Omed 


1. L. R II. Bom. 


865 


1400 


Nathubhai v. JavherRaiji 


I. L. R. 1. Bom. 


121 


609,613 


Nathuni Mahton v. Manraj Mahton 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


149 


1082 


Nawab Syed Ali Hossein Khan and others v 








Tacoordeen Tewarry ... 


L. R. 1. Ind. App. 


19a 


1097, 1887 


Nawab Malka Jahan Sahiba v. Deputy Commis- 








sioner of Luck now ... ... 


L. R. VI. Ind. App 


68 


297 


Nazir Khan v. Proladh Duttt „, 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. ' 


669 


668 


Nehalo v. Kishen Lai 


I.L.R. II. AIL 


150 


680 


Nehalov. Nawal 


I. L. R. I. All. 


428 


32 


Nellaikumaru Chetti v. Marakathammal 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


166 


604, 682 


New Fleming S. & W. Co. {Limited), In thel 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


439 


| 282, 112S 


matter of | 


I. L. R. IV. Bom. 


275 


Nichollsv. Wilson 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


563 


144 


Nidhoomoni Debya </. Sarada Pershad Mookerjee 


L. R. III. Ind. App 


253 


681 


Nikka Mai v. Gardner 


L L. R. II. All 


193 


1030 


Nilkunto Dey v. Hurrosoonderee Doasee 


I. L.R. III. Cal. 


414 


531 


Nil Money Singh Deo v. Chunderkant Banerjee 


I. LR.II.Cb1. 


IS6 


47S 


Nilmoney Singh Deo v. Baneshur 


I, L. R. IV. Cal. 


91 


634 


Nilmonee Singh Deo v. Rambundhoo Roy 


I. L. L. IV. Cal. 


767 


70S 


Nindan Gavda v. Matan Gavda 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


633 


417 


Nirmul Chandra Mookerjee v. Doyal Natha 








Bhuttacharjee 


I.L.R. II. Cal. 


180 


1435 


Nirod Erishno Roy v. Woomanath Mookerjee.. 


I.L. R. IV. Cal. 


718 


931 


Niatarni Dasi v. Bonomali Chatterji 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


941 


175 


Nobin Chunder Dey v. The Secretary of State 








for India 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


11 


1837 


Nobo Doorga Dossee v. Foyzbux Chowdhry ... 


I.L. R.I. Cal. 


20. 


1258 



D,„i„.db»Googlc 



INDEX OF CASES. 



'.Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest. 


Nobodeep Chunder Shaha v. Sonaram Dass ... 


L L. R. IV. Cal. 


E9£ 


175 


Nocoor Chunder Bose v. Rally Coomar Ghose... 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


328 


605 


Norender Narain Singh v. Dvrarka Lall Mun- t 


1- L. R. III. Cal. 


397 


[ 1012 


der • 


L. R. V. Ind. App. 


IN 


Nowla Ooma v. Bala Dharmaji 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


91 


1403 


NurAhmadv.AltafAli 


I. L. R. II. All. 


58 


243 


Nnrsey Kesiowjee, In the matter of 

0. 
Oakes v. Jackson 


I. I_ R. III. Bom. 


270 


1330 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


134 


387 


Oghra Singh v. Ablakhi Kooer 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


530 


41, 18S8 


Omritolall Dey, In the matter of. 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


76 


1170, 1404 


Oodaychurn Milter, /h the matter of the Peti- 








tion of 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


411 


214 


Oolagappa Chelty v. Arbuthnot J 


LR.I. Ind. App. 
298 


£68, 
S15 


j 750,111* 


Oriental Bank Corporation and others v. John 








Fleming and others 

P. 
P. Shekari Varma Valia Rajah v. Mangalom 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


242 


208, I0SS 








Amugar 


I.L.R.I. Mad, 


B7 


1076 


Palak Dhari Rai v. Radha Prasad Singh 


I. L. R. 11. All. 


65 


130 


Panchcowrie Mull *. Chutnroolatl 


I. L. R. HI. Cal. 


509 


144! 


Pandah Gazi v. Jennuddi 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


S05 


1417 


Param Singh v. l-iljiM.il 


I. L. R. I. All. 


103 


437 


Paras Ram v. Gardner 


I. L. R. I. All. 


955 


905 


Parbhudas v. Motiram 


I. L, R. I. Bom. 


203 


1105 


Parbutty Nath Roy Chowdhry v. Mudho Paroe- 


1. L. R. III. Cal. 


276 


763 


Parichat v. Zalim Singh 


I. L. R, III. Cal. 


SI* 


634 


Pamieshar Rai v. Bisheshar Singh 


I. L. R. I. All. 


S3 


505 


Parsotam Keshavdas v. Kalyan Rayji 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


348 


473 


Partab Singh v.BeniRam , 


I. L. R. II. All. 


61 


629 


Pasupati Lalchmia v. Pasupati Mutham Bhattu 


I. 1. R. I. Mad. 


62 


908 


Pauliem Valoo Chetty v. Pauliem Sooty ah 








Chetty 


1. LR.L Mad. 


252 


6S4 


Pauliem Sooryah Chetty v. Pauliem Valoo) 

Chetty 1 

Pauliem Valloo Chetty v. Pauliem Sooryah ( 








L. R. IV. Ind. App 


109 


1144 


Chetty J 








Pearson v. Madhub Chunder Ghose 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


8B7 


18*0 


Periasami v. Periasami.— Ramasami Chetti v 








Periasami.— Kosalarama Pillai v. Periasami.. 


L. R. V. Ind. App 


61 


BBS 


Pestonjee Eduljee Guzdur v. Mina Mahomet 








Ally 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


641 


257, 1140 


Phate Saheb Bibi v. Damodar Premjee... ■ ,. 


I. L. R. UK Bom. 


84 


954 


Phul Knar v. Murli Dhur 


I. L. R. II. All. 


h; 


1024 


Phulroan Rai v. Dani Kuari 


I. L. R. I. All. 


453 


1162 


Piarey Lai v. Saliga 


I. L.R.II.A1U 


894 


875 


Rtamber Baboo v. Nilmony Singh Deo 


I. L. R. III. Cai. 


793 


861 



,,Google 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest. 


Phoolbas Koonwurv. Lalla JogeshurSahoy .. 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


«« 


597, 1144 


Phukar Singh v. Ranjit Singh 


I. L.R.I. All. 


601 


C67 


Phulman Rai v. Dani Kuari 


I. L. R. f. All. 


*52 


1162 


Piarey Lai v. Saliga 


I. LRU. AIL 


894 


875 


Pitamber Narayendas v. Vanmali Shamji 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


1 


1026 


Pitam Singh v. Ujagar Singh 


1. L R. I. All. 


651 


291 


Pogose, In Ike mailer of 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


710 


1*22 


Pogosev. The Bank of Bengal 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


174 


1165 


Pogose v. Cal chick 


I. L. R. III. Cal 


708 


1422 


Poonen, Ex parte ... 


1. L. R. I. Mad. 


17* 


935 


Poena Kooer, In the matter of the Petition of... 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


101 


1287 


Poorno Chunder Coondoo v. Prosonno Coomai 








Sikdar ... 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


123 


900 


Poran Sookh Chunder v. Parbutty Dossee 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


612 


114, 414 


Poresh Narain Roy v. Kassi Chunder Taluk- 








dat 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


601 


869 


Port Canning Land Investment, &c., Company 








v. Smith 


L. R. I. Ind. App. 


124 


817, 1224 


Prabacharrow v. Potannah 


I. L. R. II. Mad. 


863 


911 


Prag Das v. Hari Kishan 


I. L. R. I. All. 


603 


612, SGS 


Pranshankar Shivshankar v. Govindlal Par- 








bhudas 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


467 


1828 


Pratab Daji v. The Bombay, Baroda, and Cen. 








tral India Railway Company ... 


1. L. R. I. Bom. 


62 


1200 


Prataprao Gujar v. Bayaji Namaji 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


141 


708 


Premchand Burral v. The Collector of Cal- 








cutta 


I. L. R. 11. Cal. 


103 


798 


Prem Narain Singh v. Parasram Singh an< 








Bholonath Singh 


L. R. IV. Ind. App 


101 


1479 


Prem Sukh Das v. Bhupia 


I. L R. II. All. 


517 


817 


Prince Miria Jehan Kudi Bahadur v. Nawab \ 


I.L. R. IV.Cal. 


727 


298 


Assur Bahu Begum ( 


L. R. VI. Ind. App 


70 


298 


Prosunno Coomaree Debea v. Sheikh Rutton 








Bepary 


I. L, R. III. Cal. 


69(5 


814 


Prosunno Coomar Sircar v. Ram Coomai 








Parooey 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


53 


1300 


Prosunno Chunder Bhuttacharjee v. Kristo 








Chytunno Pal 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


342 


1108 


Prosunno Chunder Coondoo v. Prosunno Coo 








mar Sikdar ... 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


128 


900 


Prosonna Nath Roy Chowdry v. Afeolonnessa 








Begum 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


533 


90 


Prosunno Kumari Debyav. Golab Chand Ba 








boo 


L L. R. II. Ind. App. 1*5 


488 


Pro tab Chunder Doss v. Gour Chunder Roy .. 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


132 


1163 


Purmanund Asrum v. Rookinee Gooptani 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


793 


470 


Puran Mai v. Ali Khan 


I. L. R. I. All. 


235 


2*8 


Purran Chunder Ghose v. Mutty Lall Ghose 








Jahira ... 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


50 


804 


Pursooram Borooah, In the matter of 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


117 


853 


Putali Meheti v. Tulja 


I. L. R. HI. Bom. 


228 


915, 1267 



Di,iii,.db»Goo<^le 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest, 


a. 

Quarry, In the matter of 


I. L. R. II. All. 


511 


1146 


Queen v. Baijoo Lall 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


*so 


878 


Queen v. Bholanalh Sen 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


23 


445 


Queen v. Gholam Ismail 


I. L. R. I. All. 


1 


365 


Queen v. Gobin Tewari ... ... 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


281 


181 


Queen v. Gur Bakhsh" 


I. L. R. I. All. 


193 


877 


Queen v. Hurribole Chunder Ghose 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


207 


217, 601 


Queen v. Jagat Mai 


I. L. R. I. AIL 


10? 


j 879 


Queen v. Kultatan Singh 


I. L. R. I. All. 


129 


Queen onthe Prosecution of Morad AH v. Hadjee 








Jeebun Bux 


I. L. R. 1. Cal. 


3M 


578 


Queen v. Naiada 


I. L. R. I. All. 


43 


1095 


Queen v. Peterson 


1. L. R. I. All. 


SI 6 


IBS 


Queen v. Thakur Prasad 


1. L. R. I. All. 


151 


872 


Queen v. Upendronath Doss 


I. L R. I. Cal. 


35S 


232,577 


Queen v. Zuhirruddin ... 

B 
R. S. Joshi v. L. B. Joshi 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


219 


353 


I. L. R. fl. Bom. 


650 


1002 


Radha Pros had Singh v. Ramcoomar Singh ... 


1. L. R. III. Cal. 


796 


96 


Radhabai v. Chimaji bin Ramji Sali 


1. L. R. HI. Bom. 


27 


1828 


Radhabai V. Ganesh Tatya Gholap 


I. L. R. HI. Bom. 


7 


565, 678 


Radhabai v. Nanarav 


1. LR. III. Bom. 


151 


671 


Radhiav. Bant 


I. L. R. I. AIL 


E60 


1269 


Raghapa v. Parapa ... 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


217 


760 


Raghoji Bhikaji v. Abdul Karim 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


590 


886 


Raghubanund Doss v. Sadhu Churn Doss 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


435 


659 


Raghumoni Audhikary v. Nilmoni Singh Deo... 


I. I.. R. 11. Cal. 


393 


893 


Raghu Nath Das v. Ashraf Husain Khan 


I.LR. II, All. 


252 


1386 


Raghu Ram v. Dannu Lai 


I.LR. II. All. 


285 


870 


Rahi v. Govinda 


I. K. R. I. Bom. 


97 


624 


Rahmani Bibi v. Hulasa Kuar 


1. L. R. I. AIL 


642 


17 


Rahimalbai v. Hirbai 


I. I.. R. III. Bom. 


34 


789 


Rai Komul Dossee v. J. W. Laidley 


I. L.R.IV. Cat 


B57 


1310 


Rai Narain Dass v. Nownit Lai and Bunwari 








Lai 


. L. R. IV. Cal. 


809 


672 


Raj Bahadoor Singh v. Achumbit Lai 


L. R. VI. Ind. App. 


110 


900 


Raj Chunder Roy v. Sbama Soondari Debi 


. L. R. IV. Cal. 


663 


39S 


Raj Koomar Singh v. Sahebzada Roy 


. L, R. III. CaL 


SO 


1218, 1895 


Raja Barda Kant Rat v. Bhagwan Das 


. L. Rep. I. All. 


84-1 


741,1027 ' 


Raja Ram v. Bansi 


. L. R. I. AIL 


207 


1150 


Rajah Kishen Dutt Ram Panday v. Narendar 








Bahadoor Singh. 


L R. III. Ind. App. 


85 


42 


Rajah Muttu Ramalinga Setupati v. Perianaya.- 








gum Pillai 


L- R- 1. Ind. App. 


209 


BBS, 1248 


Rajah Sri Chakanya Cbundra v. Collector of 








Ganjam 


L. R. I. Ind. App. 


335 


889 


Rajcoomaree Dossee v. Gops.ii I Chunder Bose... 


. L. R. III. Cal. 


514 


682 


Rajah Parichat v. Zalim Singh 


L. R. IV. Ind. App 


159 


641 



Di,iii,.db»Goo<^le 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 

Rajah Vellanki Venkata Krishna Row v. Ven. j 
kata Rama Lakshmi Narsayya ... ( 

Rajah Vurmah Valia v. Ravi Vurmah Mutha j 
Rajah Nilmoney Singh v. Kally Churn Bat. 

tacharjee 

Rajah Kishendatl Ram v. Rajah Mumtaz All 

Khan 

Rajah Bhagwan Bax and another v. RamjisdaSS 



nd Page- Column of Digest 



and Im 



z Ali 



Raja valad Shivapa v. Krishnabhat 

Rajkishen Singh v. Ramjoy Surma Moioomdar. 

Rajkishore Lahoory v. Gobind Chunder La- I 

Rajendronath Mookhopadhya v. Bassider Ruh. 

man Khondkhar 

Rijpali Singh v. Ram Suktii Kuar 

Raju Balu v. Krishnarav Ramchandra 

Ralli v. Fleming 

Ramakrishna Chettiv. Palanyandi Kudambar... 

Ramaddin v. Mahesh 

Ramanand v. The Bank of Bengal 

Raman and Koondoo v. Chowdhry Sounder 

Narain Sarungy 

Rama Rao v. Suriya Rao 

Ram a sa mi v. Bhaskarsami 

Ramasami Aiyan v. Venkatramaiyan ... 
Ramasami v. Thenivengadasami 
Ramasawmi Chetti v. The Collector of Ma- 

Ram Autar v. Ajudhia Singh 

Rambhat Agnihotri v. The Collector of Puna. 

Ramchandra v. Sonar 

Ramchandra Chintaman v. Kalu Raju ... 

Ramchandra Lakshmanji, In the matter of the 
Will of 

Ramchandra Mankeshwar v. Bhimrao Ravji ... 

Ramchandra Sakharam Vagh v. Shakharam Go- 
pal Vagh. 

Ram Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Brojonath Mc- 
» umdar - I. L. R. IV. CaJ. 

Ram Chunder Ghusaol v- Juggutmonmohiney 

Dab «« I. L. R. IV. Cal. 

Ram Coomar Coondoo v. Chunder Canto t L. R. IV. Ind. App. 
Mookerjee ' I. L.R.II. Cal. 

Ram Coomar Paul v. Jogender Nath Paul ... I. L. R. IV. Cal. 

Ram Dial v. Ram Das I. L. R. I. All. 

Ram Dial v. Gulab Singh L L. R. I. All. 

Ram Doolary Kooer v. Thacoor Roy 1. I_ R. IV. Cal. 

Ramdoyal Khan v. Ajoodhia Ram Khan ... 1. L. R. II. Cal. 



L. R.[IV. Ind. App. 

I. L.R.I. Mad. ] 

L. R. IV. Ind. App. 
I. L. R. I. Mad. i 

L. R. II. Ind. App. 

L. R. VI. Ind. App. 145 

L. R. V. Ind. App. : 

I. L.R. 111. Bom. ! 

1. L. R. I. Cal. ! 

I. L. R I. Cal. 

L. R. IV. App. 1 

I. L. R. 11. Cal. 
1. L. R. II. All 
1. L. R. II. Bom. 
I. L. R. III. Cal. 
I. L. R I. Mad. : 
I. L. R. II. All. 
I. L. R. I. All. 1 

1. L. R. IV. CaJ. 1 
I. L. R. 1. Mad. 
I. L. R. II. Mad. 
I. L. R. II. Mad. 
L. R. VI. Ind. App. : 
I. L. R. I. Mad. 
L. R. VI. Ind. App. : 
I. L. R. II. Mad. 
I. L. R. I. All. 
I. L. R. I. Bom. I 

I. L. R. I. Bom. 1 
I. L. R. II. Bom. I 



I.LR. II. Bom. 



818 
U29 

UBS, 1SSS 
1464 

1102 
118 
118 

1183 
1371 
1325 



lies 

856,805 



Digitized by G00gle 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest. 


Riaiesshur Pershad Narain Singh v. Koonj ( 


I, L. R. IV. Cal. 


083 


J 165 


Behari Pattuk * 


L. R. IV. Ind. App 


38 


\ 


Ram Ghulam v. Chotey Lai 


1. L. R, 11. All. 


46 


1237 


Ram Gholam v. Sheo Tahal 


I. L. R. I. All. 


SB8 


119 


Ramjas v. Baij Kath 


1. L. R. 11." All. 


BB7 


128 


Ramjisdas and Initial Ali v. Raja Bhagvran 








Bajt and another 


1-L.R.V.Ind.App 


197 


1078 


Ram Kishan v. Bhawant Das ,.. 


I. L. R. I. All. 


333 


893 


Ram Kishen v. Shedu 


I. L. R. II. All. 


275 


260 


Ramnandan v. Shrinivasa Murtbi 


I. L. R. II. Mad, 


80 


819 


Ramnath Tolapattro v. Durga Sundari Debi ... 


I. L R. IV. Cal. 


550 


611 


Ramkishn Doss v. Luckey Narrain 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


312 


1140 


Ram Lall Singh v. Lill Dharry Muhton 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


770 


955 


Ram NeeJhee Koondoo v. Rajah Rughoo Nath 








Nath Narain Mullo 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


456 


408 


Raminihi Nayar, In the mallet of 


I. L R. I. Mad. 


266 


1099 


Ram Rotton Mundui v. Netro Katly Dassee... 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


839 


466 


Ram Sabuk Bose v. Monmohini Dossee 


L. R. 11. Ind. App. 


71 


185 


Ramsoonder Sandyal v. Gopessur Mostofee ... 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


711 


910 


RamSunker Senaputty v. Bir Chunder Manikya 


1. L. R. IV. Cal. 


714 


177 


Ram Tamin Koondoo v. Hossein Buksh 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


785 


286 


Ram Tuhul Singh v. Biseswar Lall Sahoo anc 








Soodisht Lall 


L. R. II. Ind. App. 


131 


1886 


Raman v. Karunatha 


1. L. R. II. Mad. 


201 


1287 


Ranchoddas Dayaldas v. Ranchoddas Nanabhai 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


581 


191 


Ranee of Chllloree v. The Government of India, 


LR.IV.Ind. App- 208,n 


43 


Ranee Khajooroonissa v. Ranee Ryeesoonissa... 


I,. R. II. Ind. App. 


235 


945 


Ranee Khujooroonissa v. Mussamut Roushun 


(L.R.III.Ind.Ap 


.291 


J 943, 1296 


Jehan 


( I. L. R. II. Cal. 


184 




Ranee Son wet Konwarr. Mina Himmut Baha- 


, T. L. R. I. Cal. 


891 


? „, 


door, Mussamut Bismullah Begum, and Mai- 


(-L.R.1II. Ind.Ar. 




J 461 


samat Sahibzadee Begum 


p. 92 


* 


Rango Venayek v. Yamunabai 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


44 


637 


Rani Mewa Kuwar v. Rani Hulas Kuwar 


I_ R. I. Ind. App. 


157 


289 


Ran) it Singh v. Sheo Prasad Ram 


I. L. R. II. All. 


487 


1122 


Rash Behary Bundopadhya v. Peary Mohun 








Mookerjee 


I. L. R. IV. CaL 


840 


818 


Ratan Kuar v. Jivran Singh 


I. L. R. I. All. 


194 


1065 


Ratan Singh v. Waiir 


I. L. R. I. All. 


185 


Hi 


Ratlansi Kalianji, In the matter of the Petition 








gf 


I. L. Rep. II. Bom 


148 


270 


Raychurn Dutt v. Ameena Bibi 


I. L. R. II. Cal. 


38; 


1390 


Raynor v. The Mussoorie Bank. 


I. L. R. IV. All. 


55 


1506 


Ravji Narayen Mandlik v. Dadaji Bapuji Desai 








Mamlatdarof Ratnagiri 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 
I. L. R. II. Cal. 
L. R. II. Ind. App. 


528 
131 

22! 


306, 1105 


Reasut Hossein v. Hadjee Abdooltah ... J 


j 1289 


Reg. v. Acharjys 


I. L. R. 1. Mad. 


824 


1100 


Reg. v. Adivigadu ... 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


171 


854 


Reg. v. Ambigara Hulagu 


I. L. R.I. Mad. 


IMS 


499 


Reg. v. Arunachellam 


I.L-R-I. Mad. 


161 


uos 



D,„i„.db»Googlc 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page, 


Column of Digest. 


Reg. v. Baiju Lall 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


450 


378 


Reg. v. Balapa 


I. L. R. I Bom. 


639 


361 


Reg. v. Bhista bin Madanna 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


808 


32,304 


Reg, v. Bholanath Sen ... 


I.L.R. II.CaL 


23 


445 


Reg. v. Budhu Nanii 


I. L.R.I. Bom. 


13 i 


499 


Reg. v.Devama 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


64 


237, 363, 870 


Reg. v. Gaji kom Rami ' ... 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


311 


647 


Reg. v. Gholam Ismail 


I. L. R. I. All. 


1 


166 


Reg. v. Gbbin Tewari 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


2S1 


131 


Reg. v. Govinda 


I. L. R. 1. Bom. 


343 


1037 


Reg. v. Gur Baksh 


I. L.R. I. All. 


x«s 


377 


Reg. v. Hadjee Jeebun Bus 


I. L. R I. Cal. 


354 


576 


Reg. v. Hanmanta... 


I. L. R, I. Bom. 


610 


12,192,376,595, 141 


Reg. v. Hanmant Govda 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


8S6 


192 


Reg. v. Haribole Chunder Ghosc 


I. L.R. I.Cal. 


207 


217, 501 


Reg. v. Jagat Mul 


I. L. R. I. AIL 


102 


879 


Reg. v. Kandakora 


[. L. R. I. Mad. 


223 


833 


Reg. v. Khanderav Bajirav 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


10 


300 


Reg. v. Kulkaran Singh 


I. L R.I. All. 


ljy 


379 


Reg. v. Lakhya Govind 


I. L. R. 1. Bom. 


60 


351 


Reg. v. Lalubhai Gopaldaa 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


232 


575 


Reg. v. Locha Kala 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


340 


3S7 


Reg. v. Maruti Dada 


I, L. R. I. Bom. 


15 


4,81 


Reg. v. Muhammad Saib 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


277 


370 


Reg. v. Muthavan 


1. L. R. I. Mad. 


191 


283 


Reg. v. Naida 


I, L. R. I. All. 


43 


10H5 


Reg. v. Parsapa Mahadevapa 


I. L, R. I. Bom, 


839 


878 


Reg. v. Peterson 


I. L. R. 1 All 


30 


165 


Reg. v. Pitamber Jina 


I. L. R. II. Bom, 


61 


1130, 1362 


Reg. v. Pyla Atchi 


I. L. R. I. Mad 


278 


937 


Reg. v. Rahimat 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


147 


2K3 


Reg. v. Rama Bhivgovda 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


223 


130 


Reg. v. Ramasami Padayachi ... 


1. L.R I. Mad. 


394 


500 


Reg. v. Sambhu Raghu ... ... 


I. L.R. 1. Bom. 


847 


1108 


Reg. v. Samia Kaundan 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


173 


« 


Reg. v.Shiva 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


219 


499 


Reg. v. Thakur Par shad ... 


I. L. R. I. All. 


151 


872 


Reg. v. Tukaya bin Taman* 


I. L R. 1. Bom. 


214 


838 


Reg. v. Upend ronath Doss 


I. L. R. I. Cal 


23? 


575 


Reg. v. Vithaldas Pranjivandas 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


402 


575 


Reg. v. Zuhiruddin 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


219 


33 


Remfry v. Shillingford 


I. L.R, I.Cal. 


130 


40 


Rowron v. Hanama Mestri 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


280 


30 


Roy churn Dull v. Ameenabibi 


I. L.R. II. Cal. 


385 


1390 


Roy Meghraj v. Beejoy Gobind Burial 


I. L. R. I. Cal. 


197 


1286 


Roymoney Dossee, In the Goods of 


I. L. R. 1. CaL 


160 


160 


Rudr Narain Singh v. Rup Kuar 


I. L. R. 1. All. 


734 


615 


Rughoobur Dyal Sahoo v. Maharajah Kiaben 








Pcrtab Sahee 


L. R. VI. Ind. App 


211 


18 


Ruka Bai v. Ganda Bai 


I. L. R, I. All. 


694 


048 


Rukmin, la the matter of the Petition of 


I. L R. I. All, 


267 


119 



Di,iii,.db»Goo<^le 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name o£ Case. 

Runglall Misser v. Tokhun Misser 
Kungo Lall Mundul v. Abtlool Gu floor ... 

Runguhai v. Bhagirthibai 

Roiijeet Singh v. Kooer Gujraj Singh ... 
Runjit Singh v. Meherban Kooer,and other 

Rushton, In tit Goods of 

Rntotnji Burjorji v. Kessowji Naik 
Ryall v. Sherman 



I. L. R. II. Cal. 
I. L. R. IV. Cal. 

I. L. R. II. Bom. 
L. R. I. Ind App. 

I. L. R. III. Cal. 
. I. L-R.HI.Cal. 
. I. L. R. III. Bom. 
. I. L. R. I. Mad 



Sabapathi v. Subraya and Ramanadha ... 

Sadasiva Pillai v. Ramaiinga Pillai 

Sadik Ali Khan v. Muhammad Hussain Khan. 

Sadodin v. W. Spiers 

Safdar Ali Khan v. Lachman Das 

Sab Koondun Lall v. San Mukhnn UU Panda;. 

Sab Mukhun Lall Panday v. Sah Koondun Lall- 

Sahai Pandey v. Sham Narain 

Sahib Zadah v. Parmeshar Da* 

Sahibzada Ahmed Raza Khan and other* v. 

Sahibzada Zeinulabdin Khan ... 
Sakharam Dikshit v. Ganesh Sat he 
Sakharam Sadhashiv Adhikari v. Sitabai 

Salamat Ali v. Budh Singh 

Sallu Ganesh v. Runchod Kahandaj 
Sazneer Mull and Chundun Mull v. Chogalall 
Saminada Pillai v. Subba Reddiar 

Sarasuti v. Mannu 

Sarawak, &c, Banking and Trading Co., In the 

matter of 

Saroda Pershad Mookerjee v. Nidhoomoni Debya 

Sarubai v. Bapu Narhar Solioni ... 

Sathu valad Kadir Sausare v. Ibrahim Agavatad 

Mini Aga 

Satra Kumaji v. Visram Hasgavada 

Savitribai v. Luximibai 

SayadMii Ujmudin Khanvalad Mir Khamrn- C 
din Khan v. Zia-ul-Nissa Begam ... t 

Saynd Chanda Miah Saib v. Lakshmana Aiyan- 
B" 

Scale i. Brown 

Secretary of State for India v. Sii Albert Sassoon 

Seshadri Ayyangar v. Saudanam... 

Seths Gujmull, Jeithmnll, and Tharunull 
Mnsjumat Chahee Kowar 

Seth Gokul Dass Gopal Dass v. Murli andZalim 

Shafl-ud-din v. Lochan Singh 

Shaikh Ewax t. Mokuoa Bibi ... 

Sham Knar t. Gaya Din 

Sluun Churn Anddy v. Tariney Chora Banerjee- 



I. L- R. II. Mad. 

L. R. II. Ind. App. i 

" L R. II. All. 8 

L. R. III. Bom. A 

I. L. R. II. All. J 

L. R. II. Ind. App. 1 

L. R. II. Ind. App. S 

I. L. R. II. All. 1 

I. L. R. I. All. t 

L. R. V. Ind. App. t 
I.LR II. All. 

I. L. R. III. Bom. 1 

I. L. R- III. Bom. I 

I. L. R. 1. All. 8 

I. L, R. II. Bom. e 

L. R" IV. Ind. App S 

I. L. B. I. Mad. 1 

1. L. R. II. All. 1 

I. L, R. IV. Cal. ! 

L. R. III. Ind. App. I 

I. L. R. II. Bom. i 

I. L. R. II- Bom. 
1. L. R. II. Bom. 
I.LR. II. Bom. 
I. L. R. III. Bom. 
L. R. VI. Ind. App. : 



1161 

1089 
416,628 



1828 
1228 
638, 649 



i" 



. L. R. I. Mad. 


45 


034 


. L. R. I. All. 


710 


641 


. L. R- 1- Bom. 


MS 


708 


. L. R. I. Mad. 


140 


033 


L. R. 11. Ind. App. 


84 


1189 


I. L. R. Ill- CaL 


60S 


SIS, 746 


I. L. R. 11. AIL 


04 


264 


I.L. R. I. AIL 


18! 


1161 


1. L. R. I. AIL 


B6G 


017 


1. L R. L CaL 


•H 


460,1401 



,»GoogIe 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Shama Chum Mullik, In thi Goods of 

Sham Narain Singh v. Rughooburdyal 

Shankar bin Marabasapa v. Hama bin Bhima ... 

Shankar Ramachandra v. VishnuAnant 

Sharat Chunder Burmon v. Hurgobindo Burmon. 

Sheen v. Johnson ... v 

Sheikh v. Khoorshed Hoossein v. Nubbee Fa. 

Shekari Varma Valliah Rajah v. Mangolarr 

Amugar 

Sheo Soondaty v. Pirthee Singh 

Sheo Singh Rai v. Mussumut Dakho ... i 

Sheo Gholam Sahoo v. Ra.hu t Hossein 

Sheo Prasad v. Anrudha Singh 

Sheo Prasad v. Miller 

Shepherd v. TheTrustees of the Port of Bombay, 
Sheth Kahandas Narandas v. Dahiabhai 

Shib Dat v. Kalka Prasad 

Shib Gopal v. Baldco Salmi 

Shib LaW. Hira Lai' 

Shib Prokash Singh v. Sardar Doyal Singh 
Shib Narain Shaha V. Bipin Behary Biswas 
Shimbhu Narain Singh v. Bachcha 
Shiro Kumari Debi v. Gobind Shaw Tanli 
Shivlal Khubchandv. Apaji Bhivrav ... 
Shodone Mohaldar v. Halalkhore Mohaldar 
Shoshi Muhun Pa! Chowdhry v. Nobo Kristo 

Poddar 

Showers v. Seth Gobind Das 

Shringarpure v. Pethe 

Shufferudin v. Ibrahim 

Shugan Chand v. The Government, North 

Western Provinces 

Shunker Sahai (Widow of) v. Rajah Kashi 

Pershad 

Shurnomoyee v. Pattarri Sirkar... 

Sib Chunder Mullick v. Kishen Dyal Opadhya. 

Sibo Prasad, In the matter of tht Petition of 

Sidiingapa v. Sidava 

Sini Thiruvengadathiengar v. Sangiliveerapa 

Pandya Chinnathumbiar ... 

Sirdar Bhagwan Singh v. The Secretary of 

State for India in Council 

Sital v. Madho 

Sitaram Vasudev v. Khanderav Balkrbhna 
Sivagnana Tevar v. Periasanu ... 

Skinner v. Orde 

Smith v. The Secretary of State 



I. L. R. 1. Cal. 
[. L. R. III. Cal. 
I. L. R- II. Bom. 
I. L. R. I. Bom. 
I. L. R. IV. Cal. 
L. R. II. All. 

L L. R. III. CaL 



fifil 



26* 



I. L. R. I. Mad. 

L. R. IV. Ind. App. 1*7 

L. R. V. Ind. App. 

I. L. R. I. All. 

I. L. R. IV. CaL 

I. L. R. II. All. 

I. L. R. II. AIL 

I. L. R. I. Bom. 181, 477 

I. L. R. III. Bom. 

1. L. R. II. All. 

I. L. R. II. AIL 

I. L. R. 1. AIL 

I. L.R. III. Cal. 

I. L. R- III. CaL 

I. L. R. II. All. 

I. L. R. I. CaL 

I. L. R. II. Bora. 
L. R. IV. Cal. 

L. R IV. Cal. 
J. L.R. I. All. 
I. L. R. II. Bom. 

L. R, HI. CaL 

I. L.R.I. All. 



L.R. IV. hid. App.l98.n. 
I. L. R. IV. Cal. 625 
I. L. R. I. Cal. «C 

I. L. R. IV. CaL 124 

I. L. R. 11. Bom. 625,031 



448, 1446 
804, 128* 
1088 



1491 
729, 841 
690, 885 



I. L. R. I. Mad. 



65 



L. R. II. Ind. App. 

I. L.R. I. AIL 

I. L, R. I. Bom. 

I. L. R. I. Mad. 

I. L. R. I. All- 

I. L. R. II. All. 

L R. VI. Ind. App. 126 

LL.R.I11. Cal. 



i»ai 

1817 

1001, 1088, 1M1 



650, 851, 1084, 1400 



by Google 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 



Sobha Bibee v. Miria Sakhamut Ali 

Sohan Lai v. Karim Baksh 

Somasundaram Chctti v. Administrator- Genera 
Soudaminey Dossee v. Jogesh Chunder Dutt ... 

Sonet Kooer v. Himmut Bahadoor 

Sooltan Chund v. Schiller 

Soonder Narain v. Benmid Ram 

Soorja Kant Acharj Chowdhry, lit the matter of 

tie Petition of 

Soorjmutthi Koer, Intke matter of the Petition < 

Sreenarain Bagchee v. Smith 

Sreemutty Nittokissoree Dossee v. Jogendi 

Nauth Mullick 

Sreeram Chandra Lerkan v. Bipindas ... 

Sri Gajapathi Nilamani Palta Maha Devi) 

Garu v. Sri Gajapathi Radhamani Patta > 

Maha Devi Garu ... ... ... J 

Sriram Chandra l.erkan v. Bipindas 

Sri Raghunadha v. Sri Broio Kishoro ... < 

Srimati Uma Deyi v. Gokoolanund Das Maha 

Sri Shankar Bharti v. Sidha Singaya Charantai 

Stowell v. Billings 

Strimathoo Moothoo Vijia Ragoonadah Ranee 

Kolandapuree Natchiar v, Dorasinga Tei 
Subba Aitala, In the matter of ... 

Subbaiyarv. Kristnaiyar 

Subhabhat bin Babanbhat v. Vaaudevbhat bin 

Subhabhat 

Subramaniya Ayyar v, Ramchandra Rau 
Suddurtonnessa v. Majada Khaloon .. 

Suganchand Shivda v. Moolchand Joharimal 

Sukhai v. Daryai 

Sukhbasi Lai v. Guman Singh ... 

Sukho v. Durga Prasad 

Sultan Kuar v. Gulzari Lai 

Sumar Ahmed v. Haji Ismail Haji Habib 
Sumbhoo Narain Singh v. Bachoba 

Sundnr v. Khuman Singh 

Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Proshad Singh 
Surbomungola Dabee v. Mohendronath Nath, 
Surdharee Loll v. Mansoor Ally Khan ... 
Surjan Singh v. Jagan Nath Singh ... 

Surju Prasad v. Bhawani Sahai. 

Surnomoyee Dabee v, Koomar Plirresh Nara 

Roy 

Surutram Bhaya v. The G. I. P. Railway Com- 

pany 



Volume and Page. 

I. L.R.III.Cal. 87 

I. L. R. II. All. 26 

I. L. R. Mad. 14 

I. L. R. II. Cal. E6 

I. L. R. I. Cal. 89 

I. L. R. IV. Cal. Si 

I. L. R. IV. CaL 7 

I. L. R. I. Cal. 88 

1. L. R. II. Cal. 27 

I. L. R. IV. Cal. 80 

L. R. V. Ind. App. 5 

I. 1. R. IV. CaL 71 

L R. III. Ind. App. 21 

I. L. R. I. Mad. 28 

I. L. R. IV. Cal. 71 

L. R. III. Ind. App. 15 

I. L. R. 1. Mad. 6 

L. R. V. Ind. App. 4 

I. L. R. II. Mad. 4 

I. L. R. II. Bom. 47 

I. L. R. I. All. 35 

L. R. II. Ind. App. 16 

I. L. R. I. Mad. 30 

I. L. R. I. Mad. SB 

I. L. R. II. Bom. 11 

1. L. R. I. Mad. 39 

I.LR. III. Cal. 8S 

XII. Bom. H.C. 11 

I. L. R. 1. Bom. 2 

I. L. R. I. All. 37 

I. L. R. II. All. 3li 

I. L. R. II. All. 44 

I. L. R. II. All. 29 

I. L. R. I. Bom. 15 

I. L-R. II. All. 20 

I. L. R. I. All. 61 

L. R. VI. Ind. App. t 

I. L. R. IV. Cal. 50 

I. L. R. III. Cal. 29 

I. L. R. II. All. 31 

1. L. R. II. All. 4K 

I. L. R. IV. Cal. 

I. I.. R. III. Bom. 



163, 1430 
83 
13ta8 



S'/li 1383 
96 1203 



zedbyGOOgle 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest. 


Suryaprakasa Rau v. Vaisya Sanniasi Raiu ... 


I. L. R. L Mad. 


401 


27S 


Suttya Ghosal v. Suttyanund Ghosal 


I. L. R. 1. CaL 


888 


on 


Syad Mir Ujmuddin Khan v. Zia-ul-Nissa Be- 








gam andRahim.ul-Nissa Begam 


U.R. III. Bom. 


422 


23 


Syed Moidifl v. Sundramutra 


1. L. R. II. Mad. 


9 


284 


Syud Bazayet Hossein and others v. Dooli [ 


L. R. V. Ind. App. 


211 


J 952 


Chund 1 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


402 


Sayud Mahomed Hossein v. Hadzi Abdullah ... 

T. 
Tacoordeen Tewarry v. Nawab Syed AH Hossein 


I. L. R. III. CaL 


727 


116 








Khan and others 


L. R. I. Ind. App. 


192 


1077, 1387 


Tagore v. Tagore 


L. R. I. Ind. App. 


887 


1609 


Taj-ud-Din Khan v. Ram Prasad Bhagat 


I. L. R. I. All. 


217 


65 


Tarachand Biswas v. Ram Gohind Chowdhry ... 


LUR.IV.CbL 


776 


898, SIB 


Tarachand Hirchand v. Lakshman Bhavan 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


91 


2,982 


Tarini Churn Brohmo v. Bamasoonderee Dossee 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


128 


111 


Taru Patur v. Abinash Chunder Dutt 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


79 


7B3 


Taufik-un-nissa v. Gholam Kambar 


I. L. R. I. AIL 


50ft 


946 


Teagaraya Mudali v. Mariappa Pillai 


I. L, R. I. Mad. 


2IU 


888 


Tej Ram v. Haisukh 


1. L. R. I. AIL 


101 


1120 


Tekait Doorga Persad Singh v. Tekaitn 


(L. R. V. Ind. App. 149 


J 12S8 


Doorga Kunwari 


* I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


190 




Tertetput Singh v. Gossain Sudersan Das 


I. L. R. IV. CaL 


46 


1423 


Tetley v. Jai Shankar 


I. L. R. II. AIL 


726 


187 


Thakut Durriao Singh v. Thakur Davi Singh.. 


L. R. I. Ind. App. 


1 


658, 1146 


Thakoor Hardeo Bun v. Tbakoor Jawaliir i 


L. R. IV. Ind. App 


178 


' 45, 46, 136, 763 


Singh 1 


L. R. VI. Ind. App 


101 




Thakoor Jeebnath Singh v. The Court of Wards 


L. R. II. Ind. App. 


163 


681 


Thakoor Kapilnath Sahai v. The Government 


I. L. R. I. CaL 


142 


137 


Thakur Prasad v. Ashan Ali 


I, L. R. I. All. 


668 


124 


Thakur Shore Bahadur Singh v. Thakurain 








Dariao Kuar 


I. LR. III. CaL 


645 


46 


Thamman Singh v. Gang* Rant 


I. L. R. II. All. 


34B 


423 


Thomson's Policy. In the matter ef 


I.LR. III. CaL 


847 


1418 


Thumbusami Moodelly v. Hoossain Rowthen i 


I. L. R I. Mad. 
L. R. II. I. A. 


241 


(1011 


Thumbasawtny Mudelly v. Mahomed Hossain 








Rowthen ... 


L. R. II. Ind. App. 


241 


1011 


Tiery v. Kristodhun Bose and others 


L.R. I. Ind. App. 


7tS 


tea 


Tiluck Chand v. Soudamini Dasi 


I.L.R IV. CaL 


566 


1817 


Timal Kuari v. Ablakh Rai 


I. L. R. I. All. 


264 


88* 


Tiru Krishnama Chariar v. Krishnasawmi Tata 1 


I. L. R. 11. Mad. 


62 


. 


Chariar | 


L. R. VI. Ind. App 


120 


J 455 


Tirthanund Thakoor v. Mutty Lall Misser 


I. L. R III. Cal. 


774 


1405 


Toondun Singh v. Pokhnarain Singh 


L. R. I. Ind. App. 


342 


22,1191 


Torit Bhoosun Bonnerjee v. Taraprosonno Bon 








nerjee 


I. L. IV. CaL 


7H 


L082 


Tota Ram v. Sher Singh 


I. L. R. I. CaL 


261 


66 


Treepoorasoondery Dossee v. Debendronath 








Tagore 


1. L, R. II. Cal. 


4t 


216, 897, 1502 



Di,iii,.db»Goo<^le 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest 


Trimalrav Raghnvendra v. The Municipal Com- 








missioned of Hubli 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


172 


1487 


Troylokhanath Biswas and Ram Churn Biswas, 








In the matter of 


I. L. R. III. Cai 


742 


U49 


Tukaram bin Atmaram v. Ramachandra bin Bud- 








haram 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


314 


1003 


Tdkaram Vithal, In re 


I. L. R. 11. Bom. 


527 


198 


Tnlsi Ram v. Ganga Ram.- 

U. 
Ubilack Rai v. Datlial Rai 


I. L. R. I. All. 


£52 


235 


I. L. R. III. Cal 


557 


603 


L'da Btgam v. [mam-ud-din 


I. L. R. II. AIL 


74 


19 


Uda Begum y. Imam-ud-din 


I. L. R. 1. All. 


82 


125 


Udai Singh v. Bharat Singh 


I. L. R. I. All. 


45b 


534 


Udai Singh v. Jagan Nath 


I. L, R. I. AIL 


185 


1886 


Umabai, widow of Shankarrav v. Bhavn Pad. 








manji 


I. L. R, I. Bom. 


557 


610 


Utnbica Churn Goopta v. Madhub Ghosai 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


870 


870 


Umbika Nundun Biswas, In re 


I. LR.III.CaL 


43 4. 


788 


Umedmal Moliram v. Davu bin Dhondiba 


I. L. R. II Bom. 


547 


710 


Umiashanlcar Lakhmiram v. Chholalal Vajaram 


I.LR.1. Bom. 


19 


804,9a 




I. L.R. II. All. 


451 


54 
64 


Umrao Begam v. The Land Mortgage Bank. J 


I. L. R. I. All. 


547 


Unnoda Churn Dass Biswas v. Mothura Nath 








Dass Biswas 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


BOO 


1365 


Unnoda Persad Roy v. Sheik Koorpan Ally ... 

V. 
V. K. Gurjar v. V. D. Barve 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


511 


909 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


678 


900 


Vaithelinga v. Saminada 


I. L. R. 11. Mad. 


14 


327 


Valaji Isaji v. Thomas 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


190 


1220 


Valia Tamburatti v. Vira Rayan 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


228 


888 


Vardala Charri, In the matter of the Petition 








and Schedule of 


1. L, R. II. Mad. 


16 


784 


Vaughan v. Heseltine 


I. L. R. I. AIL 


753 


1503 


Vasudev Anant v. Ramkrishna and Shivram 








Narayan 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


629 


191. 708 


Vasudev Sadashive Modak v. The Collector of t 


I. LR.II. Bom. 


Bt 


{1107 


Ratnagiri J 


L R. IV. Ini App 


na 




Vedavalli v. Narrayana 


I. L.R.II.Mad. 


19 


loss 


Vellanki Venkata Krishna Rao v. Venkata Rama 








Ukshmi 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


17 


588 


Venayek Ramachandra, In re ... 


I.LR.1. Bom 


188 


178 


Venkata narasammah v. Ramiah 


I. L. R. 11. Mad. 


10S 


1028 


Venkataramayyan v. Venkata Subramania Dik 








shatar 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


858 


1349 


Venkatesav. Sengoda 


I. L. R. 11. Mad. 


117 


1404 


Venkatasami Naik v. Kuppaiyan 


I. L. R. 1. Mad. 


354 


1353 


Venkata Ram Rau v. Venkata Suriya Rau f 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


281 


} 


Venkata. Rama Lakshmi Narsayya v. Rajah 3 






£ 601, 667, 681 


Vellanki Venkata Krishna Row ... C 


L. R. I. Ind. App. 


1 


5 



D,„i„.db»Googlc 



INDEX OF CASES. 



Name of Case. 


Volume and Page. 


Column of Digest 


Venkittarama Pittar v. Kambarath Keshav 








Memon 


I. L. R. I. Mad. 


849 


314 


Veribhai v. Raghabhai 


I. L. R. I. Bom. 


226 


1087 


Viraiamuthi Udaya v. Singaravehi 


I. L. a I. Mad. 


800 


025,034 


Vishnu Bhaujoshi v. Raoji Bhau Joshi,.. 


1. L. R. III. Bom. 


18 


149 


Vishnubhat v. Babaji 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


145 


704,983 


Vishvanath v. Maliadaji 

w. 

Wagji Korji v. Tharia Topan ... 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


147 


709 


I. L. R. III. Bom. 


68 


1617 


Walji Karimji v. Jaganatb Preonji 


I. L. R. II. Bom. 


84 


1408 


Wali-uL-ta v. Ghutam Ali 


I. L.R.I.AI1. 


635 


1048 


Wallace v. Jefferson 


I. L. R II. Bom. 


453 


7SC 


Watson v. Aga Mehedee Sherazee 


L R. I. Ind App. 


8*1 


10,878 


Watson and Co. v. Dhonendra Ch under Mooker- 








jee 


1. L. R. III. Cal. 


e 


869, 1Z6S 


Wemyss, In the Goods of 


I. L. R. IV. Cal. 


721 


J 1177 


White, In the Goods of 


I. L. R. IV. CaL 


m 


Widow □( Shunkur Sahai v. Rajah Kali Pershad 


L. R. IV. I. A. 


198 


43 


Wilayat-un-nissa v. Najib-un-nissa 


I.LRL All. 


583 


117 


Williams v. Williams 


1. L. R. III. Cal. 


688 


451 


Wilson, In the Goods of 


1- L.J*. 1. Cal. 


143 


713 


Womda Khanum v. Rajroop Koer 


I. L. R. III. Cal. 


335 


244 


Wood v.Wood 


I.LR. III. Cal. 


485 


460 


Wooma Daee v. Gokoolanund Dass 

T. 

Yamunabai v. Narain Moreshvar 


I. L. R III. Cal. 


587 


586,619 


I.LR.I. Bom. 


IB4 


1276 


Yeoni v. Bhagwan Sahai 

Z. 
Zahurv. Nur Ali 


[.LR.L AH 


641 


248 


i. l. a ii. ah. 


99 


952 


Zaib-ul-nissa v. Jairam Gir 


I. L. a i. aii. 


618 


244 


Zaib-ul-nissa Bibi v. Kulsum Bibi 


i. l. a i. ah. 


260 


1458 


Zain-ul.Abdin Khan v. Ahmad Raza Khan ... J 


I. L. R. 11. All 
LR.V. Ind. App. 


67 
233 


| 239 


Zalim Singh v. Rajah Parichat 


L. R. IV. Ind. App. 


139 


684 


Zamindarof Di vara cot a v. Vemuri Venkayya... 


I. L. a I. Mad. 


389 


934 


Zemindar of Carvatenagaram v. Madras Railway 








Company 


L. R. I. Ind. App. 


364 


1452 


Zemindar of Pittapuram v. The Proprietors of 1 


I. L. R. II. Mad. 


28 


J1265 


the Muttaof Kolanka i 


L. a V. Ind. App. 


206 


Zinulabdin Rowten v. Vijien Virapatren 


I.LR.I. Mad. 


49 


938 


Zoolfun Bibee v. Radhica Prosonno Chunder ... 


I. L. a III. Cal. 


600 


1308 



D,„i„.db»Googlc 



TABLE OF CASES BEVERSEB, OVERRULED, FOLLOWED, 
DISSENTED FROM, AND REMARKED UPON. 



Abidunnissa Khatoont. Amirunnissa Kha- 
toon...L. Bep. 4 I, A, 68 ; I. L. Bop. 
S Cal. 337. 
Followed in Sobha Bi bee v. Mirza Sakha- 
hut All. ..I. L. Rop. 3 Cal. 371; 1 
Cal. Bop. 331. 
See Act XXIII. of 1861, ( 11. 1. 

Adoito Churn Dev o. Peter Dass...13 Seng. 

. L. Rep. 417 ; 17 W. Bep. 893. 

Followed in Prosunno Cooharbe Debbah. 

Sheikh Rutton Bepary.. I. L. Bep. 

3 Cal 8fi6; 1 Cal. Bep. 577. 

See Landlord and Tenant. S. 

The Agra Savings Bank v. Sri Rah Mitter.. 

I. L. Bep. 1 All. 888. 

The opinion of Stuart, C. J., in—differed 

from in Partab Singh v. Beni Rah... 

I. L. Bep, 2 All. 61. 

See Landlord and Tenant. 8. 

Ahhud Hossein Khan v. Ma homed A/eeh 

Khan-.H. a Bep. N. W.P., 

1889, p. 61. 

Followed in Zaib-un-Nissa v. Jairah Gtb.. 

I. Ii. Bep. 1 All. 816. 

See Civil Procoduro Code Act 

VHX0fl888, J 340. 3. 

AllRlVALAL Boss v. Rajoneekant MlTTER ...Ii. 

Bep. SLA 113 ; 18 Bong. 

L. Bep. 10 ; 33 W. Bep. 211. 

Followed in Baijnath o. Mahabir... I. L. 

Bep. 1 AIL 608. 

See Hindu Law— Inheritance- 
Daughter's Bona. 

ArUHACHBLLU PlLLAI V. AppavU PlLLAI 3 

Had. H. C. Bep. 188. 

Distinguished in Kunhi Moidin Kutti v 
Rahen Unni. LL.Bep.lHad. 203. 
See Adjustment of Decree. 



Anon...,. 1 Bom. H. 0. Bep. 188. 

Fotlowedin Empress v. Nurul Huqq... I. L. 

Bep. 8 Cal. 767 ; 2 Cal. Bep. 

408. 

Sec Recognizance. 

Anon ..4 Had. H. C. Bep. Appi, 63. 

Overruled by Reg. v, Pyla Arc hi ... I. L. 

Bep. 1 Had. 278. 

See Madras Regulation L of 

1806.1. 

Apfovibr v. Rama Subha Aivak ...11 Moo. I. 

A. 328. 

Approved in Runjeet Singh v. KooerGuj- 

raj Singh L. Bep. 1 1. A. 9. 

See Hindu Law— Partition. 9. 
And in Joy Nakain Giri v. Grish Ch under 

Mrri... L. Rep. 61. A 228; I. 

L. Rep. 4 Cal. 434. 

See Hindu Law—Partition. 13. 

Ashraf-un-Nissao. Uh rao Beg ah ..I. L. Rep. 

1 All. 612. 

Followed in Bhikhan Khan v. Ratan 

Kuar loid. p. 613. 

See Act XVin. of 1873, i 93. 3. 

A/jh-l'l-lah Khan o. Kishbn Lall, S. A. 155 

of 1877, 19th December 1S77, unreported, 

not followed in Harsukh v. Mbgkraj... 

L L. Bep. 2 All. 346. 

See Decree. 3. 

Badri Prasad e. Muhahhad Yusuf...I. L. 

Bep. 1 All. 381. 

Followed in Jeoni d- Bhaowan Sahai... L 

L. Bep. 1 AIL 841. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act 

YITX of I860, i 246. 2. 

Bai Lakshki e. Lakhmidas...1 Bom. H. C. 

Bep. 13. 

Disapproved of in Savitribai v. Laxmibai. 

I. L. Bep. 2 Bom. 678. 

Sec Hindu Law— Maintenance 

of Widow. 14. 



Diarized by Google 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Bijnath Shahai e Desputtv Singh L L. I 

Rflp. 3 Cal, 308 ; 25 W. Rep. 489. 
" The ground of the decision in Baijnatk 
Shahai v. Desputty Singh (uU supra) was thai 
the party there, a creditor of one of the next of 
kin, had no interest in the estate of the deceased. 
A purchaser from the nest of kin is in a very 
different position from a creditor. If we thought 
that that decision went so far as to hold that a 
purchaser or an attaching creditor could not 
apply for revocation of a probate, we should, as 
at present advised, refer the point to be settled 
by a Full Bench ruling, because we should dis- 
sent From such a ruling." Per Markby, J., in 
KoMOLLOCHUN DuTT fl. NlLRUTTEN MllNDLE... 

I. L. Kep. 4 CaL 863, 36S ; 4 Cel. 

Rep. 175. 

Baldeo Sahai ti. Bateshah Singh... I. L. 

Rep. 1 AIL 75. 

Followed in ]adu Lal*. Ram Gholam... 

I. L. Sep. 1 All. 316. 

See Res Judicata. 34. 

Bates v. Municipal Commissioners of Bel- 

lary 7 Mftd. II. C. Rep. 346. 

Followed in Leman*. Damodaraya...I. L. 

Rep. 1. Had. 158. 

See Madras. Act HI. of 1871 . 2. 

Behal Doss v. Ikbal Narain.,25 W. Rep. 

249. 

Followed in Unnoda Persad Royu. Sheikh 

Koorpan Ally I. L. Rep. 3 CaL 

S18. 
See Limitation. 83. 
Bhikaji d. Jaganath..,10 Bom. H. a Rep. 



Doubted by ft. Harridas, ]., in Moru jj. 

Gopal...L L. Rep. 2 Bom. 130, 127. 

See Limitation. 3. 

Bhyrub Chitnder Surmau Chowdhrv.11 

Beng. L. Rep. 433. 

Followed in Rov Meghraj o. Beejoy Go- 

bind Burrai 1. L.Rep. 1 Cal.197. 

See Review. 3. 
Biseswar Lall Sahoo v. Ramtuhul Singh, 
11 Ben?. L. Rep. 181. 
Reversed on appeal to the P. C...L. Rep. 
8 I. A. 131. 

BlSSESSUR MuLLICK v. Maharaja Dhiraj Ma- 

batabChund B. L. Rep. Sup. Vol. 

967 ; 8. C. 10 W. Rep. (F. B.) 8. 



Followed in Mungol Prashad Dichit b. 

Shama Kanto LahoryChowdhry...I. 

L. Rep. 4 Cal. 708. 

See Limitation. 45. 

Borrowman o. Drayton. .,L. Rep. 3 Ex. D. 

15. 

Followed in Fokbes c. Tullockchand Ma- 

NOCKCHAND...I. L.Rep. 3 Bom. 386. 

See Contract. 1, 

Bowes v. Foster 87 L. J. N. B. 263. 

Followed in Param Singh v. Lalji Mai.... 

I. L. Rep. 1 All. 403. 

See Estoppel. 6. 

Bulwunt Singh u. Chittan Sinoh ..H. 0. 

Rep. N. W. P. 1871, p. 87. 

Followed in Lachman Singh jj. Sanwal 

Singh I. L. Rep. 1 All. 543. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act 

Vin. of 1859, f 7. 8. 

Bussee Singh u. Mirza Nuzuf Ali Beg. ..32 

W. Rep. 338. 

Approved in Dildar Hossein v. Mujee- 

ounnissa I. L. Rep. 4 Cal. 639. 

See Civil Procedure Code Act 

Vm, of 1859, , 197. 

Eurkut Hossein e. Majidoonissa...3 C. L. 

Rep. 208. 

Distinguished in Elaui Buksh v. Mara- 

chow I. L.Rep. 4 Cal. 835; 3 

Cal. Rep. 693. 
See Appeal— Civil. 21. 
Cally Churn Mullick e. Bhuggobutty 
Churn Mullik...10 Beng. L. Sep. 381. 
Approved of and followed in Mothoorho- 
hun Roy v. Soorendro Narain Deb... 
I. L. Rep. 1 CaL, 108. 
See Age of Majority. 1. 
Can am ». Kvlash Chundeh Roy Chowdhry... 
20 W. Rep. 117. 
Approved and followed in Rai Komul 
Dosseev. Laid ley... I. L. Rep. 4 Cal. 
967. 
if « Right of Occupancy. 6. 
, In the goods of Chalmers.. .6 Bang. L. 
Rep. Appx. 137. 
Followed in In the goods of Gas per... I. L. 
| Rep. 3 Cal. 733 ; 3 CaL Rep. 436. 

See Court Fee*. 8. 



quired by Google 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Chandhrabhagabai e. KASiHATH...2Bom. H. 

C. Bop. 333. 

Disapproved of in Savttribai jr. Laxmibai. 

I. L. Bep. 3 Bom. (173. 

Set Hindu Law — Maintenance 

of Widow. 14. 

Chjnma Uuuiayi *. Teqarai ChbtT[...I. L. 

Bep. 1 Had. 188. 

Distinguished in Kamalam v. Sadagopa 

Cketti X. L. Bep.l Had. 3 S3. 

See Dancing Girl. 

ClMNASWAMI IYANGAR II. GOPAtACHARVA,.,7 

Mad. H. C. Bep. 303. 

Decision in — as to limitation, dissented Erom 

in Abdul Karimu. Manji Hanskaj...I. 

L. Bep. 1 Bom. 295. 

See Onus Proband!. 2- 

And in Ramchandra v. Somak ..I. L.Bep. 

1 Bom. SOS, 808. 

See limitation. 1. 

Chowdhry Wahid Au b. Musst. Jummayb... 

18 W. Bep. 87. 

Followed in Hurrodurga Chowdhrai v. 

Sharrat Soondbry Dabeea...I. L. 

Bep. 4 Cal. 874; 8 Cal. Bep. 017. 

See Execution of Decree. 20. 

Chundow. Ahim-ud-din....H. C. Bep. N.W. 

P. 1874, p. 28. 

Dissented from in Dwarka Das if. Husain 

Baksh I. L. Bep. 1 AU. 564. 

See Pre-emption. 11. 

Collector of Madura v. Moottoo Ramalinoa 

Sathupathy 12 Moo. I. A. 397. 

Explained in Rajah Vellanki Venkata 

Krishna Row v. Vemkata Rama 

Lakshwi N arsayya . ..Ii. Bep. 4 I. A. 

1; I. L.B. Had. 174. 

Under Hindu Law— Adoption. 13. 



Doubted by Westropp, C.J., in Moru o. 

Gopau-.I. L. Bep. 3 Bom. 130. 

See Limitation. 3. 

Dayal Jairaz v. Khatav Ladha...13 Bom. H. 

C. Bep. 97. 

Decision in— as to limitation, dissented from 

in Abdul Karim «. Manji Hansraj ..I. 

L. Bep. 1 Bom. 296. 

Set Onus Frobandi. 3. 



Dbbi Parsad v. Thakur Dial. ..I. L. Bep.l 

All. 105. 

Followed in Bkimul Doss o. Choonee 

Lall...L L. Bep. 2 Cal. 379. 

See Hindu Law— Inheritance— 

Nephew. 

DlMDYAL LAL V. JAGDIP NaRAIN SlSCH.-.I. L. 

Bep. 3 Cal. 198. 
Followed in Venkattasami Naik o. Kup- 

paiyan I. L. Bep. Had. 854. 

And Venkattaramyyan v. Venkatasu bra- 
mania Dikshatar Ibid. 358. 



DlNOBUNDHOO ChOWDHKY V. KrISI'OMONEE 

Dosser... I. L. Bep. 3 Cal. 152: 

Followed in Bhrrka Lali. a. Bhuggoo 
Uu.,.1 L.Bep. 3 Cal. 33. 
Set Be* Judicata. 18. 

Doolbin Hur Natii v. Ba[]oo Oojha...H. C. 
Bop. N. W. P. 1867, p. 00. 

" That case is not well reported. There wasa 
specialty in respect to the property sold being 
jagir, and, therefore, not subject to sale ; and it 
was stated, though it does not appear from the 
report to have been proved, that the auction 
purchaser was aware of the property being jagir. 
If he was aware of the objection, he acted in bad 
faith, and I must dissent from the ruling. On 
the other hand, if he was not aware of the nature 
of the property and of its exemption from sale 
in execution, then he was simply deceived and 
misled by the decree -holder, and the judgment 
of the Court was correct. Per Stuart, C J., in 

Makundi Lal b. Kaunsila...I. L. Bep. 1 AIL 
568, 574. 

Dooma Sahaob. Jodnarain Lal l... 13 W. 

Bep. 362. 

Followed in Bohomalee Nag «■ Koylash 

Ckunder Dby ... I. I* Bep. 4 Cal. 

692. 

See Estoppel 4. 

Dooroa Churn Surma o. Jampa Dossee...12 

Beng. L. Bep. 289 ; 81 W. Bep. 48, 

Followed in Jadu Dass v. Sutherland...!. 



See Co-ahareri of Land. 3. 



DiQihzed by G00gle 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Dwarka Singh ». Solano 33 W. Rep. 88. 

Dissented from in NlLHONEB Singh Deo v. 

Rahbandoo Roy... I. L. Bep. 4 Cftl. 

757 ; 3 Cal. Bep. 311. 

See Land Acquisition Act X of 

1870. 3. 

ElDAN V. MaZKAR HU3AIM...I. L. Rep. 1 AIL 

483. 

Followed in Taufik-un-Nissa i>. Ghulah 

Kambar I. L. Bep. 1 AIL COO. 

See Mahomedan Law— Dower. 3. 

Empress c. Seymour ...,L L. Bep. 1 AIL 630. 

Observed upon in Empress tr. Mahindra 

Lal. Ibid, eaa 

See Illicit Sale of Liquor. 3. 

Enayetoollah o. Shaikh Meajan...16 W- 

Bep. 6. 

Followed in Khoob Lall v. Jungle Singh. 

I. L. Bep. 8 Cal. 787; 3 CaL Bep. 

4SO. 

Set Appeal— CiviL 30. 

Forbes * Sheikh Mean Jan.. .8 W. Bep. 69. 

Not followed in Arfunnessa e. Pearv 

MoHUN MoOKBRJEB I. L. Bep. 1 

CaL 378. 

See Onua Proband!. 3. 
Frames o. Nun tH Mal...H. C. Bep. N. W. P. 
18 70, p. 79. 
Dissented from in Bf.haki Lal o. Sauk 

Ram I. L. Bep. 1 All. 675. 

See Limitation. 79. 
Gases Singh v. Ramgopal Singh.. .6 Bang. L. 
Bep. Appx. 56. 
Dissented from in Panchcowrie Mull v. 

Chuhroolall L L. Bep. 8 Cal. 

663. 

See Suit for Management of a 

Beliglou* Endowment. 

Grish Chunder Ghose v. Mussamut Kalee 

Tara 26 W. Bep. 895. 

Stated by Birch, ]., in Bhuggeeruth Berah 

V. MONEBRAM BaNNERJEE.,.1. L. R*)p, 

4 Cal. 865, 869. 
To have been overruled on appeal. 
Ganfatraoo. VITHOBA...4 Bom. H. C. Bep. 
A. C. J. 130. 

"The bead-note to that case is incorrect. 
There is nothing in the very meagre report of 
the judgment of the Court, there pronounced by 
Coach, C. J., to the effect that Lingayets, as the 



parties there were, are Vaishyas." Per Wntropp, 

C. J., in Gopal Narhar Safray v. Hanmant 

Gahesh S a fray... I. L. Bep. 3 Bom. 273, 

283 

See Hindu Law— Adoption. 6. 

Gobind Chunder Koondo it. Taruck Chunder 

BOSE...L L. Bep. 3 Cal. 145 ; 1 CaL 

Bep. 30. 

Followed in Bemolasoondury Chow dm rain 

«.PuNCHANUNCtfOWDHRY...I.L.Bep, 

8 Oal. 705. 

See Bos Judicata. 22. 

Go lam Mahomed e. Asmut Au Khan.. .10 W. 

Bep. P. B. 14. 

Followed in Gogon Manjy ■u. Kashiwary 

Deby I. L. Bep. 8 Cal. 498, 

See Suit for Kabuliat. 1. 

GOFEEHATH JANNAH ». JeTEO MoLLAK.,.18 W. 

B. 37S. 

Dissented from in Gogon Manji v. Kaski- 

wary Deby.:.... I. L. Bep, CaL 8, 

498. 

Sx Suit for Kabuliat. 1 . 

Gossain Dash Chunder v. Issur Chunder 

Nath L L. Bep. 3 Cal. 225. 

Followed in Goluck Chunder Masanta t. 

Nundo Coomar Roy.,.1, L. Rep. 4 

Cal. 699 ; 3 CaL Bep. 460. 

See Declaratory Decree. 6a. 

Gunee Lall Singh e. Joodhistir Majrah.., 

26 W. Bep. 141. 

Dissented from in Bhagwan Chander Dass 

v. SudderAlly I. L. Bep. 4 CaL 

41; 3 Cal Bep. 367. 

See Bengal Regulation VIII. of 

1819, s 8 cl. 2.2. 

Gujendro Narain Royo. Hphanginee Dasser. 

13 W. Bep. 35. 

Distinguished in Chuttrrdharee Lall v. 

Ram be lash ek Koer I. L. Bep. 8 

Cal. 818. 

See Security Bond. 

GukqapersadSakeb «. Madhofbrsaud Sakee. 

18 Beng. 8. D. A. 1344. 

Followed in Lallah Rahesshur Dayal 

Singh v. Lallah Bissen Dayal... I. L- 

Bep. 1 CaL 406. 

Set 



D.gmzed by GoOgle 



TABLE OF CASES. 



xtl 



Haheda Bum «. Noor Beebee llW, 

Bap. 894. 

Followed in Poona Koof.r...L L Rep. 1. 
Cal. 101. 
See Bevinw. 4. 

HaranChunderGhoseuDinobundhooBose. 

14 Beng. L. B. 408 ; 8, C. 23 W. 

Rep. 187. 

Followed in Doss Money Dosser v. Jon- 

M ENJOY MuLLICK..,I. L. Bep. 3 Cftl. 

863 ; 1 Cal. Sep. 446. 
See Bea Judicata. 91. 

Harihar Mukopaohya v. Madab Chandra 

Babu..,8 Beng. L. B. 666 ; 14 Woo. 

I. A. 1S3. 

Followed in Arfunnessa p. Peary Mohun 

Mookerjee...I. L. Hop. 1 Cal. 378. 

See Odm Proband i. 3. 

Herbert v. Savers 52 B. 866. 

Distinguished in Sadoiwn e. Spiers. ..I. L. 

Rep . 8 Bom. 437. 

See Ineolvoncy. 1. 

Himmatsikg v. Ganfatsing ... 12 Bom. II. C. 

Bep. 94. 



Rep. 8 Bom. 346 



Hirbai v. Gorbai.,12 Bom. H. C. Bep. 284. 

"We consider that in Hirbai v. Goriai (12 

Bom. H ■ C. Rep- 394) "« have gone quite as 

far as we can properly go in applying a less 

stringent rule with regard to the evidence re- 

quired to prove a custom in the case of Khoja 

Mahomedans, than we should do in the case of 

Hindus or Mahomedana proper." Per Westroff, 

C.J., in Rahimatbai v. Hirbai. ..I. L. Bep. 3 

Bom. 34, 36. 

SwKhojaa, 

HUKNATH CHATTERJEE ». FuTTtCK ClfUNDBR 

Suwmadar 18 W. Bep. 613. 

Followed in Bhyrub Chunder v- Golab 

Coomarv I. L. Bep. 3 Cal. 617. 

See Appeal— Civil. 7. 
Hurri Sunku" Mookerjee v. Muktaran 
Patko ..10 Beng. L. Bep. 838 ; a C. 
£4 W. Bep. 164. 



Followed in-GoBitfD Chunder Koondo v. 

Taruck Chunder Bose...I. L. Bep. 

3 Cal. 145; 1 Cal. Bep. 35. 

See Bm Judicata. 19. 

Hurro Lall Dass ». Soojawut Au...8 W. 

Bep. 197. 

Observed upon in Sobka Btbee v- Mirza 

SachavutAu I. L.Bep.aCal. 

371; 1 Cal. Bep. 331. 
See Act XXIII. of 1861, ( 11. 1. 

tO SOONDUREE DbBIA V. PUNCHOO RaM 

Mundul 24 W. Bep. 225. 

Followed in Bhvrub Chunder v. Golap 

Coouarv I. J,. Bep. 8 CaL 517. 

See Appeal— Civil. 7. 

litPERATRix «. Padkanabha Pai.-.Z. L. Bep. 

a Bom. 884. 

Followed in In the Matter of the Petition of 

Gur Daval ...J. L, Bep. 8 AIL 806 

See Sanction to Froaecute. 6. 

in re Bhvrub Bharuttee Mohunt 81 W. 

Rep. 840. 
Distinguished in Dukharam Bharti v. 

Lachman Bharti I. L. Bep. 4 

Cal 954; 4 Cal. Rep. 49. 
See Certificate to collect Debt*. 4. 
Jameson & Co. «. The Brick and Stone Com- 
pany L. Bep. 4Q.B.D. 80S. 

Distinguished in Sadodin v. Spiers... I- L. 
Bep. 3 Bom. 437. ' 
See Insolvency. 1. 
Jijayiansha Bayi Saiba v. Kamakohi Bav 

Saiba 8 Mad. H. C. Bep. 

484. 

Affirmed Sri Gajapathi Nilahani Patha 

Maha Devi Guru ». Sri Gajapathi 

Radhanani Patha Maha Devi Guru. 

I* Bep 4 I. A. 318 ; I. L. B. 1 

Mad. 890 ; 1 Cal. Bep. 87. 

See Hindu Law— Inheritance — 

Widow. 8- 

Jina Ranchod b. Jodha Ghela.„1 Bom. H. C. 

Bep. I. 

Observed upon in Karim Baksh *. BudHa. 

I. L. Bep. 1 All. 849. 

See Bight to Sua. 3. 

Johurra Bibke v. Srer Gopal Misser ...I. L. 

Bep- 1 Cal. 470. 



Digitized by G00gle 



xlii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Followed in Joykisto Cowar v- Nittya- 

nund Nt-NDY L L. Rep. 3 Cal. 

738 ; 2 Cal. Hep. 440. 

See Hindu Law— Ancestral Trade. 

Joolraj Singh ». Gour Buksh...7 W. Hep. 

110. 

Dissented from in AnanDrav Bapuji v. 

Sheikh Baba I. L. Bep. 2 Bom. 

562. 
See Be -sale in Execution of De- 

Judal v. Hiba.,.4 Bom. H. 0. Bep. A. C. J. 

76. 

As to the jurisdiction of Small Cause Court, 

not followed, in Sidlingapa c. Sidava... 

I. L. Bep. 2 Bom. S34. 

See Small Cause Court, MofuwiL 

2. 

And Apaji v. Gangabai Ibid. 632. 

See Hindu Law— Maintenance 
of Widow. ie. 

JudoonathShaha...38 W. Rep Cr.Bule33. 

Overruled by Empress b. Baidanath 

Das. ..I. L. Bep. 8 Cal. 866; 1 Cat. 

Bep. 442. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 

X. of 1873, f 223. 

Jugbundo Run .Singh u. Radasham NareN- 

dro Mahapattur Beng. 8. D. A. 

1859, pp. 1556, 1560. 
Not followed in Janokee Debea v. Gopaul 

Acharjia I. L. Bep. 3 Cal. 

365. 
Sec Hindu Law— Adoption. 2. 
Rally Prosonno Hazra h. He era Lal Mun- 
DLB...L L. Bep. 2 CaL 468. 
Followed in Mungol Prashad Dichit e. 
Shaua Kanto Lahory Chowdry...I< 
L. Bep. 4 CaL 708. 
See Limitation. 44. 
Kantljy Rah b. Bankey Lal, unreported, fol- 
lowed in Gopal Singh v. Dvlar Khar... 
X. L. Bep. 3 AIL 362. 
See Appeal—Civil. 22. 
Khathaiia Nanchiarv. Dorasinga Tever... 
L. Bep. 3 I. A 169 ; 15 Beng. L. 
Bep. 88. 
Followed in Sini Thiruvengadathiengab 
v, Sangiuveerappa P. Chinmathum- 
BMR...I. L. Bep. 1 Had. 66. 
See Declaratory Decree. 4. 



Kelly o. Gobind Das...H. C Bep. N. W. P. 

1874, p. 168. 

Distinguished in Makundi Lal v. Kaun- 

SILA...I. L. Bep. 1 All. 668. 

See Sale in Execution of Decree. 

13. 



Overruled by Empress v. Bidanath Das... 

I. L. Bep. 3 Cal. 369 ; 1 CaL Bep. 

442. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, 

Act X. of 1872, ( 233. 

Kirpar «. Bsagawan Dass...1 Beng. L. Bep. 

F. B. 61. 

" All their Lordships desire to say of it is 

that, as reported, it does not appear consistent 

with their judgment in the former appeal to 

which they have referred (i. e.), Soorjomonee 

Dajee v. Suddanand Mokapaiter, 12 Beng. L. 

Rep. 304), nor with their opinion in the present 

case." Krishna Bbhari Ray v. Brojeswari 

Chowdranee ...I. L. Bep. 1. Cal. 144 ; L. 

Bep. 3 I. A 383. 

Note. — In the report in the Law Reports, 

'.. A., the name of this case is incorrectly 

en in their Lordships' judgment as Sheikh 

Rahimtulla ». Sheikh Sarintulla Kagchi. 

Kistonath B hag butty v. Jukboonath Bhag- 

butty 31 W. Bep. 145. 

Not followed in Raj Koomar Singh o. 
Sahibzada Roy. ..I. L. Bep. 3 Cal. 20. 
See Bight to Sue. 6. 
Kyi.ash Chunder Sircar v. Gooroo Churn 

Sircar 3 W. Bep. 43. 

Overruled by Rajkisiiore La hooky v. 

Go bind Chan dee Lakoory I. L. 

Bep. 1 CaL 27 ; 24 W. B. 234 ; L. 
B. 4 1. A 163 X. 
See Hindu Law — Inheritance — 
Brother. 1. 

Lallubiiai Bapubhai v. MANKU VAKBA1 ... I. Li 

Bep. 3 Bom. 388. 

Distinguished in Green OER Chunder 

Ghose v. Mackintosh I. L. Bep. 

4 CaL 897. 

See Limitation. 38a. 

Luckmeb Buksh Roy v. Runjeet Roy Pandav.' 

13 Beng. L. Bep. 177. 

Followed in Rahmani Bibi v. Hulasa 

Kuar L L. Bep. I ALL 643. 

See Acknowledgment of Mort- 
gagor's Title. & 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



TABLE OF CASES. 



jiliii 



Manga la Debi v. Dinhahath Bosr.,.4 Beng. 

L, Bep. 0. 0. J. 72 ; IS W. Rap. 

Civ. Bui. 30. 

Followed in Gauri v. Chandrawani...L 

L. Bep. 1 All. 862. 

See Hindu La w— Widow's Bight 

of Bendenca in Family 

Home. 

Ma'shook Ameen Suzzada v. Meriim Reddy... 

8 Wad. H. C. Bep. 31. 

Dissented from by Innes, J., in Keshava o. 

Keshava......L L. Bep. 2 Had. 46. 

See Kanam Mortgage. 



As to the observations of Lord Brougham — 
" Can the decree as to the application of the 
fund stand? Shall the fund be applied to the 
establishment and support of a College at 
LucknowP Shajl it sink into the residue and 
be divided between the two charities appointed 
to be established at Calcutta and Lyons ?— for 
the case of AtlorHty-CetKr.il v. Bishop of Uan- 
daff (cited 2 My. & K. 5E6) and Attorney-General 
v. Ironmongers' Co, (Cr. & P. 208, 3 My. & K. 
576, 10 CI. & F. 90S) make it clear that in this 
case, which is indeed stronger than either of 
those, the other two charities must take, if the 
gift fail as regards the third,"— the Privy Coun. 
cil say in Mayor of Lyons v. Advocate-Gene- 
ral of Bengal.. .L. Bep. 3 I. A. 32, p. 68; 
LL.B.1 Cat. 303 ; L. B. I. App. Ca. 81. 
" It is obvious that the question of the ulti- 
mate disposition of the fund was not ripe for 
decision, the point then under consideration 
being the direction proper to be given for carry- 
ing into effect, if possible, the Lucknow charity ! 
and, indeed, the decree advised by this Com. 
mittee, giving directions for that object, was 
expressly made 'without prejudice to any 
question as to the final application of the 
same fund under the direction hereinafter 
contained, or otherwise.' The observation 
the judgment, therefore, can only be regarded 
as an opinion, and not as a judgment. So re- 
garded, however, they would have been entitled 
to great weight, if their authority had remained 
unimpeached. But the subsequent decision in 
the case of Attorney. General v. Ironmongers' Co, 
in the House of Lords, in which Lord Brougham 
concurred, corrected the views his Lordship had 
expressed in an earlier stage of that case (: 



My. & K. 586), and in the observations referred 
1. That decision was in effect that among 
charities there was nothing analogous to benefit 
of survivorship." 

5nrWiU.ll. 
Mhalsabai v. Vithoba Khandapfa Golve ... 
7 Bom. H. C. Bep. Appx. 26. 
The third clause in the head ; note to Mhalsa- 
bai v. Vithoba Kkandappa Gulve (hoi supra) is 
wrong. The Court did not give any opinion 
that case on the law relating to Vaishyas, or 
that the Lingayats were Vaishyas." Per-Wes- 
tropp, C.J., in Gopal Nakhar Safbay *. Han- 

mant Ganesh Safray L L. Bep. 3 Bom, 

973, £83. 
See Hindu Law— Adoption. 6. 

MOHESHUR LALL tr. CHRISTIAN... 6 W. Bep, 

260. 
Followed in Lalla Nowbat Lall ». Lalla 
Jewan Lall...I. L.Rep. 4 Cal. 831 ; 
2 Cal. Bep. 319. 
See Mahomedan Law— Pre-emp- 
tion. 1. 
MohummudZahoor Ali Khan v. Thakoora- 
neb Rutta Koer... 11 Moo. I. A. 466, 
Followed in Ram Tarrun Koondoo v. 
Hossejn Buksh ..I. L. Bep. 3 Cal. 
786; 2 Cal. Bep. 38S. 
See Civil Procedure Code, Act 
VIII. of 1869, ( 7. 6. 

MOIITAZOODDEEN M A HOMED V. R.AJCOOMAR 

OA3S...14 Beng. L. Bep. 408 ; 23 W. 

Bep. 187. 

Dissented from in Khub Chand v Kallian 

Dass I. L. Bep. 1 Alt 240. 

See Bale in Execution ofDecree. 4. 

Morgan v. Powell 3 (i. B. 278, 

Approved in Burmah Trading Corpora. 

tion, Limited, «. Mirza Mahomeo 

AllySherazeb ...L. Bep. 6 1. A. 130. 

See Damages. 4. 

Mufti Jalalodin Mahomed o. Shokorltlla... 

16 Beng. L. Bep. Ap. 1 ; S. C. 82 ; 

W. Bep. 422. 

Dissented from in Gulzari Mal b. Jadaun 

Rai I. L. Bep. 2 All. 63. 

Sec Court Fees. 1. 

MulukFuoueer Baksh o. Manohar Das...H. 

C. Bep. N. W. F. 1870, p. 29. 

Followed in Haksukh tj. Meghraj...L L. 

Bep. 2 All. 846. 

See Decree. 3. 



Digitized byGOOC^Ie 



TABLE OF CASES. 



MussumatBijeeKobrv.Rai Damodar Dass... 
H. C. Bep. N. W. P. 1878, p. 65. 

Dissented from in Oiosthwaite c. Hamil- 
ton I. L. Bep. 1 AIL 87. 

See Principal and Surety. 1. 

MUSST. FUZULUNV. SyUDKBRAHUT Hosskin... 

SI V. Bep. 242. 
Approved in Dildak Hossein b.Mujredun 

nissa I. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 629. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act 
VIII. of 1859, {197. 

MuSKAHAT SuBJAN BlBI V. ShEIKH SuRIATUL- 

la 3 Beng. L. Bep. 413. 

"In so much of that decision as awarded 
damages for the detention of the illegally seized 
cattle, all of which, with the exception of the 
three bullocks which died while in custadia legU, 
were restored to the rightful owners, we, as 
already observed in Varta v. Hata (n Bom. H. 
C. Rep. 46—58), fully concur; but, now that our 
attention has been specially directed to the 
refusal of the High Court of Calcutta to award 
also to the plaintiff in that case, the value of the 
three bullocks which died, we feel compelled to 
say that we respectfully differ from that portion 
of the decision." Goma Mahad Patilo. Go- 
KAldas Kiiimji. Westropp, C. J, and KemaatI,]. 

I. L. Bep. 3 Bom. 74-81, 1878. 

Mussumut Wahidunnissah. Mussumut Shah. 

rattun 6 Beng. L. Bep. 54. 

Followed in Svuo Bazayet Hossein v. 

Daou Chand... L. Bep. 5 I. A. 211 ; 

1. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 402. 

See Hahomedan Lav— Bight of 

Creditors to Follow Estate 

of Debtor into hands of 

Purchaser from Heir. 

Nana Lakshuan v. Anant Babaji.I. L. Bep. 

2 Bom. 353. 

Diff erred from in Rajpati Sinoh e. Rah 

Sukhi Kuar ...I. L. Bep. 2 All. 40. 

See Registration. 40, 

Nef.lkukth Sahek v. Asmun Matho...H. C. 

Rep. H. W. P. 1871, p. 67. 

Dissented from by Stuart, C.J ., in MAKUND1 

Lal b. Kaunsila...I. L. Bep. 1 All. 

568, 674. 

Nidhamat Ghosal.. 19 W. Bep. Cr. Bui. 1. 

Followed in Empress o. Nurul Huo.3... I. 

L. Bep. 8 Cal. 757. 

See Recognizance. 



NlDHARTI NAQABHUSHANAM...7 Mad. H. 0. 

Bep. 119. 

Approved in Empress w. Ketabdi Mundul. 

I. I. Bep. 4 Cal. 764. 

See Culpable Homicide. 

NlRUNJUN Barthee v. Padarath Barthee.., 

a D. A. N. W. P. 1B64, VoL l,p. 613. 

Followed in Madho Das si. Kamta Das... 

I. L. Bep. 1 All. 639. 

See Hindu Law- - Inheritance— 

Saniaaie. 

Nobolal Khan j>. Adhrranre Narain Koon- 

waree 6 W. Bep. 191. 

Not followed in Arpunnessa v. Peart 

Mohun Mookerjee I. L. Rep. 1 

Cal. 378. 

See Onua Proband). 3. 

Obhoychurn Dutt b. Mudsoodan Chowdhry, 

5 Wym. 173. 

Not followed in Poqrno Chundrr Coon- 

doo v. Prosonno Coomar SlKDAR.,.1. 

L . Bep. 2 Cal. 133. 
See Limitation. 67, 
Odoit Roy jr. Radha Panday...7 W. Bep. 72. 

Followed in I.alla Rahesshur Dayal 

Sinoh 11. I.alla Bissen Daval..X L. 

Bep. I Cal. 406. 

See Damages. 1. 

Pattabhiramier v- Vencatrow Naiken and 

others 13 Moo. I. A. (560. 

Approved and explained in Thumbasawmy 
Mudellyh. Mahomed HOSSA1N Row- 

then L. Bep. 2 I. A. 241 ; 

I. L. B. lMad.l. 
See Mortgage. 13. 
Pearee Mohun Poddar e. Jugobundhoo Sen. 
34 W. Bep. 418. 
Dissented from as being opposed to the deci- 
sion of the Privy Council in Gunga 
Gobind Mundul v. Bhoopal Chun- 

der Biswas 19 W.Rep. 101. 

In Umbicha Churn Goopta v. Madhub 

Ghosal I. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 870; 

4 Cal. Bep. 66. 
5c.' Limitation. 23. 
Peddamuthulay v. N.Tihma Reddy...2 Mail. 
H. C. Rep. 370. 

Observed upon in Uda Bec.au *. ImaH-Ud- 

Din I. L.Hep. 1 All. 88. 

See Acquiescence. 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



TABLE OF CASES. 



xlv 



Petuh Doss v. Ramdkone Doss ...Tay. 279. 

Followed in JoVKtSTO Cowar ■b. NitTva. 

nund Nundv.-.I. L. Rep. 3 Cal. 738 ; 

2 Cal. Bap. 440. 

5k Hindu Law — Ancestral 

Trade. 

Poof.no Singh v. Hurrychuno Surmah 10 

Beng. L. Bap. 117. 

Followed in Dwarka Das r. Husaih 

Baksh I. L. Bep. I AIL 564. 

See Pre-emption. 11. 
Protab Chundbr Borooah v. Ranee Surno 

Moyee 14 W. Hep. 151, 

Followed in Hurrodurga Chowdhrain v. 

SHARRGT SoONDARY DABBEA...I. L. 

Sep. 4 Cal. 674. 
See Execution of Decree. SO. 
Radha Kristo Dutt v. Gunga Narain Chat- 

terjee 23 W.ltep. 328- 

Followed in Bhvrud Chunder v. Golap 

Coomary I. L. Bep. 8 Cal. S17. 

See Appeal— Civil. 7. 
Sahi v. Govind Taj a... I. L. Bep. 1 Bom. 07. 
Followed in Viraramuthi Udayan v. Sin- 
oabavelu..X L. Bep. 1 Mad. 306. 
Sec Hindu Law— Inheritance- 
Illegitimate Son. 6. 
Raj Moiiun Neogee v. Ahund Chunder 

Chowdhry ....10 W. Bep. 166. 

" We think that decision is not in accordance 

with the principles laid down in the Full Bench 

decision in Dayarrumre Chtradrainee v '. Bkolanath 

Gkose, B. L. R. Sup. Vol. 591 ; S. C-, 6 W. R., 

Act X- Rul., 77." Per Cur. in Khajah Asha. 

noollah v. Kajek Aftabooddeen..L L. Bep. 

4 Cal. 594; 3 Cal. Bep, 

882. 

Under Interact. 8. 

Rajagofala Ayyangar i. Collector of Chin- 

0LBP1-T...7 Mad. H. 0. Bep. 98. 

Distinguished in Fakir Muhammad o. 

TtRUHALA CHAKIAR I. L. Bep. 1 

Mad. 200. 

See Bights of Hirasdars. 

Rajah Rah v. Bainee Madko ..H. C. Bep. 

N. W. P. 1878, p. 81. 

Dissented from in Khub Chand o. Kalian 

Das I. L. Bep. 1 All. 240. 

See Sale in Execution of Decree. 



Rajkjshohe Lahoory v. GobindChunder La. 

HOOB.Y...I. L. Bep. 1 Cal. 27 ; 24 W. 

Bep. 234 ; L. Bap. 4 I. A 153, n. 

Approved in Sheo Soondarv v. Firthee 

Sinch L. Bep. 4 1. A. 147. 

See Hindu Law— Inheritance — 

Brother. 2. 

Rajkumar Ram Gofal Narain Singh e. Ram 

Dutt Chowdhry.. .5 Beng. L. Bep. 

264. 

Distinguished in Gunnoo Singh v. Lata. 

tot Hots aim ...I. L. Bep. 8 Cal. 3S6 ; 

1 Cal. Bep. 91. 

Set Mortgage, 28. 

Ra«u Naikan v. Subbarya Mudali...7 Mad. 

H. a Bep. 220, 

Dissented from in Khub Chand v. Kallian 

Das I. L. Bep. 1 All. 240. 

See Bale in Execution of Decree. 
4. 
Rama Rau v. Raja Rau.. 2 Had. H. C. Bep. 
114. 

Remarked upon in Uda Begam v- Imah- 

ud-Din I. L. Bep. 1 All. 82. 

See Acquiescence. 

Rama Rao v. Suria Rac.L L. Bep. 1 Had. 

84. 

Reversed on appeal, sub nam. Zauindar of 

PrrrApuRAM v. Proprietors of thb 

Mutt a of Kolanaiu...L. Bep. 6 I. 

A. 206 ; I. L. Bep. 2 Had. 38 ; 3 

Cal. Bep. 260. 

St e Bea Judicata. 6. 

Rahaunga Pill a i - 



in the marginal note to 
Ramatinga Pillai v. Sadasiva Pillai (9 Moo. I. 
A. 506,) and at page 51 1 of the report, that the 
person held in that case to have been adopted 
belonged to the Vaishya class, is erroneous. 
Mr. Mayne in his able treatise on Hindu Law 
(p. 1 10, note u) states that the parties were 
really Sudras, which fact is also mentioned in 
the judgment of the High Court of Madras iu 
Jiva.niP.hai v. Jivu Bkai{2 Mad. H.C. Rep. 462, 
467). In Ratnolinga Pillai v. Sadasiva Pillai 
{ubisupra) the judgment of the Privy Council 
went solely on the admission of the appellant's 
father as to the fact and validity of the adoption, 
and which admission, so far as the validity of 
the adoption was concerned, rested, no doubt, 



D,„i„.db»Google 



xlvi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



on his knowledge that the adopter and adopte e i 
being Sudras, (ell within the exception to the 
general rule against adoption of a sister's son- 
It should be observed that Lord Chelmsford, in 
giving the judgment of the Privy Council, said 
that upon the objection that the adoption was 
illegal, as the respondent was the adopter's 
sister's son, ' very little was said ;' and he did not 
discuss that point That case, therefore, is no 
authority for the proposition that amongst 
Vaishyas a sister's son may be adopted." Per 
iVestropf, C.J., in Go pal Narhar Sapray p. 

Hankant Ganesh Sapray I. L. Hep. 8 

Bom. 273, 292. 

Ram an and r. The Bam of Bengal.. . I, L. 

Bep. 1 All, 377. 

Overruled by Wilayat-un-Nissa ■■ Najib 

un-Nissa I. L. Rep. 1 All. SS3. 

See Appeal— Civil. 12. 

Ramchandra v. Saraswatibai ..4 Horn. H- C. 

Bap. A. 0. J. 73. 

As to jurisdiction of Small Cause Court 

not followed in Sidlingapa tr. Sidava. 

I. L. Bep. 2 Bom. 624. 

And Apaji v. Gangabai ..Ibid. 632. 

Sec Hindu Law- Maintenance 

of Widow. 15. 

Ram Kishen Doss d. Hurkhoo Singh Roy. ..7 

W. Bep. 329. 

Distinguished in Ckutterdharbe Lall o. 

Rah bel ashes Koer...I. L. Bep. 3 

Cal. 318. 

See Security Bond. 



Overruled by Gumma v. Bhiku I. L. 

Bep. Bom. 126. 
See Limitation. 30. 

Ramlal Thaki-rsiuas v. Lakhmichand 1 

Bom. H. C. Bep. Appx. 61. 
Followed in Johurra Bibee v. Sreegopal 

Misser I. L. Bep. 1 Cal. 470 

Sec Hindu Law Maintenance of 
Widow. 9. 

Ramlal Thakursidas v. Lakhmichand Muni- 
ram, ..1 Bom. H. C. Bep. Appx. 71. 

Followed In JoYKISTO CoWARjr. NlTTYANUND 

NUNDY...L L. Bep. 8 Cal. 738. 

See Hindu Law — Ancestral 

Trade. 



Ram Lochun Chuckerbutty v. Ram Soonder 

Ckuckerbotty 20 W. Bep. 104. 

Followed in Sumo Kumaki Debi v. Govind 

Shaw Tanti...L L. Bep. 2 Cal. 418. 

Sec Declaratory Decree. 0. 

Ratan Trimback Pa til t. N. Hormusji... 

Mioc. B. A. 2 of 1889. 

Not followed in Shivlal Khubchand v. 

Apaji Bhivrav...I. L. Bep. 2 Bom. 

664. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act 

VIH. of I860, i 338. 

Ratanchand Shrichand v. Hanmantrav 

Sadasiv 6 Bom. H. C. Bep. A. 0. J. 

166. 
Approved in Runjit Singh ». Mehbrban 
Koeh.,.1. L. Bep. 3 Cal. 662,674; 
3 Cal. Bep. 381. 
See Appeal—Civil. 9- 
Ratanchand Shrichand e. Hanmantrav 
Shivbakas.,.6 Bom. H. C. Bep. A. C. J. 
166. 
" For myself I cannot regard it as an autho- 
rity binding on me, and I consider myself free 
to form my opinion on the case before me in 
Court irrespective of it." Per Stuart, 

i UDA BEGAM v. IMAM.UD.DIN...L L. 

Bep. 2 AIL 74-88- 

Reasut Hussein o Hadjee Abdoollah,..!. L. 

Bep. 2 Cal. 131. 

Tbe opinion of the Privy Council no doubt 

places a very wide interpretation on the words 
(''other good and sufficient reason in } 376 of 
Act VIII. of 1S59"), but the opinion on this 
point was not necessary for the decision of the 
case, and may without impropriety be regarded 
rather as a mere obiter dictum than as a binding 
authority." Per Inncs, J,, in -Raman p. KARU- 
natiia Tharakar-I. L. Bep. 2 Had. 10-12. 

Reg. b. Bai Ratan. .,10 Bom. H.C.Rep. 168. 

Followed in Empress ». Mannoo Tamoo- 

LEE...1. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 696 ; 4 CaL 

Bep. 187. 

See Confession , 1. 

Reg. v. Gobind Tewari ..I. L. Bep. 1 CaL 



Sec Appeal— Criminal. 7. 



mortized by Google 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Reg. v. Jagatmal I. L. Bep. 1 All. 16S. 

Dissented from in Reg. *■ Gaji...I. L- 
Rep, 1 Bom. 311. 
See False Evidence. 

Reg. v. Jaoat Mal I. L.Bep. 1 AH. 163. 

Overruled by Empress v. Kashmiri Lal... 

i. l. Bep. i All. eas. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, 
Act X. of 1878, J 473. 3. 
Rbg. v. Jbtha Bala ..10 Bom. H. C, Rep. 68. 
Dissented from in Reg. v. Rahimat...L Tj. 
Rep. 1 Bom. 147. 
See Compounding Offences. 6. 
Reg. i-. Kalva bin Fakir.. .6 Bom. H.C.Kep. 
Or. Ca. 84. 
Followed in In the matter of Bhoo min- 
es hwer Dutt..X L. Rep. 8 Cat. 631 ; 
3 Cal. Bep. 60. 
See Penal Code, $ 173. 
Reo. ». Kultakam Singh. ..I. L. Bep. 1 All. 
199. 
Dissented from in Reg. v. Gaji ,.I. L. 
Bep. 1 Bom. 311. 

AndReo.v. Parsapa Ibid. 339. 

See False Evidence. 

Rbg. «. Kultaram Singh. ..L L Bep. 1 All. 

139. 

Overruled by Empress ». Kashmiri Lal... 

I. L. Bep. 1 AIL 630- 

See Criminal Procedure Code, 

Act X. of 1873, i 473. 2. 

Rsg. v. Meares 14 Bang. L. Bep. 106. 

Ratio decidendi in — dissented from in 

Feda Hosseik.-.I. L."Rep. 1. Cal. 431. 

See Act VI. of 1874 f 6. 1. 

Reg. v. Shivya L L, Bep. 1 Bom. 319. 

Dissented from in Empress ». Rahajrva... 

I. L. Bep. 3 Mad. D. 

Reg. v. Subbana Gaundan...1 Had. H. C. 

Bep. SO. 

Followed in Empress v. Abul Hasan ... I 

L Bep. 1 All. 497. 

See Penal Code, } 311. 1. 

Reg. e. Subbana Gaundah.,.1 Had. II. C, 

Bep. 30. 

Followed in Empress v. Sauk... I. L. 

Bep. I All. 637. 

See Penal Code,} all. 3. 



Roshun M. 



w Mah< 



ST KuLEEN...7 

W. Bep. 160. 
Distinguished in Lalla Nowbut Lall v. 
Lalla Jbwan Lall. ..I. L. Bep. 4 
CaL 831 ; 3 Cal. Bep. 819. 
See Hahomedan Law— Pre- 
emption. 1. 
Roval British Bank v. Turquand...5 Ell. & 

Bl. 348 ; 6 Ibid. 837. ' 
Distinguished in Irvine v. Union Bank op 

Australla.. L.Bep. 4 I. A. 86; 

I. L. B. 3 CaL 380. 
Under Power of Director to borrow and 
mortgage. 
Sak Makhan Lall Pandavv. Sah Koondun 

Lall L. Bep. 2 1. A, 210. 

Approved in Mahomed Ewaz e. Bmj Lall. 
L. Bep. 4 I. A. 186. 
Under Registration. 23. 
Salu <r. RA]SANGji...aBom. H. 0. Bep. 162. 
Doubted by Wettropf, C.J., in Moru if. Go- 
pal L L. Bep. 3 Bom. 120. 

See Appeal— Civil, 31. 
Samuel v. Samuel.... 9 Jur. 223. 

"I own that I don 'requite understand the 
decision, or the ground on which it proceeded. 
The report, however, of the judgment is extreme- 
ly brief, consisting only of a few lines, and the 
decision is not easy to reconcile with others that 
have preceded and followed it" Per While, J., 
in In the matter of the Will of C. M, Hunter ... 
L L. Bep. 4 Cat 420, 1878. 
Samgappa Chambasapfa v. Sahebanna Kenge ■ 
DAPPA...7 Bom. H. O..Bep. A. a J. 141. 
"That case would not be in accordance with 
our view of the law." Markby, J, in Ahamudeen v. 
Grish C Bunder Shahmut...I. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 
860, 354. 

Seetaram o. Dhumook Dharek Sahye 1 

Hay, 260. 
Followed in Janokee Debba s. Gopaitl 

Acharjea L L. Bep. 2 Cal. 366. 

See Hindu Law— Adoption. 3. 

Sham Kant Bannekjbev. Baboo Gopallal 

Tagorr 1 W. Bep. Civ. Bui. 838. 

Disapproved of in Sheth Kahandas Na- 

randass. Dhaiabhal. . I. L. Bep. 3 

Bom. 182. 



Diarized by Google 



TABLE OF CASES. 



SHAMLAL GHOSE v. SttKUNDBR Khan. 3 W. 

Bep. 183. 
Not followed in Arfunnessa ?. Peary 

MoHUN MoOKERJEE 1. L- Bep. 1 

Cal. 378. 
See Onus Probandi. 3. 

ShAHaPuRSHADRoyChOWDHRYit. HURRO PUR. 
SHAD ROV CHOWnHRV..,10 Moo. I. A. 

203 ; S. C. 3 W. Bep. P. C. 11. 

Followed by Ainslie, Macpherson, and Mark- 
by, JJ., and distinguished by Garth, C. 
J., and Jackson, J., in Jooesk Chijncer 

Dutto. Kalli Churn Dutt I. L. 

Bep. 3 Cal. 30. 

See Honey paid under Decree 

subsequently supersedad. 

Sheo Pkrshad Lallo. Thakoor Rai ,.H. C. 

Bep. N. W. P. 1B68, p. 264, 

Followed in Shaikh Ewae v. Mokuna 

Bibi L L. Bep. 1 AM. 132. 

See Pre-emption. 8. 

Sheo Singh Rai v. Mussumut Dak ho ...L 

Bep. 5 I. A 87. 

Approved in Chotav Lall ». Chunno Lall. 

L, Bep. I. A. 15 ; I. L. Bep. 4 

Cal. 744. 

See Jain Law. 3. 

Shiu Narain Bose v. Rah NidheeBose...9 
W. Rep. 87. 
Overruled by Rajkishore Lahoory v. 
Gobind Ch under Lahoorv. ..I. L. 
Bep. 1 Cal. 27 ; S. C. 24, W. Bep. 
234; L. Bep. 4 L A. 153. 
See Hindu Law — Inheritance- 
Brother. 1. 

Siva v. Ckbnaha 5 Mad. H. C. Bep. 417. 

Not followed in Poona Kqoer...I. L. Bep. 

I Cal. 101. 

See Beview. 4. 

Skinner p. Orde X L. Bep. 1 All. 230. 

Reversed on appeal in. ..L.B. 6 I. A. 126. 
See Petition for Leave to sue in 
forma Pauperis. 

SOHUN LAt.L P. GVA PAR5HAD...H. C. Rep. N. 

W. P. 1B74, p. 293. 

Followed in Puran Mal v. Ali Khan.,.1. 

L. Bep. 1 All. 230. 

&r Civil Procedure Code, Act 

TIn . of 1859, * S60.1, 



SOKHEE MONEE DbBIAV. BrIJORAJ MoOKERJEE. 

17 W. Bep. 238. 

Followed in HurroDurca Chowdhraih ■. 

Sharrat Soondery Dabeea ...I. L. 

Bep. 4 CaL 674. 

See Execution of Decree. 20. 

SoORJOHONEE DaVEE V. SuDDANAND MOHAPAT- 

ter... 12 Beng. L. Bep. 304. 

Approved in Krishna Bbharj Rov o. Bro- 

JESWARI CHOWD.RANEE...L. Bep. 2 I. 

A. 283; L L. B. 1 Cat 144; 
25 W. B. 1. 

See Bes Judicata. 9. 

SrEEMUTTV RiBUTTY DoSSEE V. SlBCHUNDER 

Mulltck 3 Moo. I. A. 1. 

Explained in Musst. BhaGbutti Daee v. 

CkowdhrvBholanathTkakoor...L. 

B. 2 I. A. 256. 



Sri Gajapathi Radhika v. Ski Gajapathi 

Nilman...13 Moo. I. A. 497, 601 ; 6 

Bong. L. Bep. 202 ; 14 W. Bep. F. 

C.33. 

Commented on and explained in Rhai v. 

Govind 1. L. Bep. 1 Bom. 97. 

Set Hindu Law— Inheritance — 
Illegitimate Bon. 4. 
Svitd Ameer Hossbin v. Sheo Suhab...19 W. 
Bep. 338. 

Followed in Z00LFUN BlBEE fr. RADHICA 

Prosonno Ckunder.,,1, L. Bep. 3 
CaL 560; l Cal. Bep. 388. 
See Bight of Occupancy. 1. 
Teeka Dharee Singh v. Mohur Singh... 7 
W. Bep. 260. 
Followed in Lalla Nowbut Lall ». Lalla 
Jewan Lall. ..I. L. Bep. 4 CaL 
831 ; 3 Cal. Bep. 319. 
See Mahomed an Law— pre-emp- 
tion. 1. 

Thakur Prasad v. Ashan Ali. ...I. L. Bep. 
1 ALL 668. 

Dissented from by Stuart, C. J., in LTr»A 

Bbgami. Imam-ud-Din ...I. L. Bep. 

2 ALL 74. 

Tilak Chukoer Rov v. Rah Luckheb Dossrk. 

2 W. Bep. 41. 



Diarized by Google 



TABLE OF CASES. 






smiled by Rajkiskore Lahoory v. Go. 
bindChunder ( .a hooky ...I. L. Bep. 

lCal.27; S. C. 24 W. Rep. 284 ; 

L. Bep. 4 I. A. 153, n 

Sec Hindu Law -Inheritance— 

Brother. 1. 



Timappa v. Parwesh 



■a. ..5 Bom. H. C. 
Bep. A. C. J. 130. 

Disapproved of in Savitribai v. Luxmibai 
I. L.Bep. S Bom. 1573. 
See Hindu T. aw— Maintenance 
of Widow. 14. 

TlRUMALASAMMJ RedDI tr. RaMASAMMI ReDDI... 

6 Had. H. C. Bep. 420. 

Dissented from in Shiro Kumari Debt ? 

GovmdShaw Tanti I. L. Bep. 

9 Cal. 41R. 
See Declaratory Decree. 0. 
Vijia Rangam b. Lukshman.,.8 Bom. H. C. 
Bep. O. C. J. 244. 
As to the doctrine laid down in the judg- 
ment of West, J., that, according to the Mitak- 
shara, all property inherited by women is stri- 
dhan, the High Court of Calcutta {Couch, C. J-, 
and Ainslie, J.) say in Chotay Lull v. Ckunnao 

Loll .L.B. 6 I. A. 10, p. 28. 

" He lays down that the Mitakshara includes 
in stridhan all property acquired by women by 
inheritance, which is contrary to what had beei 
laid down by Sir]. Arnould \a Bhatkar Trimback 
Achatya. v. tfahadto Ramji (6 Bom- H, C. Rep. 
O. C. J. l), and also to the decision of the Privy 
Council in Bkugvandeen Doobey v. Myna Bait 
(u Moo. I. A, 4S7). When we have the van. 
0113 decisions of the Sudder Court here upon 
the law which is applicable in this suit, and 
the decision of the High Court at Madras (in 
the Shivaganga cast, 6 Mad. H. C. Rep. 310) 



upon a similar law, in which no substantial 
difference can be pointed out with reference to 
this question, we ought not to unsettle the law 
which appears to have been received on this 
side of India for the last fifty years on account 
of the opinion of a Judge of the High Court of 
Bombay, however learned he may be." 

And the Privy Council, at p. 3Z, say that their 
Lordships " agree in the observations which are 
to be found at the end of the judgment of the 
High Court, that Courts ought not to unsettle a 
rule of inheritance affirmed by a long series of 
decisions, unless it is manifestly opposed to law 



Vinayak Anandrav v. Lakshhibai. ..1 Bom, 

H. C. Bap. 117 126 ; 9 Moo. L A. 

516 ; 8 W. Bep. B, C. 41. 

Followed in Sakharam S. Adhikari o. Sita- 

bai I. L. Bep. 3 Bom. 353. 

AndDHONDuGuRAVir.GANGABAi... Ibid. 369. 

See Hindu Law— Inheritance— 

SUter. 

Vinayak Vasudev,. Ritchie, Steuart&Co. 

4 Bom. H. C. Bep. 0. C, J. 139. 

Followed in Pearson v. Madhub Chunder 

Ghosh I. L.Bep. 3 Cal. 887,11. 

See Sherifi'u Poundage. 3. 
Widow of Shukkur Sahai v. Rajah Kashi 

Pkrshad L. Bep. 4 I. A. 198, n. 

Approved in Gaum Shunkur v. Maharajah 

of Bulk am pore L. Bep. 6 I. A. 1. 

Under Act I. of 1869. 4. 
Woods. Ward ..3 Ex. 478; 18 L. J. (Ex.) 
SOS. 
Approved in Rameshur Pershad Narain 

Singh s. Koonj Behari Pattuic L. 

Bep. 6 I. A. 38. 
See Artificial Watercourse. 



Diarized by Google 



D,oiti«d b» Google 



DIGEST OF CASES REPORTED 



INDIAN LAW REPORTS, 

CALCUTTA SERIES, Vols. 1 to 4; BOMBAY SERIES, Vols. 1 to 3; 
ALLAHABAD SERIES. Vols. I&2; MADRAS SERIES, Vols. 1 &2; 

AND 

LAW REPORTS. INDIAN APPEALS. Vols. 1 to 6. 



ABANDONMENT OF CONFISCATION. ABANDONMENT OF MHtAS UIGHTS. 



See Confiscation in Oudh. 3. 

Prince Mirza Jehah v. Nawab 

Assue Bahu L. Rep. 6 

I. A. 78 ; LL Sep. 4 Cal. 
727. 

ABANDONMENT OF DEFENCE OF LI- 
MITATION {UNDEB ACT XIV. 
OF 1859). 
Set Limitation. S. 

Moru d. Gopal I. L. Bep. 3 

Bom. 120. 

ABANDONMENT OF EASEMENT. 
See Easement, 1. 

Shama Churn v. Taringv Churn. 
I. L. Bep. 1 Cal. 423. 



See Family Custom. 

Rajkishen v. Rawjoy Surma. ..I. 
L. Bep. 1 Cal. 186. 
ABANDONMENT OF QBOUND OF 
APPEAL. 

Set Re vi aw. 11. 

SaBAPATKI tr. SuBRAYA I. L. 

Bep. 2 Mad. 68. 
ABANDONMENT OF INFANT. 

Sec Conviction on several Charges. 



See Miras. 3. 4. 

Tarachand v. Lukshman...L L. 

Bep. 1 Bom. 91. 

Joti Bhihrav v. Balu Bapuji... 

IUd. 308. 

ABANDONMENT BT MDtABDABS— 
s — Razinama— Extinction o/Miras Rights.'] 
Mirasdar, addressed a raiinama to the 
Mamlatdar resigning certain Jifiras\a.nds in favour 
of L. (to whom at the same time he delivered 
possession of the land), and containing no re- 
servation or qualification -.—Held, that the 
tranfer to L. was complete, and the right of B. 
wholly extinguished, Tarachand Pirchand v. 
LAKSHMAN BaVANI. West and Nanaikai Har- 

ridas, JJ I. L. Bep. 1 Bom. 91, 1875. 

3. Razinama — Abandonment o/Miras 

Rights.'] A Mirasdar who has given in a rami- 
nama is entitled to eject the tenant put into 
possession by the Collector, provided he sue 
within the period of limitation, and the ratinama 
contains no stipulation whereby he expressly 
abandons his Miras rights. Joti Bhihrav v. 
Balu bin Bapuji. Warden and Ciibs, JJ.... I. 
L. Bep. 1 Bom. 208, 1868. 
ABATEMENT OF APPEAL — CIVIL. 
Death of Appellant— Act VIII. of 1859, f 7J— 
Right of Purchaser to carry on Special Appeal.] 
A. sued B. in the Court of first instance, and 
obtained a decree declaring A.'t right to a house. 
The District Court in appeal reversed this decree 
and rejected A.'s claim. The High Court re- 
versed this decree and remanded the case. The 
District Court, on remand, made a decree con- 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( 



) 



ABATEMENT OP APPEAL — CIVIL- 

cantd. 
firming the decree of the Court of first instanc 
in A.'s favour. Subsequently to this last men 
tinned decree B. sold the house to C. B. then 
preferred a special appeal, but died before it was 
heard .—Held, that under Act VIII. of 1859 C. 
could not cany on the special appeal. At the 
time of his purchase, B.'s alleged right as 
had been pronounced against by a Court of 
competent jurisdiction. What remained to him 
was a right to challenge that decision by a 
special appeal. On purchasing this right, re- 
purchased it subject to the chance of A.'s title 
becoming unimpeachable on account of B.'s 
failing through death to make or carry on the 
possible appeal, and not a right after B.'s death 
to continue the litigation on his own account. 
The property sued for, if it did not become res 
religiasa, in the full sense of the Roman Law, so 
soon as the parties were at issue, was yet so 
bound when a decree had awarded it to the 
plaintiff, that it could not effectively be assigned 
to a third party so as to give a new term of 
life to the litigation which, in the absence of the 
assignment, would have died with B. Moresh- 
warPhataks. KushabaShankroji. JvVitand 
BayUy, JJ L L. B*p. 2 Bom. 248. 

ABATEMENT OP APPEAL — CRIMI- 
VAX. 

Criminal Procedure Code, Act X. of 1872, , j 280. 
tg-j— Death of Appellant.] The Criminal Pro- 
cedure Code (Act X. of 1872) gives no right to 
the heir, devisee, executor, or any other repre- 
sentee of a deceased convict to lodge an appeal, 
or continue an appeal already lodged. The ap. 
peal lodged by the convict abates on his death. 
(Semiall, J., diss.) But the High Court has the 
right to call for the record and make such order 



thereon 






consider just. 



Doncaji Andaji. Weshopp, C.J., and Mehill 
and /Cembali, JJ...L L. Eep. 2 Bom. 664, 
1878. 



See Land held by Joint. Owners. 

Empress h. Rajcoomar Sinc-h... 

I. L. Rep. 3 Cal. 673 ; 2 

Cal. Bep. 62. 

ABATEMENT Oi'FUKLIC NTJISANCE- 

5« Eight to»ue.lto5. 



ABATEMENT OF RENT-SUIT FOB, 
See Res Judicata. 10. 

NOBO DoORQA J. FOYZHUX ..LL. 

Rep. 1 Cal 202. 
ABETMENT— Of Abetment. 
See Abetment. 3. 

Of Fabricating False Evidence. 

See Fabricating False Evidence. 

Empress v. Mula I. L. Rep. 

2 Ail. IOC. 

Of Bigamy. 

See Abetment. S. 

Of False Evidence— Presumption. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, 
Act X. of 1872, j 471. 2. 
Reg. v. Baijoo Lall...I. L. Bep. 
1 Cal. 450. 
— Of Kidnapping. 

See Abetment. 4. 

Substantive Offence- -Convict ion of Prin. 

cipal. 

See Abetment. 1. 

1. Substantive Offence— Conviction of 

Principal.] The offence of abetment under the 
Penal Code is a substantive offence. The 
punishment when the culprit has been present 
at the Commission of the principal offence, is the 
same as for that offence ; and the trial of it is 
not in any way dependent on the conviction of 
the person charged with the principal offence. 
The conviction of an abettor is, therefore, in 
no way dependent on the conviction of the prin- 
cipal. Rec. jr. Maruti Dada and others. 
Wat and Nanatkai Harridas, JJ....I. L. Bep. 

1 Bom. 16, 1875. 

2. PenalCode, {{ lOqand^^ — Bigamy-'] 

A Mahomedan female infant, was given away 
in marriage by A. S., one of her two paternal 
uncles and legal guardians, to A. H. Shortly 
afterwards, and while A. fi. was living the infant 
was again given away in marriage by A. S. and 
A. K., her other paternal uncle and legal guar- 
dian, to D.\ but the infant herself was not pre- 
sent at, and took no part in, the ceremony, 
which A. K- caused to be performed in her name, 
nor was she ever consulted or communicated 
with, before the ceremony took place. A. K. 
and A 5'., the guardians of the infant, were then 
charged with having committed an offence 
punishable under ff 109 and 404 of the Penal 
Code. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ABETHENT— contd. 

At the trial before the Session Court A. S. 
was acquitted, on the ground that he had taken 
no part in the second marriage of the infant, 
but A. K. was convicted of the offence charged. 

Held, on appeal, that to establish a charge of 
abetment under the Penal Code the accused 
must be proved to have instigated or aided some 
other person to commit the offence, or to have 
engaged with another in a conspiracy for the 
commission of the offence ; but here the acquit- 
tal of A. S. put an end to the case of conspiracy, 
for except with A. S. there was no evidence to 
support a case of conspiracy ; and, (assuming 
the validity of the former marriage, and the 
accused's knowledge of it), though the accused 
had committed an illegal act in disposing 
of his Infant ward in marriage after he knew 
tha*t she had been previously lawfully married, 
ye* in doing this act he was, according to the 
ovi" deuce, the sole actor, and the act, though 
illegal, was not, if done by one person alone, an 
offence provided for by the Penal Code. 

The practice of instituting criminal proceed- 
ings with a view to determining disputes arising 
in cases of this class condemned. Empress v. 
Abdool Kurreeu. Whitei.nA Prinsep, JJ-..I- 
L. Rep. 4 Cal. 10 ; 3 Cal. Rep. 61, 1878. 
3. — Of Abetment— Penal Cade, f log, 
Bxpl. 2-4; f 37S, Expl. 5.] A. sought the aid 
of B, with the intention of committing a theft 
of the property of B.'s master. B., with the 
knowledge and consent of his master, and for 
the purpose of procuring A.'i punishment, aided 
A. in carrying out his object. On the prosecu- 
tion of A. for theft, — Held, that as the property 
was 30 taken with the knowledge of the owner, 
the offence of theft had not been committed. 

Held, also, that the abetment of an abetment 
being an offence, and the prisoner having 
gated B. to do that which, if committed, 
have been an offence, he, the prisoner 
committed the offence of abetment, 
which it was not necessary that the act abetted 
should.be committed, and, therefore, that t hi 
circumstance, that owing to the property being 
removed with the knowledge of the 01 
technical offence of theft had not been 
ted, did not exonerated. Empress h. Troyi.uk ho 
Nath CHOWDHRV. Jackson and White, JJ....L 

T*. Rep. 4 Cal. 366 ; a Cal. Sep. 636, 1878. 

4. Kidnapping— PenalCode.SS 116,363-] 

The accused was convicted by the Magistrate 



ABETMENT— eontd. 

of abetting the kidnapping of a minor. The 
accused, knowing that the minor had left home 
ithout the consent of his parents, and at the 
stigation of one Komaren, the actual kidnap- 
per, undertook to convey the minor to Kandy, 
Ceylon, and waa arrested at Trichinopoiy 
on bis way there. The Session Judge reversed 
the conviction, on the ground that there was 
concert between the accused and Komaren 
previous to the completion of the kidnapping by 
the latter: — Held, that so long as the process of 
taking the minor out of the keepingof his lawful 
guardian continued, the offence of kidnapping 
jgbt be abetted, and that in the present case 
the conviction should be of an offence punishable 
under jf 116 and 363 of the Penal Code. Reg. 
tr. SamIA Kaundan. Morgan, C.J., an&Innes,). 

I. L. Rep. 1 Had. 178, 1876. 
ABSENCE 07 FORMAL FINDING ON 
ISSUE DETERMTNED- -No ground 
for Review. 
See Review. 11. 

Sabapathi v. Sabrava.,,1. L. 
Rep. 2 Mad. 68. 
ABSENCE 07 NOTICE TO 4UXT— Ob- 
jection as to — not raised in Memorandum 
of Special Appeal, not allowed at Hearing- 
See Practice— Civil. 10. 

Babajek v. Nakavan-.X. L. Rep, 
S Bom. 340. 



Sec Act XVIII. of 1860, 2. 

Collector or Sba Customs o. 
Punniar— LXh R. 1 Mad- 
89. 
See Champerty. 2. 

Raj Coomar 11. Chunuer Canto. 
L. Rep. 4 I. A. 33 ; I. L, 
Rep. 2 Cal. 233. 
See Damages. 4. 

Raj Chiinder v. Shaha Soonderi. 
I. L. Rep. 4 Cal. B83. 
ABSENCE 07 VENDOR, REGISTRA- 
TION IN. 

Sec Registration. 2. 

Sah Mukhun e- Sah Koondon... 

L. Rep. 2 I. A. 210 j IB 

Rang. L. Rep. 328 ; 34 W. 

Rep. 73. 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



< 7 ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ABSENTEE HEffi OF DECEASED HA. 

HOMEDAN— When bound by Consent 
Decree obtained by Creditor of Deceased 
against Heirs in possession of Deceased's 
Property. 

See Hahomedan Law. 1. 

ASSAMATHL'N NESSA H.RoY LuTCH- 

mbput.L L. Eo.p 4 Cal. 
142 ; 3 Cal. Rep. 223. 
ABSOLUTE GIFT. 
See Will. 9. 

Administra tor-General of Ben- 
gal -a. AicAR.,,1. J,. Rep. 3 
Cal. 563. 
ABUSE — Suit for Damages for — Parties. 
See Parties to Suit. 6. 

SUBHAIYARC. KRtSTNATYAR..,I. Ii. 

Rop. 1 Had. 383. 
ACCEPTANCE OP " DASTURI » BT 
PUBLIC SERVANT. 
See Penal Code, { 165. 

Empress t. Kahpta Prasad... 
I. L. Rep. 1 All. 580. 
ACCEPTOR— Bankruptcy of. 

See Procedure— Civil. 1. 

Babant Rah. v. Kolahal...I. L, 

Rep. 1 All. 392. 

ACCOHHODATION ACCEPT OR-Subse" 

quent Receipt of Consideration by — from 

Drawer— Trust Deed for Benefitof Credi 

tors executed by Drawer—Liability of— 

See Principal and Surety. 4. 

PoaoSEo. Bank op Bengal. .. I. L. 
Rep. 3 Cal. 174. 
ACCOHPLICE— 
Corroboration of — Confession of Co-Ac- 

See Evidence. 13. 

Reg. v. Bud hit Nauru... 1. L. Rep. 
1 Bom. 470. 

Corroboration of— Unneeesary for Legality 

of Conviction. 

See Evidence. 13a. 

Reg. v. Raw asa mi PadaYAcHi... 

LL. Rep. 1 Had. 394. 
—Illegally Pardoned — Proceedings against. 
See Evidence. 3. 



ACCOUNT— Balance of— Suit for— Jurisdic- 
tion of Molussil Small Cause Courts. 
See Small Cause Court— HofuttiL 
7. 

Dyesukee s. MuDHtlO ... I. L. 

Rep. 1 Cal. 183. 

Credit in. 

See Letter* Patent, Bombay, 1866, 
CI. 13. 1. 

MllLCHAND r. SUGANCHAND...I. 

L. Rep. 1 Bom. 33. 

of Dharmakartaship — Right to. 

Set Limitation. 64. 

Manally v. Vaidelinqa.-.I. L. 
Rep. 1 Had. 343. 

See Bond to Secure Balance of Ac- 

NARRAYAN v. MOTTILLAL I. L. 

Rep. 1 Bom. 15. 

Error in Statement of. 

See Contract. 5. 

Seth Gokuldass Gopaldass s. 
M URU...L. Rep. S L A. 78 ; 
L L. Rep. 3 Cal. 602; S 
Cal. Rep. IS6. 
Limitation— Principal and Agent— Conti- 
nuous Account — Mutual Items. 
See Limitation. 34. 

Watson v. Aga Mehedeb Site 
RAZEK...L. R.1L A. 846. 

In Partition Suit. 

See Hindu Law— Partition. 1. 

Lakshhan Naik v. Ramchandka 

Naik..,L L. Rep. 1 Bom. 

661. 

— Of Profits obtained by Infringement of 

Patent — Limitation. 

See Limitation. BO. 

Kinmond v. Jackson. ..L L. Rep. 
3 Cal, 17 ; 1 Cal. Rep. 66. 

Reference to Commissioner to take — Effect 

of. 



See Account, 3, 3. 



1.- 



- Apportionment — Decree — • Construe- 
•ndment of 'Decree."] The decree of the 
rst instance directed the Commissioner 
for taking Accounts to take an account of the 
Reg. c. Hanhanta...I. L. Rep. 1 moneys paid by the plaintiff in Bombay during 
Bom. 610. ; the period between the 24th January 1865 and the 



Diarized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACCOUNT— could. 

date of the institution of the suit, being, six 
years, (or the use and at the request of the 
defendants, in respect of kundis drawn On the 
plaintiff by the defendants, and to allow credit 
to the defendants for the sums in that behalf 
mentioned in the particulars of demand annexed 
to the plaint, and for all other sums, if any, in 
respect of which the defendants should prove 
themselves entitled to credit, wherever the same 
might have become payable. The defendants 
in their surcharge to the plaintiffs account 
claimed credit for payments made by them 
between the 25th January 1865 and 5th July 
1865. The plaintiff admitted the receipt of the 
payments mentioned in the defendants' sur- 
charge, but claimed to appropriate them in satis. 
faction of bis claim against the defendants in 
respect of moneys due by them prior to the 24th 
January 1865. The Commissioner held that the 
plaintiff was entitled to make such appropria- 
tion ; but the Court of first instance, on the 
application of the defendants, made an order 
directing the Commissioner not to allow the 
plaintiffs to appropriate the payments mentioned 
in the defendants' surcharge in satisfaction of 
moneys due by them before the 24th January 
1865, and explained the order of reference to 
mean that the whole of the account prior to the 
six years before the filing of the suit should be 
wiped wit:— Held, that the 
upon the decree by the Cor 
rect- Where the Court of first instance puts a 
certain construction on its own decree, which the 
Appellate Court thinks wrong, and the words of 
the decree admit of another construction which 
the Appellate Court thinks right, the Appellate 
Court will put the latter construction on the 
decree. Hihji Jiha e. Naran Mui.ji. Westropp, 
C J., and Sargent, J. ..I, L. Hep. 1 Bom. 1, 
1878. 

3. Reference to Commissioner— Effect of 

—Act VIII. of 1859,, 181.] In a suit for an 
account, it was ordered by consent of the parties 
that the case should be referred to a Commis- 
sioner to take accounts, who in taking them was 
to decide upon all questions of fact, whether as 
to the delivery of certain merchandize, or the 
value of the merchandize delivered, or other- 
wise, with full power for the purposes of the 
investigation ; and that if any questions of law 
should arise and could not be settled or disposed 
of before the Commissioner, they were to be 
submitted to the Court :— 



ACCOTJNT-<ro«W. 

Held, that this was a reference different from 
the ordinary reference to a Commissioner to 
examine accounts under { 181 of Act VIII. of 
1859. Whether it would be competent to the, 
Court to re-open a question of account against 
a clear finding upon a question of fact relating 
to the account, and made by the Commissioner 
upon the evidence properly before him, guare. 

Watson v. Asa Mbhedes Skekazes, L. 

Bep. 1 1. A. 846, 1874. 
S. C- under Limitation. 84. 

8- Power of Commissioner to groMtCerti- 

ficates— Supreme Court Rules (Equity) ,371 and 
45°-] A suit was, by an order of the High Court, 
referred to the Commissioner for taking Accounts 
" to take an account between the parties as 
prayed for in the plaint and written statement 
respectively, and to ascertain and report what 
balance, if any, was due from or by either of 
them to the other." In the inquiry before the 
Commissioner the defendants alleged that the 
accounts between them and the plaintiff had been 
adjusted in i860 and 1861. Tbe plaintiffs de- 
nied the adjustment, and evidence was taken on 
the point Neither in the plaint, written state- 
ment, or decree or order of reference, was any 
question of adjustment of accounts raised or 
mentioned. One of the plaintiff's witnesses, 
who had been in the service of the defendants, 
produced a copy letter. book containing copies of 
letters, which he alleged he wrote to the defend- 
ants. Tbe plaintiffs tendered the copy of one 
of those letters in evidence. The defendants 
objected to its admissibility, on the ground of 
its irrelevancy to the question whether an adjust, 
ment had taken place as alleged. Tbe Assistant 
Commissioner admitted the letter in evidence, 
and at the defendant's request granted a certifi- 
cate under Rule 371 (Supreme Court Rules), 
certifying that the Commissioner had decided to 
admit in evidence the press copy of the letter- 
The certificate did not show, on the face of it, 
bow the question was important, or how it affect- 
ed the inquiry being held, nor did the Commis- 
sioner state that he had any doubt as to the con- 
struction of the order of reference, or as to the 
correctness of his decision admitting the press 
copy, or that he desired the opinion of the Court 
on the question decided by him. 

On motion by the defendant, to overrule th* 
decision of the Assistant Commissioner, and for 
a declaration that the said letter was inadmis- 
sible in evidence :— 



D,„i„.db»Googlc 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACCOUNT— amid. 

fluid, that the application was irregular and 
not in accordance with the practice and proce- 
dure of the Court, and must be refused with 
costs: The Court was not bound because the 
Commissioner had certified that be had admit- 
ted a certain letter in evidence, either to uphold 
or reverse bis decision, or consider it in anyway, 
till he had arrived at, and certified, something 
which could be called a result, either of the 
whole inquiry or of some part or branch of it. 

The general nature of a certificate or report, 
whether general or separate, is that it should in 
the case of a general certificate comprise the 
result of all the proceedings under the decree or 
order of reference, or, in the case of a separate 
certificate or report, that it should comprise the 
result of some or one of such proceedings. 

Quart — Whether, where a suit has been re- 
ferred to the Commissioner for the purpose of 
having accounts taken, such accounts, in 
absence of any direction in the decree or order 
of reference, that stated or settled account 
not to be disturbed, should not be taken without 
regard to any previous accounts stated or settled 
between the parties. 
RuSTOUjI BlJBjORJl v. KE3SOWJI NaIK. Green, 

J....L L. Hep. 3 Bom. 161, 1876- 
S. C. under Civil Procedure Code, 
Act X. of 1877, ( 8. 

account cuskbnt. 

See Limitation. 84. 

Watson v. Aoa Mehedee Shb- 

razee ..L. Sep. 1 I. A. 

349. 

ACCOUNT IN REDEMPTION SUIT— 

Interest — Hindu Law — Rule of Dam- 

Dupat. 

See Hindu Law— Inter eat. 8. 
And see Mortgage. 8. 

RAUCHAHDRA v. BHIMRAV...L L 

Bop. 1 Bom. 577. 
ACCOUNT BOOKS— Inspection of. 
See Inspection. 1. 

HaJI Jakarta v. Haji Cassim 

I. L. Rep. 1 Bom. 466. 

1. Evidence Act I. of 187a, ff 31 and 

34— Entries by person having no personal Know- 
ledge — Account kept by Servant or Agent of Firm 
relevant as Admission.'] The Indian rule of 
evidence (Evidence Act, ( 33, CI. 3, and f 34) 



ACCOUNT BOOKS-cmrrd. 

simply requires that entries in accounts should, 
in order to be relevant, be regularly kept in the 
coins* of business; and though it may do doubt be 
important to show that the person making or dic- 
tating the entries had, or bad not, personal know- 
ledge of the fact stated, that in a question which, 
according to the Indian rule of evidence, affects 
the value, not the admissibility of the entries. 
Account-books not proved to have been regu- 
larly kept in the course of business, but proved 
to have been kept by a servant, or agent ap- 
pointed for that purpose, of a firm of contractors, 
are relevant as admissions against the firm. 
Rao. e. HaHMAHTA. Melvill *nd Kembtdt, J] ... 

I. L. Rep. 1 Bom. 010, 1877. 
S. C. under Evidence, fl, 



See limitation. 47. 

Hahhamtlal Motichand V, Ra- 

habhai.,.L L. Bop. 8 Bom. 

198. 

ACCOUNTS— Motion to vary or discharge 

Report of Commissioner for taking. 

See Practica-avil. 7. 

Suhak Ahmed ». Haji Ismail.. 

I. L. Bop. 1 Bom. 158. 

— Order of Reference to Commissioner for 

taking— Manner of Taking — Adjusted 

Accounts. 

See Account 3. 

Rustomji Barjorji «. Knssowji 

Naik...I. L. Sep. 8 Bom. 

10L 

Partnership— Suit for Dissolution and. 

Set Jurisdiction. 8, 

Ramasaui cThbhuvbhcadasami. 
L X. Hep. 1 Had. 340. 
ACCHETION. 

See He-formation of Submerged 
Land. 

HURSUBAI V. SVUD LOOTE...L. 

Hep. 9 1. A. 36 ; 14 Bang. 
L. B.268; 23W.H.8. 
Riparian Proprietors— Beng. Reg. XI. of 
1835, H 3 and 4, CI- I, *— Effect of sudden 
Change of Course of Boundary River.'] The 
lands in suit (in Tirhoot) were settled under 
Reg. XI. of 1835, f 4, CI. I, with the 



Diarized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACCRETION— amtd. 

plaintiffs predecessor in 1S37, as the proprietor 
of an estate to which the lands had become an 
accretion by gradual accession, and the plain- 
tiffs continued in possession thereof till the 
expiration of the settlement in 1847, which was 
made on the same principle. Prior to the renew- 
al of the settlement in 1857, the river which 
was to the south of the plaintiff's Zemindary in 
Tirhoot, and to the north of the defendant's in 
Sarun, had suddenly and so competely changed 
its course that the lands in suit, which were 
formerly on the north side of the river, were 
capable of being identified on the south side, 
and were notwithstanding summarily settled 
with the defendant, who obtained possession of 

Held, that in the absence of proof of usage 
within the meaning of f 3 of the Regulation, 
that the river should be not merely the boun. 
dary between the two districts of Tirhoot and 
Sarun, but also the boundary between the two 
Zemindaries, the plaintiffs were entitled to the 
lands. RtioHooBUR Dyal Sahoo t>. Mahara- 
jah Kishsh Pertab Sahe...L. Rep. 6 I. A. 
811, 1879. 
ACOTTHTOATIOVS BY HINDU 

WIDOW. 

See Hindu Lair— Alienation by 
Widow. 1. 

MUSST. BHAGBUYTt DaEE r. CHOW- 

dhry.BholanathThakook ... 

1. Rep. 3 I. A. 286 ; L L, 

Bap. 1 Oat. 104, 

ACCUSED PERSON— Convicted Person it 

See Criminal Procedure Code-, Act 
X.of 1872, ( 890. 1. 
Reg. v. Thakur Parshad...L L. 
Rep. 1 All. 151. 
— Discharge of —Revival of— Prosecution. 
See Compounding Offence*. 6. 

Impx. 1;, Devama.-.L L. Sep. 1 

Bom, 64. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 

X. of 18 73, f 143.1. 

Iupx.u Gowdapa...I. I., Rep, 2. 

Bom. 884. 

Set Criminal Procedure Code, Act 

X of 1872, j 395.1. 

Dijahub. Durr...I. L. Bep. 4 

OaL647. 

Set The Oeaea under Revival of 

Prosecution. 



ACCUSED PERSON— eontd. 
— — Evidence of an — Illegally Pardoned. 
See Evidence. 9. 3. 4. 

Reo. v. Hakuanta...!. L. Bep. 

1 Bom. 010. 

Emfrhss v. Ashgar Ali.,.1. L. 

Rep. 3 AIL 360. 

Empress e. Karim... I. L. a. 9 

All. 886. 

Examination of — Defectively Recorded. 

See Evidence. 19. 14. 

Reo. v. Shiva... L L. Bep. 1 

Bom. 319. 

Empress v. Naimoo Tamoler... 

L L. Rep. 4 Oal 696. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, 

ActX- of 1872, f 122. 1. 8. 

Impx. e. Malka I. L. Rep. 9 

Bom, 648. 

Empress v. Ramanjiya I. L. 

Rep. 9 Had. B. 

Right of — to Recall and Cross-examine 

Witnesses for Prosecution. 
See Practice— Criminal. 1. 

Empress v. Baldeo Sahai...I. 
L. Rep. 3 All. 888. 
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OP BROTHER- 
HOOD. 

See Mahomed an Law— Acknow- 
ledgment of Brotherhood. 
Mirza HiMHur Bahadoor v. 
Mussamut Sahebzadkb Beg am. 
L. Rep. 1 X. A. 88, 
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OP DEBT. 

Bond in Consideration of Barred Debt. 

See Limitation. 43. 

Raghojeb v. Abdul...L L, R. 
1 Bom. 590. 

. Signature— Agent~Aci IX. of 1881, f ».] 

In a suit to recover the balance of an account 
of the transactions between the plaintiff and 
defendant, the plaintiff, with reference to certain 
items of his claim which would otherwise have 
been baned by limitation, relied on a letter 
written by the defendant's gamashtaby the de- 
fendant's direction in the following; terms: — 
"Written by Babu Lai" (the defendant) "to 
Shah Benarsi Das" (the plaintiff]. "1 have 
received my account, in which you have struck a 
balance of Rs. 17,679-3-0. The account is 
correct, but it has not been running for the last 
two or three years, and my papers are at 
Laahkar. I shall send for the paper from Lash- 
Itar in Phagun, and, after examining them, shall 



Digitized byGOOC^Ie 



( 15 ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( »6 ) 



ACKNOWLEDGMENT 07 DEBT— contd. 
make pucka debit and credit entries in my 
accounts, and shall write to you to do the 
then I shall make arrangement for the money. 
* * * I shall examine (he accounts according ti 
the terms agreed upon by ns. We shall givt 
credit (or any mistake on either side. All right. 
Magser Sudi loth, Sambat 1931. If there be 
any mistake, credit shall be given or taken. 
The latter portion of this letter commencing 
from the words "AIL right," was in the hand- 
writing of the defendant himself : — 

Held, ul, that the effect of the letter 
admit the existence of a debt due by the sender 
to the person addressed. While admitting that 
the account rendered was on the face of it 
correct, the sender of the letter reserved to 
himself the right of testing the account by his 
own books before finally allowing it to be 
correct, and then promising to pay what may 
be due at a time stated, and such an acknc 
iedgment was a sufficient acknowledgment 
satisfy the Limitation Act IX. of 1871, { XO. 

and, whenever the maker of an instrume 
or bis agent acting with authority, introduces 
the name of the maker with a view to authenti- 
cate the instrument as the instrument of the 
maker, such an introduction of the name is a 
sufficient signature to satisfy the statute ; and 
that the heading of the above letter was, there. 
Fore, a sufficient signature thereof, within the 
meaning of the Limitation Act; and the defend- 
ant's admission that the letter was written by 
his gomaskta \>y his orders, and the circumstance 
that he added the concluding paragraph, was 
sufficient evidence that such heading was written 
by a duly authorised agent. The letter, there, 
fore, constituted a sufficient acknowledgment 
of the debt to satisfy the Act. Mathura Das 
«r. Babu Lal. Turner, C.J. (Offg.), and Pearson, 
J....L L. Rep. 1 All. 683, 1678. 
ACKNOWLEDGMENT 07 DEBT ST 
JUDGMENT DEBTOR. 
See Kiatbandi. 

Heera Lallv Dhunput.. I. L. Rep. 
4Cal.500;3 Cal. Hep. 654. 
See Limitation. 43. 44. 

Kallv Pkosonno Hazra o. Heera 

Lall Mundle...L L. Rep. 

3 Cal. 466. 

munool prashad dlchit *. 

SkamaKantoLahorvChow- 

dhrv I. L. Rep. 1 Cal. 

708. 



ACKNOWLEDGMENT 07 MORTGA- 
GOR'S TITLE— Act IX. 0/1871, Sch. H.,Art. 
148.] In a suit brought by the plaintiffs to 
redeem a mortgage of certain lands alleged to 
have been made by their ancestors in 1S11, it 
appeared that in 1841 the ancestors of the 
defendants had signed a Khevat or record of 
rights, in which no mention of the nature 
of the mortgage or of the mortgagors was 
made, but in which they were described as 
mortgagees, and as holding certain shares, but 
there was no record of the names of the owners of 
those shares. The defendants' ancestors had 
also in that year signed the Khatanni Skara 
asamvaar, which showed the rates of rent pay- 
able by the tenants, and in which they were 
also described as mortgagees, and which con- 
tained a note by the officer making the settle- 
:, that " the parties in possession are mort- 
gagees, but the amount of the mortgage and its 
duration are unknown ; it occurred before the 

ritish occupation" : — 

Held by Turner, C.J. (Offg.), and (Hdfidd, J., 
(bat there had been a sufficient acknowledgment 
of the mortgagor's right to redeem within the 
meaning of Act IX. of iS7i,;Sched. II., Art. 148. 
acknowledgment that a mortgage is a sub- 
sisting mortgage is an acknowledgment of the 
mortgagor's right to redeem, if be establishes 
The law of India does not require 
that the acknowledgment should be given to the 
mortgagor. 

■son, J., that an acknowledgment of a 
mortgage tenure is by implication an acknowledge 
mentof the titleof an owner; and other evidence 
may be admitted to show who is the person 
possessing that title to whom the acknowledg- 
ment refers. An express acknowledgment of 
the title of any particular person, or of his right 

By Sfankie}., contra: — Any one who desires 
take his claim out of the operation of Act 
IX. of 1871, Sched II., Art. 148, must show a 
nd express acknowledgment in writing 
itle of the mortgagor, or of his right to 
and this acknowledgment must be 
unqualified and made touching the mortgage, 
and cannot be implied from a general admis- 
in the present case, of the accuracy of 
settlement records dealing with a great variety 
Daia Chahd «. Sarfaraz...I. L. 
Rep. 1 AIL 117, 1875. 
-Act XIV. of rS59,$ 1, fit 15— Act 
IX. of 1871, Sched. //., Art 148— Redemption— 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACKNOWLEDGMENT OP MORTGA- 
GOR'S TITLE— amid. 

Acknowledgment made before iSjQ.] In a suit 
tot redemption of mortgaged property, the 
plaintiffs, the representatives of the mortgagors, 
relied on an acknowledgment of the mortga- 
gor's title contained in an entry in the settle, 
ment records of the year 1841, which was 
attested by the representatives of the mortga- 
gees, the defendants in the suit : and the lower 
Courts having differed as to whether the ac- 
knowledgment was sufficient without proof that 
it was made within sixty years from the date of 
the alleged mortgage ; — 

Held, that before the enactment of CI. 15, f 
1 of Act XIV. of 1859, there was no. limitation 
to suits for redemption of mortgage of landed 
property. In 1841. therefore, when theacknow 
ledgment found in the settlement records was 
made by the defendants or tbeir forefathers, 
that they held the property in suit as mortga. 
gees, there was nothing in the law to preclude 
the mortgagor from suing for the redemption of 
the mortgage. In other words, the right ac- 
knowledged was a right not extinguished by 
lapse of time, but still subsisting ; the acknow- 
ledgment fulfilled the intention and satisfied the 
requisition of the clause in Art. 148, Sched. 
of Act IX- of 1871, modifying the provisions of 
CI. I J, * I of Act XIV. of [859, and rendered i 
unnecessary to inquire and ascertain when th< 
mortgage, acknowledged in 1841, was actually 
made. Daia Chand v, Sarfaraz All Pearsot 
and Spankie, Jj- L L. Sep. 1 AH. 435, 1877. 

3. Signal by Agent— Act XIV. 0/1850— 

Act IX. 0/ 1871, Sched. II., Art. 148.] Held, fol- 
lowing Luckmet Butsh Roy v. Runjeet Roy Pan- 
day (13 Beng. L. Rep. 177) , that an acknowledg- 
ment of the title of a mortgagor, or of his right 
of redemption, signed by the mortgagee's agent, 
is not sufficient, under Art. 14S, Sched. II. of 
Act IX. of 1871, to create a new period of 
tation. Rahmahi Bibi v, Hulasa Koar. 
Pearson and Turner, JJ-.l L. Rep. 1 All. 
643, 1878. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF BECKDPT 
OF CONSIDERATION FOB BALE 
OF LAND. 

See Begietration. 19. 

Valaji v. Thomas... L L. Rep. 1 
Bom. 190. 



ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT 
OF PART-PAYMENT OF DEBT 
ON MORTGAGE BOND. 

See Registration. 23. 

Damp Singh v- Durga Prasad... 
I. L. Bep. 1 AIL 442. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SIGNA- 
TURE OF TESTATOR. 

See Indian Succession Act X. 
of 1886, S 50, CI. 8. 1. 
Manikbai «. Horhasji...I. L. 
Rop. 1 Bom. 647. 
ACQUIESCENCE. 

See Attorney and Client. S. 

MONOHUR DASS *. RoMONAUTH LAW. 

I. L. Rep. 3 Ce.1. 473. 
Sec Execution of Decree. 1. 

Baic-a Prasad t. Ahmad Alt... 
L L. Bep. 1 All. 363. 
See Mortgage. 22. 

Moran v. Mirru Eijieb.-I. L. 
Rep. 3 CeJL 58. 

Arbitration— Miscarriage of Arbitrators. 

See Arbitration. 7. 

Chowdhki Murtaza Hossbih v. 
Musst. Bibi Brchunnissa... 
L. Rep. SLA. 309. 
— In Interruption of Easement. 
See Limitation. 48. 

StIBBRAMANIYA A WAR V. RAMA- 

chandraRau...!. L.Bap. 1 
Mad. 336, 389. 

In Obstruction to Ancient Windows. 

See Mandatory Injunction. 
Jaunadas v. AtmUah...L L. Rep. 
2 Bom. 133. 

1. —Delay— Lathes— Estofifiel— limitation.'] 
There must be something more than a mere 
delay in instituting proceedings to deprive a 
man of his legal remedies. But the opinion ex. 
pressed in Rama Ran v. Raja Rau (a Mad. H. C. 
Rep. 114, p. 116,) that " the equitable doctrine 
of laches and acquiescence is not applicable to 
suits in the Mofussil for which a period of limi- 
tation is provided by the Limitation Act" is not 
to be adopted without qualification. A distinc- 
tion must be made between those cases in which 
a suitor seeks some relief which, if he proves 
his case, the Court is bound to giant him, and 
the cases in which he seeks relief which the 



Diarized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACQtTIE SCBNCE— con Id. 

Court has discretion to grant or refuse. When - 
a suitor has a right to demand relief, a stronger 
case must be made out against him than such 
mere tardiness in seeking a remedy which might 
justify a Court in refusing relief when It has a . 
discretion to grant or refuse it. With this quali- 
fication, the dictum in Ptddamuthulaty v- N. 
Timma Reddy (a Mad. H. C Rep. 270, p. 373.) 
that " it may be taken as the law both of Courts 
of law and equity that mere laches, short of the 
period prescribed by the Statute of Limitation, is " 
no bar whatever to the enforcement of a right 
absolutely vested in the plaintiff at the period 
of suit," assented to. 

But where there is more than mere laches, 
where there is conduct or language inducing a 
reasonable belief that a right is foregone, the " 
party who acts on the belief so induced, and 
whose position is altered by this belief, Is enti- 
tled in India, as in other countries, to plead 
acquiescence, and if the plea is sufficiently 
proved, it ought to be held a good answer to an _ 
action, though the plaintiff may have brought 
the suit within the period prescribed by the law 
of limitation. 

Where, therefore, the defendants took posses- . 
sion of, and erected buildings on, land which 
they knew to belong to the plaintiff, without 
asking the plaintiff's consent, and the plaintiff, 
knowing that the defendants were building on 
the land, abstained from commencing proceed- 
ings against them for two years : — Held, in a 
suit brought to eject the defendants and to 
have the building materials removed, that under 
the circumstances the delay in the institution 
of the suit did not deprive the plaintiff of the 
right to relief. Uda Bbgah v- Iuam-uddin. 
Turner, C. ]. (Offg), and OldfiM, J...X L. 

Sep. 1 All. 83, 1876. 
ACQUITTAL- -Appeal against. 

See Hi gh Court Criminal Procedure, 
Act I. of 1875, ( 147. 2. 
Corporation of Calcutta 0. " 
Bhkecunbam Napitt.,.1. Ii. 
Rep. 9 Cal. 280. 

— Appeal from— by Jury — Right of Govern- 

Stt Appeal -Criminal. 8, 

Impx. v. Hark.,1. 1* Eep. 9 
Bom. 528, n. 



ACQUITTAL— con td. 

- Appeal from— Limitation. 
See Appeal— Criminal. 5. 

Empress*. Jyadulla.. . I. L. Sep. 
S Cal. 486. 

- Appeal from— Preferred by Junior Govern, 
ment Pleader. 

See Appeal— Criminal. 4. 

Empress v. Judoonath Gangoo- 
LV...I. L. Sep. S Cal 978. 

- Arrest by Magistrate Pending Appeal 
against — Power of High Court. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1872, i 397. fl. 
Req. v. Gholam Ismail... I. L. 
Sep. 1 All. 1. 



See Appeal— Criminal. 6. 

Reg. v. Gobin Tbwari...I. L.Bep. 
. lCaLSSl. 
—Judgment of. 

See Appeal— Criminal. 4. 

Express v. Juooohath Gahgoolv. 
I. L. Eep. 9 Cal. 978. 

- By Jury— Reference by Sessions Judge. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1878, f 968. 1. 9. 3. 4. 
Impx. p. Khandrrao.,.I. L. Rep, 
1 Bom. 10. 

Impjc.o. Bhavaot Ibid. 096. 

Empress o. Harai Mirdha...I. L. 

Bep. 8 Cal. 189. 

Empress v. Sahab RAE...Ibid. 

628. 

- Power of High Court to interfere with an— 

where no Appeal by Government. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 

X. of 1872, f 297. 6. 

Empress v. Dwarkahath Chow. 

0HRV...I. lb Bep, 9 CaL 

899, 401. 

- Power of High Court as a Court of Revi- 

sion to interfere with an. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 

X, of 1872, (297. 1.3. S. 

Hardeo...I. L. Bep. 1 All. 139. 

Aurokiam...!. L. Bep. 2 Mad. 

33. 



Empress u. Miyaji Ahmed... I. L. 
Bep. 8 Bom, ISO. 



Diarized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACQUITTAL— contd. 

Revision of— Right of Private Prosecutor 

to apply for 
See Narain Das. ..I. Xi. Bep. 1 All. 

610. 
Sea Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1873, {297.1.3. 
Hakdeo...L L. Bep. I All. 189. 
Aurokiam...L L. Bep. 2 Mad. 
SB. 
Without asking Opinion of Assessors. 



ACQUITTAL OF PBINCIPAL- -Abetment'] 
The offence of abetment under the Penal Code 
is a substantive offence, and the acquittal of the 
principal is no bar to the conviction of the 
abettor. Reg. v. Maruti Dad* and others. 
West and Nanabhai Harridos, JJ....L L. Sep. 1 
Bom. 15, 1873. 

S. C- under Abetment. 
ACT XVL OP 1838— Proceeding under— not 

conclusive in Questions of Title. 
See Bombay Act V. of 1864. 

BaSAPPA V. LAKSHMAPPA...I. L. 

Sep. 1 Bom. 624. 
ACT XXXII. OP 1889— f I— Interest on 
Mesne Profits- 
Set Interest. 13. 

HURROPERSAUD V. SKAMAPBRSAUD...L. 

Bep. 5 I. A. 31 ; a 0.1. L. Bep. 

3 Cal. 664 ; 1 Cat, Bep. .489. 

ACT XX. OP 1841— Certificate under. 

See Certificate to collect Debte. 

Trebpoorasoonderv v. Deben- 

deonai-h...!. L. Bep. 2 CaL 

45. 

ACT V. OP 1843— Mahomedan Law—Slavery 
— Wiila— Heritable Rights of Emancipator of 
Store.'] One A., a Mahomedan, died in i 
leaving two wives, N. and P., the fornv 
whom had been bis slave but had 
emancipated by him previous to her marr 
JV. died in 1857. In a suit by a person claiming 
as sister and heiress of one of A.'s residuaries. 
against the granddaughter of N., to recover the 
property left by her, On the ground that, accord- 
ing to the Mahomedan Law of Willa, she was 
entitled thereto, to the exclusion of the defend. 



ACT V. OP 1848-««W. 

Held, that it was tbe intention of the Legisla- 

re in passing Act V. of 1843 to relieve all 

persons then subject thereto from all the dis- 

rising out of the status of slavery ; and 

that, assuming that according to the Mahomedan 

Law of Willa the emancipator of a purchased 

slave is entitled to succeed and take the property 

of which such slave dies possessed or entitled to, 

the disherison of her own natural heirs ; such 

right of inheritance was taken away by Act V. 

of rS43, $ 3. That Act was in force at the time 

of N.'s death ; and the question who was entitled 

succeed to her property was determinable 

by the law as it stood when the succession 

opened. 

No vested interest had been acquired previous 

the passing of the Act by the unascertained 

persons who might at N.'s death be the then 

residuary heirs of her husband ; nor did he, by 

the act of emancipation, acquire a vested right 

which the statute could not, except, by express 

id retrospective words, take away. 

In construing this remedial statute the widest 

aeration ought to be given to it which its 

nguage will permit. The words of i 3, " that 

the person from whom the property may be 

derived was a slave," may well be taken to apply 

uiy person who at any time had been a slave. 

Sayad Mir Ujmudin Khan v. Zia-ul-Nissa 

Eegam.-.L. Bep. 6 I. A. 137, 187B; 1. L. 

Bep. 3 Bom. 432. 

ACT I. OP 1845, f 31— Sate for Arrears of 
Revenue Pwchase by Manager of Joint Hindu 
Family in his Dron name.'] A purchase at a sale 
s of revenue under Act I. of 184 5 made 
by the managing member of a joint Hindu family 
vn name, but on behalf of the joint 
family, is not affected by i 21 of that Act, and 
ithstanding anything contained therein, the 
members of the joint family may sue to enforce 
ights acquired by them under such purchase as 
igainst the managing member, though he is the 
ole certified purchaser. Toondun Singh v. 

POKHNARAIN SlNGH...L. Bep. 1 I. A. 343, 

1874 ; 23 W. B. 199. 



S. C. under Beview. 12. 
ACT XIX. OP 1844. 
See Issues. 1. 

Apava v. Rama,., I. L. Bep. 



D.g.t.zsdbvGoOgle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACT IX. OF 1847. 

See Settlement by Bcvenue Autho 

Narrain Chances e. Taylor. ..I. 

L. Rep. 4 CM. 103 ; 3 Cal. 

Eep. 161, 

ACT IX. 07 1850— { ij— Title to Immove. 

able Property— Jurisdiction. 

SsSniallOauHoCoiirt— Presidency 
Town. 3. 
Nowla Ooha ». Walji Kahwji... 
L I*. Eap. 2 Bom. 91. 
— — f 34 — Splitting Cause of Action — Trades, 
man's Accounts. 
See Small Cause Court— Presidency 
Town. 4. 
Cassum Jooka o. Thijcker Lilla- 

dhuk L L. Eep. SBom. 

' 670. 

— { 43— Power to Restore Case struck off for 

Default in Appearance. 
See Small Cause Court — Presidency 
Town. 1. 
Sib Chundbr v. Kissen Dval... 
I. L. Bep. 1 Cal. 478. 
"~-l S 8- " Good* and Chattels"— Oil and Flour 
Mills and Engine and Boiler. 
See Fixtures. 

Miller 11. Brindabun...I. L. Hep. 

4 Cal. 046; 4 Gal. Bep. 

460. 

(78. 

See Execution of Decree. 34, 

In re Jagjtvan Nanabhov... 
I. L. Bep. 1 Bom. 82. 

— 91 — Title to Immoveable Property — Juris- 

diction. 

See Small Cause Court— Presidency 

Town. 3. 

Nowla Ooha v. Bala Dhurm aj ee 

I. L. Bep. 3 Bom. 81. 

ACT XVIH. OP 1860 — Jurisdiction— Good 

Faith.-] Under the provisions of Act XVIII. of 

1S50, i t, no person acting judicially is liable for 

an act done or ordered to be done by biro in the 

discharge of his judicial duty within the limits of 

his jurisdiction. In such a case the question 

whether he acted in good faith does not arise. 

Meghhaj t. ZakikHussain. Turner and Spanhie, 

JJ I. L. Bep. 1 All. 380, 1876. 



ACT XVIII. 07 WSO—eontd. 

3. Good Faifh— Suit against 0$ctr of 

Sea Customs at Madras for act done without 
Jurisdiction — Malice— Reasonable and Probable 
Cause— Act VI. 0/1863.] The plaintiff in this 
case was a native merchant of Ceylon, residing 
in, and subject to the laws of that island, and not 
to the law of British India, and traded between 
Jaffna, where he resided, and Madras and other 
Indian ports, but had not been to Madras or 
other Indian port since the year 1850. The de- 
fendant was the Collector of Sea Customs in 
Madras. In the year 1873, having received some 
information that a certain vessel belonging to 
the plaintiff had brought opium to Jaffna, in 
Ceylon, on her voyage from Madras In July 1872, 
which information led the defendant to the, con- 
clusion that the opium was really consigned to 
the plaintiff in the name of another person, the 
defendant, without taking any legal advice, 
without making any inquiry of the plaintiff, 
or his agent at Madras, and without giving 
the plaintiff any notice of the proceeding 
against him, or any opportunity of being heard, 
telegraphed to the plaintiff in Ceylon, in 
October 1S73, that he was fined Rs. 50,000 for 
having smuggled opium in July 1872, and pro. 
ceededto seize and sell certain property of the 
plaintiff then in Madras to satisfy this fine, which 
fine and seizure the defendant alleged was im- 
posed and made under the provisions of Act VI- 
of 1863. In a suit brought by the plaintiff for 
damages for the wrongful and illegal fining of 
the plaintiff, and the seizure and conversion of 
his goods by the defendant, the plaint did not, 
except incidentally in the prayer for relief, Con. 
in any allegation that the defendant acted 
maliciously and without reasonable and probable 

Held, that the act of the defendant being in its 
iture judicial, if he acted within bis jurisdic- 
>n, would not render him liable to suit, even 
though the act was done maliciously ; if, on 
the other hand, he acted without jurisdiction, his 
liability would depend, not on whether the act 
ious and without reasonable and pro- 
bable cause, but on whether it was within the 
protection of Act XVIII. of 1850. 
Though when a law gives to certain persons 
officials the power of adjudicating on a parti- 
cular matter, their decision concludes the inquiry, 
and admitting that under the terms of Act VI- 
of 1863 an adjudication by the proper authorities 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACT XVLLL OP lBOQ—amtd. 

is conclusive, yet it is only so in cases falling 
within their jurisdiction. But the action of the 
defendant in the present case was beyond his 
jurisdiction, and his adjudication of the fine was, 
therefore, not conclusive. The defendant though 
acting judicially in adjudging penalties under Act 
VI. of 1863, was not in the position of a judicial 
officer possessing general jurisdiction and having 
general powers for enforcing such jurisdiction. He 
acted by virtue of a special and limited authority 
given him by the law, which authority failed if 
he attempted to exercise it in any ca 
ing within the terms of the law. Possessing 
only this limited authority, it could not be said 
that the defendant, in imposing and levying a 
fine on the plaintiff, a man known to him to be 
beyond his jurisdiction and having no notice of 
his proceedings, in good faith believed himself to 
have jurisdiction within the meaning of Act 
XVIII. of 1850. Though there was evidence to 
show that the defendant in some sense believed 
himself to have jurisdiction, and if the question 
bad arisen whether he was entitled to notice of 
action under f 114 of Act VI. of 1863, and to 
such protection as is given by that and other 
Acts to persons who honestly intend to put tht 
law in force in execution of their office, he might 
have been so entitled, such provisions being 
liberally construed for the protection of honest 
persons who thoughtlessly overstep the limits 
of the law, and who in such cases, even though 
there may be no reasonable cause for the belief, 
yet, if the belief in fact exists, may claim the 
protection which the law gives in the shape of 
notice of action, &c, — yet a belief of this sort i: 
oot enough to exempt a person from responsi- 
bility for his illegal acts. 

The bon&Jidc belief which Act XV11I. of i8jo 
requires in those whom it protects from liability 
to suit in respect of acts done without jurisdic- 
tion is of a different kind. A belief based on no 
probable or plausible grounds, and arrived at 
inconsiderately and without due inquiry, 
be considered a belief in good faith within the 
meaning of the Act, which requires reasonable 
care and attention in the performance of his 
official duty on the part of him who does 01 
orders the act complained of. The enor 
whether it be one of law or fact, must, to be 
protected or excused, be shown to rest on some 
foundation of reason. The defence of the de- 
fendant, therefore, founded on Act XVI!!. of 



ACT XVIII. 07 I8BO- contd. 

1850, failed. Collector of Ska Customs, 

Madras*. Punniar Cwthaubaram L I*. 

Hep. 1 Had. 88, 1076, F. B 

S. C. under Jurisdiction. 13. 

And Re* Judicata. 81. 
ACT XXL OF 1860— Loss of Caste. 



And Hindu Law— Maintenance of 
Widow. IS. 

Honahma U, TlMANABHAT.,.1. L. 

Bep. 1 Bom. 559, 
Loss of Caste does oot deprive Father of 
Right of Custody of Infant Daughter. 
See Loaa of Caste. 

Kahaki Rah v. Biddy a R»m... 
I. L. Bep. 1 AH. 649. 
ACT XXVI. 07 1860— Suit against Collector 
appointed Municipal Commissioner 

See Jurisdiction. 18. 

Gangadhar v. Collector of 

A u he on agar... I. L. Bep. I 

Bom. 638. 

ACT XI. OF 1863. 

See Toiam Commissioner's Decision. 

VASADEW V. RAU KRISHNA... I. 

L. Bep. 3 Bom. 629. 
ACT XVEGL OF 1864. 

See Hallway Act XVIII. of 1864. 
ACT Xm. OF 1866. 

See Negligence. 1. 

Lvell v. Ganga Dai..X L. Bep. 
1 All. 60. 
ACT XXVUX OP 1866— Hindu Law— Ann. 
dupat — Bengal Mofussil. 
See Interest. 4. 

DbenDoyalv. KVLAs...I.L.Bep. 
1 Cal. 93. 

Interest — Dam-dupat— Mortgage. 

See Assignment of Mortgage. 

Ganpat v. Adarji I. L. Bep. 

8 Bom. 313. 
ACT XXXVII. OF 1866 — » 2 and 4. 
See Jurisdiction. 11. 

Mansoor .1. L. 
Bop. 3 Cal. 398. 



D.gmzed by GoOgle 



( 



) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACT XXI. OF ISSe-i 49. 

Sec Criminal Procedure Code, Act 

X. of 1872, f 232. 

Empress v. Baidanath Das. ..I. 

L.Rep. 3Cal. 366; ICaL 

Rep. 442. 

ACT XXXV. OF 1868, J 9-Act XIX, of 

1873. H '94. IM— Lunatic— Appointment of 
Manager to Lunatic's Estate— Court of IVaris.} 
Section 9 of Act XXXV. of 1838, and f 195 of 
Act XIX. of 1873, do not render it imperative 
on the Court of Wards to take charge of the 
estate of a person adjudged by a Civil Court, 
under Act XXXV- of 1838, to be of unsound 
mind, but merely confer an authority 
Court of Wards to. do so. Until the Court of 
Wards exercises that power the appointment by 
a Civil Court of a manager of a lunatic's proper- 
ty, under J 9 of Act XXXV. of 1858, is valid 
Ordinarily, before appointing a manager in such 
cases, the District Judge should allow the Court 
of Wards an opportunity to declare its 
but in some cases it may be essential for the 
protection of the estate that a manager should 
be appointed at once, and if subsequently thi 
Court of Wards assumed superintendence, the 
appointment made by the Judge would there- 
upon be annulled. Manohar Lal. «. Gauri 
Shankar. Stuart, C. J., and Turner, J ... I. L. 
Rep. 1 All. 476, 1877. 
ACT XL. OF 1B58— Application of— to Hindus 
Resident and Domiciled in Calcutta- 
See Age of Majority. 

MOTHOORMOHUN B. SOORINDRO... 

I. L. Rep. 1 Cal. 108. 
— Sale by Guardian not appointed under. 
Sec Sale by Guardian. 

Soon d er Narrain o. Bennud 
Ram..., I. L. Rep. 4 Cat. 76. 

4 IS. 

Seethe cases under Alienation by 

Guardian. 
Sec Mahomedan Lav— Sale by 

Guardian. 
See Mortgage 29. 30. 
Abhassee Begum 5. Maharanee 
RAjRoop...I.L.Rep. 4 Cal. 33. 
Debi Dutt Sahoo v. Suboodra 
Bibbb-.X L. Rep. S Col. 283. 
See Review. 10. 

Madho Das «. Rukhan Slvah 
Singh ..I. L.Rop. 2 All. 287. 



act vm. OP II 



ACT IX. OF I860— f 2a— Confiscation—Suit 
to recover Property Confiscated— Limitation.] A. 
died theostensible owner of certain lands, leav. 
ing two sons under age. Upon ^.'5 death, after 
local inquires made on the petition of A.'s, widow 
praying that she and her sons might be record- 
ed in the Government registers as the heirs of 
the deceased, fl.'s name was entered on the Go- 
iter as owner of the property, and 
lined in possession thereof until 1858, 
when he was convicted and executed as a rebel, 
nd the property was confiscated by Govern, 
nent as belonging to him. 

The sons of A., more than a year after the 
younger came of age, and more than a year 
after the passing of Act IX. of iSjo, sued for 
the recovery of the lands, which had been 
granted by Government to the respondent after 
the confiscation: — 

/fr/<f,that i 20 of Act IX. of 1859, which pro- 
vides that no suit shall be brought by any party 
1 respect to property confiscated, unless it be 
istituted within one year from the-dateof attach- 
ment or seizure of the property, was a clause of 
general nature, applicable to all Courts, and 
ot confined to the special Court created by 
Act IX. of iSjg, and though the clause appeared 
under the form of a proviso, yet it was a limi- 
tion intended by the Legislature to apply to all 
lits brought by any person in respect of for- 
feited property, and there being no saving with 
■pert to parties under disabilities, the Court 
could not introduce one, or import the clauses 
in the General Statute Act XIV. of 1859 relat- 
' ig to disabilities, and that the suit was, there- 
fore, barred by limitation. MoilUMHUD BUHA- 
door Khan v. The Collector of Bareilly.,, 
L. Rep. 1 1. A. 167,1874 ; lORang. L. R. 
283 j 81 W.R. 318. 

ACT X. OF IBS?— f f 5 and 6. 

See Enhancement of Rent <L 

Hanumam v. Kaulksar I. Xi. 

Rep. 1 All. SOL 

*'S- 

Sec Enhancement of Rent. 8. 

Meek Mahomed Hosseh v. 
Forbes ...L. Rep. 2 I. A. 1. 



Diaxized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACT X. 07 1859-™* (d. 

— t 33, CI. a— "Illegal Exaction of Rent-" 

See Small Cause Court -SCofus ail. 0. 

Krishna t. Birpshuk I. L. 

Eep. 4 Cal. BB6. 

~— ff »3 and 24 — Jurisdiction of Civil and 
Revenue Courts. 
See Jurisdiction. 2. 

Kuuood v. Pukka...!. L. Eep. 
4 Cal- 647. 

* i°S- 

Sw Putnee Talook. 

Brindaban Sircar Chowdryh. 

Brihdaban Dev Chowdky... 

L. Sep. 1 I. A. 178. 

ACT XX OF 1869 (BENGAL)— RE VE- 
JTTJE— SALE LAW— f 5— Estate under At- 
tachment of Civil Court—Notice.'} Where an 
estate or share in an estate, not severed for the 
purposes of revenue, is under attachment by 
order of a Civil Court in execution of a decree, 
such estate or share cannot, under f 5 of Act 
XI. of 1859, be sold for arrears of Revenue 
without the notice required by that Act. 

The words "arrears of estates under attach- 
ment" are not confined to estates the whole of 
which is under attachment. The .ippointment 
of a Surbara&ur or manager hy a Court does 
not supersede an attachment. Banwaree Lall 
Sahoov. MohabekrI'koshao Singh, ..L. Eep, 
H. A 88, 1873 ; 12 Beng. L. E. 398. 

— (33 — Sale for arrears of Revenue fraudu- 

lently effected by Co-Sharer. 
See Sale for Arrears of Revenue. 3. 
B1100HON Chl-ndek o. Ram Soon- 
OBR...I. L. Eep. 8 Oal. 300. 

— f 37 — Right of Purchaser at Revenue Sale 

to Enhance Rent— Presumption in favour 
of Mekurari Tenures. 

See Enhancement of Bent. 1. 

Parhanundv. Rookinbe...I. L. 
Sep. 4 Cal. 793. 

( 37, Exception 4. 

See Bale for Arrears of Revenue. 1. 
Bacho Bibkb «. Ram Kant... 
I. L. Eep. 8 Cal. 393. 
f 53— Sale for Arrears of Revenue—Unre- 
corded Co-Partner, Purchase by — Encumbrances.} 
A- in November 1862 purchased a portion of an 



ACT XL 07 1869 (BENGAL) -BE VE- 
NUE— SALE LAW-owW, 
estate sold in execution of a decree against the 
(hen proprietor. Default occurred in the pay- 
ment of the Government revenue on the 19th 
January 1863, and the entire estate was put up 
for sale by the Collector, and purchased by A t 
on the 39th March 1863. • 

Held, that A., when he bid for the property at 
the revenue sale, sis., in March 1863, .was at 
that time, by virtue of the sale which had been 
finally confirmed in execution of the decree, 
owner of the rights of one of the co-sharers in 
the estate, i.e., a co-partner; and in virtue of such 
co- partnership, though the sale certificate was not 
in his hand, he might, if he chose on or before 
the loth January 1863, have paid in the amount 
of revenue due on that date. The case, there- 
fore, came within the provisions of f 53 of Act 
XI. of 1859, and the plaintiff was a person who 
was an unrecorded co-partner in an estate, and 
who purchased in March, though the purchase 
related back to January, the estate of which he 
was co-partner. That being so, he took the 
tate subject to all its encumbrances existing 
the date of sale, and did not acquire any 
rights in respect to under-tenants or ryots which 
were not possessed by the previous proprietor 
at the time of the sale in execution. Abdool 
Bari 11. Ramdass Condoo. Jackson and Totten- 
ham, JJ...I. L. Rep. 4 Oal. 807 ; 8 Cal. Eep; 
S28, 1878. 
ACT Zm OF 1869— Contract to supply 
Labour.} A contractto supply acertain number 
of coolies and keep that number at work on a 
plantation for at least three months, though 
the nature and extent of the work to be perform- 
ed are not clearly specified, fails within the 
provisions of Act XIII- of 1859- Rowsou o. 
Hahama Mestki. Morgan, CJ, and Innes, J... 
I. L. Eep. 1 Mad. 880, 1877. 

ACT ZTV. OF 1869. 

See Limitation Act XIV. (of 
1B69. 
ACT XXVTX OF 1880. 

See the cases under Certificate to 

collect Debts. 

Appeal from Order to deposit Security. 

See Appeal-OiviL 4. 

MoNUOKINEE V. KHBTTEK GO- 

rAiFL...I.L.Eep.lCal.l27. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( II ) 



ACT XXVIL OF I860— e«M. 

— Application for Certificate to collect Debts 

due to Estate of Intestate, dead 40 years 
before— Question of Title. 

Set Certificate 60 collect Debts. 8. 

Moonj Bbhaky v. Gocool Chun- 

DEE...X. L. Bep. 3 Cal. 616. 

— Application by Heir of Decree-holder for 

Execution- -Certificate unnecessary. 
Set Civil Procedure Code, Act 

vnxofwea, ssob. 

Kakam Au v. Halima ,.I. X* 
Bep. 1 AU. 686. 

Mohunt— Private Estate of— Certificate. 

See Certificate to collect Debts. 4. 

DUKHARAM V. LUCHMUN...I, Ii. 

Sep. 4 CaL 954 ; 6 Cal. 
Bep. 49. 

Set Appeal— CiviL 16. 
ROKMW...I. L. Bep. 1 AIL 887. 

— — Review of Proceedings under — admissible. 
Stt Beview. 4, 
Pdona K00EK...I. I» Bep. 1 Cal. 
101. 

Security — Appeal. 

See Appeal -Civil. 16. 
RUMIIH...I. L. Bep. 1A1L 387. 

■ • $ a— Representative of Assignee by devise 

of Debt, cannot sue to recover it without 
taking out Probate, or obtaining Certifi- 
cate under Act XXVII. of i860. 
See Assignee of Debt. 
Shodonb v. Halalkfiokb...I. Ii. 
Bep. 4 Cal. 640 ; S CaL Bep. 
462. 

— -} 3 — Claims against Trustees or Executors.'] 
" It appears to me that , 2 of Act XXVII. of 
i860 applies to debts, and not to claims against 
executors or trustees. At all events it does not 
apply to claims for immoveable property. " 

Ptr Pontifez, J I. L. Bep. 8 CaL 46. 64- 

■ f 6 — Appeal. 

See Appeal— Civil. 4. 

MoNMOHIN'EE ». KHETTER GO. 

PAUL...I.L.Bep.lCftL137. 

— i 6- -Appeal. 

Stt Appeal— Civil. 1. 

Takini Churn p.Bamasoonduree- 
I. L, Bep. 1 Cal. 188, n. 



ACT XXVTTX.OF I860 —Porter of Govern- 
ment to extend Tim* for Appeal.] The proviso 
contained in f as of Act XXVIII. of i860, gives 
a discretionary power to the Government of 
extending the time for appeal by suit at all times, 
even after the expiry of the .period limited. 
Krishna rrddi Govindarbddi •- Stuart. Mor- 
gan, CJ.| and innti, J..X L. Bep. 1 Had. 
198,1877. 



ACT XXXI. OF 1860— ( 33, CI. 6— Imprison. 

men/ — Sentence — Construction of Statute — Penal 
Statute.] A sentence of fine only , or of imprison- 
ment only, under Act XXXI. of i860, { 3s, CI. 
is legal. A penal statute, when its language 
ambiguous, must be construed in the manner 
ost favourable to the liberties of the subject, 
id this is more especially so when the penal 
enactment is of an exceptional character. Reg. 
Bhista Madanna..X L. Bep. 1 Bom. 308, 
1876, P. B. 
ACT XXV. OP 1860. 
See Penal Code. 

ACT IX. OP 1861 — f 1— Fresh Application— 
Previous Ordert not exhaustive of Court's Power.] 
A Court is not precluded from entertaining a 
fresh application lor the appointment of a guar. 
of a minor, under f t of Act IX. of 1861, 
by the circumstance that a previous application 
oi the same sort has been refused. Nehalo v. 

Nawal. Stuart, C.J., and Oldfield, J I. X. 

Bep.l AIL 438, 1877. 

ACT XTTTT, OF 1801— f 4— Dwelling— Resi- 
de Jurisdiction. 8. 

Fatjma Begau v. Sakina Began. 
X. L. Bep. 1 AIL 61. 

- f 4 — Suit against Drawer and Acceptor of 
Hundi, residing within Jurisdiction oi 
different Courts — Bankruptcy of Accept- 
or Procodn re —Civil. 

Basant Raj* v. Kolahal...!. X+. 
Bep. 1 AIL 398. 

-f 11— Order cancelling Auction Sale in 

Execution. 

&*CivilProcedureCode,Act VIII. 

of 1869, 1,366,867. 

Sukhai v- Dakvai...L L. Bep, 1 

AIL 374. 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



( a» ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACT XXm. OT 18m- -amid. 
— f ii— Execution of Decree— Mesne Profits 
and Interest subsequent to Decree not 
provided (or in Decree— Security to pay- 
pending Appeal — Estoppel. 
See Mesne Profits. 1. 

Sadasiva e. Rahalihoa L. 

Bep. 3 I. A. 319; 10 Bong. 
' L. B. 383 ; 24 W. B. 183, 

— — i it — Execution of Decree — Question of 
Legitimacy of son of Decree-holder decid- 
ed in— Act VIII. of 1859, i ao8— Juris- 
diction. 
Set Execution of Decree. 0. 

Abeedoonissa v- Akxeroonissa. 

L. Rep. 4 I. A. 66; X. L. 

Bep. 9 Col. 837. 

— — J II — Mesne Profits Misappropriated — 
Suit for. 
See Means Profits. 5. 

SuKNOUOVEE V- PATTARRI SlRKAR. 

I. L. Bep. 4 CaL < 



— — f II —Mesne Profits Obtained during Pos- 
session under Decree Reversed on Appeal 
■ — Restitution. 
Ste Mesne Profits. 3. 

LATI KOOER V- SoBADRA KOOBR... 

I. L. Bep. 8 CaL 730. 

__ § II— Party to Suit— Purchaser of Decree. 

See Appoal— Civil. 0. 

Runiit Singh «. Mk hers an 
Koee. ..I. L. Bep. 8 CaL 663. 

«—— f II — Application far Execution of Decree 
—Act VIII. of i8jQ, H 208 and 364— Right of 
Appeal.'] The applicant alleging herself ti 
the purchaser of a certain decree, applied under 
I 208 of Act VIII. of 1859 to the Subordinate 
Judge of Dacca to be placed on the record as 
decree-holder, and for execution of the decree. 
It appeared that the decree had been purchased 
benami for some persons not on the record, and 
it was in dispute as to who was the real pur- 
chaser of the decree. The Subordinate Judge 
rejected the application. On appeal to the High 

Held, that the applicant was not a party to 
the suit within the meaning of Act XXIII. of 
1861, ( II, and that no appeal lay. 



ACT XXTTI. OP im-contd. 

An alleged transferee of a decree by merely 
applying for execution of the decree does not 
himself a party to the suit. In no 

n applicant who applies to be put on 
the record on the ground that he has acquired a 
title to the decree by transfer, a party to the 
luit unless his application is actually granted. 
The doctrine laid down in Hurro LaU Das v. 
Seojamit AH (8 W. R. 197), if not to be taken 
to be overruled by the decision of the Privy 
Council in AbidunnissaKkatoonv. Ammimnnissa 
Khatoon (L. Rep. 4 I. A. 66, S. C. I. L. Rep. 
2 Cal- 337), must at least be considered as 
confined to cases in whieh there is no dispute as 
to the assignment of the decree having taken 
place, or as to the person who is the assignee. 
Section ao8 of Act VIII. of 1859 does not apply 
to cases where there is a contest with respect 
to the rights of persons to an equitable interest 
in a decree. Where such contest exists, a party 
claiming to be the assignee of the decree would 
not be entitled to succeed in an application 
for execution made under that section, and for 
the same reason would not be entitled to be 
made a party to the suit. In no sense, therefore, 
could he be considered as coming within the 
meaning of J II of Act XXIII. of 1861. No 
appeal lies from any judgment or decision given 
in a proceeding under f 208 of Act VIII. of 1859. 

SOBHA BlBEB V. MlRZA SAKHAHUT ALL White 

and Hitter, JJ...L L. Bep. 3 CaL 371 ; 1 CaL 
Bep. 831, 1878. 

3, ( 11 — Excess Payment made by ISis- 

take in Execution of Decree- Suit to recover— 
Jurisdiction— Small Cause Court] The plaintiff 
sued the defendant to recover a sum realized by 
the defendant in excess of the decree against the 
plaintiff which the defendant had eiecuted in 
the Small Cause Court; the cause of action 
alleged in the plaint being the discovery by the 
plaintiff of the mistake he had made in paying 
interest not provided for in the decree : — 

Held by Pearson, J., that the suit was barred 
by the provisions of { II of Act XXIII. of 1861. 

By Stuart, C.J. , the provisions of { II of Act 
XXIII. of 1861, should be confined to matters 
within the limits of, and not outside the decree, 
and money paid in excess of the amount decreed 
is a matter outside the decree. To recover such 
an excess, being money improperly, erroneously 
and illegally obtained under the guise of the 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACT ant OP 1B61— amid. 
process of execution, and with regard to which 
no order could be made in the execution depart- 
ment, a suit will lie ; and the claim in such a 
suit is in the nature oE damages within the 
meaning of ( 6 of Act XI. of [865, and is 
cognizable by the Small Cause Court when the 
amount claimed is within the pecuniary limits 
of the jurisdiction of that Court. Agra Sav- 
ings Bank v. Ski Ram Mitter...I. L. Rep. 
1 AIL . 388, 1877. 

.14- 

See Pre-emption. 1. 2. 

Farzand Ali v. Alimullah.,.1. 

L. Rep. 1 All. 272. 

Naraiw Singh v. Muhammad 

Faruck.-.L L. Rep. 1 All. 

277. 

i 16 — Order sending Case to Magistrate 

for Inquiry into Charge of False Evidence. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 

X. of 1872, {471.2. 

Reg. v. Baijoo Lall...1. L. Rep. 1 

Cal. 4G0. 

i 3j — Special Appeal in Suits cognizable 

by a Court of Small Causes. 
See the cases under Small Cause 
Court— Mofua ail. 

1 $ 27 — Suit Cognizable by Small Cause 

Court— Question of Title incidentally 
decided — No Special Appeal. 
See Appeal— Civil. 31. 

MoHESH Mahioi. SHEIKH Pibu... 
I.L. Rep. 2 Cal, 470. 

— ' — (27 — Suit Cognizableby Small Cause Court 

entertained, without Jurisdiction, by 

Civil Court within limits of a Small 

Court's Jurisdiction — Special Appeal lies. 

See Small Cause Court— Mofiw- 

sil.7. 

Dyebukee v. Mudhoo Mutty... 

I. L. Rep. 1 CaL 123. 

i 27 — Suit Cognizable by Small Cause 

Court — Superintendence of High Court. 

See Stat. 24 & SB Vict., C. 104, 

t IB. 1. 

Lukhykant B05E...I. L. Rep.l 

CaL 180. 



ACT TXTTT OF 1861— ctmtd. 

( 27 — Suit for " Huq-i-ckaharam " or 

other Zamindari Cesses. 

Sue Small Cause Court— Mofui- 
•U.4. 
Nahku v. Board or Rbtenve... 
L. Rep. 1 All. 444. 

{ 27 — Special Appeal — Suit cognisable by 

a Small Cause Court,'] Held, that where a suit 
of a nature cognizable by a Small Cause Court 
was institued before Act XLII. of i860 came 
into force, and an order was made on regular 
appeal in execution of the decree in such suit 
after the passing of Act XXIII. of 1861, that 
the provisions of f 27 of Act XXIII. of 1S61 
applied, and that no special appeal would lie 
from such order. Bichuck Singh v. Nages- 
har Nath. Turner and Oldfield, JJ....I. L. 
Rep. 2 All. 112, 1878. 

*37- 

See Appellate Court— Powers of. 

Durga Prasad v. Khairati... 

I. L. Rep. 1 All B45. 



See Stay of Execution. 

HARSHANKAR...I. L. Rep. 1 AIL 

178. 
See Civil Procedure Code, Act VHX. 
ofl8S9,f6. 

Gya Pkashad v. Bhup Singh... I. 
1. Rep. 1 AIL 180. 

( 38 — Refusal to register — Review. 

See Review. 8. 

Reeasut Hossein b. Hadjre Ab- 
doollah...Xi. Rep. 8 I. A. 
221; I. L. Rep. 2 CaL 131. 

ACT XVILT. OF 1862. 

See Offence committed before the 
Penal Code came into opera- 
tion. 
Empress, t. Dlljono Misser ,. I. It. 
Rep. 2 Cal. 224. 
Empress v. M ulna. ..I. L. Rep. 1 
All. B98. 

f f 86, 27- 

See Defamation. 

Sibho Prosad I. L. Sep. 4 

CaL 124 ; 3 CaL Rep. 123. 



Diarized by Google 



( « ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( 



) 



ACT II. OF 1863— f I -Court of Highest 
Civil jurisdiction. 

See Appeal to the Privy Council. 2. 

Thakook Hardbo Btix v. Thakoor 

Jawahir Sinoh...L. Bap. 4 X. A. 

178 ; I. L. Rap. SCal. 022. 

ACT VL OF 1863. 

See Jurisdiction. 18. 
Collector of Sba Customs v. Pun- 
niar Chithahiiakam... I. L. Kep. 
1 Mad. 89. 

1 24— Finality of Fine imposed by Collector 

— ju risdiction. 
See Act XVXIX. of 1860. 2. 

COLLECTOR OF SBA CUSTOMS B. PUH- 
HIAR CHITHAHBARAH...I. L. Hep, 

1 Mad. 89. 

AOT XIX. OF 1863— « B, 9— Determination 

of Title under— not appealed from, and 

become final, bars Civil Suit to adjudicate 

on same Title. 

See Sea Judicata. 3a 

HarsahaiMalv. Maharaj Singh. 
L L. Rep. 2 All. 924. 
ACT XX. OF 1863. 

See Criminal Breach of Trust. 

Anon I. L. Rep. 1 Mad. 65. 

See Suit for Management of a Reli- 
gious Endowment. 
Panchcowrie Mull o. Chuuroo- 
lall . I. L. Rep. 3 Cal. 563. 
Suit against persons intruding into Man- 
agement of Temple.'] The special sections of 
Act XX. of 1863 as to suits, deal only with the 
trustees, managers, superintendents, and commit : 
tees of temples for acts by them, while filling 
the office of trustee, manager, superintendent or 
committee, and do not apply to persons who 
without any authority, by election, appointment, 
or otherwise, have intruded themselves into the 
management of a temple and possession of its 
properties. Sabafathi u. Subraya. Xenon 
and M. Ayyar, JJ...I. L. Rep. 3 Mad. 58, 

1878. ■ 
ACT VX OF 1884. 

See Whipping' Act Vt of 1664. 
ACT XI. OF 1864— Appointment of Kali. 



ACT XX. OF 1884. 

See Bombay Minors' Act XX. of 
1864. 
ACT XXVI. OF 1884— ( 2. 

See Small Cause Court— Presidency 
Town. 3. 
Walji Karimji e. Jagganath 
Prbuji.,.1. L. Rep. 2 Bom. 
84. 
ACT III. OF 1866— Carriers— Common Law 
Liability— Contract Act IX. of iS;z, {( 
IS'. '5*- 
Sec Railway Company. 3. 

Kuvekji v. The G. I. P. Rv. Co... 
I. L. Rep. 8 Bom. 109. 

f 9 — Onus Probandi of Negligence. 

See Railway Company. 3. 

Ishwardas v. The G- I. P. Rv. 
Co. — I. L. Rep. 3 Bom. 
120. 
ACT X. OF 1865. 

See Indian Succession Act X, of 
1886. 
ACT XI. OF 1965— § 6— Contract— Suit for a 
Balance of Account— Jurisdiction. 
See Small Cause Court— Hofuasil.7. 

DvEBUKEEB. MuDHOO MuTTY...I. 

L. Rep. 1 Cal. 123. 

f 6, CI. 4. 

See Small Cause Court— UorussiL 
6. 

Krishna v. Bireshur I. L. 

Rep. 4 Cal. 696; 8 Cal. 
Rep. 177. 

§ 12— Suit by Defeated Claimant under $ 

283, Act. X. of 1877, to recover Move, 
able Property attached in Execution of 
Decree of Small Cause Court. 
See Civil Procedure Code, Act X. 
of 1677, i 283. 

GORDHAN PANA ». KaSANDAS 
BALUUKANDAS...I. L. Rep. 

3 Bom. 179. 



-(20. 



See* 



1. 1. 2. 



Jakal *. jAyAL...L L. Rep. 1 
Bom. 633. 
Daudshat- 1smalsha...L L.Rep. 



See Execution of Decree. 82. 
Gofalu Nanku-.I. L. Rep- 1 



•e Judgement ex parte. 1. 
Dayal b. Kufpoor.-.I. L- Rep- 
4 Cal. 318 ; 3 Cal. Rep. 
482. 



D.gmzed by GoOgle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACT XI. OF IS60— amtd. 



See Execution of Decree. 39. 

GOFAL l. NANKU...I. L. B«p. 1 

AIL 624. 
* Si- 

See Principal and Surety. 1. 

Chosth waits b. Hamilton... 

I. L. Sep. 1 All, 67. 

ACT XX. OP 1866-* 37-Pieader's Fee— 

Pre-emption Suit — Costs as between 

Party and Party. 

See Pleader's Fee*. 

Debi Singh n. B hup Singh... I. 
L. Hep. 1 All. 708* 



ACT V. ■ 



f 1868— ctmtd. 



ACT XXI OP 18eS-f 5— Parsi Succession— 
Childless Widow of predeceased San of a Parsi,] 
It is not a condition precedent to the application 
of f 5 of Act XXI- of 186c that the predeceased 
son of a Parsi intestate shall have left both a 
widow and issue. Where an intestate Parsi left 
him surviving a widow, sons, daughters, children 
of a predeceased son, and the widow of another 
predeceased son who had died without issue, and 
a posthumous daughter was afterwards bom to 
the intestate : Held, that such last- mentioned 
widow was entitled to one moiety of the share 
in the intestate's estate which her husband « 
have taken had he survived the intestate, 
that the other moiety of such share devolved on 
the surviving issue of the intestate, including the 
posthumous daughter, and the children of hi 
other predeceased son. Mancharji K. Davar 
v. Mithibai. Green, J....I. L. Rep. 1 Bom. 
(SOS, 1876. 
■ - — i 8 — Parsis — Advancement.'] In excluding 
by ( 8 of the Parsi Succession Act XXI. of 
Irom application to Parsis, of j 42 of the Indian 
Succession Act (X. of 1865), which repeals the 
English rule as lo advancement contained i 
Statute of Distributions, { 5, it was no 
intention of the Legislature to preserve the last 
mentioned rule in force for the Parsi community. 
Danjibhai B. Goirats. Navazbai. Green,]... 
I. J.. Bop. 9 Bom. 76, 1877. 
S. C. under Administration. 9. 

ACT V. OF 1866— Suit an Promissory Note 
Payable by Instalments.] Act V. of 1S66 
only intended to apply to those cases in which 
the bill itself, together with mere lapse of time, 
is sufficient to establish for the plaintiff uprtmd 



facie right to recover. Therefore, where a pro- 
missory note payable by instalments, contained 
a proviso that on default in payment of the Erst 
instalment, the whole amount was to fall due; 
Held, that a suit to recover the whole amount on 
default made in payment of the first instalment 
could not be brought under Act V. of 1866, as in 
such a case the plaintiff is obliged to allege the 
of another fact besides the lapse of 
since the making of the bill, vi*., that the 
instalment has not been paid, of which fact 
there was no evidence before the Court, and the 
procedure of Act V. of i860" was not intended to 
enable the plaintiff's statement of the fact in his 
petition to prevail without evidence, which could 
given under the Act. Rbmfrey «. Suil- 

Pktat, J I. L. Rep. 1 CaL 180, 

1876. 
ACT X. OF 1866. 

See Indian Companies' Act X. of 



ACT XX. OP 1888. 

See Registration Act XX. of 1866. 

ACT XXVI. OF 1800- Sub-Settlement- - 
Holding under Contract" — Rules Z and 3.] 
Under-tenures held under contract or under any 
arrangements from which a contract may be 
inferred, are within the definition of sub.proprie. 
tary rights given in the rules annexed to Act 
XXVI. of 1866, and their holders are entitled to 
a sub-settlement. The Maharajah of Bul- 
rampur v. Uman Pal Singh. ..L, Rep. 6 I. A. 
996, 1878. 

ACT XXIV. OF 1867-J 60. 

See Rea Judicata. 31. 
Smith v. Secretary op State... 
I. L. Rep. S CaL 340. 
ACT I. OP 1B68— f 1, CI. 13. The word 

" include" in Clause 13 and other clauses of f 
1 of Act I. of 1868 is intended to be enumerative 
and not exhaustive. Empress o. Ramaiviva. 
Innes and Forbes, JJ...I. L. Rep. 2 Mad. 6, 
1878. 

*6. 

See Appeal- Civil. 8. 98. 

Runjit Singh 9. Meherban Koer. 

I. L. Rep. 8 CaL 66S. 

Udu Bbgum v. Iham-ud.din ..J- It. Rep. 

9 All. 74. 



D.gmzed by GoOgle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACT I. OF 1868— ronW. 



Set Civil Procedure Code, Act Z. 
of 1877, ( 342. 
Rattans: Kaluanji .,L L. Rep. 
2 Bom. 148. 

(6. 

See Offence committed before the 
Penal Code came intoopera- 

EMFRESS D. DlLJONO MtSSER...I. L. 

Hep. 2 Cal. 226. 

Empress o. Mulna...L L. Rep.l 

All. 599. 

i 6 — Execution of Decree — Appeal. 

See Appeal— Civil. 0. 

Chinto Joshi o. Chintahah 

Naravan..,L L. Sep. 3 Bom. 

214. 

i 6— Execution of Decree— Proceedings 

instituted before Act X. of 1877 came 
into force — Appeal. 

See Appeal -Civil. 26. 
ThakuR Prasad a. Ahsan Ali... 
L L. Bep. 1 AIL 688. 

— , 6— Execution of Decree— Rateable Divi- 
sion of Proceeds. 
See Execution of Decree. 7. 

Narandass v. Bai Mahchha...I. L, 
Bep. 8 Bom. 217. 

f 6— Refusal to register— Proceedings com- 
menced under Act VIII. of 1871— Repeal 
of that Act by Act III. of 1877-Appeal, 
See Appeal— Civil. 10. 

Svud Mahomet H ossein ». Hadzi 

Abdullah. ..I. L. Bep. S Cal. 

727. 

f 6— Registration.'] By virtue of f 6 of 

Act 1. of 186S, a suit is to be governed by the 
Registration Law in force at the institution of 
the suit, and not by that which may be in force 
when it comes on for hearing. Ochra Singh v. 

Arlakhi Koobr. Milter and Jackson,]] I. 

L, Bep. 4 Cal. 036 ; 3 Cal. Bep. 48ft, 1878. 
S. C. under Registration. 26. 

ACT I. 07 1869. 

1. Limitation of Suits in Oudh— Re- 
demption of Mortgage— Onus Probandi.J Under 
Act 1. of 1869, a suit for redemption is not 



ACT L OF I860- -could. 
barred where the instrument of mortgage fixes 
Tn within which the mortgage might be 
redeemed, and such term did not expire before 
the 13th of February 1856. Ina suit forredemp- 
the mortgage deed, dated the aist of July 
, having been lost, the Judicial Commis- 
1 held that the onus lay, not on the mort- 
r to prove that the term did not expire 
before the 13th of February 1856, but on the 
mortgagee to prove that it did 1 — 

Held by their Lordships, that the burden of 
proof was prima" facie on the mortgagor, regard 
being had as respects the quantum of evidence 
-equired, to the opportunities which each party 
nay naturally be supposed to have of giving 
:vidence. Rajah Kisheh Dott Ram Pandav 
b. Narrbndar Bakadoor Singh...!.. Bep. 3 
* I. A. 85, 

2. Oudk Estates' Act— Summary Settle- 
ment — Registered Tedukdar may be Trustee — 
Reformation of Sunnud — Malikana.] Ina suit 
against the respondent, pending the regulai 
settlement of Taluk Sersendre, to establish plain- 
tiff's right to a direct settlement with her of four 
villages, and of a one-third share of seven other 
out of the 26 villages of which the taluk was 
composed ; it appeared that the respondent had, 
before judgment, obtained a sunnud of the whole 
taluk, his name being entered in the second 
Schedule to Act I. of 1S69, and further that he 
had admitted himself to be trustee for the plain- 
tiff as regards the said one-third share of the 
seven villages. It also appeared that the plain- 
tiff was entitled to a sub-settlement of the said 
four villages: — 

Hetd.il) that the plaintiff could not establish 
talukdari rights, for, having no interest in many 
of the villages, in order to make her a talukdar, 
it would be necessary, not only to reform the 
respondent's sunnud, but also to break up the 
existing settlement and to re-settle the estate 
in three different portions. 

Qutere, whether since the passing of Act I. of 
1869 the sunnud could be reformed, even by the 
Governor-General in Council, without a special 
Act of the Legislature 

(a.) The plaintiff could not, under the sum. 
mary settlement and the Governor-General's 
order of the 10th of October 1850. acquire pro. 
prietaiy rights as against the respondent, who, 
before the summary settlement, was sole heredi- 
tary proprietor of the taluk, and whose rights 
were reserved under the Proclamation. 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACT I. OF 1869— eontd. 

(3.) The summary settlement not having 
been made with the plaintiff as talukdar, neither 
it nor the order of 1859 conferred talukdari 
tights upon her. 

Held, lastly, that the plaintiff was entitled to 
a Hindu widow's estate of inheritance in the 
said four valtages, and in a one-third share in 
the profits of the said seven villages, and to have 
a settlement of the four villages on terms of 
paying to the talukdar the Government demand 

Quart, whether the effect of the letter of the 
10th of October 1859 and the subsequent legis- 
lation is to relieve a Hindu widow, though a 
talukdar, from the disabilities imposed upon her 
by the general law. Widow of Shunkur 
Sahai v. Rajah Kashi Pbrsa/>... I,. Rep. 4 I. 
A. 198, n. ; L. R. Sup. Vol. I. A 220. 

3 Summary Settlement with Talukdar 

dying before the Letter of lOth October 1859— Rt - 
sumftion of Taluk.] In a suit brought in 1867 
to establish plaintiff's right to a talukdari in 
Oudh, as grand-mother and heiress toa deceased 
infant Rajah with whom a summary and tem- 
porary settlement thereof had been made ; it 
appeared that the taluk had been, after the 
death of the infant Rajah, and before the letter 
of the 10th of October 1859, resumed by the 
Government. 

/iW(f,Ithat the plaintiff, as heir of a talukdar 
who had been permitted to engage fot the re- 
venue, but who had died before the letter of the 
10th October 1859, was not entitled to the 
permanent hereditary and transferable proprie- 
tary right described thereby, but which had been 
vested in the deceased Rajah. 

Act I. of 1869 did not apply to the case. 

Ranee of Chilloree v. The Government of 

India. . .L. Rep. 41. A. 308 ; L. R. Sup . Vol. 

L A. 337, 1873. 

4. Right of Mortgagee prior to the eon. 

fixation to Sub- Settlement— Malikana.] The 
former Rajah of Tulsipore, on the 4th of March 
1856, a very few weeks after the first annexa- 
tion of Oudh, borrowed from the plaintiff Rs. 
7,001, and, as a security for that sum, executed 
to him an instrument in the nature of a mort- 
gage by way of conditional sale of four villages 
" with all the four boundaries and birt temin- 
dary rights for four villages." The instrument 
provided also that the plaintiff should be allowed 



ACT L Of 1869-contd. 

take possession of the aforesaid villages, to 
pay the Government revenue, and to appropriate 
the surplus profits to his use in lieu of interest." 

At the summary settlement which the British 
Government made on the first annexation of 
Oudh, the plaintiff applied to have the settlement 
of the four villages made directly with him. 
That settlement was not completed until the 4th 
of June 1857, and was made to endure only for 
the time during which the plaintiff would be in 
possession of the villages strictly in the cha- 
racter of mortgagee. The Rajah of Tulsipore 
having taken part in the mutiny of 1S57, bis 
itate was confiscated, and in 1859 created into 

talook under the new system, in favour of the 
defendant, who was allowed to engage for the 
revenue as talookdar at the summary settlement 
for that year, which was completed on 25th 
of May rS59, and whose title had since been 
confirmed in the fullest manner by the Oudb 
Estates' Act I. of 1869. The plaintiff, who was 
in actual possession of the four villages as mort- 
gagee, was dispossessed on the 31st of January 
[859, in favour of the defendant, when, in anti- 
:ipation of the final settlement, the latter was 
tut into possession. While the settlement was 
n progress the plaintiff Bled bis suit against the 
defendant, the talookdar, at first (asserting 
proprietary right as mortgagee), for a direct 
settlement of a superior proprietary right, but 
subsequently for a sub -settlement of a sub-pro- 

ietary right in the four villages : — 

Held, that upon the construction of the mort. 
gage deed, and having regard to the intention 
of the parties, the transfer to the plaintiff was 
merely of a sub -proprietary right, and that the 
plaintiff was entitled to a sub-settlement of the 
four villages without prejudice to the right, if 
any, of the defendant to Malikana at a rate not 
less than 10 per cent., after the plaintiff's interest 
had been perfected by foreclosure. It is not 
essential to the enforcement of the right of one 
who would be a subordinate zemindar, that the 
talookdar should have some pecuniary interest 
in the sub-tenure, or that the zemindar should 
be bound to pay some substantial rent to his 
superior. 

Quart, whether even if this mortgage did not 
confer a strictly sub -proprietary interest, a sub- 
settlement thereof would not have been justified, 
by the case of The Widow of Shunkur Sahai v. 
Rajah Kashi Pershad (L. Rep. 4 I. A. i»8; U R. 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES- 



ACT L OF 1809-contd. 
Sup. Vol. I. A. 220). A plaintiff seeking by 
his plaint a direct settlement of a superior pro. 
prietary right may modify his claim to one ol 
a sub -settlement of a sub-proprietary right 
Goubi Shunkur*. Maharajah op Bulrau- 

pore L. Rep. (J I. A. 1, 1878 ; I. L. Bep. 

4 Cat 889. 

6. Talaoidar — Joint Hindu Family — 

Implied Trust.} In a suit brought in 1865 by 
some members of a joint Hindu family for a de- 
claration of right against another member there- 
of, it appeared that although the defendant, 
being Kabooliatdar of a certain talook in Oudh 
on behalf of the joint family, had obtained in hi< 
own name a sunnud thereof, and of certain 
villages granted by Government as a reward 
for services rendered by the family during the 
Mutiny, yet that from his acts and declaration' 
he must be deemed to have consented to 
hold the same in trust for the joint family, and 
as a joint estate subject to the law of the Mitak- 

Heid, that Act I. of 1869, which Was passed 
before the suit was decided by the Court of first 
instance, did not operate so as to change the 
lative conditions of the parties, and to put 
end to the trust upon which the defendant 1 
previously held the estate. The estate in his 
hands remained thereafter subject to the trust, 
and there can be no difference in this respect 
between an express trust, and a trust implied or 
presumed from a fair and reasonable interpreta- 
tion of the acts and declarations of the defend. 
ant. Thakoor Hurdro Box v. Thakoor Ja. 
wahir Singh L. Rep. (J I. A. 181, 1879. 

6. Joint Hindu Family— Registered Ta- 

Icoidar may be a Trustee — Liability ef Sunnud- 
kolder to account.} In a suit brought by some 
members of a joint Hindu family for a declara- 
tion of right against another member thereof 
alleging that the defendant, being Kabooliatdar 
of a certain talook in Oudh on behalf of the 
joint family, obtained a sunnud in hisown name, 
and intended to deprive the plaintiffs of their 
rights, notwithstanding an admission made by 
him that they were entitled to shares : — 

Held, that a person who has been registered 
as a tatookdar under Act I. of 1869, and has 
thereby acquired a tatookdary right in the whole 
property, may, nevertheless, have made himself 
a trustee of a portion of the beneficial interest 



ACT L OF 1889— tontd, 

in lands comprised within the talook, and be 

liable to account accordingly. 

Shuniur Sakai v. Rajah Kashi Pershad <l_ 
Rep. 4 1. A. 19E, note) approved. 

Case remanded accordingly to try whether, 
notwithstanding the summary settlement, the 
sunnud and the statute, the plaintiffs, or either 
of them, had either before or after the passing 
of Act f. of 1869, acquired ot become entitled 
to a beneficial interest in any part of the pro- 
perty. Thakoor Hurdro Bui v. Thakoor 
Jawahir SH10...X1. Bcnp. 4 I. A. 178, 1877 ; 
I. L. Bep- 8 CaX 622. 
S. C. under Judge, and Appeal 
to the Privy Council. 9. 
7. Estate in Oudh— Title under Sun- 
nud from Government — Trust.} Although a sauad 
granted by the Government of India, subse- 
quent to the proclamation of the 15th of March 
858, of an estate in Oudh, confers an absolute 
itle, and one which overrides all other titles, 
yet the grantee under Government may, by an 
declaration of trust, or by an agree- 
holdin trust, constitute himself a trus- 
tee of the estate for a third party. 

Where the lower Courts, on the ground that 
the defendant's title under the sanad was abso- 
declined to consider evidence which the 
plaintiff relied on as showing that the defendant 
really held for him as trustee, the case was 
remanded by the Judicial Committee in order 
that such evidence might be received and con- 
sidered. ThakurShere Bahadur «. Thakitr- 
ain Dakiao Kuak..,L L. Bep. 8 Cal. 645, 
1877; P.O. 

— i z— Win. 

See Oudh Proclamation of 1858, 
para. 8. 
Hurfurshad v. Skro Dval...L. 
Bep. 3 L A. 259. 

i 3, CI. 4-Condition. 

&■ Act I. of 1889, § S3, CI. 11. 
Brij Ihoar v. Ranee Janki...Z>. 
Bep. 5 ; I. A. 1 Cal Bep. 318. 

ii 3 and a— Summary Settlement with, 

and Talukdari Sunnud to, Member of 
Undivided Hindu Family. 

See Oudh Proclamation of 1858. 
para. 8. 

HURPURSHAD V- SHBO DVAL...L.. 

Bep. 3. 1. A. 359. 



Diarized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACT L 07 18fl9-<r«iM. 

— H 16 to-ig— Not retrospective. 

See Oudh Proclamation of 1858, 
para. 8. 
Hurfurshad v. Shbo Dval...Ii. 
Bap, 8. Z.A. 908. 

, 23— CI. 4. Sm o/ Talukdar's Daughter 

" treated by Mm in all resfiects as Ills own son"— 
Parol Revocation of Hindu Will.'] Clause 4 of 
f 32 of Act I. of 1869, must be construed irre- 
spectively of the spiritual and legal consequences 
of an adoption under the Hindu law. When- 
ever it is shown by sufficient evidence that a 
talukdar, not having male issue, has so excep- 
tionally treated the son of a daughter as to give 
him in the family the place, consequence, and 
pre-eminence which would naturally belong 
son, if one existed, and would not ordinarily be 
conceded to a daughter's son, and has thus indi- 
cated an intention that the person so treated 
shall be his successor, such person will hi 
brought within that enactment. The will of ; 
Hindu may be revoked by parol ; and definitivi 
verbal authority given to another by a Hindu 
testator, to destroy his will, 1 
cation thereof, although the 
in fact destroyed. - 

Semble, a declaration made by such testator 
to the principal officer of the district in whose 
custody the will was, of bis desire and inc< 
that a particular person should succeed him by 
virtue of a newly-passed statute (Act I. of i860) 
and in supersession of his will, would be in law 
a sufficient parol revocation of the will. M aha. 
rajah Pkrtab Naraim Singh c. Maharanee 
Subhao Kooer...L. Bep. 4 I. A. 328, 1877 : 
S. C. I. L. Bop. 3 Cal- 826 

t 22, CI. II— Oudh Taluka— Sunnud ft 

Widow and her Heirs — Separate Property of 
Widen.] A sunnud of a taluka in Oudh, which 
had been previously confiscated by Government, 
was granted, with full powers of alienation, to 
the widow of the last owner, a Hindu (but with- 
out mentioning her status as widow either in the 
operative Words or in describing her), and to her 
heirs for ever, her name being entered in the 
first and second lists under Act I. of 1869, f 
one condition of the grant being expressed to be 
that, in the event of her dying intestate, or any 
of her successors dying intestate, the 
should descend to the nearest male heir, accord- 
ing to the rule of primogeniture -.- 



ACT L 07 1869— contd. 

Held, in suits against the widow's daughter 
by persons claiming as male heirs to the widow's 
husband, that the sunnud conferred, and was 
intended to confer, a full proprietary and trans* 
ferable right in the estate upon the widow and 
her male heirs according to the law of primo- 
geniture, and not merely to confer upon her an 
estate for life with full power of alienation, and 
ith remainder to the male heirs of her husband 
i the event of her dying intestate without 
having alienated it in her lifetime, and by virtue 
of I 3 of Act I- of 1869, she acquired by the 
lunnud a permanent and heritable right ill the 
state, nor was any trust created by the sunnud, 
•r Act I. of 1S69, or, on the evidence, in any 
other manner, for the benefit of the reversionary 
heirs of her husband. 

Held also, that as regards succession, the 
limitation in the sunnud was wholly superseded 
by Act I. of 1869, and that the rights of parties 
claiming by descent must be governed by the 
provisions of j 23 of that Act, the positive limi- 
tations in which are not in any way controlled 
by the provisions in § 3 of the Act, to the effect 
that the right acquired by virtue of the taluk- 
dari sunnud should be subject to all the condi- 
tions affecting the talukdar contained in the 
sunnud, under which the estate is held. The 
conditions referred to in CI. 4 of that section, 
are the conditions of loyalty and good service 
mentioned in the letter of the 19th October 
1S59, republished in the first schedule of the 
Act, and the other conditions of a similar nature 
such as those of surrendering arms, &c, 
contained in the sunnud. 

Held also, that the above taluka was, at the 
time of her death, the property (stridhan) of 
the widow, and under f 23, CL II, of Act 1. of 
1869, descended, in the absence of any proved 
custom of her tribe to the contrary, to her 
daughter in preference to the son of a daughter 
of a rival widow, and the remote heirs of her 
husband. Brij In oar Bahadur Singh v. 
Ranee Jakki Koer...L. Bop. 6 I. A. 1; 1 Cal. 
Bep. 818, 1877. 

ACT V. OF 1880- H 170, 171. 

See Offence committed at Cyprus. 
Empress v. Sarmukh Singh. ..I. 
L. Bap. 2 All. 218. 
ACT XVHI. OF 1880. 

See Stamp Act XVIII. of 1809. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



( 



) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACT XXTX OF 1869. 

Set Logialative Power of the 
Governor General in Coun- 
cil. 1. 2. 
Empress v. Bukah ...I. L. Bep. 3 
Cal. 68 ; I. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 
173; L. Bep. 51. A. 178 ; 
L. Bep. 8 App. Ca. 880. 

ACT TO. OF 1870. 

Set Court Few Act TIL of 1870. 

ACT X. OF 1870. 

See Land Acquisition Act X of 
1870. 

ACT XXTV. OF 1870. 

£«0udh Talufedar'a Belief Act 
XXTV. of 1870. 

ACT XXVI. OF 1870. 

See Prisons' Act XXVI. of 1870. 
ACT VI. OF 1871— f »4— Hindn Law— Interest. 
See Interest. 4. 

Debn Doval v. Kylas...I. L. 
Bep. 1 Cal. 92. 

— — f 34— Presumption oE Death of Missing 

See Evidence. 31. 
Parmkshwer Rai v. Bisheshar 
Singh... I. L. Bep. 1 All. 53. 
ACT VLTX OF 1871. 

See Registration Act VTH. of 1871. 

ACT IX OF 1871. 

See Limitation Act IX of 1871. 

ACT X OF 1871-Chapter VI. 

See the cases under Illicit Bale of 
Liquora. 

ffa. 

See the cases under Illicit Sale of 
Liquora. 
ACT XXHL OF 187L 

See Peneiona Act XXTTT. of 
1871. 
ACT XXV. OF 1871-J a. 

See Railway Company. 4. 

Pkatab Daji it. The B. B. & C. 

I. Rv. Co... I. L. Bep. 1 

Bom. SS. 



ACT 



OF 1871. 



See Oudb. Civil OoarU' Act 
XXXH. OF 1871. 
ACT I. OF 1873. 

See Evidence Act L of 1873. 
ACT IX. OF 1873. 

See Contract Act IX. of 1873. 
ACT X OF 1879. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, 
Act X. of 1872. 
ACT XT. OF 1873— ff 3 and 0— Native 
State — Cyprus. 

See Offence committed at Cyprus. 

Empress v. Sarmukh Singh. ..Z. 

L. Bep. 3 AIL 318. 

ACT VHX OF 1873— f 70— Imprisonment in 

Default of Payment of Fine. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 

X of 1873, f 309. 8. 

Empress «. Darba...I. L. Bep. 1 

All. 461. 

ACT XV. OF 1873. 1 ff 28 and 43— Local 

Government — Notice of Suit — Special Apfeal."] 

Where in a suit against a Municipal Committee, 

the Magistrate of the District, who was also the 

Collector, was impleaded as representing the 

local Government, the High Court, assuming that 

such a plea would be valid in special appeal, 

refused to allow the plea that the Local Govern. 

ntent had not been made a party to the suit, in 

accordance with the provisons of f 28 of Act 

XV. of 1873. But the Court expressed no 

opinion whether such a plea would be a valid 

plea in special appeal. 

The notice of action requiredby f 43 of Act XV. 
of 1873 previous to suing a Municipal Com- 
x is only necessary when the suit is brought 
for tort or quasi tort where damages are claimed 
for the thing done. 

The plea that no notice was given, as required 

by § 43, cannot be taken for the first time in 

special appeal. The Municipal Committee; 

Moradabad v. Csatri Singh. Turner and 

Old/mid, JJ L L. Bep. 1 All. 389, 1878. 

f 43— Suit against Municipality— Substitu. 
lion 0/ President for Secretary as Defendant—- 
Limitation Act XV. of 1877, f 2*-Amendment-1 
The plaintiff, after giving, in the office of the 
Municipal Committee, the notice required by 



DM**] by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES- 



ACT XV. OF WtS-nntd. 
1 43 of Act XV. of 1873, instituted a suit against 
the Municipal Committee in the name of their 
Secretary, claiming a declaration of his right 
re-erect certain buildings which the Municipality 
bad ordered to be removed, and compel 
far their removal. The suit was instituted within 
three months from the accrual of the plaintiff' 
cause of action; but after the expiration of mot 
than three months after that time, the plaintiff 
applied to the Court to substitute the r 
the President of the Municipal Commi 
that of the Secretary, as defendant. The ap- 
plication was refused, and the suit dismissed 
the ground that it should have been instituted 
against the President and not the Secretary, 
and that even if the President had been substi- 
tuted as defendant on the date of the plaintiff's 
application in that behalf, the suit would not 
have been maintainable, having regard to ( 43 
of Act XV. of 1873, and J »3 of Act XV. of 1877. 
as it would have been brought more than three 
months after the accrual of thecause of 

Held, that if f 43 of Act XV of 1873 applied, 
and notice to the Committee was necessary, Sjuch 
notice had been given, and the requirements of 
the Act substantially complied with ; the 
making the Secretary, instead of the President, 
the defendant, being one of form only, and, 
therefore, that the substitution of the name of the 
President for that of the Secretary should have 
bee* made, and that such substitution was 
affected by g 21 of Act XV. of 1877,— the 
against the Committee having been practically 
instituted within three months of the accrual of 
the cause of action, and , 22 of Act XV. of 
1877, applying to cases where new plaintiffs and 
defendants personally, are made parties to a 
suit after its institution, and not to cases like 
the present, where the Committee was sued 
through their officer, and a clerical error was 
corrected by the Court, and the substitution as 
defendant of the proper officer for the wrong 
one permitted. 

But sfBiife, that r 43 of Act XV. of 1873, 
contemplates suits claiming relief of a pecuniary 
character for some act done under the Act by 
the Committee, or any of their officers, or any 
other person acting under their directions, and 
for which damages could be recovered against 
them personally. 

tf, on the other hand, the suit was not one 
contemplated by Act XV. of 1873, it was not 



ACT XT. OF IBJZ-cmtd. 
affected by § 43 of that Act, and would be in 
time if the name of the President were substi- 
tuted for that of the Secretary. Either way the 
subsitution should have been made, and the 
case heard upon its merits. The case was ac- 
cordingly remanded that this might be done. 
Mannj Kasaundhan i. Crooke, Stuart, C.J., 
and Spankie, J...L L. Rep. 2 All. 296. 1871. 

ACT XVITX OF 1873. 

See Arbitration. 1. 

Goshain d. Durga...L I.. Sep. 
3 All. 119. 

Limitation to Suits under — Exclusion of 

Time occupied in prosecuting Suits in 
Court without Jurisdiction. 
See Limitation. 80. 

Timal Kuari v. Adlakh Rai... 
L L. Rep. 1 AIL 254. 

i 3— Arrears of Grain Rent. 

See i 03L 

TAJVDDIN ,. RAM PRA3HAD...I. 

L. Hep. 1 All. 217. 
H S "id o- 

See Enhancement of Rent. 4, 

Hanumak Pakshad e. Kaulbssab 

Pandey...L L. Rep. 1 AIL 

801. 

i 7— Sir Land— Ex-Proprietary Tenant- 
Mortgage of Proprietary Rights in a Mahal 
followed by Sale— Ejectment — Jurisdiction — 
Mesne Profits.] In a suit to eject the defendants 
trespassers from certain sir lands, and for mesne 
profits, it appeared that the plaintiffs held pos. 
ssion of the share, which included the 51V land, 
conditional mortgagees. The sir land was 
sublet by them to a tenant. The rights in the 
share remaining in the mortgagors, the defend- 
ants, were sold at auction and purchased by 
the plaintiffs. The defendants, without giving 
notice to the plaintiffs of their intention to bold 
the sir land as tenants, and of their readiness to 
pay rent, ousted the plaintiffs' tenant 1— 

Held, that the suit, as brought, was cogniz- 
able by the Civil Courts. 

Held also, that the plaintiffs, having by the 
iction sale acquired the mortgagors' rights, 
thenceforward retained possession in full pro- 
prietary right ; and inasmuch as up to the time 
of the auction sale their possession of the sir as 



D,„i„.db»Googlc 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACT XVIIL OF 1878— ramU 

mortgagees must be treated as the possession 

of the mortgagors, the defendants were enl 

to contend that the nV.was held by them at the 

time ol the sale, and that after the sale, in v 

of the provisions of f J of Act XVIII. of 1873, 

they became entitled to a right of occupancy in 

the sir as tenants at favourable rates. 

Their proper course, then, was to have given 
notice to the plaintiffs of their intention to avail 
themselves of the rights conferred upon them 
by Act XVIII. of 1873, and to enter on the 
lands, at the same time offering to pay such 
rent as might, having regard to the provisions 
of that Act, be properly payable by them. But 
though the defendants, having a right to the 
occupancy of the lands, could not be treated as 
trespassers, yet, they having entered and ousted 
the tenant without communicating with the 
plaintiffs or taking any steps to have the rent 
assessed, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover 
damages for the use and occupation of the land. 
Bakhat Ram v. Wazik All Turner and Span. 
kU, JJ I. L. Sep. 1 All. 448, 1877. 

— — } 7—8. Ex-Proprietary Tenant— SitLand 
— Mortgage of Proprietary Rightsin a Mahal.] 
Where a person mortgaged his proprietary 
rights in ft Mahal, which rights consisted of cer- 
tain lands occupied by him, covenanting to give 
the mortgagee possession for the purpose of 
cultivation and the payment of the Government 
revenue, and being at liberty to redeem the 
lands at any time at the end of the month of 
Jaith :— 

Held, that the mortgagor could not resist a 
claim on the part of the mortgagee for possession 
of the lands, on the ground that he had a right of 
occupancy in the lands under f 7 of Act XVIII. 
of 1S73, that section not being applicable, and 
contemplating something more than a mere 
temporary transfer of proprietary rights. B hag- 
wan Singh v. Mubu Singh... L L. Rep. 1 
All. 409. 

H 8 and 9. 

Set Bight of Occupancy. 3. 

Ablakh Raj v. L'dit Narain Rai. 
L L. Rep. I. AIL 853. 
— {9— -L Right of Occupancy— Tenant— Sale 
in Execution of Decree.} Section 9 of Act 
XVIII. of 1873 does not prevent a landholder 
from causing the sale in execution of his own 
decree, of the occupancy right of his own judg- 



ACT JCVUU. OF 187B— tontd. 
ment-debtor in land belonging to himself. 
Umrao Beg am v. The Lano Mortgage Bank 
OP India. Pearson and Oldfieid, JJ...I. Ii> 

Sep. 1 All. 647 ; Affirmed on Appeal I. L. 
Rep. 2 All. 461. 

See Right of Occupancy. 2, 4. 

Ablakh Rai d. Udit N. Rai. ..I. 

L. Rep. 1 AIL 803. 

Dwarka Nath s- Hurrish Chun- 

der I. If. Sep. 4 CaL, 

826. 

— { §.—8. Tenant at Fixed Rate—Ex-Pro. 
prietary Tenant — Occupancy Tenant — Inherit' 
to Rights of Occupancy.) Held, that the 
proviso to the last clause of § 9 of Act XVIII. 
of 1873 refers only to the holdings of ex. proprie- 
tary, and occupancy-tenants, and not to tenants 
fixed rates. Bhagwanti e. Rudr Man 
TIWARI...L L. Rep. 8 AIL 146, 1879, F. B. 

§ 14 — Suit by Purchaser of Shate in a 
Mahal, for Profits of Unassessed Sir 
Land. 
See Suit for Profit*. 

Muhahhad Alt v. Kalian Singh, 
I. L. Rep. 1. AIL 659. 

5 93—5 3 — Arrears of Jfntf— Bhaoli— fe- 

tenueCourt — CM Court— Jurisdiction.'] Heldby 
Stuart, C.J., that when rent is payable in grain 
is not competent for the landlord to sue in a 
Revenue Court for the equivalent in cash. The 
definition of rent in § 3 of Act XVIII. of 1873 
does not mean that where the rent is a grain 
one it can be either claimed or recovered in 

ly I 93 of that Act, suits for " arrearsof rent" 
exclusively cognizable by the Revenue Court, 
but where the rentinarrear is a grain rent, suits 
for arrears of the grain rent to be made good not 
in grain,but in money, would only be exclusively 
triable by the Revenue Court, either by the claim 
for a money equivalent being allowable in them, 
or by the decree in them being made capable of 
being satisfied in money. The intention of the 
Legislature was to give every reasonable facility 
for the recovery of such arrears as are mention- 
ed in ( 93, and that intention may be assisted by 
holding that conversion into, or recovery in 
money, is such a reasonable facility, and that 
such recovery may be either made by a claim to 
that effect in the plaint, or by allowing the 
decree to be executed to the same effect. 



mortized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACT XVHX OP 1878-rwiW. 

By Pearson, J— Where the tent is payable in 
grain only, the landlord is not entitled to sue in 
the Revenue Courts for the money equivalent of 
arrears of such rent that may have accrued, such 
a suit being one for damages for breach of the 
contract to pay the rent- 
By Turner, J.— Suits for the money-value of 
arrears of a grain rent are not suits for rent but 
for damages or compensation for non-payment 
of rent. But such suits, though not strictly 
suits for rent, have for a very long period been 
so regarded and tried in the Revenue Court, to 
whose jurisdiction no objections have been made. 
Under these circumstances the rule cursus curia 
lex curia should be applied, and such suits, 
though not strictly suits foe rent, should be re- 
garded as embraced in that term in ( 93 of Act 
XVIII- of 1S73, and the targe terms of the first 
paragraph of that section may fairly be read as 
prohibiting the Civil Court from entertaining 
such suits. 

By Spankie and Oldfield, JJ.— A landlord 

competent to sue in the Revenue Court for the 

money equivalent of arrears of a grain rent. 

Tajuddin Khan v. Rah Parshad Bhagat...L 

L. Bep. 1 AIL 317, 1876. 

i 93—3- Suit by Co-Sharer against Heir 

Of Deceased Lambardar, yiir Profits — Jurisdiction 
ef Civil and Fmentte Courts.'] Held by Pearson, 
J., following Askraf.un-Nissa v. t/mrao Began, 
(I. L. Rep. I All. 512, note,) that a suit by a co- 
sharer in an undivided Mahal against the heir 
of a deceased Lambardar for his share of profits 
collected by the Lambardar before his death is 
suit cognizable, not by a Civil Court, but by 
Court of Revenue. 

Stuart, C. J. 1 dissented from the ruling above 
quoted. Bhikhan Khan v. Ratan Kuar 

I. L. Bep. 1 All. 612, 1877. 
S. C. under { 84, infra. 
— i 93—3- Appeal to Judge — Proprietary 
Right — Pent — Sub-Proprietor.] Where the 
defendant pleaded, in answer to the plaintiff's 
suit for arrears of rent, that the defendant 
longer held as tenant, but as sub- proprietor 
under a settlement made direct with the defend- 
ant, the Settlement Officer:— 

Held, that the suit involved a question of 
proprietary right within the meaning of it 93 
and 189 of Act XVIII. of 1873, and that 
appeal lay to the Judge of the district, though 



ACT XVIII. OF 1878— contd. 

the amount in suit was less than Rs. 100. 

Bisheshur Singh v. Musauat SUOURDHI. 

Stuart, C. J, and Oldfield, J ...I. L. Bep. 1 AIL 
866,1877. 

f 93, CI. h— Suit for Profits—Interest.] A 
Revenue Court is competent in a suit for profits, 
under Act XVIII. of 1873, j 93, CI. h, to award 
interest on profits. Tota Rah «. Shbk Singh. 

Turner and Spankie, JJ I. L. Bep. 1 AIL 

201, 1876. 

i 94 — Limitation to Suit by Co-Sharer for 

Share of Profits.} Held by Pearson, Turner, mi 
Oldfield, JJ., that the share of a co-sharer in an 
undivided Mahal, of the profits of the Mahal for 
any agricultural year is due to him from the 
Lambardar as soon as, after the payment of 
Government revenue and village expenses, there 
is a divisible surplus in the hands of the Lam- 
bardar, unless by agreement or custom a date is 
fixed for taking the accounts and dividing the 
profits, in which case any divisible surplus which 
may have accrued prior to that date is due on 
that date, and the divisible profits in respect of 
any arrears which may be collected after that 
date are due when they reach the hands of the 
Lambardar or his agent. 

By Stuart, C.J., and Spankie, J., that where 
by agreement or custom there is no date fixed 
for dividing such profits, the share of a co-sharer 
becomes due on the last day of the agricultural 
year, as fixed by Acts XVIII. and XIX. of 187J, 
iii., the 30th of June. Bhikhan Khan ». 
Ratan Kuar... I L. Bop. 1 All. 613, 1677. 

S. C. under J 08, supra. 
f 95— Application for Restoration of Occu- 
pancy, based on particular Title— Denial of Title 
by Landholder — Decision by Revenue Court in 
Plaintiffs favour — Subsequent Suit by Land. 

See Ban Judicata. IS. 

Shihbu Narain Singh e. Bach- 
cha.X L. Bep. S AIL 300. 

( 95 — Jurisdiction— Revenue Court — Cttit 

Court.] T., the occupancy tenant of certain 
lands, gave K. a lease of his occupancy rights 
for a term of 20 years. In the execution of a 
decree for the ejectment of T. from such bads, 
obtained by the landholder against T. in a suit 
to which K. was no party, K. was ejected from 
such lands. This decree was subsequently set 
aside, and T. recovered the occupancy of such 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



AOT I T JU . OP 1B73—centd. 
lands- Held, in a suit by K- against T. and the 
landholder, in which K. claimed the occupancy 
of the lands and mesne profits for the period 
during his dispossession, in virtue of the lease, 
that the suit was one cognizable by the Civil 
Courts, and not one on the subject-matter of 
which an .application of the nature mentioned 
in S 95 of Act XVIII. of 1873 could have been 
mode, so as to give the Courts of Revenue exclu- 
sive jurisdiction in such matter. Kalian Das 

t- Tika Ram. Sfankie andOldfield.]} L L. 

Hep. 2 AIL 187, 1878. 

} 95, CI. m~Ltase of Zemindari Rights- 
Wrongful Dispossession of Lessee by Lessor — Suit 
for Compensation— Jurisdiction of Civil and Re. 
venue Courts^ The defendant granted the 
plaintiffs a lease of his zemindari rights in cer- 
tain villages for five years at a fixed annual rent. 
Two years before the expiration of the lease, the 
defendant dispossessed the plaintiffs of the vil- 
lages and collected the rents from the tenants 
himself.' The plaintiffs then sued the defendant 
in the Civil Courts to recover the moneys so 
collected by him 1 — 

Held, by Stuart, C.J., that the suit was not 
one of the kind described in Act XVIII. of 1873, 
f 95, CI. «. The lease given by the defendant 
was not a merely agricultural one, and did not 
simply establish the relation of landlord and 
tenant, but within its limits constituted an inde- 
pendent and indefeasible title and right, which 
the defendant bad invaded, for which 
he was liable in damages, the measure 
was the money improperly received and detained 
by him ; and such a claim was cognizable only 
by the Civil Courts. 

By Pearson, Turner, and Oldfield, JJ., that 
persons, who, like the plaintiffs, take fr 
zemindars leases of their zemindari rights 
lands, are unquestionably tenants, and are 
deprived of this character, because in relatioi 
the actual cultivator of the whole or some parts 
of the property leased they may be described 
landlords. Such persons are subject to those 
provisions of the Rent Act which apply to 
tenants of all classes. Inasmuch as under ar 
application in the Revenue Courts for compen- 
sation for wrongful dispossession, the plaintiffs 
could obtain the relief they sought in the present 
start, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court: 
ousted by the provisions of Act XVIII. of 1873, 



AOT XV1TX OT 1878— eontd. 

i 95, CI. m, and the plaintiffs could obtain relief 

only in the Revenue Courts. 

Spankit, J,— The provisions of CI. m, § 95, 

Act XVIII. of 1873, apply to the ordinary tenant 

agricultural ryot paying rent for the use or 

:upation of land, and to the lessee of an entire 

ate for a fixed term of years, as the plaintiffs 

were ; and as their claim was not of the nature 

of an application for compensation that could be 

made to a Revenue Court under that clause, the 

properly instituted in the Civil Courts. 

Abdul Aziz v. Wali Khan L L. Hep. 1 

All. 838, 1877. 
( 106. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act X. of 
1877, § 88. 9. 
Shiv Go pal e. Baldbo SahAi ., 
I. I* Rep, 8 All. 364. 

i 177- 

See Pre-emption. 1. 

Naraik Singh v- Muhammad 
Fartjck.X L. Hep. 1 All. 
277. 
S *>9. 

See liability of Lambardar to 

Co-Sharer for Proflta. 

Manga l Khan v. Mumtaz Ali... 

I. L. Hep. 3 All. 238. 

AOT XIX. OP 1673— , 3, CI. i—Kkalisa 

Mahal— Sale in execution. 

See Sale in Execution of Decree, 8. 
Showers ■». Seth Gownd Dash. 
I. L. Rep. 1 AIL 400. 
-139- 

See Bee Judicata. 34. 

Husain v. GOPAL..X L. Rep. 
8 All. 488. 

- 51 43. 83, 241. CI. 5- 

See Vendor & Purchaser. 9. 

Hiralal ». Ganesh.-I. L. Sep. 
a AIL 410. 



f 62— Record of Rights— Ju 


risdiction of 


Civil and Revenue Courts. 




See Jurisdiction. 0. 




SUNDAU V KHUHAH 


Singh. ..I. 


L. Rep 


1 All. 613. 


§66. 




iVrCesn. 




L.AJ.A ;. HiRA SlNIiH 


,.I. L.ttep. 




3 AIL 49. 



D,„i„.db»Googlc 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACT XIX OF 1873— contd. 



- § 66 — Suit for Declaration of Zemindari 

Right to Cesses. 
See Declaratory Decree. 8. 

Akbar Khan v. Sheoratan.,.1. 
L Rep. 1 AIL 873. 

- § 94— Record of Rights — Jurisdiction of 

Civil and Revenue Courts. 
See Juried iction. S. 

SUNDAH V . KHUHAN SlNGH I. 

L. B«p. 1 AIL 613. 

- H I94> '95— Appointment of Manager to 

Estate of Lunatic. 



Manohar Lal o- Gauri Shankar. 
I. L. Kep. 1 AIL 476. 
1 88. 
See Proamption. 1. 

Naraih Singh «. Muhammad Fa- 
ruck... I. Ii.Bep. 1 A1L377. 
See Arbitration. 1. 

GOSHAIN GlRDHARIJI V. DuRGA 

Devi ...L L. Bap. 9 All. 110. 



See Jurisdiction. B. 

SUHDAR V. KHUHAN SlNGH...L L. 

Rep. 1 AIL 018. 

■ i 241 — Revenue — Patlidar — Suit to recover 

Money paid on Account of Revenue due by Defend- 
ant— Jurisdiction.] The plaintiff, a pattidar, 
who had paid a sum on account of a demand for 
Government revenue, not merely in respect of 
his own share, but also in respect of the shares 
of the defendants, his co-pattidars, sued to reco- 
ver the sunt paid in eicess of his own quota. 
The Court of first instance dismissed the suit, 
deeming it to be one connected with or arising 
out of the collection of the revenue, which the 
Civil Courts were prohibited by f 241 of Act 
XIX. of 1873 from entertaining r — 

Held by Turner, C. J. (Offg.), Pearson and Old- 
field, JJ., that the Civil Courts were competent 
to entertain suits of this nature, and that the 
lower Court was wrong in regarding the claim 
as one connected with or arising out of the col- 
lection of the revenue within the meaning of 
that term in f 341 of Act XIX. of 1873; it was 
a suit by the plaintiff because he had been 
compelled to pay a debt for which the defend- 



ACT XXX OF 1878— amid. 

ants were also liable jointly with him, a payment 

which gave him the right to call on them for 

contribution. 

Per Spaniie, J.,— Act XIX. of 1873 aims at 
keeping in the bands of the Revenue officers the 
settlement of every dispute connected with the 
collection of revenue, whether such- disputes 
arise between the revenue -payers themselves, 
or between the Government officers and the 
revenue.payer. 

The claim in this case arose oat of the collec- 
tion of the revenue, and the enforcement of the 
plaintiffs liability to pay the arrear due by his 
co-sharers, and was, therefore, included under 
CI. (0 of f 341 of the Act ; over such claim the 
Civil Courts had no jurisdiction, but only the 
Revenue Courts, Ram Daval c.Gulab Singh. 
I. L. Bap. 1 AIL 26, 1878. 
ACT II. OF1874. 

See Administrator -Ganeral'R Act 
n. of 1874. 
ACT m. OF 1874. 

See Harried Women's Property 
Act TH. of 1874. 
ACT VL OF 1874— Appeal from Order grant, 
ing Certificate. 
See Lottor* Patent (Calcutta,) 
1880,01. 15. L 
Mowla Baksh e. Kishhn Pektab 
Sami...Z. L. Bep. 1 CaL 102. 

i 5—1. Letters PoJent (Calcutta) 1862. 

a. 39— Stat. 24 & 3«, Via., C. 67, i 22— Stat. 
34 ft 15 Viet, C. 104, tg— Powers of the Legis- 
lature^ The provision in $ 5 of Act VI. 0P1874, 
that where there are concurrent decisions on 
facts, the case must, in order to give a right of 
appeal to the Privy Council, involve some sub. 
stantial question of law, is not ultra vires of the 
Indian Legislature as being a curtailment of the 
jurisdiction given to the High Court of Calcutta 
by the Letters Patent of 1865, CI. 39. 

The Courts in India have no power to admit 
or allow an Appeal to the Privy Council unless 
expressly authorized to do so by competent au- 
thority. The power to admit such appeals was 
conferred on the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut 
(Calcutta) by Beng. Reg. XVII. of 1791, f 3; 

of that power by the orders of Her Majesty in 

Council of loth April 1838, passed u 



DiQtttzed by Google 



DIGEST OP CASES. 



ACT VI. OF 1874— onAf. 
of 3 & 4 Wm. IV., C. 41 ; and the practice of 
the High Court of Calcutta in the admission of 
appeals has also been regulated by certain rules 
of its own, made by the Sudder Dewanny Adaw- 
lut on the 17th December 1858, and by the 
High Court on the 30th July 1870. But there 
is nothing in Stat 24 & 25 Vict, C. 67, which 
would prevent the Governor-General in Council 
altering or repealing any of those provisions. 

The words " subject always to such rules and 
orders as are now in force" in CI- 39 of the 
Letters Patent (Calcutta), 1S65, do not i> 
porate those provisions into the Letters Patent, 
so as to remove them from the sphere of legis- 
lation by the Governor-General in Council. 
Clause jg of the Letters Patent (Calcutta) was 
not inserted in pursuance of, and does not rest 
for its authority on, Stat 24 & 15 Vict., C. 104; 
and, therefore, the admission of an appeal to 
the Privy Council is not one of those powers 
which the High Court is, by the first part of 
§9 of Stat. 24 & 25 Vict., C. 104, commanded 
to exercise. Its existence is entirely independent 
both of that Act and the Letters Patent 

Section 22 of Stat. 24 & 25 Vict., C 67, must 
be read with J o of Stat. 24 ft 25 Vict., C. 104, 
by the express words of which latter enactment, 
" save as by such Letters Patent may be other- 
wise directed," all previously existing powers 
are reserved to the High Court, provided the 
Letters Patent do not interfere with them, and 
as to all such powers the Governor-General 
Council is expressly empowered to legislate. The 
power of admitting appeals to the Privy Coun- 
cil, being one of those previously existing 
powers, is held by the High Court, under the 
Act and not under the Letters Patent, and, 
therefore, rendered by the Act itself, subject tc 
the legislative control of the Governor-General 
in Council, to which it still remained subject 
when the old powers of the abolished Courts 
were merely repeated in the Letters Patent. 
Even if the power to admit an appeal were con- 
ferred by the Letters Patent, it is not a new 
power, and has, therefore, been made by the Act 
of Parliament expressly subject to the legislative 
control of the Governor-General in Council, but 
not of any other legislative authority in India. 

The ratio decidendi of Reg. v. Hearts (14 
Beng. L. Rep. 106) dissented from. Where 
there were two concurrent decisions on (acts, an 
application for leave to appeal to the Privy 



ACT VI. OT 1874-tfxU. 
Council was refused, the right of appeal from « 
decision of tbe High Court on its appellate side, 
simply on the ground that the subject-matter of 
the suit was above Rs. 10,000, having been 
taken away by Act VI. of 1874, ( 5. /ft the 
matter of the Petition b/Feda JIosskin. Mark. 

by,} I. L. Rep. 1 Cal. 481,1876. 

5 S— -• Appeal to Priv Council— Sub. 

stantial Question of Lais.'] The substantial 
question of law which, by f 5 of Act VI. of 
1874, the appeal must involve in order to give 
an appeal to the Privy Council in a case where 
the decree appealed from affirms the- decision of 
tbe Court below, is not limited to a question of 
law arising out of the facts as found by tbe 
Courts from whose decision it is desired to ap- 
peal. A question of law arising on the evidence 
taken in the case is, without reference to the 
findings of the lower Courts sufficient to found 
an appeal. Mohan n. Mittu Bibie. Pontifex, 

J .1. L. Rep. 3 Cal. 328,1870. 

. « 8— i II, a. b—Act IX. of 1871, f 5— 

Practice — Closing of the Court — Deposit of Money 
under Act VI. of 1874, § II, CI. 6— Power of 
Court to grant Special Permission.'] The peti- 
tioners had obtained a certificate on the 1st of 
September to appeal to Her Majesty in Council 
from a decision passed against them by the 
High Court on the 4th of May. Accordingly 
the period during which they were to deposit the 
amount for the translations of the record, under 
S 11, CI. b of Act VL of 1874, expired on the 4th 
November. The offices of the Court re-opened 
after the vacation on the 23rd October, but the 
Benches did not commence to sit till the 16th 
November. On the last mentioned date, the 
petitioner brought in the money, and it was re- 
fused by the officer of the Court as being too 
late:— 

Held, that it was rightly refused, and that the 
Court had no power to grant permission to 
deposit it after the prescribed time. 

In the matter of the Petition 0/ Lalla Gofee- 

chand. Marhby, J...X, L. Rep. 2 Cal, 128, 

1878. 

— §f ' '1 '*> a[ >d 15 — Dismissal of Appeal for 

Default in Deposit of Security, and in 

transcribing Record. 

See Appeal to the Privy CounciL 4. 

Thakoor Kapilnath Singh ». 

The Government I. I.. 

Rep. 1 Cal 143. 



boozed by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( « ) 



AOT VL OF 1874 -contd. 
— § 1 1 — Deposit of Costs — Power to enlarge 
Tim*.] The requirements of | II, Act VI. of 
1874, as to the deposit of coats are not absolute- 
ly imperative. The Court has power in its 
discretion to modify them, and when the period 
for making the deposit expires on a day when 
the offices of the Court are closed, it is a reason- 
able exercise of that discretion to allow the 
deposit to be made 00 the day they re-open. 
In thi matter of the Petition of SoOBJMUKHi 
Koek. Garth, C.J., Sfacpherson and Uarkby, 
J] I. L. Rep. 2 Gal. 272, 1877. 

ACT XIV. OF 1874. 

Set Jurisdiction. 11. 

SuBDHARBEg. MaNSOOR AllV.-.I. 

L. Bep. 8 Cal. 398. 
ACT XV. OF 1874. 

See Jurisdiction. 11. 

SuBDHAREB V. MaNSOOR ALLY... J, 

Xi.B«p. 3 Cal.a88. 
AOT XVI. OF 1874. 

See Madras Act HT. of 1865, 

Reg. v. Kandakora...I. L. Sep. 
1 Mad. 233. 

ACT IX OF 1876. 

See Majority Act IX of 187S. 
ACT X. OF 1876. 

See High Court Criminal Proce- 
dure Act X of 1875. 

act arm. of i875. 

See Probate. 2. 

Shamachurm...L I* Rep. ICaL 
58. 

(a. 

See Administration. 8. 

Hewsoh.,,1. L. Hep. 4 Cal. 770. 
ACT XVII. OF 1876. 

See Bnrmah Courts' Act. 

ACT XL OF 1878. 

See Presidency Banks' Act XI. of 
1876. 
ACT L OF 1877. 

See Specific Belief Act I. of 1877. 
ACT X. OF 1877. 

Sec Civil Procedure Code, Act X. 
of 1877. 



ACT XTX OF 1870— f a— Decree — Order 

Returning Plaint after Issues filed is not. 
See Appeal— Civil. 83, 

Abdul v. Rajihdro...L L. Bep. 
2 AIL 357. 
AOT OF STATE. 

See Right to ana. 7. 

Nobind Chunder Dev «. Secre- 
tary of State for India... 
. I. L. Bep. 1 CaO. 11. 
Jurisdiction of Civil Courts."] Where an 
e is seized by the Government on behalf 
of the Crown by its right of conquest, and not 
by virtue of, or under colour of any legal title, 
ise of sovereign authority, and 
such estate is afterwards dealt with by the 
Government in accordance with its notions of 
what is just and reasonable, and not according 
to any rules of law to be enforced against them 
by their own Courts, such seizure and subse- 
quent disposition of the estate is an Act of 
State, and cannot be questioned in a Municipal 
Court Sibdab B hag wan Singh v. Secretary 
State fob India L. Bep. 21. A. 38. 

ACTION FOB TBOTEB— By Wife against 

Husband. 
See Husband and Wife. 

Harris v. Harris...I. L. Bep. 1 
Cal. 885. 

ACTS DONE IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY 
BY COLLECTOR -As Administrator 
of Minor's Estate — Jurisdiction of Sub- 
ordinate Judge. 
See Bombay Minors' AOT XX of 
1884, ff 11 and 15. 

NARSINGBAV V. I.UXMANRAV...I. 

L. Bep. 1 Bom. 318. 
—As President of Municipality. 
See Jurisdiction, IB. 

Ganoadhar o. Collector of Ah- 
...I. L. Rep. 1 Bom. 



ACTS DONE IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY 
BY MUNICIPAL COMMISSION- 
ERS APPOINTED TJNDEB ACS 
XXI. OF 1860. 

See Jurisdiction. 18. 

Gahgadhar v. Collector of Ah. 

MHDNAGAS, ..I. L. B«p. 1 BOBO.. 



Diarized by Google 



( 



) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ACT IMPOSING TAX— Construction of. 
See Madras Act HI. of 1871. 

Leman «. Damodaraya L L. 

Bep. 1 Mad. 108. 

ACTS OF LIMITATION, CONSTBUC- 
TION OF. 
See Construction of Statute. 3. 

Uhushahkar v. Chotalal L 

It. Bep. 1 Bom. 19. 

ACTS LIMITING BIGHT TO BESOBT 

TO COURTS OF JUSTICE— Con- 
struction of. 
See Pensions' Act '* * I II of 1871. 
2.3. 
Ravji v. Dadaji L L. Bep. 1 



ACTS OF OWNERSHIP -Evidence of. 
See Limitation. 7. 

MohimaCkunderv. H unto Lall. 
I. I.. Bep. 8 Cat. 768. 

ACTS IN PABI MATERIA— Construction 
of. 
Bee Jurisdiction. 18. 

Collector op Sea Customs «. 

Punniar Chithaubabau ..I, 

L. Bep. 1 Mad. 89. 

AOTB-~PKNAL— Construction of. 

See Construction of Statute. 4. 

Reo. «. Bhista I. L. Bep. 1 

Bom. 308. 

ACTS RELATING TO PROCEDTJRE- 
Construction of. 
See Civil Procedure Code, Act X. 
of 1877, § 342. 
Rattansi Kallianjj...L L. Bep* 
a Bom. 148. 
See Construction of Statute. 5. 

SlTARAM V. KhANDRRAV-.-L L. 

Bep. 1 Bom. 868, 291. 
See Appeal— Civil. 96. 

Thakur Prasad o, AhsanAli... 
I. L. Bep. 1 All. 668. 



See Bight to sue. 7. 

Nobind Ckunder Dry v. The 
Sucretafvof State for India. 
LL.Bep.lCaL II. 
See Act of State. 1. 

Sirdrar Bhagwan Singh v. Se- 
State for India... 
I. L. Bep. 9 L A 88. 
ADDING PASTIES TO BTJIT. 

Sen Abatement of Appeal— Civil. 

M ores h was ■. KuSHABA...I. L. 

Bep. 2 Bom. 948. 
limitation as to Added Parties. 
See Co- Sharers of Land. 4 . 

Brvdonath Bag v. Grish Chun. 

dhr Roy I. L. Bep. 8 Cat. 

38. 
See Onus Probandi. 3. 

Abdul v. Manji...L L. Bep. 1 
Bom. 295. 



Bep. 1 Mad. 888. 

- Suit for Damages for Breach of Contract — 

Party claiming no Interest in Subject, 
matter of Suit cannot be added. 
See Parties to Suit. 7. 

KOEGLBR V. PrOSONKO CoOMAR... 

I. L. Bep. 9 Cat 472. 

- Suitfor Damages on Sale by Sample, from 

Bulk not corresponding with Sample- 
Plaintiff cannot be compelled to add 
Defendant's Vendors as Parties. 
See Civil Procedure Code, Act X. 
of 1877 i 32.1. 
M ahum bd B adsh a » Nico l, Flem - 
inq & Co...L L. Bep. 4 Cal. 
886. 

- Suit by One of two Co- Mortgagees, Les- 

sors, for Share of Rent— Adding Co-Mort- 
gagee as Defendant. 
See Civil Procedure Code, Act X. 
Of 1877, 5 S3. 2. 
Shib Gopal v. Baldbo Sahai... 
IL Bep. 2 All 364. 



Diaxized by Google 



( 



) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ADDING RESPONDENT TO AN AP- 
PEAL AFTER TIKE ALLOWED 
BY LIMITATION. 
See Parties to Suit. 8. 

The Court of Warm o. Gaya 

Persad...I. L. Sep. 2 All. 

107. 

ADJECTIVE AND SUBSTANTIVE 

LAW. 

See Limitation. 81. 

Pasufati v. Pasi/pati L L. 

Rep. 1 Mad. 52. 
ADJUSTMENT OP DECREE— Postpone 
Petition. 

See Postpone Petition. 

Darbha v. Rama. ..I. L. Rep. 1 
Mad. 387. 

Money paid out of Court— Suit to Recover.'] 

N, having obtained a decree against AT., request- 
ed him to discharge certain sums due on out- 
standing bonds which If. had given to third 
persons, promising to credit the sums so paid, 
to the amount due under the decree. K. paid as 
requested, but It, took out execution in full of 
the decree, and the Court refused to recognize 
the payment made by K. out of Court. In a 
suit brought by K. for the money so paid ; — 

Held, that the payments not having been 
made directly in adjustment of the decree, the 
suit was not barred within the rule laid down in 
Arunachella PUtai v. Appava Pillai (3 Mad. 
H. C Rep. 188). Kunhi Moidim Kutti v. 
Ram en UnNI. Morgan, C. J., and Innes, ] 

L L. Rep. 1 Mad. 203, 1877. 

ADMINISTRATION — Certificate of — of 

Estate of Deceased Member of Undivided 

Hindu Family. 

Sec Certificate of Adminiatra tion. 

Gukachariya b- Swamirayacha- 

rva I. L. Rep. 8 Bom. 

431. 

— Certificate of— Necessary for Suit on Be- 

half of Minor. 
See Bombay Minora' Act XX. of 
1864, * 2. 

MURLLDHAR V. SVPDU...I. L. R. 

8 Bom. 318. 

— Duty Paid in England.. 

See Administration. 4. 

Infant Hindu Widow — Administration of 

Husband's Estate. 
Set Administration. 8. 



ADMINISTRATION— cent*. 

Letters of — to Administrator-General. 

Set Administration. 0. 
— Money paid after Intestate's Death for 
Support of Family. 



See 



1. 



Parsis — Next of Kin's Share Liable for 

Debt Due to Intestate. 
See Administration. 2. 

With Will annexed. 

See Indian Succession Act X of 
1865, ,358. 

Wilson I. L. R. 1 CaL 140. 

Payment of Time-barred Debt by Admiu- 

istrator-General . 
See Time-barred Debt. 

Administrator -General 0. Haw- 
kins...! L. Rep. 1 Mad. 
367. 

1. ——> Claim against the Estate for "Motleys 
paid after Intestate's Death for Surviving Mem- 
bers of his Family .] A plaintiff in an adminis- 
tration suit sought to render the estate of the 
intestate liable for certain sums, alleged to have 
been paid by the plaintiff out of his own moneys, 
after the intestate's death, for the household 
expenses of his widow and younger son : Held, 
that the moneys paid, after the death of the 
intestate, for the household expenses of his 
family, could not be charged to the estate, in 
the absence of any special agreement or testa- 
mentary provision to that effect, but could onlj 
be a debt due in their individual capacity by 
the members of the family for whom such sums 
were paid. Dhanjibhai B. Gujrat v. Navaz- 
bai. Green, J L L. Rop. 2 Bom. 70, 1877. 

2. • ■ Liability of Share of Next ef Kin for 

Time-barred Debt due to intestate Parsis.'] 
Semble, that the rule followed by the Courts of 
Equity in England whereby, notwithstanding 
the provisions of the Statute of Limitation, the 
share of one of the next of kin in the estate of an 
intestate, while in the hands of the administra- 
tor, is liable for a debt due by the next of kin 
to the deceased, though barred at the date of 
the death of the testator, is applicable in the 
Courts of British|India. Dhaniibkai B. Gujrat 
*. Navazbal Green, J L L. Rep. 2 Bom. 

76, 1877. 
S. C under Act XXI. of 1866, J 8. 
Set Time-barred Debt. 

Administrator-General e. 

HAWKiNS...LL.Bop.lMad. 

887. 



boozed by Google 



( «B ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ADICXJnSTRATION-am**. 

3- Infant Hindu Widow — Administra- 
tion of Husband's Estate— Maintenance — Special 
Citation— Caoeat.'] On an application by the 
father of an infant Hindu widow for the grant of 
letters of administration to him, as her guardian, 
of the estate of her deceased husband, and of 
the estate of the husband's mother, it appeared 
that the onlj property of her husband consisted 
of a sum of money ordered to be paid to him 
under a certain decree, upon his constituting 
himself the representative of his mother. This 
he had not done. It also appeared that there 
were no unliquidated debts due by the husband. 
The sum of money in question was in the hands 
of the Official Trustee. 

Held, that letters of administration could not 
be granted to the father, but that the widow 
could apply when she came of age, and that 
until that time the Official Trustee could pay the 
income to her next friend for her mai 

A. special citation had been served upon the 
step-mother of the husband, and sbehad entered 

Held, that she had no right to enter a caveat 
simply because she had received a special 
citation. In the Goods of Hurry Dass Bon- 
nerjee and Sbbbmuttv Gangauonby Dabeb. 

Pontiff*, J L L. Bep. 4 Cal. 87, 1878. 

4. Fees— Liability of Property on which 

Duty paid in England to pay Duty in India — 
Court Fees' Act VII. of 1870, Sched. I., CI. II.] 
A testator died in England, and his executrix 
proved his will there, and then in the High 
Court at Calcutta, paying duty in each country 
on the assets there. On the death of the 
executrix the Administrator-General obtained 
letters of administration de bonis nan of the 
testator's, unad ministered property, valued at a 
sum greater than that on which duty was ori- 
ginally paid in this country by the executrix, but 
which sum was made up of assets from Eng- 
land on which duty bad already been paid there 
Held, that as the assets were within the juris- 
diction of the High Court at the time of the grant 
of administration, and the Administrator- General 
could not have obtained possession of them other- 
wise than by virtue of the grant, they 1 
to the a&talorem fee, prescribed by CI. II, Sched. 
I. of the Court Fees' Act. In the Goods of 
Mubch. Garth, C.J. ...I. L- Bep- 4 Cal, 738, 
1879. 
Set In tkt Goods of Ci^dstoh»...1. L. 
Bep. 1 Cal. 168. 
Under Probate Duty. 8. 



ADKOTTSTKATION —contd. 

B. Letters of Administration Granted to 

the Administrator-General — Form and Extent of 

Grant— Act X. of 1865, §§ 187-100 and 242 — 

Act II. of 1874, §§ 3 '4. '6. 66— Act XIII. of 

l37S, § a.] Section 2 of Act XIII. of 1875 does 

apply to letters of administration granted 

to the Administrator-General. Grants of letters 

of administration to the Administrator-General 

made to him by virtue of Act II. of 1874, 

I are not in any way affected by the provi- 

is of Act XIII. of 1875. The form of the 

grant should be general and unlimited. 

Per Garth, C.J.— Grants of administration to 
1 Administrator- General are limited to his 
vn Presidency. 

Per White, J.— It is a distinct question what 
the effect of the grant will be, meaning by that 
what is the area in India over which the grant 
operate. Beyond saying that its effect, 
whatever it may be, is not enlarged by § a of 
Act XIII. of 1S75, it is unnecessary to decide 
tion on the present application. In 
the Goods of HEWSON. Garth, C. J., and White, 

J. ...I. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 770 ; 4 Cal. Bep. 43, 
1879. 

ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNTS. 
See Hindu Law— 'Will. 8. 

SuRBOMUNGOLA 0- MoHENDRO 

nath I, L. Bep. 4 Cal. 

608. 

ADMINISTRATION SUIT- -Decree in 
Creditor's— Effect of. 
See Certificate to Collect DebU. 3. 
Trebfoorasoondery Dosseb v. 
Dsben dron ath T a go r r . . . I. 
L. Bep. 2 Cal. 40. 
ADMINTSTBATOR-OENERAL — Com- 
mission Awarded to — Appeal from Order. 
See Administrator -General'* Act 
II. of 1874, §37. 

SOMASUNDARAH CUETTI p. Al)H[- 

mstrator -General I. J*. 

Bep. 1 Had. 148. 



Grant of Letters of Adm 

See Administration. S. 

Hewson ...I. L. Bep. 4 CaL 770. 

May pay Time-barred Debt. 

See Time-barred Debt. 

AdKINIST BATOR -GENERAL V. Haw- 
kins...!. It. Bep. 1 Had. 367. 



Diaxized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ADMrNTSTKATOB-GENEBAL'S ACT 
H 07 1874. 

Set Administration. 6. 

Hhwson...L L. Bep. 4 Cat 770. 

f f 27. 54 — Cemmitttpn to Administrator. 

Central—Appeal from Order— Letters Patent, 
CI. 15. ] An order passed by a single Judge of 
the High Court under Act II. of 1874, J 27, 
ascertaining the commission payable to the 
Admin istrator-Gencral, is in the nature of an 
adjudication, and open to revision and appeal 
by the High Court under the 15th Clause of the 
Letters Patent of 1865 (Madras). 

Though such order, being discretionary, will 
not under ordinary circumstances be interfered 
with on appeal, yet, where it is not in accordance 
with the rule laid down in ( 54 of the Act, the 
Appellate Court will interfere to rectify it. 

Where there has been only collection but no 
distribution of the assets by the Administrator- 
General, such order ought, in accordance with 
the rule laid down in J 54 of the Act, to award 
only half of the full commission of 5 per cent. 

SO y ASH ND ARAM ChETTI o. At) MI NISI RATOR- 
GesEkal. Morgan, C.J, and /fines, J...L L. 

Bep. 1 Mad. 148,1876. 
i J4— Commission to Administrator-Gene- 



See Boa Judicata, SI. 

Smith v. Secretary of State.., 
I. L. Hep. 3 Cal 840. 
ADMISSIONS- Evidence of. 

See Hindu Lav— Partition. 7. 

Rah Coomar «. Jogender...I. 

L. Sep. 4 Cal. 

— By Co-Mortgagors of Service of Notice 

of Foreclosure — Suit to Foreclose entire 

Estate— Beng. Reg- XVII. of 1806, $ 8- 

See Mortgage. 10. 

NoRENDER 1. DwARKA LAL...L. 

Bap. B I. A. IB ; I. 1. Bsp. 
8 Cal. 397. 
•^— By Co-Defendant. 

Set Admission. 1. 



See Privileged Communication. S. 

Mbhon Hajee v. Molvi Abdul... 

LL.B0p.8Bom.9l. 



ADMISSIONS— tontd. 

By one Co-Defendant — Admission by Impli- 
cation^ An admission of afacton the pleading? 
by implication is not an admission for any other 
purpose than that of the particular issue, and is 
not tantamount to proof of the fact. An admis- 
sion, or even confession of judgment by one of 
several defendants in a suit is no evidence 
against another defendant. Per Cur. Aumir- 
tolai. Bosk t. Rajoneekan-tMitteb...L. Bep. 
a I A. 113, 120, 129, 1874. 
S. C. under Hindu Law— Inherit- 
ance— Dau ghtets— Daughter a 1 
Sons, and under Limitation. 
ADMISSION OF BE VIEW AFT KB THE 
EXPIBATION OF 90 DATS. 
See Beview. 7. 

Luchhan Singh «. Shumsheok 
Singh...!.. Bep. 9 L A. 68. 
ADMISSION BT SOME OF THE PAS- 
TIES TO A DEED FBESENTED 
FOB^BEOTBTBATION OF THEIB 
EXECUTION THEBEOP, BUT 
DENIAL BT THEM OF ITS 
EXECUTION BT THE OTHEB 
FABTLES— Procedure for Registering 
Officer. 

See Registration. S3. 

Mahomed Ewaz e. Birj Lall... 

L. Bep. 4 L A. 166. 

ADMISSION BT TENANT OF LIABI. 

LITT TO PATBENT— Non-Payment 

by Occupancy Ryot for 13 Years, confers 

no Title, nor makes Possession adverse. 

See Limitation. 91. 

Pokes H Nakains-KassiChunder. 
I. L. Bep. 4 CaL 66L 
ADMISSION OF TTME-BABBED AP- 
PEAL. 
See Time-barred Appeal. 1. 2. 

Dubey Sahai v. Ganesh Lall... I. 

L. Bap. 1 AU. 84. 

ZaibulnissaBibiv.Kulsum Bibi... 

I. L. Bep. 1 All. 2(50. 

ADOPTED SON— Definition and Restriction 

of Rights of— by Agreement between 

Natural and Adoptive Parents. 

See Hindu Law— Adoption. 8. 17. 

Radhabai v- Ganesh. ..L L. Bep. 

8 Bom. 7. 

RamAswami j. Vencatarahaiyan. 

L. Bap. 6 LA. 196. 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



DIGEST OP CASES, 



( M ) 



ADOPTED aOS'-mntd. 

— — Inherits Property inherited by his Adoptive 
Mather from her Father. 

See Hindu Law — Inheritance — 
Adopted Bon. 
Sham Kuar b. Gava Din. ..I. L, 
Rep. 1 AIL 2BB. 
— 'Share of— and of a Natural Son on Partition 
in a Mitakshara Family. 
5m Hindu Law— Partition. 11. 
Raghubanund v. Sadhu ..i. i,. 
Bep. 4 Cat. 426. 
ADOPTION— CANCELLATION OB BB- 
STUNCIATION OF — By Adoptive 
Father. 
Set Hindu Law- ■ Adoption. 18. 
Sukhbasi Lal v. Qdhah Singh... 
I. L. Bep. 9 All. 8f». 
ADOPTION-CONDITIONAL. 

See Hindu Law- Adoption. 6. 17. 
Radhabai v. Gane3h...I. L. Bep. 



Rauasawmi 

L. Bep. 6 I. A. 196 ; L I* 

Bep. 3 Had. 81. 

ADOPTION OF DAUGHTER'S SON- 

Void among Brahmans, Kshattryas and 
Vaishyas — Lingayets are Sudras- 
Set Hindu Law— Adoption. 6. 7. 
Gopal ». Hanmant...L L. Bep. 
8 Bom. 273. 

Bhagirthibai v. Radhabai 

Ibid. 388. 
- ■* Valid among Jains. 

See Jain Law. 9. 

Sheo Singh Ra( «. Mussuuut 
DAKHo...I«.Bep.6I. A. 87 : 
I. L. Bep. 1. AIL 688. 
ADOPTION OF DISTANT KINSMAN 
WHEN BOH OF BBOTHEB OF 
WHOLE BLOOD EXISTS. 
See Hindu Law— Adoption, 8. 
Skimati Uma Devi v. Gokool- 
ANAND...L.Bep.5I.A.40. 
C. S. I. L, Bep. 8 Cal. 687. 
ADOPTION OF ELDEST BON— Valid when 

See Hindu Law— Adoption. 9. 

JAKOKBt DSBBA B, GoPAUL AcUAR. 

)U..LL.B«p r aCal.360, 



ADOPTION GIFT AND ACCEPTANCE. 
—Gift by Wife against Will of Husband, 
void. 
Set Hindu Law— Adoption. 16. 
Ranqabai v. Bhagirthibai... L L. 
Bep. 3 Bom. 877. 
ADOPTION AMQNG JAINS- Daughter's 
Son, valid. 
Set Jain Law. 9. 

Shbo Singh Rats. Musst. Dakho.. 
L. Bep. 6 L A. 87 ; I. L. 
Bep. 1 AIL 088. 
Sister's Son, valid. 

Set Hindu Law— Adoption. 1, 

Hassan Au «. Nag a Mai.... I. L. 
Bep. 1 AH. 388. 
ADOPTION — LIMITATION TO SUIT 
TO SET ASIDE AN. 
See Limitation. 66, 

Raj Bahadoor •■ Acuuubit.,.L^ 
Bep. 6 LA. 110 ; 6 Cal. 
Bep. 13. 
ADOPTION BT MINOR. 

See Hindu Law— Adoption. 10. 

JUHOONA v. Bakasoondari ... L. 

Bep. SI. A. 72; I. L.Bep. 
ICaL 38e;26W.B.336. 
ADOPTION OF MOTHEB'B BISTER'S 
BON — Among Sudras — valid. 
See Hindu Law— Adoption. 4. 
Chinna Nagayva it. Pedda Na- 
OAWA...I. L. Bep. 1 Had. 
69. 

ADOPTION— NON-BECOGNITION OF. 
—Set Bombay Act IL of 1883,. 
( 3, CL 3. 

VASADBV 9. RAM KRISHNA... I. L> 

Bep. 3 Bom. 698. 
ADOPTION OF ONLT SON. 

See Hindu Law— Adoption. 8. 
Hanuhan Tiwari t>. Chirai... L 
L. Bep. 3 AIL 164. 

Valid— once effected. 

See Hindu Law— Adoption. 3, 
Janokee v. Gopaul.-.X. L. Bep. 
9 Cal. 33ft. 
— Void, in Bengal even among Sudras, 

See Hindu Law —Adoption. 2. 3. 

Janokee Debba v- Copal Aghar. 

jia.-.L L. Bep. 2. CaL 866. 

Manik Chunder e. Bhuoobutty. 

LL Bep. S. CaL 448. 



Diarized by Google 



( 76 ) 



DIGEST OF CASES, 



ADOPTION 07 ONLY SON 07 A SE- 
PARATED BROTHER. 

Ste Hindu La w— Adoption. 8. 
Sri h ati Uha Deyi v. Gokoola- 
hakd... L. Rep. S L A. 40 ; 
L L. Bop. 3 Oal. 687 ; 3 Cat 
Rap. SI. 
ADOPTION—SANCTION OF GOVERN- 
MENT FOR-Knlkanii Vatan— unne. 

See Hindu Law— Adoption. 14. 

Narhar ». Narrayen L L. 

Rap- 1 Bool 607. 

ADOPTION OF SISTER'S SON— Void 

among Brahroans, Kshattryas, and Vaish- 

yas — Lingayets are Sudias. 

See Hindu Law— Adoption. 0. 7. 

Gopal v- Hanhakt...L L. Rep. 

3 Rom. 278. 

Bhagibthibai v. Radhabai 

Ibid. 398. 
— Among Jains — Valid. 

See Hindu Law— Adoption. 1. 

Hassan Ali *. Naga Mal L 

L. Rep. 1 AIL 388. 
ADOPTION AHONO SUDRA& 

Of Mother's Sister's Son— Valid. 

See Hindu Law Adoption 4. 

Chihna ». Peoda...L L. Rep. 1 
Had. 82. 

Of Only Son. 

See Hindu Law— Adoption 2. 8. 
Ma nick v. Bhugobutty... I. L. 
Rep. 3- CaL 448. 

] ANIKEE B. GOFAL... I. L. Rep. 3 

CaL 365. 
ADOPTTON— SUIT BY ADOPTIVE 
FATHER TO SET ASIDE. 
See Hindu Law — Adoption. IB. 

SlIKBASf LAI. jr. GuMAN SlHCH... 

I. L. Rep. 3 All, 306. 
ADOPTION— SUIT BY HINDU WI- 
DOW TO SET ASIDE— by Daughter- 
in-law. 
See Right, to me. 8. 

JUMOONA jr. BaMASOONDERI.-.I. L. 

Rep. 8 L A. 73 ; L L. Rep. 1 

Cal. 289 ; 26 W. R. 389. 

ADOPTION AHONO TALABDA KOLI 

CASTE. 

Set Hindu Law—Adoption. 16. 

Bhala v. Parbhu.„I. I* Rep. 3 

Bom. 67. 



See Hindu Law - Adoption. 10. 

J U MOON A W BAHASOONDEB1...L. 

Rep. 8 I. A. 72 ; I. L. Rep. 1 
Cal. 389 ; 25 W. R. 38S. 
After Succeeding as Heiress to her Son. 

&re Hindu Law— Adoption. 13. 17. 

Rajah Vellanki v. Venkata...L. 

Rep. 4 I. A 1 ; I. L. Rep. 1 

Had. 174. 

Ram as a win v. Vencataramaiyah. 

L. Rep. 61. A 196; LL. 

Rep. 2 Had. 9L 

Consent of Sapindat in Undivided Family. 

See Hindu Law— Adoption. 11. 

SkiRaghunadav. Sri Brojo ..L. 

Rep. 3 I. A. 101 ; I. L. Rep. 

1 Had. 89. 

Does not divest Property Vested by Inhe- 

See Hindu Law— Adoption. 18. 
Rally l*RosoKNor. GocoolChoh- 
der... I. L. Rep. 2 CaL 286. 

Among Jains — of Daughter's Son without 

Permission of Husband or Consent of 
Ki nsmen — valid . 
See Jain Law. 2. 

Sheo Singh Rai d. Mussumrr 
Dakho...L. Rep. 5 1. A. 87; 
L L. Rep. 1 All. 688. 
Without Written Authority— Motives— As- 
sent of Sapindas, 

See Hindu Law— Adoption. 12. 
Rajah Vellanki v. Venkata 
Raha.L. Rep. 4 I. Al; 
L L. Rep. 1 Had. 174. 
ADULTERATION OF COTTON— In Fo- 
reign Territory —Possess ion of Adulterated 
Cotton in British Territory— Jurisdiction. 
See Bombay Cotton Frauds' Act 
Vn. of 1878. 
Impx. v. Khimchand Narayan... 
I. L. Rep. 3 Bora. 384. 
ADULTERATED COTTON — Possession 
of. 
See Bombay Cotton Fraud*' Act 
IX. of 1868. 
Reg. «. Hanmant Gavda...I. L. 
Rep. 1 Bom. 338, 



Digitized byGOOC^Ie 



( CT ) DIGEST OF CASES. ( 19 ) 

ADDXTBBY— Compounding— after Coovic- ADVERSE POSSESSION —conld. 



See Compounding Offences. 8. 

Empress v. Thompson L L. 

Bap. 8 AIL 889. 
^— Dissolution of Marriage Solemnized out of 
British India — Jurisdiction. 
See Divon». 8. 

Fowlb «. Fowle.,,1, L. B. 4 Cat 

360 ; 8 CaL Bep. 484. 

— Marriage in Life-time of Husband— Caste 

Custom. 

5m Hindu Law — Inheritance — 

Illegitimate Son. 8. 4. 

Rahi s. Govihd I. L Hep. 

1 Bom. 97. 



See Penal Code, § 494. 

Reg. e- Sambhu I. L. Bep. 1 

Bom. 847. 

— Offspring of — Right of — to Inherit and to 

Maintenance, 

See Custom among Gosavis and 

Hindu Law — Inheritance — 

Illegitimate Bon. 4. B. 8. 

Narkayan «. Lavjhg...L L. Bep. 

3 Bom. 140. 

Rahi r. Govind L I* Bep. 1 

Bom. 97. 

VtBAUUTHI e. SlNOARAVELU I. 

L. Bep. 1 Mad. 306. 
ADVANCEMENT— Rule as to—not Preserv- 
ed to Pareis. 
Set Act III. of 1875, ( 8. 

Danjibhait. Nawazbai L L. 

Bep. 3 Bom. 70. 
ADVEBSE POSSESSION -Acquisition of 
Title by — to Diluviated Lands re-forming 
on Old Site. 

See Alluvial Lands. 

Radha Fboshad e. Rah Coomar. 

I. L. Bep. 8 Oal. 796 ; 1 

CaL Bep. 798. 

Declaration of Title may be made on Proof 

of— for 12 Years, through Specific Title 
also Alleged and not Proved. 
See Declaratory Decree. 8. 6a. 6b. 
Shiro «. Govind ...... I. L. B. 9 

CaL 418. 

Goluck o. Nundo ... I. L. B. 4 

Oal. 690. 

Gosaih Das v. Issur Chdndbr... 

LL. Bep. 8 Oal. 934. 



— Executor of Will of Hindu— Void Bequest 
to Unascertained Class — Suit by Heir. 
See Limitation. 38. 

Kherodemoney «. Doorgakonby. 

I. L. Bep. 4 CaL 466 ; 8 CaL 

Bep. 112, 

—Grant by Wife in Husband's Absence— Pos- 
session of Grantee for twelve years, per- 
fects Title. 



Brjovo. Kally ... I. L. Bep, 4 
CaL 897. 
—Of Immoveable Property in Bombay Presi- 
dency — Prescription. 
See Prescription. 8. 

Rambhat v. Collector of Poo- 
na L L. B. I Bom. 893. 

— Landlord and Tenant — Non-Payment of 

Rent for twelve years by Occupancy Ryot 
gives him no Title to the Land. 
Set Limitation. SI. 

Poreshv. Kassi L Ii. Bep. 4 

CaL 661. 

— Manager of Hindu Family holding Bulk of 

Estate— Beer Land held by- Others. 

See Hindu Law— Partition. 9. 

Runjeet Singh o. Kooer Gujraj 
Singh L. Bep. II. A. 9. 

— By Mortgagee in Possession. 

Set Mortgage. 87. 

Ali Muhammad b.Lalya Bakhsh. 
L L, Bep. 1 AIL 866. 

■~Patilki Watan — Appointment by Collector 
of Coparcener to officiate as Patil, does 
not make Appointee's Posses si on — to 
other admitted Coparceners. 
Set Declaratory Decree. 19. 

NlNDANGAVDA B, MalANGAVDA ... 

I. L. Bep. 1 Bom. 633, n. 

— Service Lands held On Succession of Life 

Estates — Alienation by Incumbent — Pos- 
session of Alienee — against Heir of 
Alienor, from Death of latter. 
Set Seanrice Watan. 

Babaji *. Nana I- L. Bep. 1 

Bom. 686, 686. 



Diarized by Google 



DIGEST OP CASES. 



( 



) 



ADVERSE POmSMIOir-fMM. 

— Service Lands — Death ot Grantee- 
session of Heir — Right to resume. 
See Resumption. 9. 

Kbval Kuber v. Talookdari 

SmuMMT Officer. ..I. L. 

Rep. 1 Bom, 580. 

-- Suit for Possession alleging Specific Title 

and — Failure to prove Specific Title. 

See Goluck Chundbr Masanta «. 

Nundo Coonar Rov... I. L. 

Hep. 4 Cal 680. 
See Declaratory Decree. 6. 8a. 6b. 

Shiho *. GoviNn. LI.Knp.2 

Cal. 418. 

Goluck *■ Nundo... L L. Bep. 4 

CaL690. 

Gossain Dass v. Issuh Chundbr. 

1 L. Bep. 3 Cat 934, 

—-—Suit to Redeem — Denial of Mortgage and 

Allegation of Acquisition of Title bj. 

See Onus Proband! 6. 

RuTTON KOAR V. JlWAN SlNOH... 

LL.Rop. 1 All. 104, 
ADVOCATE GENEBAL-Case certified 
by — Power of High Court on — to consider 
the Merits. 
See Evidence. 18, 

RaO. V- HllRRlBOLK CH UNDER 

Ghosk.,.1. I* Bep. 1 Cal. 

807, 

Set Power of the High Court on a 

Case Reserved or Certified 

to consider the Merita of the 

Case. 

Reg. r. PlTAMBBR JINA...L L. 

Bep. S Bom. 61. 

— — Necessity for making the — Party to Suit. 
See Suit for Management of a Reli- 
gious Endowment. 
Panch cowrie MULLe. Chukroo- 
LAIA...X. L. Bep. 8 CaL 068; 
9 Oal. Bep, 121. 
AD-VALOREM DTJTT— Annuity charged 
on Testator's Estate. 
See Court Fee*. 9, 

Rushton-X Ii. Rep. 8 Cal. 786. 

Annuity—" Value"— Court Fees' Act VII. 

of 1870, Sched. 1, CI. II. 
Bee Probate Duty. 1. 

RaMCHANDRA LAKSHMANJI L 

L. Bep. 1. Bom, 119, 



AD-VALOREM DTJTY-wfA*. 

On Probate taken out after Court Pees' Act 

came into Operation. 
See Court Fees. 0. 

GASPRR...L L. Bep. 8 Cal. 788. 
AFFIDAVIT— Cross-eiamioatioa on— as to 
Documents. 
See Practice— Civil. 8. 

Kennellv*. Wvman ...I. I.. Bep. 
1 Cal. 178. 

Right to use— on Return to Writ of Habeas 

Corfu* ad subjiciendum — Practice. 
See Privilege from Arrest. 

In the matter of Omhitolali. Dey. 

I. L, Bep. 1 Cal. 78. 
— Use of— on an Application for Transfer of 
Case under Act X. of 1875, § 147. 
See High Court Criminal Fro. 
cedure ActX of 1876, f 147. 
8. 
Rbq. v, Hadjee Jbebith Bux.-.I, 
T* Bep. 1 Cal. 864. 
— . Use of — on Motion to Vary or Discbarge- 
Commissioner's Report. 
See Practice— Civil. 7. 

Sumak Ahmed v. Haji Ismail. 
X. L. Bep. 1 Bom. IBS. 
AFFREIGHTMENT- -Contract of. 
See Contract. 16. 

Fleming v. Kohcler...!. I. 
Bep, 4 Cal. 987. 
AFTER-BORN CHILD— Gift to a Class- 
Postponement of period of Distribution — 
Child born after Testator's Death but 
before Period of Distribution takes. 
See Will. S. 

Masjivkjt. Fergusson.,.1. L. Bep. 
4 CaL 670. 
AFTER TWO COUNTRY VOYAGES. " 
Set Contract 16. 

Fleming v. Koeolhr...I. L.Rep, 
4 Cal. 987. 
AGE OF MAJORITY -Minor to whom 
Guardian ad litem Appointed. 
See Majority Act IX. of 1876, { 8. 
SrjmrA Gkosal v. Suttianund... 
L 1. Bep. 1 C«L 888. 
[. Hindu La*— Act XL. 0/1858— Uncon- 
scionable Agreement — Usury.} A Hindu resident 

and domiciled in Calcutta, but possessing land* 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



AGE 07 MAJORITY- amtd. 

in the Mofussi! paying revenue to Government, 
being more than 16 and less than 17 years of 
age, borrowed money in Calcutta from a pro- 
fessional money-lender, which he, in Calcutta, 
agreed to repay in Calcutta, with interest at 36 
per cent, per annum. Having failed to pay, and 
being in Calcutta, he was sued in the High 
Court on the Original Side, for the amount of 
money he had agreed to pay, with interest. Hi 
had not been taken charge of— either as to his 
person or property— by the Court of Wards, 
by any Civil Court The defendant pleaded 
minority i — 

Held, by the Poll Bench, that the Hindu 
Law in Calcutta as to the age of majority 
not altered by Act XL. of 1858, and by that law 
the end of 1 5 years is the age of majority of 
Hindu resident and domiciled in the town of 
Calcutta, and that the defendant k 
minor at the time he executed the bond. On 
the merits, however, the Court of Appeal {Garth, 
C J., and Macphetson, J.) held, affirming the 
judgment of Phear, J., that the plaintiff was 
only entitled to a decree for the 
actually received by the defendant from him 
with interest at 6 per cent. Colly Churn 
Mulliek v. Bhuggobulty Ckttrn tftdlitk (10 Beng, 
L. Rep. 131) approved and followed. Mothoor- 

HOHDN Roy *. SOORENDRO N ARA1N...I, It. Bop 

1 CaL 109, 1870. 

S. C. under Unconscionable Bar. 

gain. 

AOENT. 

See Principal and Agent 
-■ ■ Acknowledgment of Mortgagor's Title by 
Mortgagee's — not sufficient. 
See Acknowledgment of Mort- 
gagor's Title. 3. 

RAHMANI BlBI 0. HlILASA KlIAR... 

X L. Rop. 1 AIL 649. 

— Commission during Life — Sale of Subject- 
matter of Agency — Compensation. 
St* Compensation for Low of Com- 
mission. 

Cowasji Nanabhoy V. IjALLBHOV 

Vallubhov ...8 Bom. H. O. 
Bop. 0. C. J. 909 ; X. L. 
Rep . 1 Bom. 408 ; L. Rep. 
8 X. A. 900. 



AGSNT-frnW. 

Power of —to Bind Principal by Compro- 

ise of Criminal Charge against Agent. 
See Duress. 

Mouno Shoay Att o. Ko Byaw- 
L. Rep. 8LA,61;1L 
Rep. 1 CaL 880. 
AGENT 07 OWNER OF LAND— Duty of 
— to give Information to the Police of 
Offences. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X of 1872, §90.1. 
Empress s. Achtraj LALL...X. It. 
Rep. 4 CaL 008. 



AGREEMENT. 

See Contract. 

- To Alter the Course of Devolution of Pro- 

petty prescribed by Law. 

See Hindu Lav- Relinquishment 

of Share by Son. 

Balkkishna T. Tendulkar*. Sa- 

vmuai.MLX.Bep. 8 Bom. 

64, 

Not to Appeal. 

See Contract. ?. 

Anant Das e. Ashbukner & 
Co ...LI. Rep. 1 AIL 267. 

— Consideration — Unlawful. 

See Contract. 18. 

Fateh Singh v. Sanyal.... X. L. 
Rep. 1 AIL 70L 
Set Consideration. 

— Without Con side rati ou — Vo id. 

See Contract. 6. 

Manna Lai. «. Bank of Bengal... 
I. L. Rep. 1 ALL 309. 

— By Correspondence— Registration. 

See Registration. 10. 
See Contract. 2, 

Port Canning Land, Ac, Co- t. 

Smith... L. Rep. 1 I. A. 194; 

L. Rep. 6 P. 0. 114. 

- To Create an Interest in Immoveable Pro- 

perty. 
Set Registration. 18. 

Vauji b- TMOKAS...I. L. Rep. 1 
Bom. 190. 

- Entered into in England, to be Performed 

See Contract. 17. 

Oakbs & Co. r. JACKSOH...I. It. 
Bep.lXMl.184. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



- Executed and Stamped in England, subse- 

quently Executed in India— Stamp. 
See Contract. 17. 

Oakes & Co. v. Jackson... I. L, 
Bop. 1 Mad. 134. 

- Not to Execute a Decree. 

See EatoppeL 6. 

PaRAU StNGH t. Lalji MAL...L 

L. Bep. 1 All. 403. 

- Affecting Land— Transfer o£ the Land. 

See Covenant running with the 
Land. 
Abaci Begum b. Asa Ram.., I. L. 
Hep. a All. 162. 



See Specific Performance. 4. 

Ana ka ran Kasmi v. Saidama- 
dath Avulla.,,1. L. Bep. 2 



See Inam Chitti, 

Ramchandba v. Kalu L L. 

Bep. S Bom. 362. 

— For Purchase of Immoveable Property 

contemplating a future Conveyance. 
See Begirt ration. 12. 

Valajc v. Thomas. ..I. L. Bep. 1 
Bom. 190. 

— To Purchase Future Interest in Immoveable 

Property — Registration of. 
See Registration. 10. 
See Contract. 2. 

Port Canning Land, &c, Co. v. 
Smith.. X. Bep. 1 1. A. 124. 

— To Refer to Arbitration — Revocation of. 

See Contract. 8. 

Koegler v. The Cobinga Oil Co. 
X. L. Bep. 1 Cat 42, 466. 

— To Refer to Arbitration — Specific Perform - 

Set Contract. 8. 

KotCLER c. The Cobinga Oil Co. 
I. L. Bep. 1 CaL 43. 



AGREEMENT— contd. 

To Refer to Arbitration — Snit for Damages 

for Breach of. 
See Contract. 8. 

Koegi.es v. The Coejnga Oil Go. 
X. L. Bep. 1 CaL 42, 466. 

In Restraint of Trade. 

See Contract. 17. 

Oakes At Co. «. Jackson. ..I. L. 
Bep. 1 Mad. 184. 
Sec Contract 17a. 

Vaithelinoa o. Saminada ...X. L. 
Bep. 2 Mad. 44. 

To Share the Subject-matter of Litigation, 

when against Public Policy. 
See Champerty. 2. 

Ram Coom ah «. Ck under Canto... 

L. Bep. 41. A. 93; I. L. 

Bop. 2 CaL 233. 

To Supply Labour. 

See Act XLU. of 1869. 

Rowson v. Hanama Mestri... 

1. 1, Bep. 1 Had. 280. 

AGREEMENT TO T aint SHARES TS 

A COMP AN Y- Memorandum of Association— 
Material Variance— Prospectus.] The defend, 
ant's munim, who had authority in that behalf, 
on being shown a document which purported 
to be the Memorandum of Association of the 
plaintiffs Company, signed the same, in the 
defendant's name, as having taken four shares. 
This document was not registered as the Memo- 
randum of Association of the Company, but 
another was, which differed from the document 
signed by the defendant's munim, in that it 
omitted in the 4th clause the word yearly 
before the word profits on which a certain com- 
mission was to be paid to the Secretaries, Agents, 
and Treasurers of the Company, and In substi- 
tuting in the 6th Clause the words " The capital 
of the Company is Rs. 40,000, divided into 400 
shares of Rs. 100 each, subject to be increased 
in accordance with the regulations of the Com- 
pany and the legislative provisions for the time 
being in force in this behalf, and which said 
shorts may In divided, by a special resolution of 
the shareholders in general meeting, into shares 
of Rs. 500 or 250 each," for the words, " The 
capital of the Company is Rs. 4,00,000, divided 
into 400 shares of Rs. 1 ,000 each, with fovrtr to 
increase," contained in the document signed by 
the defendant's munim. In a suit brought by 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



< 86 ) 



AGREEMENT TO TAKE SHARES IN AGREEMENT TO TAKE SHAREB IN 
A COMPANY-««(.*. A COMPANY- contd. 



the plaintiff Company to recover the anion 
two calls on the four shares so signed for by 
the defendant's munim : — 

Held, that the case differed from those 
which a person has been induced to take shares 
on the faith of a prospectus. A prospectus is 
the nature of instructions only for the proft 
sional man to put into shape, in the same way 
as an agreement is often the foundation for a 
deed which may properly contain covenants anc 
provisions not found in the agreement itself 
and the only question which can arise is whethei 
the obligations incurred under the Memorandum 
do or do not go beyond those which would hav< 
been incurred under the prospectus ; but the 
Memorandum of Association is the Charter of 
the company, and defines the limitation of tin 
power of the company. The company is, so ti 
speak, identified by its Memorandum of Associa 
tion. A person, therefore, who is asked to taki 
shares in a projected company of which he i: 
shown the Memorandum of Association, and 
consents to do so, does so on the full under- 
standing that the document shown to him, or 3 
true copy of it, will be registered as the Memo- 
randum of Association. The company in which 
he agrees to take shares is the company to be 
Incorporated by the registration of that document 
as its Memorandum of Association, and noothi 
company ; and that the defendant, therefore, 
would be entitled to say that he never agreed to 
take shares in any company of which the docu- 
ment signed by his munim, or a true copy of it, 
was not registered as the Memorandum of Asso- 
ciation ; but that, at any rate, the Memorandum 
of Association was the basis of the agreement to 
take shares ; and that, on the analogy of those 
cases in which the Memorandum of Association 
had differed materially from the prospectus, the 
defendant must, in the absence of laches or other 
special circumstances, be entitled to relief if the 
variances between the registered Memorandum 
of Association and that signed by his munim 
were material. 

No laches of the defendant were alleged ; and 
though the first variance was not material, the 
second was, as, even assuming that the provi- 
sion empowering the Company to subdivide the 
shares was illegal (a point which was not set- 
tled or free from doubt), still it had practically 
the effect of altering the position of the defend- 
ant from what it would have been had the 



document signed by his munim been registered 
as the Memorandum of Association, and that, 
therefore, the defendant was not a shareholder 
in the company. Anandji Vbram o. Thi 
Namad Spinning and Weaving Company. 
Wtstropp, C. J., and Sargent, J ... J. L. Bop. 1 
Bom. 330, 1870. 
AOBEEKENT BETWEEN ADOPTIVE 
AND NATURAL PARENTS OF 
A MINOR GIVEN IN ADOPTION, 
DEFINING OB RKBTRICTING 
RIGHTS OF MINOR ON ADOP- 
TION. 
See Hindu Law— Adoption. B. 17. 
Radhabaiv. Ganbsh...L L.Rop. 
8 Bom. 7. 
Rahaswaiii v. Vencatakamaivan. 
L. Rep. 6 LA. 196; I. L. 
Rep. 3 Mad. 91. 
AGGREGATE SENTENCE— Conviction 
on several Charges — Offence made up of 
Parts. 
See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1872, f 464. 
Empress «. Budk Singh... I. L. 
Bep.SAU.101. 
- Measures Right of Appeal. 

Sec Appeal— Criminal, 8. 

Ruts, v. Rama. ..I. L. Rep. 1 Bom. 
328. 

Where Offence Substantially Single, not to 

exceed Punishment for greater Offence. 
See Conviction on Several Charges. 

1. 2. 
Reg. v. Tukava...I. L. Rep. 1 
Bom. 314. 
Empress v. Rameshar Rai...I. L. 
Bep. 1 AIL 879. 
AE7AB— DISTBIOT COURT OF. 
See Jurisdiction. 9. 

Aedool Hamed...I. L. B. 4 Cal. 
94;3CaLBep.485. 
ALIENATION OF ANCESTRAL PRO- 
PERTY- -Ry one of several Daughters 
succeeding as Heirs— Right of Sons of 
Deceased Daughter to set aside. 
Sec Hindu Law— Inheritance— 
Daughter*! Bona. 3. 

Baijnath v. Makabir L L. 

Bep. 1 AIL 608. 



Diarized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



) 



- Gift of Undivided Share by Member of 

Undivided Family. 

Set Hindu Law— Gift. 2. 

Ballabh Das v. Sunder Das 

I. L. Bep. 1 AIL 428 

- For Maintenance of Illegitimate Son. 

See Mhidu law— Maintenance of 

Illegitimate Son. 8. 

Rajah Parichat v- Zalim Singh. 

L. Bap. 4 I. A. 169 ; L L. 

Sop. S Cal. 214. 

- By Member of Undivided Hindu Family 

— of bis Share, by Voluntary Alienation. 
See Hindu Law — Alienation of 
Ancestral Property. 2. S. 4. 
6.7. 
Girdharsi Lalls. Kantoo Lall. 
L. Hep. 1 L A. 321 ; 14 
Bene;. L, Bep. 187. 
MussT. Phoolbasv- Lalla Jage- 
shub,..L. Bep. 3 I. A. 7; 
I. L. Bep. 1 CaL 226. 
Suraj Bunsi KoERt- Skeo Pier- 
shad Singh. „L, Bep. 6 L 
A. 88. 

. Jallidar Singh v. Ram Lall 

I. L. Bep. 4. Cal 728. 
Chamalli Kuar e. Rah Prasad. 
I. L.B.ep.2 All. 367. 
Set Hindu Law—Gift. 2. 

Ballabh Das v. Sunder Das 

I. L. Bep. 1 All. 429. 

See Hindu Law — Undivided 

Family. 8. 

Dibnoaval v. Jucdebp...!L. Bep. 

4 I. A. 247 ; L L. Bep. 3 

Cal. 198. 

- Mortgage of Family House. 

Set Hindu Law — Alienation of 
Ancestral Property. 1. 
Bhikah Das v. Pura...I. L. Bep. 
2 AIL 141. 

- Mortgage by Father during Son's Minority 

— Suit to enforce Mortgage— Oshj Pra- 

See Onus Probandi. 7. 

Bheknarain Singh b. Januk 
Singh I, L. Bep. 2 Cal. 



ALIENATION OF ANCESTRAL PRO- 

PEBTY-conW. 
— Mortgage by Father — Purchaser at Execu- 
tion Sale with Notice of Co-Sharers' 
Claim — Effect of Execution Sale on the 
Share of Deceased Judgment Debtor. 
See Hindu Law— Alienation of 
Ancestral Property. 4. 
Suraj Bunsi Koer ». Shro Per- 

shad Singh L. Rep. 3 

LA, 88. 

By Sale in Execution of Decree against a 

Member of an Undivided Family. 
See Bombay Act V. of 1882. 2. 
Ardasir v. Mi-si.,,1, L. Bep. 1 
Bom. 601. 
Set Civil Procedure Code, Act 
VIII. of 1869, i 289. 
Kalapa v. Venkatesh ...L L. 
Bep. 2 Bom. 678. 
See Hindu Law— Alienation of 
Ancestral Property. 1. 2. 3. 
4.6. 

Bhikan Das o. Pura I. L. 

Bep. 2 AIL 141. 

Girdharee Lall t. Kantoo 

Lall. .L.Bep.lL A. 821; 

14 Bengr. L. Bep. 187. 

Mussr. Phoolbas Kookwar «. 

Lalla Jackshuk Sahot ,..L. 

Sep. 3 1. A. 7 ; I. L. Bep. 

1 CaL 226. 

Suhaj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo 

Pksshao Singh. ..L, Bep. 6 

L A. 88. 

Jallidar Singh b. Ram Lall. 

I. L. Bep. 4 CaL 723. 

See Hindu Law— Gift. 2. 

Ballaih Das e. Sunder Das... 
I. L. Bep. 1 All 499. 
See Hindu Law— Liability of An- 
cestral Estate in the hands 
of the Heir, for the Debts of 
the Ancestor. 

Narravan Acharva v. Narso 
Krishna. ..L L. Rep. 1 Bom, 
269. 
See Hindu Law— Undivided. Pro- 
perty. 8. 4. 7. 8. 
Deendayal Lal«. Jugdeep Na- 
rain Singh. ..L. Bep. 4 I. A. 
247 ; I. L. Bep. 8 CaL 198. 
Rai Narain Das e. Nownit I.al. 
I. L. Bop. 4 OaL 809. 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



Lachmi Dai Koori e. Aswan 

Singh. I. L. Rep. 2 Cftl. 213. 

Babaji Lakshhan v. Vasadev 

Venayek...L L. Rep. 1 Bom. 

98. 

See Sale in Execution of Decree. 10. 

IB. 

Venkatarahayyan b. Venkata. 

SUBBRAHAKIA...I. L.Rttp. 1 

Had. 368. 

VENKATAsANI NaIK 0. KuPPAIYAN. 

Ibid. 364. 



See OnxiM Proband i. 8, 
Adurhoni Devi » 

Sib Naraih Kur I. L. 

Sep. S C«l. 1, 

By Will in Favour of one Son to Exclusion 

of Others. 

See Hindu Law— Will 11. 

Lakshhan Dada Naik «. Ram- 

chahdra Dada Naik. ..I. L. 

Bop. 1 Bom. 661. 

ALIENATION OP C HABIT Y FROrEB- 
TT BT TRUSTEE. 
See Breach of Trust. 

Maniklaj. i. Maniksha I. L. 

Bep. 1 Bom. 869. 

ALIENATION OF DEWTJTTTJR PRO- 
PBBTY BT MANAGER, 
See Dewuttur. 2. 

Konwur Dooroanatk Rot *. 

Ram Chundbr Sen L L, 

Bep.4 L A. 63; t L.Bep. 
8 Cal. 341. 
ALIENATION BY GUARDIAN. 
6w Lien. 1. 

Kuvarjre v. Mori ... L L. Bep. 
8 Bom. 334. 
Ste Hahomedan Law.— Sale by 
Guardian, 

Hasan Ali e. Mekdi Husain... 
L L. Bep. 1 AIL 633. 
See Mortgage. 30. 31. 

Abhasi Begum v. Maharaner 

RA]Roor...I. L. Bep. 4 CaL 

33; 2 CaL Bep. 249. 



ALIENATION BY GuABDIAN-owM. 
Debi Dittt v. Subadra...L L. 
Bep. 2 CaL 883. 
See Review. 10. 

Madho v. Rukman...L L. Bep. 
9 AIL 287. 
See Sale by Guardian. 

1. Cause of Action— Limitation Act IX. 

of 1871,5 7— Minority.') One K. R. died in 1844, 
survived by his widow O. T. and an infant son 
G. D. Jn 1847 0- T. executed in favour of the 
defendant, a maurati ijara of the property in 
suit, but did not describe herself in the document 
as guardian or mother of G. D. C. D. died 
before attaining majority, in 1855, and under an 
anumati pattro executed by K. R. before his 
death, T. in 1858 adopted the plaintiff, who 
attained his majority in 1873. 0. T. died in 1S61. 
In a suit brought by the plaintiff in 1(75 to set 
aside the maurati ijara granted to the defendant 
by 0. T.:— 

Held, that the alienation by O. T. was as 
guardian of her minor son, G. D., who died a 
minor, and to whom, therefore, no cause of action 
accrued during his minority, and against whom 

did not begin to run. The cause of action 
arose on the plaintiff's attaining majority, and 
the suit, having been brought within three years 
from that date, was not barred. Even if the 
alienation by 0. T. was made by her as a Hindu 
widow, the suit was not barred, because the cause 

:tion would then have accrued on her death, 
and as at that time t tie plaintiff was a minor, the 
present suit was within time, under § 7, Act 
IX. of 1871. Prosonka Nath Roy Chowdrt 
1. Afzolonhssa Begum. Milter and Afaoiean, 
JJ...L L. Bep. 4 Oal. 683 ; SCaL Bep. 391, 
1878. 

2. Certificated Guardian— Act XL. of 

1858— Power of Uncertificated Guardian.} The 
declaration in Beng. Reg. V. of [799 that a 
" guardian or nearest of kin who by special 
appointment, or by the law and usage of the 
country, may be authorized to act " for infaot or 
npetent heirs of persons subject to the 
diction of the Zillah Court, " is not required 
to apply to the Courts of Justice for permission 
to take possession of the estate of the deceased" 
is not repealed by Act XL. of 1858. 

By that Act, though the restriction previously 
imposed on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is 
legislatively taken away, and the subject-matter 



b, Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( 



) 



ALIENATION BY QUARDIAN—ranfrf. 

is expressly declared to be subject to that juris- 
diction, yet resort to the Court is not made 
obligatory, except in cases where a necessit 
arises for commencing or defendingasuit An 
even then, for any sufficient reason, tha Com 
having jurisdiction may dispense with the 
certificate. 

All the sections of the Act from the 18th 
onwards, respecting powers, duties, and respon- 
sibilities, relate, not to guardians generally but 
to persons appointed, or to whom certificates 
have been granted, under the Act. As some 
persons could take charge of the estates of 
minors and maintain or defend suits connected 
therewith, without having received certificates, 
the rules in question apply only to certificated 
managers and to guardians appointed under the 
Act. 

Section 18 applies in terms to a manager 
acting under a certificate, and to such manager 
only ; it confers on him generally the powers of 
the owner, but in regard to acts of alienation 
beyond certain limits, it requires that his acts, 
in order to be valid, should have the previous 
sanction of the Court; — a provision expedient 
and proper in the case of a manager deriving 
his power from, and accountable to, the Court, 
but not suitable in the case of a manager alto- 
gether unconnected with the Court. It is 
impossible to support the view that no manager 
can deal with a minor's property at all, unless a 
certificate has been granted to him. 

There Is no indication, whatever part of the 
Act be examined, of any intention to alter or 
affect any provisions of Hindu or Mahomedan 
law as to guardians who do not avail themselves 
of the Act. The scope of the enactment is 
merely to remove legislative prohibitions, to 
confer expressly a certain jurisdiction, and to 
define exactly the position of those who avail 
themselves of, or are brought under, the Act, 
leaving persons to whom any existing rules of 
law apply, unaffected. A Hindu widow, there, 
fore, as natural guardian of her minor son, and 
'not deriving powers from any appointment or 
certificate under Act XL. of 1858, can give a 
good title to a purchaser of the property of ber 
minor son. Ram C bunder Chuckerbuttv v. 

BjtojoNATH Mozuwdar L L. Rap. 4 Cat. 

939 ; 4 Cal. Rep. 347, 1879, F. B. 



ALIENATION BY HEIR-AT-LAW OF 
MAHOMEDAN ESTATE— Right of 
Creditors to follow Estate into the hands 
of the Purchaser. 
See Mahomedan Law— Right of 
Creditors to follow Estate 
of Debtor into hands of 
Purchaser from Heir. 
BazaybtHossein v. Dooli Chund. 
LL.Rep.4CaL 409; L. 
Sep. 5 I. A. 211. 
ALIENATION BT HINDU WIDOW. 
See Hindu Lav— Will. 6. 

Mahomed Shumsool 0. Shewuk- 
kah L. Rep. 2 I. A. 7, 

— Accumulations. 

See Hindu Law— Alienation by 
Widow. 1. 
Musst. Bhagbutti Dabe b. 
Chowdhry Bholanath Tka- 

koor L.Bep.2 I. A. 

956; I.L.Rep. 1 Cal. 104. 

- By Gift. 

See Hindu Law— Gift. S. 

Rudr Nakain Sing *. Rup 

Kuar I, L. Rep. I AIL 

734. 

- Gift of Soudayakam. 

See Hindu Law — Alienation by 
Widow. 2, 
Madhavaraya v. Tirtha Sahi... 
I. L. Rep. 1 Mad. 807. 

— Of Immoveable Property to pay Time-hai- 

red Debt of Husband, valid, for ber Life. 



See Hindu Law— Alienation by 

Widow. 4. 
And Hindu Law— Will. 8. 

Nellaikumaru 0. Marakatkau- 

HAL...I.L.Rep.IHad.I6a. 

- Of Lands Purchased with Stridkan— Valid. 

See Hindu Law— Alienation by 

Widow. S. 

Venkata h. Venkata...L L. Rep. 

1 Had. 381. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ALIENATION OF KIN OR 1 8 PROPER- 
TY. 

See Alienation by Guardian. 

See Hnhomedan Law— Bale by 

Guardian. 
See Mortgage. 80. 81. 
Sec Review. 10. 
See Sale by Guardian. 

ALIENATOR OF PROPERTY UNDER 
ATTACHMENT — Attachment 
Properly Published — Alienation Valid. 
See Civil Procedure Code, Act 
VIH. of I860, (240.1. 
Nur Mahomed v. Altar Ali...I. 
L, Rep. 2 All, 58. 
■ Attachment not Subsisting at Time of 
Alienation — Alienation valid. 
See Civil ProceduTa Code, Act 
VIII. of 1B68, (240.2. 
Zaib.un-Nissa e. Jairam GtB.. 

I. L. Rep. 1 All. 616 
ALIENATION OF THE RIGHT OF 
MANAGEMENT OF A PAGODA— Ural. 

lore — Custom — Assignment of Trusteeship fa 
Pecuniary Advantage of the Trustee.] The ap- 
pellant claimed to be the assignee of the uraima 
right, or right of management, of the Trachara- 
niana pagoda and its subordinate chetroms, under 
an assignment from the uratlers of that founda. 

It appeared that the so-called pagoda was not 
a pagoda in tbe ordinary sense of the word, but 
was merely a platform in tbe middle of a forest, 
upon which, once every year, certain ceremonies 
take place in honour of a particular idol ; that to 
this annual festival a large number of persons 
resort ; that considerable presents are made there 
by the worshippers ; and that the festival was a 
matter of general interest to the Hindu inhabi. 
tants of that part of the country. It also ap- 
peared that the property of the trust consisted 
partly of a large landed estate and partly of 
jewels of great value. 

It was admitted that, according to the constitu- 
tion of the institution, the wallers for the time 
being were to be the harnoaens or chief members 
of four different tarwads. 

The assignment in question was executed by 
the then four waiters, and recited that the pa- 
goda and its dependent institutions belonged 
exclusively to the four taraads (families) of the 
urallers ; that they were in defet to the amount 



ALIENATION OF THE RIGHT OF 
MANAGEMENT OF A PAGODA— 

of Rs, 46,000 1 that this debt was likely to in. 
crease ; that the appellant was willing to pay off 
the debts, and take over the pagoda and its pro- 
perty and conduct all the ceremonies ; that the 
urallers had received Rs. 46,000 to pay the debts, 
and Rs 10,000 for their own use. In considera- 
tion of the above the deed assigned over to the 
appellant all the property of the pagoda, and 
uraima right of the four families, with tbe reser- 
vation of their right to join in the assembly for 
conducting the ceremonies, and receive the per- 
quisites attached thereto : — 

Held, that independently of custom, the ural. 
lers had no power under the common law of 
India to transfer their uraima right to the ap- 
pellants. 

And though the existence of a well proved and 
established custom authorising such an alienation 
would prevail against tbe general law, yet no 
such custom bad been established in the present 

When, owing to the absence of documentary 
or other direct evidence of the nature of the 
foundation, and the rights, duties, and powers of 
the trustees, it becomes necessary to refer to 
usage, the custom to be proved must be one 
which regulates the particular institution. 

Quart, whether in cases like the present any 
such general custom (as that contended for) can 
be set up and proved. 

A custom to sanction not merely tbe transfer 
of a trusteeship, but, as in this case, the sale of 
a trusteeship for the pecuniary advantage of 
the trustee would be bad in law. Raj ha Vur- 
uah Valiao. Ravi Vurmah Mutha...L. Rep. 
4 I. A. 76, 1876 ; I. L. Rep. 1 Mad. 235. 
ALIENATION OF SELF-ACQUIRED 
PROPERTY— Gift to one Son to Ex. 
elusion of Others — Valid. 

See Hindu Law— Gift. 1. 

Sitae. 0. Marho... I. L. Bep. 
1 AIL 394, 

ALENATION OF SERVICE LANDS. 
See Service Watan. 
Babaji t. Nana... I. L. Rep. 1 
Bom. 080, 036. 
ALIENATION OF STHANAM LANDS. 
See Malabar Law. 1. 

CHSMklNIKAKA •■ KlLIVAHANAKT. 

L L, Bep. 1 Mad. 86. 



Digitized by GoOgle 



( 



) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( « ) 



ALIENATION BY TALOOKDAB-Right 
of— Act I. of i86g. 

See Oudh Proclamatiun of 1898, 
para. 8. 

HtlRPURSHADe. SHEO DVAL...X. 

Rep. 3 I. A. 
ALIEN ATION OF TBUBT PBOPEBTY 
BY TRUSTEE. 

See Breach of Trust. 

Maniklalv. Mahiksha I. L. 

Bep. 1 Bom, 368. 
ALIMONY— Should not be converted in 
Absolute interest in, and Charge on- 
Husband's Estate. 
See Divorce. 8. 

Fowlb t. Fowl*. I. L. Rep. 4 

CaL 880 ; 3 CaL Bap. 484 
ALLUVIAL LANDS— LHluviated Lands- 
Adverse Possession — Doctrine in Lopez's Case.] 
The doctrine in the Case of Lopet v. Sfuddun 
Mohun Tkaioor (13 Moo. I. A. 467 ; S. C. 5 
Beng. L. Rep. 521) that diluviated lands, 
forming on their old site, remain the property 
of their original owner, does not apply to land 
hi which, before or after their reformat! 
indefeasible title has been acquired by another 
person by adverse possession. 

Where the plaintiff relies on an alleged 

adverse possession of lands for 13 years before 

or after their re-formation, the real point to be 

decided, is whether he has thus acquired a title. 

Radha Froshad Singh *■ Ram Coomar Singh. 

L L. Bep. 8 CaL 796 ; 1 CaL Bop. 269, 

1877, P. 0. 

See Be-formation of Submerged 

Land*. 

Hurushai r. Svud Lootf Ali... 

L. Bop. 3 L A. 38. 

ALTEBATION 07 CONTRACT- Gxitract 

Act IX. of 1873, § 37.] To a contract between 

the plaintiffs and the defendant for the purchase 

- by the defendant of a cargo of salt, the plain- 

tiffs, after the contract had been signed by the 

defendant, added in the margin : — " Ten days' 

demurrage will be allowed at Rs. 350 per 

Held, that the alteration did not amount to 
an alteration or addition within the rule of 
English law 1 the alteration must be either some- 
thing which appears to be attested by the 
signature, or something which alters the charac- 
ter of the instrument. Ede t. Kahto Nath 

Shaw. Kennedy,) X. L. Bep. 3 CaL 330, 

1877. 



ALTEBATION OP LAW PENDING 
EXECUTION OF DECREE. 
See Appeal— CiviL 6. 

Chinto Joshi ». Krishnaji Na- 
rayan...L L. Bep. 8 Bom. 
431. 
See Execution of Decree. 7. 

Narandas n. Rai Manckha... 
I. L. Bep. 8 Bom. 317. 

ALTERATION OF PBOCKDUBE 

PENDING A SUIT. 

See Appeal— CiviL 3. 5. 9. 31. 25. 36. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act X 

of 1877, f 343. 

Rattans! Kallianji...!, L. Bep. 

3 Bom. 148. 
See Construction of Statute. 8. 

SlTARAHv. KKANDBRAV I. L. 

Bep. 1 Bom. 386. 
ALTERNATIVE BELIEF. 

See Misjoinder of Cauaea of Ac- 
tion. 3. 

Jancjkinath r. Ramrujun.,.1. L. 

Bep. 4 CaL 949. 
AMBIGUITY— Patent. 

See Registration. 38. 

Raju ». Kkishnarav.,.1. L. Bep. 
3 Bom. 878. 
AMBIGUOUS AGREEMENT. 
See Mortgage. 16. 

DiiOjiT v. Pitam.bak...I. L. Bep. 
1 AIL 376. 
AMBIGUOUS BXPBESSION- Repudia- 
tion of Wife by an. 
See Mahomedan Law— Divorce. 1. 

Havid Au t, Imliazan I. L. 

Bep. 3 AU. 71. 
AMENDMENT OF CHARGE- Sanction to 
prosecute under f 211, Penal Code, au- 
thorizes Charge under f 192. 
See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1872, i 143. 1. 
Empress v. Nifcha.,.1. L. Bep. 

4 CaL 713. 
AMENDMENT OF ISSUES AT IBB 
HEARING— Practice:] "I do not say that, 
under certain circumstances, the Judge at the 
trial is precluded from allowing amendments, or 
from raising issues other than those settled. 
But what the Judge has decided at the settle.. 

lues by refusing to raise an issue, is a 



by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



question which ought not to be re-opened by 
the Judge at the trial, and the Judge at the trial 
ought not to modify issues so as to re-open any 
questions which the Judge settling the issues has 
decided." Boyle Chund Singh e. Maulard- 
Wiltc*. J X. L. Bap. 4 CaL 678, 1878. 

S. C under Tender. 

AKXVSKBKT OF PLAINT. 

See Attignmant of Mortgage. 

Ganpat*. Adarii...I. I*. Rep. 8. 

Bom. SIS. 

See Civil Procedure Cod«, Act VUL 

of 1809, ,7. 8. 

Ram Tarrun v. Hossein Buksh... 

I. L. Bep. 8 Cat. 780. 

— Adding Parties — Suit against Agent— 

Amendment by adding Principal refused. 
See Fartiee to Suit. 7. 

KOEGLEK V. PROSOIAMQ...I. L. 

Bep. S Col. 47*. 

— Disallowed in Appeal, where Objection 

to Non-Joinder of Plaintiffs was taken in 
Court below, and Defect not Remedied. 
Sot Parties to Suit 9. 

Dulak Chandc, Balsam Das-. 
I. L. Bep. 1 All. 463. 

— Originally, seeking Declaratory Decree, by 

paying Court Pees on Ejectment Suit, 
Refused. 
Set Declaratory Decree, 8. 

Chokalingapkshana v. Achiyar. 
I. I* Rep. 1 Had. 40. 

Suit for Calls against a Firm — Amendment 

to charge one Member only Disallowed. 
Set Company— Winding up-. .Con- 
tributory. 1. 
London, Bombay, and Meditkr- 
IAmiah Bank «. Banji Zutani... 
X. L. Sep. 3 Bom. 116. 

Suit against Municipality— Substitution of 

President for Secretary as Defendant. 
Set Act XV. of 1873, | 43. 

MANHr Kasaundhan v. Crooks... 
L L. Rep. 8 All. 396. 

Suit for Preemption.'] Where the plain. 

tiff sued to enforce a right of pre-emption, alleg- 
ing that the actual price of the property was 
not the price named in the deed of sale, but a 
smaller price, arid claimed the property on 
payment of such smaller price, and did not 



AKEKDXsnfT OP PLAINT-««W. 
allege in his plaint that he was ready and 
willing to pay any price which the Court might 
find to be the actual price, and on the day that 
his suit was finally disposed of presented an 
application to the Court stating that he was 
ready and willing to do so : — 

Held, that the Court was not bound to allow 
him to amend his plaint and bring into Court 
the larger sum. Durga Prasad t>. Nawazish 
Au. Pearson and Turner, JJ..X L. Rep. 1 

All. 691, 1878. 

fl. Act VIILof 1850, § 36, a. 4, and %% 

1 3 5 ■ * 39' " nd ' * ' —Amendment of Plaint— Allege - 
tionsaf Fact— Limitation— Act IX. 1/IS7 1, S 19— 
Personal Equity."] The ancestor of the plaintiffs 
obtained in 1817 from the Zemindar whem the 
first defendant represented, a Maurasi istemrari 
pottah of the lands to which the suit related, anil 
obtained possession in 1837, in which year the 
Zemindari was sold for arrears of Government re- 
venue, and purchasedby Government as the high- 
est bidder. Ttnerevenue sale was never set aside ; 
t in 1842 the Government restored the estate 
the Rajah Zemindar with all t ho prior encum- 
brances and settlements, but subject to Bis. con. 
finning an ijarak granted by Government to W.ot 
a portion of the property for xo years. The Rajah 
accordingly, on the 7th Jane 1842, granted W. 
an ijarak pottah for 20 years, in confirmation of 
the pottah granted by Government. In 1844 the 
plaintiff's father instituted a suit in the Midna- 
pore Principal Sudder Ameen's Court, to recover 
possession of his maurasi tenure, which suit was 
dismissed by the Principal Sudder Amin on the 
17th of November 1846, on the ground that " it 
appeared from the records of the case, and the 
Rajah defendant's answer, that the claim was 
established, but that the plaintiff was not entitled 
to recover possession during the term of W.'s 
ijarak." On appeal the Sudder Diwani Adaw- 
lut reversed this decree in 1848, but it was res* 
tored by the Privy Council by a decree made on 
3rd February 1854, and W. re-entered into pos- 
session. Before the expiry of the lease to W., 
owing to certain fraudulent transactions on the 
part of A., who had got into possession of the 
estate as the purchaser of the interests of certain 
irrgagees of the Rajah, the property was again 









s of Government reve. 



as purchased by If-, a party to the 
above mentioned fraudulent transactions. The 
Rajah, however, succeeded in getting this sale 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



AMENDMENT? OF PL AIST-contd. 
reversed in 1 866, and obtained possession of his 
estate in 1871- In a suit, instituted on the 23rd 
October 1873, against the Rajah and certain 
other parties to whom he had granted a patai 
lease, the plaintiffs alleged that the sale of 1837 
was set aside by Government as illegal, and that 
consequently their tenure revived; that the 
effect of the Principal Sudder Amin's decision, 
confirmed by the Privy Council, was to postpone 
their right to obtain possession of their tenure, 
until after the expiration of W.'s lease ; that when 
that lease expired the property was in the pos- 
session of tf., of the fraudulent character of 
whose title they had no knowledge ; and that their 
right to sue in the present case consequently arose 
only in 1871. The defence was that the plaint 
disclosed no cause of action ; that the 
of action, if any, was barred by limitation ; 
and that the tenure was destroyed by the 
proceedings connected with the sale in 1837, 
which was never set aside. The Judge held 
that the plaint disclosed a caaseof action which 
accrued in 1837, and that the suit was consequent 
ly barred, and he therefore dismissed the suil 
without taking any evidence. On appeal to the 
High Court it was admitted on the part of the 
plaintiffs that the sale in 1837 was never set aside, 
and that by the proceedings which took place 
before the Collector consequent upon such sale, 
the maurasi tenure then vested in the plaintiffs' 
ancestor was put an end to; but it was contended 
that as the Government returned the estate 
the Rajah with alt its encumbrances, the plaintiffs 
had, in consequence of the arrangement between 
the Rajah, the Government, and W., a right 
against the Rajah and all persons claiming under 
him, other than purchasers for value without 
notice, to be restored to bis tenure; that his 
right was, by the decree of the Principal Sudder 
Amin of 1848, declared to be suspended until the 
expiration of W.'s ijarak; that this right was a 
personal equity against the Rajah, which could 
not be enforced when the ijarah expired against 
the mortgagees of the Rajah, because they had no 
notice of it; that this equity was destroyed by the 
sale for arrears of revenue in 1S4S, but arose 
again when the Rajah recovered possession of the 
estate in 1871. For the defendants it was con- 
tended that the plaintiffs ought not to be allowed 
to start a new case on appeal, and that as the 
equity now sought to be fastened on the Zemin- 
dar was never raised in the pleading, it could 
not now be set up : — 



AMENDMENT OF PLAINT— contd. 

Held, that the allegations of fact, set out 
ibove, as relied on in appeal, did not materially 
differ from those set out in the plaint, except as 
to allegations relating to the setting aside of the 
iles ; and that under §§ 139 and I41 of 
Act VIII. of 1859 it was competent to the plain- 
amend their case etany time before a 
final decision, and to put it as they sought to put 
it in appeal ; and as if the plaintiffs succeeded in 
stablishing their case so amended, the Suit 
would not be barred, it was necessary that the 
suit should be remanded for trial. 

Per Markby, J.— Section 19 of Act IX. of 1871 
did not apply to this case, because the plaintiffs 
did not allege that they claimed through M.QtA., 
by whose fraud they alleged they were kept in 
ignorance of their rights. Taking CI. 5 of $ 36 
of Act VIII. of 1859 with , 5, when a whole 
estate bearing a name is sued for, the boundaries 
need hot be given. 

The practice that the Privy Council wish to 
enforce by their decision in Eshen Chunder Sing 
v. Shama Churn Bhutto (11 Moo. I. A. 7), when 
they say at p. 20 that they desire to point out the 
"absolute necessity that the determination in a 
cause should be founded on a case to be found 
in the pleadings, or involved in or consistent 
with thecase made thereby," is not an absolutely 
rigid adherence to the plaint and written state- 
ments, which the Code (Act VIII. of 1850) de- 
clares not be necessary, but that care should be 
taken to raise property on the issues and at the 
proper time the questions to be tried, so as to 
give the parties an opportunity of producing 
ir evidence and being heard on the points 
which the decision <of the case ultimately 



Per Milter,] — Queere, whether if the plaintiffs' 
■so were established, their claim would not be 
saved from the operation of the Law of Limita- 
tion by § 29 oE Act I. of 1845. Ramdayal Khan 
v. Ajoodhia Ramkhan. Markby and Mitter, 

JJ L L.Bep. 2 Cal. 1,1876. 

S. C. under Civil Procedure Code, 
Act TUX of 1869, §26. 

AMENDMENT OF PROBATE. 

Bee Probate. 4. 

In the Goods of White. .X L. Bop. 

4 0*0.080. 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



( iw > 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



AMENDMENT OF SUMMONS— Should 

be allowed if taken out in wrong form 

through Mistake of Clerk of Court. 

See Small Cause Court— Presidency 

Town. 2. 

Mowla o. Bala ... I. L Bop. 3 

Bom. 01. 

ANCEBTBAL PBOPEBTY— Alienation by 

Co-Sharer of Undivided Share in— by 

Voluntary Alienation. 

See Hindu Law- -Alifination of 

Ancestral Property. 2. 3. 4. 

6.7. 

GlRDHAREB Lall v. Kahtoo Lall. 

I*. Hep. 1 I. A. S21 ; 11 

Beng. L. Bep. 187. 

MUSST. PHOOLBAS KoOHAR V. LaLL 
JUGGESHUR ROY...L. B*p. 3. 

X.A.7;LL.Bep.lCaL 

226. 

Jaludar Singh b. Rah Lall... L 

L. Bep. 4 CaL 723. 

Chauaiu Kuar v- Ram Prashad. 

L L. Bep. 2 AIL 267. 

See Hindu Law— Gift. 2. 

Baluihh Das «. Sunder Das... 
L L. Bop. 1 All. 439. 
See Hindu Law— Undivided Fa- 
mily. 3. 
Deendayal jt ]ugdebp...L. Bep. 
4L A. 247; I. L. Bep. 3 
Cal.198. 
See Onus Probandi. 7. 8. 

Adurhonit-ChowdhrvS-Kur... 

L L. Bep. 8 CaL 1. 

Bkeknarain 0. J AKU K...L L.B«p. 

2 CaL 438. 

— — Alienation of— by one of several Daughti 

succeeding as Heirs— Right of Sons of 
Deceased Daughter to set aside. 

See Hindu Law— Inheritance. - 
Daughter'! Bona. 
Baijnath v. Mahakir- I. L. 
Bep. 1 All. 608. 

Alienation of— for Maintenance of Illegi- 
timate Son. 
See Hindu Law— Maintenance of 
Illegitimate Son. 
Rajah Parichat v. Zaliu Singh 
L. Bep. 4 L A. 159 ; L L 
Bep. 3 CaL 214. 



ANCESTRAL PBOPEBTY- -contd. 

- Gift of Undivided Share in. 

it* Hindu Law— Gift 3. 

Ballabk Das «. Sunder Das... 
I. L. Bep. 1 All. 429. 

- Immoveable Property Purchased with An- 

cestral Property. 
See Hindu Law— Ancestral Pro- 
perty. 
Sham Narain Singh «. Rughoo- 
burdyal... I. L. Bep. 8 CaL 
COS. 

- Immoveable — Son's Interest in. 

See Hindu Law— Undivided Fa- 
mily. 5- 
Baldeo Das v. Shah Lal... L L. 
Bep. 1 AIL 77. 
See Hindu Law— Liability of An- 
cestral Estate in the hands 
of the Heirs for the Debts 
of the Ancestors - 
Naravan Acharva v. Narso 
Krishna. .. I. L. Bep. 1 Bom. 
262. 

- Liability of— in the hands of the Heir, to 

Debt of the Ancestor. 
See Hindu Law— Alienation of 
Ancestral Property. 2. 8. 4. 

GlRDHAREE LALL v. KANTO LaLL.. 

L. Bep. 1 1. A. 321. 
Musst. Phoolbas Koonwar »- 
Lalla Jogeshur Sahov...L. 
Bep. 3 L A. 7 ; L L. Bep. 1 
CaL 226. 
Suraj Bunsi Kobr o. Shbo Pur- 
shad Singh ..L.B.6LA.88. 
See Hindu Law— Liability of An- 
cestral Property in the 
hands of the Heirs for the 
Debts of the Ancestors. 
Narain v. Narso...L L. Bep. I 
Bom. 262. 
See Hindu Law— Undivided Fami- 
ly. 9. 

NARSINBHATt.XHENAPPA...L L. 

Bep. 2 Bom. 479. 

- Mortgage of— by Father— Mitakshara 

Law—purchaser at Execution Sale, with 
Notice of Co-Sharers' Claims— Effect of 
Execution Sale on Share of Deceased 
Judgment Debtor- 



Diarized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ANCESTRAL PROPERTY— contd. 

See Hindu Ltw — Alienation of 
Ancestral Property. 4. 
Sura j Bunsi Kobr v- Shbo Pur- 
shad Singh. ..L. Rep. 6 1. A. 



- Mortgage of —by Father during Son's Mi. 

nority — Suit to Enforce Mortgage — Onus 
Proband!. 

See Onus Proband*. 7. 

Bheeknarain «. Januk L L. 

Sep. S CaL 488. 

- Partition of — does not destroy its Ances- 

tral Character. 
•Sw Onus Probandi. 8. 

Adurmoni r. Chowdhrv Sib Na- 
kain L Z>. Rep. 8 CaL 1. 

- Partition of— Right of Sons to Compel— 

See Hindu Law— Partition. 1. 18. 

Kali Parshad <r. Rah Cha'rn.. 

I. L. Eep . 1 All. 169. 

Svraj Bunsi Kokr b. Shko Per- 

shad Singh... L. Eep. 6 L 

A. 88, 100. 

- Sale of — in Execution of Decree agai 

Father. 
See Hindu Lav— Alienation of 
Ancestral Property. 3. 

GlRDHAREE L.ALL V. KANTO LaLL. 

L. Bop. 1 L A. 831. 

- Sale of — in Execution of Decree against 

Member of Undivided Family. 
See Bombay Act V. of 1883. 1. 
Ardasib o, Muse...L L. Sep. 1 
Bom. SOL 
See Civil Procedure Code, Act 
VTH. of 1868, f 869. 
Kaiapa o. Vehkatbsh...L L. 
Rep. 3 Bom. 678. 
See Hindu Law — Alienation of 
Ancestral Property. 1. 3. & 
4.6. 
Bhikan Das s. Puka.,,1. L.Rep. 
9 All. 141. 
G I RDM a res Lal. v. Kantoo Lal. 
L. Sep. 1 1. A. 331. 
Musst. Phoolbas v. Lalla Jo- 

c-rshur L. Bep. 8L A. 7; 

I. L. Bep. 1. CaL 336. 
Soraj Bunsi Kokr v. Shro Par- 
shad Sinc.L. Bep. 6LA. 



ANCESTRAL FBOPERTY-ranU. 

JallidakSing v. Ram Lall...L. 
Bep. 4 Cal. 733. 
See Hindu Law— Liability of 
Ancestral Property in the 
hands of the Heirs for the 
Debts of the Ancestors. 
Naravah Acharva ». Narso 
Krishna. .XL. Bep.l Bom. 
363. 
See Hindu Law— Undivided Fami- 
ly. 8. 4. 7. 8. 

D BUND AVAL C- JuGDEEP NaRAIN.., 

L L. Bep. 4 L A. 347 ; L 

L. Rep. 3 CaL 188. 

Rai Narain Das v. Nownit Lal... 

L L. Bep. 4 Cal. 809. 

Luchui Dai Koer «. Asm an 

Singh X, L. Bep. 3 Cal. 

313. 

Babaji «. Vasadev,.X L Bep. 

1 Bom. 95. 

See Bale in Execution of Decree. 

10.16. 

Veh katar a m a w a n v. Vbnk at asu- 

bramaniva...L L. Bep. 1 

Mad. 368. 

Venkatasaiii Naik e. Kufpaiyan. 

Ibid. 864. 

Sale of — by Father in Discharge of his 

Debts. 
Set Hindu Law— Alienation of 
Ancestral Property. 2. 

GlRDHAREE LALL *. Kantoo LaLL. 

L. Bep. 1 L A. 331. 

■ Sale of— by Father during Son's Minority — 

Suit to set aside. 
See Onus ProbandL 8. 

Adurmoni v. Chowdhrv Sib Na. 

rain L L. Bep. 8 CaL 1. 

Sec Hindu Law— Alienation of An. 
cestral Property. 7. 
Chahaili Kuar v. Ram Prasad... 
I. L. Rep. 3 AIL S67. 

ANCEBTBAL TRADE— Carried on on be- 
half of Undivided Family — Insolvency of 

Manager — Widow's Right to Mainle. 

Sa Hindu Law— Maintenance- of 
Widow. 9. , 

JOHURRA S. SrEEGOPAL X. L. 

Bep. 1 CaL 470. 



D.gmzedbyGQOgle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ANCESTBAX T&ADZ—rontd. 

Carried on on behalf of Infants — Liability • 

of Infants for Debts. 
Sn Hindu Law— Ancestral Trade. 

Jovkistoo. NrrrvAKUKD L L. 

Rep. 3 OaL 78S. 
ANCIENT DOCUMENTS— Pre.su r 
to Due Execution of. 
See Evidence. 17. 

liBILACK RAI v. DaLUAL RAI.-.X. 

L. Bep. 3 OaL 657. 
ANCIENT LIGHTS— Obstruct ion to. 
See Mandatory Injunction, 

Jamnadass v. Atmarah I. L. 

Bep. 3 Bom. 183. 
ANNUITY —Probate Duty—" Value"— Court 
Fees' Act VII- of 1870, Sched. I., CI. II- 
See Probate Duty. 1. 

Ramckandra Lakshmanji...X, L. 
Bep. 1 Bom. 118. 

AJNNTTITY CHARGED ON TESTA- 
TOR'S ESTATE— Deduction oi Capi- 
talized Value of — in estimating Probate 
Duty. 

See Court Fees. 9. 

Rushton...I.L. Bep.3CaL 736. 

APPEAL— CIVIL— Abatement of. 

See Abatement of Appeal — Civil. 

MORESHWAR V. KUSHAEA I. L. 

Bep. 2 Bom. 248. 

Act XXVII. of i860, { 6— Appeal from 

Remit of, or Omission to make, an Inquiry 

See Appeal— Civil. 1. 

Act XXVI I . of 1 860— Security— Appeal. 

See Appeal— CiviL 4. 18. 
Adding Parties to Record after Appeal 
Barred. 

See Partiea to Suit. 8. 

The Court of Wards b. Gava 
PARSAD..XL.Bep.2AU.107- 
■ Admission of Time.barred. 

See Time-barred Appeal. 
Dabey Sahai I. Ganes: 

L. Bep. 1 AIL 34. 
Zaibulhissa Bibi v- Ku 

I. L. Bep. 1 AIL 250. 
See Oudh Talukdara' Belief Act 

xxnr.ofi87o, §io. 

RaM)Isda£ b. Raja Biiagvvan Bax. 
L. Bep. 5 I. A 187. 



APPEAL-CIVIX-^W. 

- Admission of Unstamped or Insufficiently 
Stamped Documents. 

See Appeal— Civil 20. 
And Error not affecting the Me- 
rits. 1. 
Afzal-un-Nissa «. Tbi Ban... I. 
L. Bep. 1 AIL 725. 

- Agreement not to. 
See Contract, 7. 

An ant Das v. Ash burner & Co... 
I. L. Bep. 1 AIL 267. 

- from Answers by a Full Bench. 
Set Hindu Law— Alienation of 

Ancestral Property. 3. 
Mussr. Phoolbas v. Lalla Jo- 
CBSUUR...L. Bep. 8 LA. 7; 
I. L. Bep. 1 Cal. 326. 

- against Assessment by Municipal Com- 
missioner under Beng. Act III. of 1864, 
§33- 

Benc 

tor, &c, of Chapra ..I. L. 
Bep. 1 Oal. 400. 

- by Auction Purchaser at Execution Sale, 
against Order setting aside Sale. 

See Appeal— Civil. 22. 

- Award — Judgment according to. 
See Arbitration. 4. 6. 

Boon j ad Matkoor v. Nathoo 
Shahoo-X L. Bep. 8CaL 876. 

Vishnu ». Ravji I.L.Bep.3 

Bom. 18. 
—Award — Order directing Award to be Filed. 
See Appeal— CiviL 13. 13a. 

- Award — Refusal to Confirm. 
See Appeal— Civil. 35. 

- as to Costs — Mortgagee's Costs Refused 
for Usury— Appellate Court will not in- 
terfere. 

See CoSU. 1. 

Carvalkuv. NuKbibi...I. I.. Bep. 
8 Bom. 202. 

- as to Costs— Suit for Defamation — Nominal 
Damages — Plaintiff ordered to pay De- 
fendant's Costs — Order not Illegal— No 
Special Appeal. 

See Coat*. 2. 

FlJLUCK V. Mo HINDER L L. 

Bep. 1 Cal. 385. 



D igitl z S dbvGoogle ■ 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



APPEAL-CIVIL— amid. 



— Custom set up in. 

Set Pre-emption. 10. 12, 

ChADAHI LAL 9- MUHAUUAD 

BAKsii.,.1. L. Rep. 1 AIL 663. 

Maraud Ali v. Adijul Hakim... 

L L. Bap. 1 AIL 567. 

— Date of Presentation of— is Date of Insti- 

tution for purpose of Limitation. 
Set Appeal— Civil, 14. 

— from Decision on one of several Issues. 

See Letters Patent (1866), (Calcut- 
ta), i 16. a. 
Ebkahim v. Fuchkunnissa Be- 
gun...!; L. Bep. 4 OaL 631. 

— from Decree in Accordance with Award of 

Arbitrators. 

See Arbitration. 4. 6. 

Boon] ad Mat hook e. Nathoo 

Shahoo. I. L. Bep. 3 OaL 876. 

Vishnu o. Ravji ... L L. Bep. 3 

Bom. 18. 

— from Decree on Specially Registered 

Agreement under Act XX. of 1 865, ( 53. 
See Appeal— CiviL 7. 11. 13. 

— to District Judge — Suit for Rent under 

Rs. 100 — Question of Proprietary Right. 
See ActXVm. of 1873, f 9& 8. 

BjSHESHUR V. MUSAMAT SuGUN- 

ohi I. L. Bep. 1 AIL 366. 

— to District Judge — Value of Subject-t 

ter in Dispute. 
See Bengal Civil Courts' Act. VL 
of 1871, §22. 
Kali Char an Rai v- Ajudhia Rai- 
L L. Bep. 2 AIL 148. 

— Extending Time. 

See Act XXVIII. Of 1860. 

KrISHNAREDDI GoVINDARRDM V. 

Stuart. L L. Bep, 1 Had. 103. 
See Company— Winding up. 2. 
Lallam Barroomal v. The Offi- 
cial Liquidator.-.L L. Bep. 
4aL 704. 

— from Judgment of Division Bench. 

Sec Letters Patent— Allahabad— 
CL 10. 1. 
Ghasi Ram v. Musamat Nuraj 
BEGAM...LL.Bep.lALL3 



APPEAL— CIVIL— amid. 
from Judgment Ex-Parte and Order refus- 
ing to Set aside same. 
S« Appeal-Civil. 2.10. 

from Judgment Ex-Parte against Defendant 

who does not appear at the Adjourned 

Hearing of a Suit. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act VUL 

of I860, 5 119. 1. 

Zain-ul-Abdin v. Ahmad Raia. 

L L.Bep. 2 AIL 67} L. 

Bep. 5 I. A. 333. 

from Judgment Ex-Parte in Appeal. 

See Appeal— CiviL 6. 28. 
■ Jurisdiction — Course for Appellate Court to 
adopt when it decides Lower Court had 

Set Appeal-Civil. 3. 

— - Limitation — Computation of Period of — 
Time necessary to obtain Copies of Judg- 
ment appealed against. 
Set Letters Patent- Allahabad— 

ol 10. a. 

Fazal Muhammad^ Phul Kuar. 
L L. Bep. 2 AIL 193. 

— Limitation — Return of Memorandum for 
Amendment. 

See Appeal— CiviL 14. 

— Memorandum of — Grounds not taken in. 
See Appeal— CiviL 8, 

— Notice of— Act X. of 1866, § 141. 
See Company — Winding up. 9. 

Lah-ah Barrooiiul t. The Offi- 
cial Liquidator... I. L.Bep. 
4CaL704. 

— Objection not Raised in Courts below. 
Set the Index heading Objection 

not Raised in Court below. 

— Objection not Raised in Memorandum of 

See Appeal— CiviL & 

— From Orders. 
See Appeal from Orders. 

— Party to the Suit — Alleged Purchaser of 

5m Act XXUX of 1861, f 11. 1. 

SOBHA BlBEEV.MlRZA SAKHAMUT 

Ali,.. J. L. Bep. 3-CaL 371 ; 
1 OaL Bep. 381. 



Diaxized by Google 



( 



) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



APPEAL— CIVIL— conld. 
Party to the Suit— Purchaser of Decree- 
Application by, to execute. 
See Appeal— Civil. 9. 

— from Refusal to Grant a Certificate under 

Act XXVII. of i860. 
See Appeal— Civil. 1. 
— — by Respondent from Judgment Ex-ParU 

See Appeal— Civil. 6. 
—— Revival of Right of — on Compromise being 
set aside. 
See Revival of Eight of Appeal. 
Ranee Khujooroonissa v. Musst. 
Roushun Jehan...L- Rep. 
8 1. A 391 ; I. L. Hep. 
2CaLlS4. 

Second Appeal — Absence of Notice of Ac- 
tion — Plea of. 

&eAct3EV. of 1873. 1. . 

. Committee of Mo- 

> v. Chatri Singh... I. 

L. Hep. 1 AIL 269. 

Second Appeal as to Costs. 

See Costs. S. 

Fuluk v. M0HBNDER...I. L. Hep. 
ICal. 380. 

— — Second Appeal— Evidence, Power of High 
Court to Consider. 
See Contract. 16. 

Nahak v. Mahin...I. L. Hop. 

AIL 487. 
See Enhancement of Kent, 8. 

Msbr Mahomed v. Forbes.. ,LB, 
2 I. A. 1 ; 22 W. R. 316. 
— — Seco nd Appeal —Ei-fiirrV Decree — Rehear- 
ing Granted after time Limited. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act 
VIII. of 1869, §119.2. 

RUNOLALL V. TOKHUH ... X. I>. 

Hep. 2 Cal. 114. 
^— Second Appeal — from Judgment Ex-Partt 

See Appeal— Civil 6. 87. 

n not Raised i 

See The Index heading Objection 
not Bailed in Court below. 
— Second Appeal — from Order in Execution. 
Set Appeal-CiviL 37. 29. 



APPEAL— CIVIL— ton id. 

Second Appeal — from Order Returning 

Plaint 
See Appeal— CiviL 26. 

— Second Appeal — by Purchaser from Defend- 

ant after Adverse Decree. 
See Abatement of Appeal— CiviL 

MoRESHWAR V. KdSHAflA.. I. L. 

Rep. S Bom. 248. 

— Second Appeal in Suits Cognizable by 

Small Cause Court. 
See Appeal— CiviL 32. 
See The Cases under Small Cause 
Court— UofouiL 

Security under Act XXVII. of 1S60. 

Sw Appeal— CiviL 4. 16. 

■ Security for Costs — Extending Time for 

Deposit of. 
See Security for Costa. 1. 

Haidri B11 v. The E. I. Ry. Co... 
I. L. Rep. 1 AIL 687. 

Security for Costs of — Poverty no Grou nd 

for requiring. 
See Security for Costa. 2. 

Manekji v. Goolbai...I. L. Rep. 
3 Bom. 241. 

by Some ol Several Defendants — Grounds 

common to all. 

See Contribution. 1. 

Hiha Chand v. Abdal.-.I. Ii. 
Rep. 1 All. 4S5. 

Suit Filed before Act X. of 1877— Decisioo 

passed after that Act. 
See Appeal— CiviL 21. 

Suit Filed before Act X. of 1877— Decision 

passed before that Act. 
See Appeal— Civil. 9. 

— Suit for Rent under Rs. 100. 

See Appeal— Civil. 88. 
See Act XVm. of 1878, § 93. 8. 
Bisheshuk Singh v. Musahat 
Suc-undi,..!, L. Bep. 1 All. 
866. 

In Suits tried in the Sonthal Pergannas. 

Sec Jurisdiction. 1L 

Surcharge Lall v. Mansoor 

Ally Khah.-.L L. Bep. 8 

Cal. 288. 



D.gmzed by GoOgle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



APPEAL— CIVIL— contd. 
— Time-barred — Admission of. 

Set Time-barred Appeal 

Ducky Sahai v. Ganssh Lall...L 

L. Rop. 1 AIL 34. 

Zaibulnissa Bibi «. Kuisum Bibi- 

L L.Bep. 3 AIL 010. 

See Oudh Talukdare' Belief Act 

XXXV. of 1870, *10. 

Raujisdas v. Rajah Bhaowan 

BAX...L. Bep. IS I. A. 187. 

1. Act XXVIL of i860, i 6. J A. applied 

for a certificate under Act XXVII. of i860. B. 
opposed the application, having herself applied 
for a certificate. A question having arisen as to 
B.'s identity, an inquiry .was commenced by the 
Judge, and the matter adjourned for the exami- 
nation of certain witnesses on commission- 
Before their evidence was taken, the Judge, on 
reconsideration, being of opinion that he had 
sufficient evidence to enable him to decide the 
case, refused to grant a certificate to A., who 
appealed to the High Court : — 

Held, that the appeal lay. An appeal lies 
from the result of an inquiry, or omission to 
make an inquiry, under the Act. Section 6 of 
the Act recognizes and declares the power of the 
High Court to superintend the proceedings of 
the District Court, and enables parties to have 
the benefit of that superintendence by way of 
appeal. The proceedings were accordingly sent 
back to the District Court in order that the 
inquiry should be completed- Tarini Churn 

BROHMO v. BAMASOON DEREK DOSSBB. .. Jucisvn 

and Hitter, JJ...L;L. Bep. 1 Cal. 128, 1873. 

2. — — Appeal against an Ei-parte Decree, 
and Order refusing to set the same aside — Civil 
Procedure Code, AH X.ofl&J7,H 540, 591.] li 
the provisions relating to the setting aside of et 
parte decrees, the new Civil Procedure Code, Act 
X- of 1877, departs from the provisions contained 
in the Code of 1859. This latter, by f 1 10, 
pressly prohibited appeals against ex-partt 
crees. The former does not contain any such 
prohibition; and J 540 is wide enoug 
such appeals. 

In omitting from f 591 of the new Code the 
words " prior to decree" which were in f 363 of 
the old Code, the intention of the Legislature 
would appear to have been to allow the defend, 
ant, when appealing, as he has a right to do, 
against the ex -parte decree, to appeal also 



APFE0AL-CTV1L ■amid. 
against the order, made after decree, refusing to 
set the decree aside. This is probably the 
reason why no special provision was made in § 
"" for an immediate appeal incases of this kind, 
as it would be useless to give a right of appeal 
against the order of refusal, unless there was also 
given an appeal against the decree. An appeal, 
therefore, against a decree passed ex.parteagaiast 
the defendant, in a suit on a promissory note 
under the provisions of Chapter XXXIX. of the 
Civil Procedure Code of 1877, and against art 
order refusing to set aside such decree, admitted. 
Lackimdass Vithaldas v. Ebrahim Oshan. 
Westropp, C.J., and Bayley, J ...I. L. Bep. S 
Bom. 044, 1879. 

Set infra. 10, 38. 

8. Jurisdiction, Want of— Course for 

Appellate Court to adept.') Where the Appellate 
Court decides that the Lower Court had do 
jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it should return 
the plaint to the plaintiff in order that he may 
present it to the proper Court. Bai Makhor i- 
ChalKI. Kemball and .V. Harridan, 

J.J I.L. Bep. 1 Bom. 688, 1874. 

S- C under Jurisdiction. 19. 

. Act XXVII. of i860, i 6— Deposit of 

Security by Person entitled to Certificate.'] No 

appeal lies under Act XXVII. of i860 on a 

question of taking security from a person who 

has been declared entitled to a certificate under 

the Act. Monmohihbe Dasseb v. K hatter 

Gopaul Dry. Glover and Milter, JJ...1 L. Bep. 

1 CaL 127, 1875. 

See In the matter of the Petition of 

Rukmin.-.L L. Bep. 1 All. 

fl87, infra. 16. 

B. Execution of Decree — Proceedings 

commenced under Act VIII. of 18513 — Sale ire 
Execution after Act X. of 1877 in force.) Pro- 
ceedings, to execute a decree commenced while 
Act VIII. of 1859 was in force; but property of 
the judgment-debtor was sold in pursuance of 
those proceedings after Act X. of 1877 came into 
operation. Subsequently, the judgment -debtor 
applied to have the sale set aside, on the ground 
of irregularity in conducting the sale, and this 
application was granted. 

Held, that the application for execution having 
been made while Act VIII. of 1S59 was in force, 
the proceedings under it would, according to the 
provisions of Act I. of 1868, be governed by Act 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



APPEAL— CIVIL— cvntd. 

VII). of 1859, notwithstanding the appeal, and 

that the application to set aside the sale was so 
intimately connected with the proceedings in 
execution, that it must be regarded as a part of 
those proceedings. The sale was made 
the old law, and the purchaser bought subject 
to these conditions, and suffered no haidship 
h having them applied to him. The order, 
therefore, setting aside the sale was governed 
by the former Code, and was not subject to 
appeal. Chinto Joshi e. Krishnaji Narayan. 
West and Pinhey, JJ L L. Bop. 3 Bom. 

314, 1879. 
Bee infra. 9, 97. 99. 

8. By Respondent from Judgment ex- 

parte in Appeal-Act VIII. of 1859, f 119.] 
Section 1 19 of Act VIII. of 1859 applies only t 
the case of a defendant who does not appear i 
the Court of first instance, and not to that of 
respondeat who does not appear in a lower 
Court of Appeal, who is, therefore, not preclud. 
ed by his non-appearance in such Court from 
preferring an appeal to the High Court from a 
decision passed against him ex-forte in the 
Lower Appellate Court. Kali Kishore Roy 
•■ DhijNUNJOY Roy. Garth, C. ]., and Birch,]... 

L L. Bep. 8 Cal. 998, 1877. 
S. C under Limitation. 60. 

7. Registration Act XX. of 1S66, §§ 52, 

53 — Decree — Execution.'] There is no appeal 
from a decree, nor from orders passed in execu- 
tion of a decree, obtained under § 53 of Act XX. 
of 1S66 upon an agreement specially registered 
under § 52 of that Act. 

Hurnath Chattcjec v. FuUick Ohunder 
Summadar (18 W. Rep. $>?.), Radha Kristo 
Di&tv. Gunga Narain Chatterjte (23 W. Rep. 
328), Huro Soonduree Debia v. Punchoo Bam 
Uundul (24 W. Rep. 22$), followed 1— 
Bhybub Chunder v. Golaf Coomary. Kemp 

and Morris, JJ L L. Bep. 8 Cal. 617, 

1878. 

Sec Ramanand t. Bank of Bengal... 

I, L. Bep. 1 All. 877. 

And WtLAYAT-UN.NlSSA v. Najibun- 

NisSA...Ibid. 683. Infra. 11 

and 19. 

8. —Practice— Ground of Appeal taken 

in Argument.'] Although, as a rule, the High 

Court will not allow grounds of appeal to be 

Liken in argument which have not been taken 



APPEAL— CIVIL— contd. 

the Memorandum of Appeal, jet where a 
decree comes before it which is on its very face 
illegal, the Court is bound to take up the point 
itself and rectify the mistake. Poran Sookk 
Chunder b. Parbbutty Dossee. Jackson and 

Kennedy, JJ I. L. Rop. 8 Cat. 619, 1878. 

S. C. under Declaratory Decree. 



13. 
Act X. of i877,S53. 540. 591, 647— 
Act l.jif 1868, §6 — Decree — Judicial Proceedings 
—Procedure— Letters Patent (Calcutta), 1865, CI. 
16.] In all suits instituted before Act X. of 1877 
came into force, in which an appeal lay to the 
High Court under Act VIII. of 1859, an appeal 
still lies, notwithstanding the repeal of that Act 
by Act X. of 1877. 

Per Garth, C.J. — A suit is a judicial proceed- 
ing, and the words " any proceeding "in § 6, 
Act I. of 1868, include all proceedings in any 
suit from the date of its institution to its final 
disposal, and include proceedings in appeal. 
The word "procedure" in § 3 of Act X. of 
S77 has not the same meaning as the word 
'proceedings" in Act I. of tS6S, § 6. 

The proceedings in any suit commenced be- 
fore Act X. of 1877 came into operation, includ* 
special appeal, if the old Civil Procedure 
Code allowed one, go on as before ; but the pro- 
cedure, or machinery by which those proceed 
ngs are conducted, is, after decree, to be that 
vhich is provided by the new Code, Act X. of 
(877. 

Ratanchand Shrichand v. Hanmantraa Sada- 
skii (6 Bon. H. C. Rep. A. C. ]. 166} approved. 
Per Jackson, J— The appeal given by § 588 of 
Act X. of 1877 applies to orders made under 
that Act, and to no others ; and the finality 
given by the same section to appellate decisions 
of that nature is confined to orders passed in 



appe; 



Is under that si 



The word "decree" 



I 3 of Act X. of 1877 does not include orders, 
either original or appellate, upon matters aris- 
ing in the course of a suit, or in execution of 
the decree. 

The decision of the Appellate Court on an 
appeal from the original decree is, in truth, the 
result of the decision of the suit by that Court, 
and, therefore, comes at once within the defini- 
tion of a "decree." 

The "judicial proceedings" referred to in the 
same definition, are those provided for in § 647, 
■nd are altogether outside regular suits- 



b, Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



APPEAL— OXVXL-anM. 

The power ol the High Court of Calcutta to 
hear appeals from the Civil Courts in the 
rior is regulated by Act VI. of 1871. Sections 
oE Act I. of i36S covers specific proceedings 
taken i n execution of a decree which have been 
commenced before Act X. of 1877 came into force. 
The effect of that section and of J 3 of Act X. 
of 1877 is, (l) that the procedure in suits insti- 
tuted after Act X. of 1877 came into force will 
be wholly subject to its provisions ; (a), the 
ceedure in suits commenced before that Act 
came into force and pending at that time will 
be regulated by the previous law up to decree, 
and by that Act after decree ; and (3), the pro- 
cedure after decree in suits determined before 
Act X. of 1877 came into force, would there- 
after be governed entirely by the Act as to new 
proceedings but not as to proceedings already 
commenced. 

Per ttarkby and Hitter, ]]■— No appeal lies, 
under Act X. of 1877, from an order passed be- 
fore that Act came into force, rejecting an ap- 
plication under § zoS of Act VIII. of 1859, by 
the purchaser of a decree, to be allowed to exe- 
cute the decree. Nor will such an appeal lie under 
CI. 16 of the Letters Patent (Calcutta), 1865, 
as that clause only empowers the High Court at 
Calcutta to hear appeals in such cases as were 
subject to appeal to the High Court by virtue 
of any laws or regulations then in force; and 
such an appeal would not have lain under either 
Act VIII. of 1859, or Act XXIII of 1861,1 II. 

But notwithstanding the repeal of this latter 
enactment by Act X. of 1877, an appeal will lie 
to the High Court (Calcutta), under CI- 16 of 
the Letters Patent (Calcutta), 1865, from an 
order passed in execution of a decree before 
Act X- of 1877 came into operation, from which 
an appeal lay to the High Court under the pro- 
visions of Acts VIII. of 1850, and XXIII. of 
1861, and where there is nothing in Act X. of 
1877 expressly prohibiting such an appeal. The 
power of the High Court to hear an appeal car- 
ries with it, as a necessary consequence, the 
right to an appellant to present to that Court a 
petition of appeal. Runjit Singh v. Meherban 
Kof.r...I. L. Bop. 3 Cftl. 663 ; 8 Oal. Sep. 
381, 1878, F. B. 
See 5. 27.89. 

10. Registration Act VIII. of 1 87 1,(76— 

Act III. of 1877, { 2— Act I. of 1S68, f 6— Refu- 
sal to register.] On the 23rd of August 1872, an 



APPEAL— CIVIL— contd. 
order was passed;rejecting an appeal against an 
order refusing^ register a deed ; and while Act 
VIII. of 1671 was in force an application for a 
review of (his order was presented, and finally 
rejected on the 20th December 1877, after 
Act VIII. of 1871 had been repealed by Act III. 
0(1877-.— 

Held, that by the provision of j 6 of Act 1. of 
186S, the repeal of Act VIII. of 1871 did not 
affect any proceedings commenced before the 

epealing Act III. of 1877 came into operation ; 
and that the proceedings in the present case, 
therefore, must be governed by the provisions 
of the Act in force at the time they were insti- 
tuted — namely, Act VIII. of 1871 ; and by J 76 
of that Act no appeal lay from the order com- 
plained of. Svud Mahomkt Hossei n t. Hadzi 
Abdullah. Ainslit and McDtmeil, JJ....I. It. 
Rep. 3 OaL 727, 1878. 
II. Act XX. of 1866, ( 52— Act VIII. of 

8 S9. 1 *73— Execution— Act VIII. 0/1871.] No 
appeal lies against orders passed in execution 
of decrees under Act XX. of 1 866, the procedure 
under that Act having been expressly saved by 
Act VIII. of 1871 which repealed Act XX- of 
Ramanand e. The Bank of Bengal. 

Stuart, C.J., and Old/h-ld, J...Z. It. Bap. 1 All. 

377, 1877. 

Overruled by 

WlLAYAT-UN-NlSSA V. NAJIB-UN- 

Nissa... Ibid. 688, infra 12. 

13, Execution of Decree on Specially 

Registered Bond—Act XX. of 1866, f S3— 
Appeal— Act IX. of 1871, Sched. II., Art. 167.] 
Hetd,hy Pearson, Turner, and Spantie, ]]., that 
appeal lies from an order passed in the execu- 
tion of a decree obtained under the provisions 
of J S3 of Act XX of 1866 on a bond specially 
registered under § 52 of that Act. 
Ramanand v. The Bank of Bengal (I. L. Rep. 
Ail. 377) overruled. 

By Stuart, C.J .—The provisions in g 53 of 
Act XX of 1866, that " such decree may be 
enforced forthwith under the provisions for the 
enforcement of decrees contained in the Code 
of Civil Procedure," lets in the Code so far as 
the enforcement of decrees made under that por- 
tion of Act XX. of 1S66, is concerned, but it is 
tbe law that § 53 lets in and enforces the 
e provisions of Act VIII. of I&S9 relating to 
ecrees. To hold otherwise would 
effect, to render nugatory | 55 of Act XX. 



hy Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



APFBAL-CmL-«m». 

of 1866, which provides that there shall be tie 
appeal against any decree or order made under 
§§ S3. S4i or IMs section." To that extent, there- 
tore, this section forbids the application of the 
Code o[ Civil Procedure, that is, so tax as appeals 
are concerned. 

Per Turner, J.— Art. 167 of Sched. II. of Act 

IX. of 1871 applies to decrees obtained under 

the special provisions of Act XX. of 1866, 

WrLAYUT-iiN-NissA o. Najib-un Nissa.-.L L. 

Sep. 1 All, 683, 1878, F. B. 

See Bhyrub Chunder v. Goolad Coo- 

HAKV...L L. Hep. 8 Oftl. 617. 

Supra. 7. 

IS. Act VIU. of |8J9, f 3»7 — Order 

directing Award to be filed.] The plaintiff ap- 
plied, under S337 of Act VIII. of 1859, to file and 
enforce an award made upon a reference to 
arbitration without the intervention of the Court. 
The defendant denied referring the matter de- 
cided by the award, to arbitration, or any know- 
ledge of the arbitration proceedings; but the 
Court to which the application was made, after 
taking evidence, decided that the reference was 
made by an authorized agent of the defendant 
and with the defendant's knowledge, and accord- 
ingly ordered the award to be filed, but did not 
pass any decree enforcing the award :— 

Held, following Jokkun Rai v. Bucho Rai (H. 
C Rep. N. W. P., 1868, p. 353,) that no appeal 
lay from the order directing the award to be 
filed, as it did not operate as a decree. 

Per SpankU, J.— Section 327 of Act VIII, of 
1859 was intended to apply only to those cases in 
which a reference to arbitration is admitted and 
in which an award has been made. Where one 
of the parties denies that he had referred any 
dispute to arbitration, or that an award had been 
made between himself and the other party, that 
is sufficient cause why the award should not be 
filed- The applicant for its admission should be 
left to bring a regular suit for the enforcement 
of the award. Hussaini Bibi s. Mohsin Khan. 
Spantu and Otdfield, JJ...L L. Bap- 1 AIL 
108, 1876. 
S. C under Arbitration. 5. 



497, Vol. 2, OoL 76. 



APPEAL— CIVIL— contd. 

13a, Order directing Amtrdtoee filed — 

Act X- of 1877, 55 JJO to SM, 525. S«S.5>8.] In 
a suit by the plaintiff, claiming under 5 525 of 
Act X. of 1877, that an award made on a private 
reference to arbitration should be filed in Court, 
the Court of first instance holding that there was 
no reason to remit the award for the reconsider- 
ation of the arbitrator, under § 530, or to set it 
aside under 5 S*i of that Act, did not proceed 
to give judgment according to such award fol- 
lowed by a decree, but merely directed that the 
award should be filed :— 

Held, that the order was not appealable as an 

order or as a decree. Ramadhin «. Mahhsh. 

Stuart, C.J., and OUfieli, J...1 L. Bep. S AIL 

471, 1879. 

14.— Art VIU. of 1859, $3&~Appeat 
when instituted — Limitation.'] Where under the 
provisions of Act VIII. of 1859, 5; 336, a memoran- 
dum of appeal is returned for the purpose of 
being corrected, the Appellate Court should spe- 
cify a time for sucb correction. 

Where an appellant presented an appeal 
within the period of limitation, and the Appel- 
late Court returned the memorandum of appeal 
for correction, without specifying a time for such 
correction, and the amended memorandum was 
presented some days after the period of limita- 
tion : — Held, that the appeal was within time, 
the date of the presentation of the appeal being 
the date on which it was first presented. Jagan 
Nath e. Lalhah. Turner and Sfiantie, J]. ... I. 
L. Bep. 1 AU. 260, 1876. 

IB.-^Deeree — Judgment. - ] The plaintiffs 
claimed, as heirs of G., possession of certain 
lands from the defendants, alleging that G. had 
mortgaged them to the defendants, and that the 
debt had been satisfied from the usufruct. The 
defendants denied that the plaintiffs were the 
heirs of C, and asserted that they themselves 
G.'s heirs and held the land in suit as 
such, having originally held them under the 
mortgage, which they alleged was not satisfied 
from the usufruct. The Court of first instance 
found that the plaintiffs were the heirs of ft, 
dismissed the suit on the ground that the 
mortgage-debt had not been satisfied. The 
decree "ordered that the plaintiffs' suit be 
dismissed in its present form." 

The lower Appellate Court dismissed an 
ippeal by the defendants impugning the decision 
that the plaintiffs were the heirs of G., on the 



exiled by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



APPEAL-CIVIL~« n «. 
ground that the appeal was against the decision 
and not against the decree of the Court oE first 
instance, referring to Pan Kaer v. Bhugaat 
Koer (H. C. Rep. N. W. P., 1874, p. 10). Held, 
on special appeal, that that decision did not 
apply, and that the defendants were entitled to 
appeal. Rah Gholam u. Shbo Taiial. Turner 
and Spankie, JJ...I. L. Bap. 1 AIL 206, 
1876. 

16. Act XXVII. of i860— Security.'] 

No appeal lies from an order of a District Court 
requiring security From a person to whom it 
has granted a certificate to collect debts under 
Act XXVII. of i860. 

Soonea v. Ram Suha (H. C. Rep. N. W. P., 
1870, p. I46,) and lUonmohincc Dosser v. Kkettct 
Gopaul Dcy (I. L. Rep. 1 Cat. 127) followed. 

Semite, the District Judge can review his 
order relating to the amount of the security. 

In the matter of the Petition of RukmIN. 

Turner and Spankie, JJ...L L. Hep. 1 All 

287, 1876. 

See MONMOHINEE DASSEE v. KhaTTKU 

Gopaul Dey X. Id. Bep. 1, 

CaL 127, ante 4. 
17.— -Act VIII. 0/1859, * '54— Salt in 

Execution— Defaulting Purchaser— Letters Pa- 
lcntt,Alltthabad),Cl. 10.] An appeal lies from an 
Order passed on an application under § 254 of 
Act VIII. of 1859, to make a defaulting pur 
chaser liable for the loss occasioned by the re 

Held (Spantie, J., dissenting) that ordinaril. 
where an appeal is given it must be taken to be . 
general appeal, and express language should be 
used to restrict it. For this reason, and because 
the construction of a doubtful term which appears 
to accord best with the context ought to be 
accepted, it must be held that the appeal given 
to the Full Court by CI. 10 of the Letters Patent 
of the Allahabad High Court from the judgment 
of two or more Judges of the Court or of a 
Division Court, "wherever" such Judges are 
equally divided in opinion, See., is not confined 
to the point on which the judges of the Division 
Bench differ. 

Ram Dial v. Ram Das...I. 
Hep. 1 AIL 181, 1876, V. B. 

18. Application for Leave to sue as 

Pauper— Act X. of 1877, §§ 2, $40, 588.] No ap- 
peal lies under Act X. of 1877 from an order 



APPBAL-CTVIL- 



ntd. 



made under that Act rejecting an application 
for permission to sue as a pauper. Snch an 
order, though embodying the result of a judicial 
proceeding, is not a decree within the meaning 
of §| 2 and 540 of that Act. The judicial pro- 
:eedings referred to in § 2 are proceedings of 
1 different character from those which result in 
the order specified in f 588, and in some degree 
resemble and partake of the character of a suit, 
Collis v. Manohab Das... I. L. Kep. 1 AIL 
746, 1878, F. B. 

19. From Order rejecting Application to 

;ct aside Ex-parte Decree — Act X. of 1877, |§ 2, 
103, 108, 588.] Under Act X. of 1877, an ex- 
parte decree is appealable like any other decree, 
but no appeal lies under that Act from an order 
rejecting an application to set aside an er.partt 
decree against a defendant. Guladh Singh v. 
Lachman Das... I. L. Rep. 1 AIL 748, 1878, 
F.B 
See supra. 9. 

80. Insufficiently Stamped Document.'] 

Where a document is admitted by the Lower 

Court as not requiring a stamp, its admissibility 

cannot be queslioned in appeal. Enayefoolta v. 

Shaikh Mcajan (16W. Rep. 6) followed. Knoos 

Lall v. Jungle Stngh. McDonell and Brough- 

r<m,JJ...LL.Bep. 3 CaL 787} 9 Oft), B*p. 

439, 1878. 

Sec Error not affecting the Merits. 

1. 

A«al-un-Nissa p. Thj Bin... I, 

I» Bop. 1 All. 726. 

81. Suit under Act VIII. of 1 859— Decree 

given after Repeal of that Act— Appeal.] Where 
a suit has been instituted under Act VIII. of 
1859, but decided after Act X. of 1877 had come 
into force, and an appeal is presented against 
such decision, f 3 of Act X. of 1877 distinctly 
indicates that such an appeal is to be governed 
by the law of procedure in force at the date of 
the presentation of the appeal. Whore, there- 
fore, an appeal in a such case has been dis- 
missed under § 556 of Act X. of 1877, the 
appellant may apply for its re-admission under 
{ 558 ; and if such re-admission is refused, he 
is entitled to an appeal under § 588 (o). 

Burkut Hoosein v. Majidoonissa (3 C. L. Rep. 

208} distinguished. Elahi Buksh v. Maha- 

chow. Ainslie and Broughton, JJ..X L. Bop. 

4 CaL 835 ; 3 CaL 593, 1879. 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



APPEAL— OIVII.-<*»«tf. 

33. Appeal from Order setting aside Sale 

in Execution of Decree— Act X. of 1877, %% 32, 
311, 31a. 5«8 («), 647.] Where upon an ap- 
plication by the judgment-debtor, under f 311 
of Act X. of i877,!to set aside a sale in execu- 
tion of a decree against him, the auction pur- 
chaser is made a party to the proceedings under 
if 32 and 647 of that Act, and appears and 
shows cause why the sale should n 
aside, he can appeal against the order setting 
aside the sale. Kanthi Ram v. Bankey Lai (1. L. 
R.2AII. 396) followed. Gopal Singh u. Dular 

Kuak, Sponbieznd Straight, JJ I. L. Rep. 

3 All. 3(WJ, 1H79. 

28. Appeal from Order returning Plaint 

~Act Xof 1877, St 57 (0, 538 (e)-Act XII. of 
1879, § 2.] Though § 57 of Act X. of 1877 
nirilem jih^s a return of a plaint, should 
be patcnt™when it is first presented, there is 
nothing in that section which forbids the 
0! a plaint at a later stage. 

Where, therefore, after the issues were framed, 
the Court decided that it had no jurisdiction 
and " dismissed" the plaintiff's suit, at 
time ordering the plaint to be returned to the 
plaintiffs : — 

Held, that though the Court had made us 
the word " dismiss," it was clear, from thedi 
lion that the plaint was to be given back, tha t 
the Court stopped, and intended to stop, from 
further hearing of the suit, .when it discovered 
that it had no jurisdiction. The Court, there- 
fore, when it returned the plaint to be presented 
in the proper Court, was acting under £ 57, Ci- 
te), Act X of 1S77, and the order returning the 
plaint under that section was appealable under 
| 538 of that Act, and did not come within the 
definition of decree in Act XII. of 1879, § 3, 
and therefore was not appealable from as a de- 
cree. Abdul Sam ad v. Rajindro Kishor 
Singh. Spankie ami Straight, JJ...I. L. Rep. 
2 All. 307, 1879. 

24. Appeal from Order in Execution of a 

Decree — Assignment of Decree— Cross-Decrees — 
AclX. 0/1877, §§ a > s 3 a , 2 33i 2 46, 54o] An order 
made in the execution of a decree disallowing 
the objections taken by the judgment -debtor to 
execution of the decree, being the final order 
id a judicial proceeding, and therefore a decree 
within the meaning of § 2 of Act X. of 1877 is 
appealable under that Act. Thakur Prasad v. 
Ahsan Ali (I. L. Rep. 1 AU, 068) followed. 



APPEAL— CIVIL-w««. 

Murli Dhar v. Parshotam Das. Pearson and 

Turner,]} I. L. Hep. 2 AH. 91, 1878. 

S. C. under Execution of Decree. 8. 

I. Second Appeal— Objection as to Insol- 
vency of Plaintiff taken for First Time on.} 
Where the defendants for the first time in second 
appeal objected to the plaintiff's right to sue on 
the ground of his having taken the benefit of the 
Insolvent Debtors' Act, the objection was enter, 
lained by the High Court on the plaintiff's ad- 
of his insolvency. Sadodin o. Spier. 
MehOt and Kemball, JJ...L L. Rep. 3 Bom. 
437, 1879. 
S. C under Insolvency. 1. 

26. Appeal from Munsiff — Act VIII. of 

S59- ActX. of 1877, § 5S4 - Return of Plaint.] 
\ suit to redeem an usufructuary mortgage of 
certain lands, valued at Rs. 150, the principal 
money secured by the mortgagee, was instituted 
in the Munsiff's Court. The defendants were 
summoned to appear on the day fixed for the 
hearing of the suit, and to produce their evidence. 
The defendants accordingly appeared, denied 
the mortgage, and set up a proprietary title to 
the land. The Munsiff subsequently returned 
the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the 
proper Cojirt, holding that, looking to the nature 
of the defence, the suit must be regarded as one 
to recover possession of land, the value of which 
being more than Rs 1,000, he bad no jurisdic- 
tion to entertain the suit, which ought to have 
been instituted in the Court of the Subordinate 
Judge. On appeal by the plaintiff, the Subor- 
dinate Judge confirmed the decision. On a 
second appeal by the plaintiff to the High 
Court:— 

Held, that the Munsiff s order for the return of 
the plaint being passed after the suit had been 
admitted on the file, and the parties had been 
called on to produce their evidence, his order 
finally disposed of the suit, and was the legiti- 
mate subject of a regular appeal under Act VIII. 
of 1850, and the present appeal from the appel- 
late decree of the lower Court was admissible 
under J 584 of Act X. of 1877. Kalian Das v. 
NawAL SinQH. Pearson and Spankie,]]... I. L. 

Rep. 1 AU. 630, 1878. 
S.C. under Jurisdiction, 5. 

87. Execution of Decree — Appeal from 

Order— Act /- o/lS68, ( 6— Act VIII. 0/1859- 
Ait X. of ldJ7— Repeal— Pending Proceedings.] 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES 



APPEAL -CXVlL-tontd. 

The chapter of the New Civil Procedure. Code 
(Act X. of 1877) which deals with execution of 
decrees is prospective, and does not affect pro. 
ceedmgs already commenced. While, then, 
"proceedings in execution of decrees initiated 
after Act X. of 1877 came into operation must 
be governed by the provisions of that Code, the 
effect of , 6 of Act I. of 1868 is to leave proceed- 
ings initialed before Act X. of 1S77 came intc 
force to be dealt with under the provisions of 
the repealed Code (Act VIII. of 1839). Proceed- 
ings in execution of a decree, therefore, instituted 
under Act VIII. of 1859, are to be governed by 
the provisions of that Code, and an appeal 
lie from all orders passed in such proceedings 
which under the provisions of that Act . 
appealable, the saving of "proceedings com 
ced" from the operation of a repealing Act by 
§ 6 of Act I. of 1868, extending also to appeals 
from such proceedings, 

Where, therefor^ the holder of a decree foi 
money applied for execution thereof by the at. 
tachment of certain moneys deposited in Court 
to the credit of the judgment-debtor, and the 
application was refused, on the 4th of June 1877, 
by the Court of first instance, on the ground that 
the decree directed the sale of certain immove. 
able property for the satisfaction of the sum 
decreed, and awarded no other relief, and such 
order was affirmed on appeal on the 4th of August 
1877, and the decree-holder applied to the High 
Court on the 13th of November 1877, after Act 
X. of 1877 came into operation, for the admi 
of a second appeal from the order of the lower 
Appellate Court, on the ground that the decree 
had been misunderstood :— 

Held, that the appeal was admissible under- 
the repealed Act VIII. of 1859, under the provi- 
sions of ( 6 of Act I. of 1868. 

Held also, that though the provisions of f 647 
of Act X. of 1877 are applicable to proceedings 
in execution of a decree, yet the last paragraph 
of ( 3 of that Act is not to be extended to pro- 

Held also, that the provisions of ( 588 of Act 
X. of 1S77 do not embrace all the direct 
on the determination of proceedings which 
termed "orders" in the Code, and that sec 
in declaring that an appeal should lie from the 
orders mentioned therein, and from no othei 
such orders, must be understood to mean orders 
of a similar nature to those specified, and 1 



APPEAL-CIVIL— contd. 

orders" that might be passed under the Code. 
While, then, the provisions of CI. (j) of ( 5SS 
allow an appeal from the orders made in the 
irse of execution proceedings where an appeal 
allowed from similar orders passed in the 
course of a suit, the provisions of f 647 declare 
that the procedure prescribed by the Act shall 
be followed (so far as applicable) in all proceed- 
ings other than suits and appeals; therefore, an 
appeal will lie in such proceedings from the 
order which is analogous to a decree in a suit- 
Applying the definition of "decree" to proceed. 
in execution of a decree, the formal order of 
the Court in which the result of the proceedings 
embodied is a decree within the meaning of 
at term in the Code. It is therefore appeal. 
able in all cases in which a decree is appealable, 
and the procedure in such cases must be govern- 
ed by the provisions of the chapters elating to 
appeals from decrees. The order in question, 
therefore, was also appealable, under Act X. of 
1877. Thakur Prasad o. Ahsan Au -...I. L. 
Hep. 1 AIL 638, 1879, F. B. 
And tee Appeal— Civil. S. 9. 28. 

38. Act X. of 1877, { 584— Second Appeal 

from Judgment Ex-parte in Appeal.] A defend- 
ant who obtains a judgment in his favour in the 
Court of first instance, and who on appeal by 
the plaintiff does not appear at the bearing of 
the appeal or present a petition for re-hearing, 
may, under Act X, of 1877, present a second 
appeal against the decree of the lower Appellate 

Per M- Ayyar, J. — It may be a question whe. 
ther an appeal does not lie even from a judgment 
ex-parte, the restriction contained in f 1 19 of Act 
VIII. of 1859 being omitted in the corresponding 
f 108 of Act X. of 18J7. Ex p. Madalatha. 
Kenan and M. Ayyar, JJ...I. I,. Rep. 2 Wad. 
75, 1878. 

fl9, Second Appeal from Order in execu- 
tion of Decree-Act X. of 1877. §§ <*.3. *44. S»* 
588— Act I. of 1868, § 6.] The Court executing 
a decree for the removal of certain buildings made 
an order in the execution of such decree direct- 
ing that a portion of a certain building should be 
removed, as being included in the decree. 

On appeal by the judgment-debtor, the lower 
Appellate Court, on Mud September 1877, 
reversed such order. 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



APPEAL— CIVIL— contd. 

Held, per Pearson, J., on appeal made on 30th 
May 1878 by the decree-holder from the order 
of the lower Appellate Court, that that order 
being a decree within the scope (if the defini 
in 5 2, Act X. of 1877, was appealable under § 
584 of that Code, as well as under Act VIII. of 
1859, notwithstanding its repeal, in reference 1 
§ 6 of Act I. of 1868. Thakur Prasad v. Ahsi 
Ali (I. L. Rep. 1 All. 66S, F. B.) followed. 

Per Stuart, C J., (dissenting from Tkait 

Prasad v. Askan Alt, ubi supra), that a second 

appeal did not lie. Uda Beg ah v. Imam-ud- 

din. Stuart, C J., and Pearson, J.... I. L. Bep. 

a All. 74, 1878. 

See also Murli Dhak o. Purshotam 

Das Ibid. 61. 

80. Special Appeal -Point net raised in 

Lamer Courts— Want of Possession in Plaintiff' 
Vendor.'] In a suit, between Hindus, to recove: 
possession of certain lands sold to the plaintiffs, 
the defendant was not allowed to raise for the 
Erst time in special appeal the point that the 
plaintiffs' vendor, was not, at the time of sale to 
the plaintiffs, in possession of the land sold. 
RamabaIv.Affa. Westropp.C.]., v\A Kemball, 

J IS Bom. H. C. Bep. 13, 1874. 

MaHADAII V- VVANKAJt I. L. 

Bep. 1 Bom. 197. 

81. Limitation — Remand — Special Ap- 
peal from Decision on Remand — Points not raised 
below.'] The defence of limitation cannot ! 
raised for the first time after there has been 
remand, and on special appeal from thedecisic 
of the Court which heard the case on remand. 

Per Westropp, C J. %—" Speaking for myself 
alone, I reserve the right to consider whether, 
even upon a special appeal where there has been 
bo remand, I should follow Salu v. Rajsangji 
(2 Bom. H. C Rep. 162) and Davlata v. Beru 
(4 Bom. H C. Rep. 197)." Moru Patlaji e. 
Copal Satu. Westropp, C. J., West and Pinhey, 
JJ L L. Rop. S Bom. ISO, 1877. 

89. Suit CogniMable by Small Cause 

Court— Question of Title— Act XXIIL of 1861, ( 
37.] No special appeal lies to the High Court in a 
suit cognisable by the Small Cause Court, though 
a question of title to immoveable property has 
been incidentally raised and tried in the Court 
below. Mohesh Matto v. Sheik Pika...I. L. 
Bep. 2 OaL 470 j 1 OaL Bep. 88, 1877, F.B. 



APPEAL— CIVIL- -contd. 

S3. — - Jurisdiction— Rent— Suit under 
Rs. 100— Beng. Act VIII. of 1869, §§ 33, 34, and 
102— Act VIII- of 1879, § 372.] Held {Jackson, 
]., dissenting), that no special appeal lies to the 
High Court from the decision of a District 
Judge in a suit for rent under Rs. 100, when no 
question of right to enhance or vary the rent of 
a ryot or tenant, nor any question relating to a 
title to land or to some interest in land as be. 
tween parties having conflicting claims thereto, 
has been determined by the judgment. Lun- 

GES5UR KoOER V. SoOKHA OjHA...L L. Rop. 

3 CaL 191 ; 1 Cal. Bep. 30, 1877, F. B. 

34. Objection as to Want of Possession 

of Plaintiff's Vendor at Time of Sale not taken in 
Court belon.y In a suit to recover possession of 
certain lands sold to the plaintiff, the defendant 
was not allowed to raise for the first time in 
special appeal the point that the plaintiff's ven. 
dor, a Hindu, was not, at the time of ssle to the 
plaintiff, in possession of the land sold. Maha- 
DAJI v. VvaNkaJi GoviNd. Westropp, C.J., and 

West, J I. L. Bep. 1 Bom. 197, 1376. 

S. C. under Registration. 13. 

85, Appeal against refusal to Confirm an 

Anard— Act VIII.qftZtoMltS-Zri— Privileged 
Communications— Evidence Act I. of 1872, ( I.] 
In a suit referred to arbitration under Act VIII. 
of 1859, the arbitrator informer! the parties that 
he had determined to award the plaintiff Rs. 
1,500 with costs ; but a few days afterwards, in 
consequence of a communication made by the 
defendant, the arbitrator held another meeting, 

which the defendant for the first time contend' 
ed, that as, before the matter was referred to 
arbitration, he had offered the plaintiff Rs. 1,500, 
he ought not to be made to pay the costs of the 
arbitration, and in support of his contention 
produced a letter written by the plaintiff's at- 
torney lo his attorneys, which was stated to be 

without prejudice," and thereupon the arbi- 
trator decided not to give the plaintiff costs. 
An application to confirm the award was refused 
by the Judge, of the Court of first instance, on 
the ground that the defendant had improperly 
communicated with the arbitrator behind the 
back of the other party, and had used the letter 
without prejudice " to induce the arbi- 
trator to alter his opinion. 

Held, on appeal by the defendant, that the 
refusal of the Judge to give judgment on the 
award, was in point of fact a judgment upon the 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



APPEAL-CIV1X-m«W. 

whole subject-matter of the suit, and that 

appeal would lie from such refusal. 

Held also, that though the arbitrator was 
wrong in receiving and acting on and using 
evidence a document which ought not to have 
been received, yet that this was not a sufficient 
ground to justify the Judge in refusing to con- 
firm the award, Howard o. Wilson. Garth, 

C.J., and Markby, ] I. L. Hep. 4 Cal. 231, 

1878 ; 3 CaL Rep. 488. 

36. ■ Judgment— Decree.'] The plaintiff 

sued for possession of certain land, on the ground 
that he was the owner thereof in virtue of a pur- 
chase from N. The defendants claimed the 
land as owners, on the ground that ! 
eluded in a garden which they had previously 
purchased at a sale in execution of a decree 
against N., and they also urged that in a former 
suit between themselves and N. the land had 
been found to be part of that garden, and that 
the matter was, therefore, res judicata as be- 
tween themselves and the plaintiff claiming 
through A'. The Court of first instance held that 
the lands in question did not form part of the 
garden purchased at the execution sale, but 
that the defendants were in possession under a 
lease from N. which had not expired, and, there- 
fore, that tbey could not be ejected. He also 
' found that the matter was not res judicata; and 
by his decree " ordered that the plaintiffs claim 
as it stands at present be dismissed" : — 

Held [Straight,]., dissenting), that the defend- 
ants were entitled, under § 540 of Act X. of 
1S77, to appeal from such decree. 

Per Stuart, C. J. — It would be too narrow a 
view of the Code (Act X. of 1877) to hold that 
the decree, inasmuch as it was a decree, which 
so far as it decreed anything, did so in favour 
of the defendants, was not a decree by which the 
defendants could be said to be aggrieved. Not 
only the judgment, but the pleadings also, may 
be looked at to see what the decree really 
means where the decree is ambiguous or imper- 
fect as to any essential particular. The present 
decree, though apparently favourable to the 
defendants, was imperfect and not self-explana. 
tory; and when read by the light of the record 
of the pleadings and judgment was really un- 
favourable to them. 

Per Spaniie, J.— A decree which is materially 
defective, cither from omission or otherwise. 



APPEAIr-CmX-ronM. 

and which cannot be amended, is appealable on 
that ground alone ; and the judgment may be 
referred to in order to determine the real mean- 
ing and effect of the decree. Lachman Sihch 
b. H0HAN...L L. Rep. S AIL 487,1879, F.R 

8'. — Order refusing to rehear Appeal 
decided Ei-parte— Act X. of 1877, ( $Go— Second 
Appeal,] Section 560 of the Civil Procedure 
Code, Act X. of 1877, is not mandatory, but 
permissive and discretionary. A person against 
whom an appeal has been decided es-parte, and 
who has applied to the Appellate Court, under 
that seciion, for a rehearing of the appeal and 
been refused, is not bound to appeal against the 
order of refusal, but may present a second appeal 
from the judgment in appeal. Rahjas v. Baij 
Nai-h, Stuart, CJ. and Spankie, J... I. L. Bop. 
3 AIL 667, 1879. 

38. Execution of Decree— Application 

to set aside Sale of Immoveable Property— Act X. 

0/1377, ft 3". 312.313, 11^588, m.] Though 
an auction purchaser may not apply under 
f 311 of the Civil Procedure Code, Act X. of 1877, 
) have a sale set aside, he yet may be a party to 
ie proceedings after an application has been 
,ade under that section, and then if an order is 
made against him, he can appeal from such 
order under j 588 (m) of the Act. Kanthi 
Ram b. Bankey Lal. Span/tie and Oldfield, ]]. 
I. L. Rep. 3 AIL 396, 1879. 

APPEAL— CRIMINAL— Abatement of. 

See Abatement of Appeal— Crimi- 
nal. 



- Against an Acquittal. 

See Appeal— CrimioaL 1. 4. 6. 6. 7. 

— Prom an Acquittal 

See High Court Criminal Proce- 
dure, Act X. of 1878, f 147. 
9. 

Corporation of Calcutta « 

DhEECUHKAM NAPITT...X, L. 

Rep. 3 Cal. 390. 
From Acquittal — Arrest by Magistrate 

pending. 
Sec Appeal— Criminal. 6, 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



APPEAL-CRIMINAL— o™«. 

■ From Acquittal — Arrest pending — High 

Court can order- 
Sec Appeal— Criminal. 6. 7. 

From Acquittal — Limitation for. 

See Appeal — Criminal. 5. 

Aggregate Sentence — Measures Right 

of. 
See Appeal— Criminal. 3. 
Arrest by Magistrate pending — from Ac- 
quittal — Power of High Court. 
See Appeal— Criminal, 0. 



See Appeal— Criminal. 6. 7. 

- From Judicial Commissioner to Special 

Court at Rangoon from Sentence of latter 
in Case transferred by him from Sessions 

See Jurisdiction. 17. 

Empress v. Tsit Oob... J. L. Rep. 
4 Cal. 667. 

- By Persons Convicted under § 36, Act X. 

of 1872. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X of 1873, §86. 
Empress j>. Nadu a. ..I. X. Rep. 
3 All. 63. 

- Against Sanction to Prosecute or Refusal 

to grant Sanction. ■ 

See Sanction to Prosecute. 1. 

Babkat-ullah-Khan t>. Rbnhie. 

I. L. Rep. 1 All. 17. 

See Presidency Magistrates' Act 

IV. of 1877, §41. 

Janokey Nath Rov...I. L. Rep, 

aCal.466. 

- Substantive Sentence — Sentence of Im- 

prisonment in Default of Payment of 

Pine. 

See Presidency Magistrates' Act 

IV. ofl877, § 167. 

In the matter of Jotharam Davav. 

1. L Rep. 3 Mad. 80. 

- Trial by Jury of Offence triable with 

Assessors. 

See Trial by Jury. 

Empress v. Mohinj Chunoer Rai. 
L L. Rep. 3 Cal. 760. 



APPEAX— ORXXXVAX— amftZ. 

1. Practice— Presentation.] A petition 

of appeal in a criminal case may be presented to 
the Appellate Court by any person authorized 
by the appellant to present it. In the matter of 
Subba.Aitala. Innes, C.J, (Offg.) and Busteed, 

J X. L. Rep. 1 Mad. 304, 1877. 

3. Against an Acquittal by a Jury — 

Criminal Procedure Code, Act X. of 1872, § 363 
—Dissent of Judge."] The Government has a 
right to appeal against an acquittal by a jury 
where the Judge differs from the jury, but does 
not consider it necessary for the ends of justice 
to refer the case to the High Court. Impx. «. 
HariGanu- Westropp, C.J., and Sfdvill, J... 
X L. Rep. 3 Bom. 036, n. 

8. Act X. of 187a, §§ 314 & 18— Com- 
bined Sentences for several Offences— Appeal.] 
The combined sentence passed under § 314 of 
Act X. of 1873, in a case of simultaneous con- 
victions for several offences, must be considered 
a single sentence for the purposes of confirma- 
tion or appeal. Rro. u. Rama Biiivgowda. 
MelmlUnd West, JJ...X L. Rep. 1 Bom. 333, 
1876. 

4. Act X. of 1871, § 37a.— Appeal— Offi- 
cer appointed to prefer Appeal — Acquittal.'] On 
the trial by a jury of a person' charged with 
murder, the jury found the accused not guilty of 
murder, but convicted him of culpable homicide 
not amounting to murder. The Sessions Judge, 
though he disagreed with the verdict, declined 
submit the case to the High Court under § 
263 of Act X. of 1872. The Local Government 
then directed the Legal Remembrancer to appeal 
under § 272 of Act X- of 1872, and in pursuance 
thereof an appeal was preferred by the Junior 
Government Pleader -.—Held, that the appeal 
was duly made. Held also, that a judgment 
passed by a Sessions Court, following the verdict 
of a jury accquitting the prisoner, is a judgment 
of acquittal within the meaning of § 272 of Act X. 
of 1872, and that there being an acquittal on 
the charge of murder, the appeal lay. Em- 
press v. Judoonath GaNGOOLV. Jackson and 
McDonell, JJ....I. X. Rep. 3 Cal. 378, 1877. 

8. Act X. of 1872, % 273.— Appeal from 

Acquittal— Limitation.'] An appeal by the Local 
Government under § 272 of Act X. of 1872, is 
within time if presented within six months from 
the date of acquittal. The sixty days' rule does 
not apply. Empress o. Jvadolla...I. X. Rep. 
a Cal. 486, 1877, P. B. 



Diarized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( "2 ) 



APPEAL-CRIMINAL-^rd. 

6.— Atl X.tftHj2,% 273— Arrest pending 
Appeal.'] In an appeal under § aja of Act X. of 
1873, the High Court has power to order the 
accused to be arrested pending the appeal. 
Reg. v. Gobik Tbwari . Macpkmm and Mor- 
ris, ]} I. L. Bop. 1 Oal. 381, 1876. 

7. Act X. of 187*, fa?*-— Wherean ap. 

peal has been preferred under f 171 of Act X. 
of 1873, against an acquittal, the High Court 
may order the accused to be arrested pending 
the appeal. Reg. t. Gobittd Temari (I. L. Rep. 
■ CaL 381) followed. Empress p. Manyu..X 
L. Hep. a Ail. 340, 1879, 
F.B. 
APPEAL TO FULL COURT FROM DI- 
VISION BENCH WHEN JUDGES 
DIFFER— Not confined to Points of 
Difference. 
See Appeal— Civil. 17. 

Rah Dial e. Ram Das I. L. 

Rep. 1 All. 181. 
APPEAL H EA RD EX PARTE BEFORE 
THE PRIVY COUNCIL— Re-hearing 
of. 
See Practice— Privy Council. 4. 
MakarajakPbrtabNarainSin 
v. Maharanee Sldhao Koer. 
L. Rep. 6. 1. A. 171. 
APPEAL FROM ORDER-Under Act VIII. 
o> 1859. i 254— Defaulting Purchaser. 
See Appeal— CiviL 17. 

RahDialv. RAnDAS...LL.Rep. 
1 All. 181. 
— Admitting Review. 
See Review. 9. 

Abdul Rahim v. Rack* Rai... 
I. L. Rep. 1 All. 868. 
— — Awarding Commission to Administrator- 
General. 
See Administrator Generals' Act . 
IX of 1874, i 37. 

SoMASUNOABAM CBRTT1 V. AdMIH- 
1STRAT0R-GBNERAL...L L. Rep. 

1 Mad. 148. 
— — For Delivery of Stolen Property. 

Sec Government Currency Note. 
Empress v. jogessur Mochi...I. L. 
Rep. 8 Cal. 379. 



APPEAL FROM ORDER— centd. 

— Directing an Award to be filed. 
See Appeal-Civil. 13. 13a. 

HustAiHI Bibi v. MoKSiN Khan... 
I. L. Rep. 1 AIL 166. 

Ramadhin v. Mahesh L L. 

Rep. S AIL 471. 
See Arbitration. 4. 

Boonjad Mathoor *. Nathoo 

Ehahoo X. L. Rep. 8 

CaL 876. 

— In Execution of Decree. 
See Appeal— CiviL 914. 27. 99. 88. 
See Civil Procedure Code, Act X. of 

1877, i 044. 
Dalfatbkai v. Amassing. ..L L. 
Rep- 2 Bom. BBS. 

— In Execution of Decrees under Act XX. of 
1S66 on Specially Registered Bond. 

See Appeal— CiviL 7. 11. 19. 

BhyrubChunderv. Golap Coo. 

MARr...LL.Rep.8CaLS17. 

Ramanand ». Bank of Bengal.., 

L L. Rep. 1 All. 377. 

WlLAVAT-UH-NlSSA V. Wa]IB.UH- 

Nissa .....Ibid. BBS. 

— In Execution of Decree Passed before Act 
X. of 1877 came into operation. 

See Appeal-Civil. 6. 0. 37. 99. 

Runjit Singh v. Meherban 

Kobr.L L. Rep. 8 CaL 

663. 

Chihto Joam v. Kishnaji Nab- 

raven... L L. Rep. 8 Bom. 

914. 

Thakub Prasad v. Ahsan Au... 

L L. Sep. 1 AIL 668. 

Uda Begum r. Imam-ud.din... 

I. L. Rep. 3 AIL 74. 

— Fixing Amount of Court Fees on Plaint. 
See Court Fees. 4. 9. 6. 

Chuniab. Rahdial.,.1. L. Rep. 

1 AIL 360. 

Narrayan Naik v. Collector of 

Thana.I. L. Rep. 3 Bom. 

145. 

Manohar Games h p. Bawa Ram- 

charandas Ibid. 319. 



D.gmzed by GoOgle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( 134 ) 



APPEAL FKOM OEBER- ™«. 

Granting Certificate that Case is Fit Case 

for Appeal to Privy Council — none. 
See Lot tors Patent (Calcutta), 
I860, CI. 19. 1. 

MOWLA BUKSH O. KlSHHN PbRTAB 

SAHi...I.L.Rop.lCaL102, 

— -Granting Leave to Prosecute under f 41 , 

Act IV. ot 1877. 

See Presidency Magistrate*' Act 

IV. of 1877, * 41. 

Janoksy Nath Roy...I. L. Bep. 

3 CaL 466. 

Interlocutory Order. 

See Appeal to the Privy Council 

8.8. 

Palak Dhari Rai v. Radha Pra. 

sad Singh. ..I. L. Hep. 3 

All. 66. 

Tetlev «. Jai Shankar.X L. 

Bep. 1 All. 726. 

— Placing a Party on the Record who is not 

Legal Representee of a Deceased Party. 

See Stat. 24 * 25 Vict, 0. 104, f 

16. 7. 

Poqose v. Catchick ..I. L. Bep, 

3 Cal. 708. 

In the matter of Pogose.-I. L. 

Biip. 3 CaL 710, n. 

Refusing Leave to sue in forma Pauperis. 

See Appeal— Civil. 18. 

Collcs 11. Manohar Das... I. If. 
Bep.lAll.74S. 

Refusing to Postpone Sale in Execution 

of Decree— Stay of Execution pending. 
See Stay of Execution. 

Harsh ah KAR Pakshad I. L. 

Bep. 1 AIL 178. 

Refusing to Re.admit Appeal Dismissed 

under § 556, Act X. of 1877. 
See Appeal— CiviL SI. . 

Elahb Buksh e. Marachow.I. 
L. Bep. 4 CaL 826. 
— — Refusing to Set Aside Judgment Ex-parte. 
See Appeal -Civil. 3. 19. 

Lakmidaso. Ebrahih ...I. If. Bep. 

2 Bom. 644. 

Gulab Singh v. Lachmah Das .. 

L L. Bep. 1 AIL 748. 

11 



APPEAL FROM OBDEB— contd. 

Refusing to Set Aside Ex-parte Decree not 
an Appeal within Act IX. of 1871, Sched. 
II., Art. 167. 
See Limitation. 87. 

Sheo Prasad e. AnkudhSingh... 
I. L. Bep. 2 AIL 378. 
Rejecting Appeal against Refusal to 

See Appeal— CiviL 10. 

Svud Mahomet d. Hadzi Abdul. 

lah...l L. Bep. 3 CaL 

737. 

Rejecting Application to be declared an 

Insolvent under Civil Procedure Code. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act X. 

of 1877, §344. 

Muutaz Hossein v. Btj Mohun 

Thakoor...L L. Bep. 4 

Cal. 888. 

Of Remand. 

See Appeal to toe Privy OounciL 6. 

Tbtley b. Jai Shankar...L L. 

Bep. 1 All. 736. 

Requiring Security from Person to whom 

Certificate to collect Debts granted. 
See Appeal-CiviL 16. 

Rukuin.,.1. L. Bep. 1 All. 387. 
Returning Plaint for Presentation in Pro- 
per Court, made after Admission of Suit. 
See Appeal— CiviL 36. 

Kalian Das v. Nawal Singh. ..L 
L. Bep. 1 ALL 630. 

Returning Plaint after Framing Issues. 

See Appeal— CiviL 23. 

Abdul Sahad v. Rajihdro Ki- 

shor Singh. ..L L. Rep. 3 

All. 367. 

Setting aside Sale in Execution of Decree. 

See Appeal— CiviL 33. 

GOPAL Singh v. DulaR Kuar... 

I. L. Bep. 3 All. 363. 

APPEAL TO PBIVT COUNCIL— No 

Appeal from Order granting. 

See LeUerePatent (Calcutta), I860, 

CL 16. 1. 

Mowla Buksh h. Kishbn Pertab 

Sahi...L L. Bep. 1 CaL 103. 



D.gmzed by GoOgle 



{ 185 ) DIGEST OF CASES. ( 136 ) 

APPEAL TO FEITT COUNCIL- amid. APPEAL TO PBIVY COUNCIL— amid. 



Dismissal of— for Default in Deposit of Se- 
curity and Costs of Transcribing Record. 
See infra. 4. 
From Interlocutory Order- 
.fc.? infra. 3. 6. 
Limitation for Petition for Leave to — Exclu- 
sion of Time required to obtain Copy of 
Judgment. 
See Limitation. 80, 

Jawahir Lal b. Narain Das... 
I. L. Sep. 1 AIL 044. 

Re-hearing of— -Grounds for. 

See Practice — Privy Council. 4, 
Trilokinath.,.1. L. Rep, 4 Cal. 
184. 

Special Leave. 

See Practice—Privy Council. S. 6. 
7. 8. 9. 

Substantial Question of Law. 

SreActVLofl874, , 5.1. 

Feda H ossein. ..J. L. Hep. 1 Cal. 
431. 

Substantial Question of Law Arising on the 

Evidence. 
See Act VL Of 1874, ( 5. 3. 

Moran p. Mrrro Bibee L L. 

Rep. 2 Cal. 388. 

1. Stamp Act XXVI. of 1S67, j 11 — 

Valuation of Suit — Valueof Properly.'] A party 
who, in observance of the rule of valuation 
prescribed by the stamp law of the country in 
which he sues, has paid stamp duty on a sum lower 
than the appealable amount, is not thereby pre- 
cluded from obtaining leave from the Courts of 
that country toappealtoHer Majesty in Council, 
if he can show that the value of the property in 
dispute does reach the appealable amount. 
Act XXVI. of 1867 does not alter the law in 
this respect. Baboo Lekraj Roy 9. Kankya 
Singh L. Rep. 1 1. A- 317, 1874. 

9. Act II. 0/1863, * l— Court of Highest 

Civil Jurisdiction— Act XXXII. of 1871.] The 
Commissioner of Seetapore (in Oudh) having 
admitted an appeal to the Privy Council, from 
his decree dated the 10th June 1873, affirming 
the decree of the Settlement Officer of that 
district, dated the aotb of December 1S71, a 
preliminary objection was taken, when the ap- 
peal was called on for hearing, that the Com- 
missioner had no legal authority to admit the 



appeal, his Court being subordinate to that of 

the Judicial Commissioner, and therefore not 
" the Court of highest jurisdiction in the pro- 

Held, that although under Act XXXII. of 
1871, f 4 (the Oudh Civil Courts' Act), the de- 
cision of the Commissioner affirming that of 
the Settlement Officer was final, the Court of 
the Commissioner was not the Court of highest 
civil jurisdiction in the province within the 
meaning of Act II. of 1863. Those words have 
reference to the general jurisdiction of the 
Courts, and not to the finality of their decisions in 
particular cases. Thakoor Hardeo Bux u, 
Tkakoor Jawahir Singh... L. Sep. 4 LA. 
178, 1877; L L. Kep. 8 Cal. 522. 
S. C. under Act L of 1869. 6. 

8. Interlocutory Order — Execution of 

Decree—Act X. of 1877, § $9*-} The District 
e of Ghazipur recalled to his own file the 
proceedings in the execution of a decree whicb 
pending in the Court of the Subordinate 
Judge of Shahabad, and disallowed an applica- 
tor the execution of the decree whicb had 
been preferred to that Judge. The High Court 
ippeal from the order of the District Judge 
annulled his order as void for want of jurisdic- 
ion, and remitted the case in order that the 
ipplication might be disposed of on its merits, 
lirecting that the record of the case should be 
eturned to the Subordinate Judge of Sha- 
habad. On an application for leave to appeal 
to Her Majesty in Council from the order of 
the High Court -,—Held, that such order was 
[i the nature of an interlocutory order, and 
lot one from which a certificate for appeal 
.0 the Privy Council could or ought to be 
jiven. PaLaK Dahki Rai v. Radha Parsad 
Singh. Pearson and Turner,)}... X, L. Kep. 
9 All. 05, 1878. 

1. Dismissal of Appeal for Default in 

Deposit of Security, and Costs of transcribing Re. 

cord.~] On an application to stay proceedings 

an appeal to the Privy Council, which had 

n presented on the znd July 1874, from a 

ision of the High Court on its Original 

Side, it appeared that no deposit had been 

ide by the appellant to defray the costs of 

nscribing, &c> as provided by § 11 of Act 

VI. of 1874 ; that no steps had been taken to 

prosecute the appeal j and that no security had 



Digitized byGOOC^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



APPEAL TO PEIVT COUNCIL— «mW. 
been deposited (or the costs of the respondent 
since the petition of appeal was presented, The 
Court granted a rule calling on the appellant 
show cause why the proceedings on appeal 
should not be stayed, and on his not appearing 
(o show cause, ordered that the appeal should 
be struck off the file. Thakoor Kapilnath 
Singh v. Thb Government. Pfiear, J...L L. 
Rep. 1 Cal 142, 1876. 

0. Interlocutory Order— Act VI. of 1874 

~Act X. of 1877— Letters Patent (Allahabad), CI- 
31.] Held, that the High Court (at Allahabad) 
has no power under Act X. of 1877, or CI. 31 of 
the Letters Patent (Allahabad) to gran 
appeal to the Privy Council from an order of 
the Court remanding a suit for re-trial, such an 
order not being a decree, but an interlocutory 

CI. 31 of the Letters Patent (Allahabad) was 
repealed by implication by Act X. of 1877 and 
Act VI. of 1874 which preceded it. Tetlbyv.Jai 
SiiANKAK. Turner, C. J. (Offg.), and Pearson, 

J. .- I. L. Rep. 1 AIL 726, 1878. 

APPEALABLE CASE — RE COBB IN 
Substance of Evidence. 
Set Summary TriaL 

Empress v. Karak Singh ... I. L. 
Rep. 1 All 880. 
APPEALABLE VALUE — Valuation of 
Property (or purposes of Stamp Law — 
Value of Property. 
See Appeal to the Privy Council. 1. 
Baboo Lekhraj Roy n. Kanhya 
Singh. ..L. Rep. 1 L A. 317. 
APPELLATE COUBT— POWERS OF— 
Act XX1I1. of 1861, S 37.] In a suit on a mort- 
gage bond, and an agreement under which the 
defendants, the mortgagors, rented the lands 
mortgaged from the plaintiff, the mortgagee, the 
defendants, having applied for and failed to obtain 
an adjournment in the Court of first instance, 
to enable them to put in a reply to the claim 
did not appear to defend, and the Court of first 
instance decreed the plaintiff's claim, except 
to the interest sought to be recovered. The 
plaintiff appealed on the matter of int 
the defendants did not defend the appeal; but the 
Judge, holding that, under § 37 of Act XX I II . 
of 1861, he was at liberty on the appeal preferred 
by the plaintiffs to open the whole case, and 



APPELLATE COURT— POWERS OF— 

considering that the Court of first instance was 
justified in refusing to allow time to the 
defendants, and that, looking into the deeds 
there was reason to believe that the plaintiff's 
claims for possession was not maintainable, and 
that one of the deeds sued on, was invalid for 
want of registration, reversed the decree of the 
first Court and remanded the case ;— 

Held, that the Judge's order could not be sup- 
ported under J 37 of Act XXIII. of 1861. He 
had held that there had been an improper con. 
sideration and admission of evidence affecting 
the merits of the claim, though those matters 
were never put in issue in the appeal before him, 
whereas he should have confined himself to de- 
ciding the matters put in issue by the parties. 
The only question before the Judge was that 
raised by the plaintiff, and he should have con- 
fined his decision to that question. Durca 
Prasad b.Khairati. Pearson and Oldfield,]]. 
1. L. Rep- 1 All. 64ft, 1878. 
See also Power of Appellate- Court. 

APPLICATION FOR ASSESSTMUNT 
OP MESNE PROFITS— Limitation. 
See Civil Procedure Code, Act 
VIII. of 1859, ( 197. 

DlLIJAR HOSSEIN 9. MujEEDUN- 

mssA I. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 



APPLICATION BY AN ATTORNEY 

UNDER RULE 149 OF THE 
COMMON LAW RULES OF THE 
SUPREME COURT. 

See Attorney and Client. 1. 

Aba Ishmaii. v. Aba Thara...L 
L. Rep, 1 Bom. 203. 

APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE 

FROM IMPRISONMENT. 

Sw Civil Procedure Code, Act X. of 

1877, S 843. 

Rattansi Kalianji...L L. Rep. 

2 Bom. 148. 

APPLICATION TO ENFORCE A DE- 

See Limitation. 89. 

Prabacharrow e. Pottankah .. 
I. L. Rap. 9 Had. 1. 



DiQAizeu by Google 



{ 1» ) 



DIGEST OF CASES, 



APP LICA TION TO ENFORCE OB 

KEEP IN FORCE DECREES OB 
ORDERS. 
See Limitation. 67. 70. 73. 74. 75. 
77. 78. 80. 83. 83. 84. 86. 
88. 

— Application under Act VIH. of 1859, i 385. 
See Limitation. 77. 

Husain Baksh v. Madge. ..I. L. 
Bop. 1 AIL fiS5. 
—Application for Stay of Execution is not an 
Set Limitation. 78, 

Fakir Muhammad g. Ghulam 

HUSA1N...I. L. Bep. 1 All. 

080. 

-^—Application for Transfer of Decree to an 
other Court for Execution is. 
See Execution of Decree. 18. 

Collins v. M aula Baksh. ..I. L 
Bep. 3 All. 384. 

— " Date of Applying "—Application to stay 
Execution. 
See Limitation. 78. 

Fakir Muhammad v. Ghulam 
Hussain...I. L. Bep. 1 AIL 
580. 
1 Though Informal, is Sufficient. 
See Limitation. 80. 

Bekari Lal e. Salik Ram... I. L. 
Rep. 1 All. 676. 

APPLICATION POR EXECUTION OF 
DECREE. 

— Is not a "Suit." 

See Limitation. 40, 

Jiwah Singh «. Sarnam Singh. 
L L. Bep. 1 All 97. 









See the Index heading Application 
to enforce, or keep in force, 
Decrees or Orders. 
- Exclusion of Date of — in Computation of 
Period of Limitation for Execution. 
See Limitation. 83. 

Dhonessur Kooer it. Roy Goo- 



In Favour of Firm in Agent's Name- 
Application by Agent succeeding Agent 
named in Decree. 
See Execution of Decree. 13. 

Lachuan Bibi e. Patni Ram...L 
L. Rep. 1 All. 510. 
Joint Decree— Application for Paitiul Exe- 
cution of. 
See Limitation. 75. 

Rah Antaw. Ajudhia Singh... 
L L. Bep. 1 AIL 331. 

- Made after Act IX. of 1871 came into 

operation for Execution of Decree pass. 
ed before. 
See Limitation. 69. 70. 78. 74. 
75. 77. 80. 81. 88. 84. SB. 
88. 

- Made by Agent of Finn succeeding the 

Agent in whose Name Decree passed. 
See Execution of Decree. 18. 

Lachman Bibi *. Patni Ram... 
L L. Bep. 1 AIL BIO. 
n behalf of Judg 



See Execution of Decree. 8. 

An TO MlSRBB V. BlDNOOMOOKHEB 

Dahkb...L L. Bep. 4 CaL 
608. 

- Payable by Instalments. 

See Limitation. 71. 71a. 73. 73. 
-Made by Alleged Purchaser— Refusal— 

See Act ZXHL Of 1861, f 11. 1. 

SOBHA BlBEB V. MlRZA SAKHAMAT 

Au...L L. Bep. 8 CaL 371. 

See Appeal— Civil. 9. 

Ranjit Singh b. Mbherban Koer. 
L L. Bep. 3 CaL 683. 



— Act VIII. of t%&—Act X. of 1877, i 130.] 
.n application, under Act VIII. of 1850, for 
decree, was rejected by the Dig. 
1 the ground that the judgment- 
creditor bad withdrawn from the former applica- 
Tbis order was reversed on appeal, and 
;e was sent back for disposal on its merits. 
The Judge then held that Act X. of 1877, which 
had just come into force, applied, and, on the 
dee Sahoy..,I. L. Rep. 3 ground that the decree-holder had failed to get 
Cal. 336. 1 execution on his former application, dismissed 



D.grt.zsdbvGOOgle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



AMPLICATION FOB EXECUTION Of 

DEGREE— contd. 
the petition. The Judge referred the case 
the High Court on the question whether he was, 
under the circumstances, at liberty to grant the 
application : — 

Held, that he was; and that the application 
ought to have been dealt with under the law 
which was in force at the time execution 
sought. Section 230 of Act X. of 1877 
inapplicable, as the mode of procedure t 
laid down can only be followed in cases in which 
a previous application has been made under that 
section and has been granted, and where the 
Judgment- creditor is unable to satisfy the Court 
that he used due diligence in following up such 
previous application. Byraddi Subbarkddi v. 
Dakaffa Rau. Marfan, C.J., and Forbes, J... 

L L. Rep. 1 Had. 403, 1878. 

APPLICATION FOB GRANT OF PRO- 
BATE— Right of Creditors of Alleged 
Heir of Testator to oppose. 
See Probate. 8. 

Desfutty Singh. ,, I. L. Bep. 2 
Cal. 208. 

APPLICATION BT HEIR OF DECREE - 
HOLDER FOR EXECUTION— Cer- 
tificate to collect Debts not necessary to 
authorize. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act 
VIL of 1869, $ 208. 
Kasam Au v. Hauha-.L L. 
Bep. 1 AIL see. 

APPLICATION FOB LEAVE TO SUE 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS- Abandon. 
merit of — Subsequent Payment of Stamp 
.—Limitation. 
Sri Limitation. 37. 

CH UNDER MOHUN V. B HURON 

Mohihi... L L. Bep. 9 Cal. 

389. 

See Petition for Leave to Sue in 

forma Pauperis. 1. 3. 

Skinner ». Oede...L L. Bep. 1 

AU. 230; L.Bep. 6 I. A. 

126; SCal. Bep. 831. 

See Bait in forma Pauperis. 

NtSMUi. Chunoba v. Doval Nath. 
I. L. Bep. 2 Cal. 130. 



AFFLCATION FOB LEAVE TO SUE 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS— cd* id. 
Appeal from Order rejecting. 

See Appeal— CiviL 18. 

Colus v. Manohar Das-. I. L. 
Bep. 1 All. 746. 

Unsuccessful — not a Demand by Way of 

Action. 

See Mahomedan Lair— Dower. 

1. 
Ranee Khajooroonissa «. Ran ee 

Rveesoonissa L. Bep. 3 

LA. 286 

APPLICATION BT HOOETIAB ON 
BEHALF OF JUDGMENT-CRE- 
DITORS FOB EXECUTION OF 
DECREE— Act VIII. of 1859,, 107. 

See Execution of Decree. 9. 

ANTO MlSKEEv. BlDHOOMOOKHEE 

Dabbi...L L. Bep. 4 Cal. 
60S. 

APPLICATION BT PETITION WITH- 
OUT SUIT FOB APPOINTMENT 
OF GUARDIAN. 
See Guardian— Appointment of. 
Bittan...I. L. Bep. 2 CaL 357. 

APPLICATION FOB BE8TITUTI0N 
BT PERSON DISPOSSESSED— 
Limitation for. 
See Limitation. 68. 

GujARfl. Barve X L. Bep. 2 

Bom. 673. 

APPLICATION FOB STAT OF EXECU- 
TION OF DECREE IS NOT AN 
APPLICATION TO ENFORCE OR 
KEEP THE DECREE IN FORCE. 

See Limitation. 78. 

Fakir Muhammad o. Ghulam 

Husain L L. Rep. 1 AIL 

580, 

APPLICATION FOB TRANSFER OF 
DECREE TO ANOTHER COURT 
FOB EXECUTION— Is an Application 
to keep Decree in Force. 
See Execution of Decree. 18. 

Collins v. Maula Baksh ..L L. 
Bep. S AIL 284. 



DigiiizsdbyGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



APPOINTED DAUGHTER. 

See Hindu Law — Inheritance — 

Father's Bister's Boa. 

Thakoor Jeebnath Singh v. The 

Court of Wards ... L. Rep. 

3 1. A. 163 ; 15 Bang. L. K. 

190 ; S3 W. R. 409. 

APPOINTMENT — Power of — Execution 
Of. 

SWWUIB. 

Fekrsen «. Simpson ...L I*. Rep. 
4 Cal. 014. 

APPOINTMENT OF GTJARDTJLN— Appli- 
cation for — by Petition without Suit. 
See Guardian— Appointment of. 
Bittan'...L L. Rep. 2 CaL 807. 

APPOETIONMENT. 
See Account 1. 

HtrjiJinao. NaranMulji ...1 L. 
Rep. 1 Bom. 1. 

■ Of Compensation for Land taken up for 
Public Purposes— Finality of Decree. 
See Land Acquisition Act X. of 
1870, § 39. 

NlLMONEEO. RAMTII.'NDFIOO ..L Ii. 

Rep. 4 Cal. 767. 
APPORTIONMENT OP MORTGAGE 

DEBT — Mortgage — Equity of Redemption — 
Proportionate Share of Mortgage Debt.} A., 
the holder of a decree upon a mortgage-bond, 
attached in execution a one-third share of a 
certain mania, one of seventeen mouaas included 
in the mortgage, and the equity of redemption in 
which one-third share had been purchased by 
B. Held, that although, as laid down in Naicai 
A-imut AH Khan v. Jowakir Singh {13 Moo. I. 
A. 404), B. would have been at liberty to insist 
that his one-third share should be burdened with 
no more than a proportionate amount of the ori- 
ginal mortgage debt, and might claim to redeem 
such share upon payment of that quota, yet as he 
had not shown what that proportion was nor paid 
it into Court, that A. under the circumstances 
was entitled to enforce his attachment. Hirdy 
Narrain o. Sied Alla Oolla. Jaikion and 
Tottenham, J] ...L I» Bep. 4 Cal. 72 ; 2 Cal. 
Rep. 531, 1878. 



APPROPRIATION OF PAYMENTS. 



HlRji JiNA r. Naran Mui,ji...L 

L. Rep. 1 Bom. 1. 

Guarantee,] In consideration that the 

plaintiffs would advance a certain sum of money 
to the C. Company (Limited), to pay the pas- 
sage money of certain actors, two of the Direc- 
tors agreed that the plaintiffs should " repay 
themselves the amount from the first moneys 
received by them on account of the C. Company, 
Limited, and each of the two directors agreed 
to hold himself personally responsible for the 
payment of half the amount of any deficiency 
(should there be any) of the amount realized 
by" the plaintiffs "in the manner above de- 
scribed." At tbis time the plaintiffs had bees 
acting for some time as the bankers or agents of 
the Company, advancing money to them from 
time to time and paying and receiving money 
for them almost daily, and keeping a regular 
cash account with them, which was regularly 
entered in the plaintiff 1 ? ledger. In a suit by 
the plaintiffs against the executrix of one of the 
directors upon the above guarantee, it appeared . 
that the plaintiffs, instead of applying the first 
loneys coming to their hands in liquidation of 
te amount advanced under the guarantee, 
applied such moneys towards the payment of 
other debts due to themselves by the Company : — 
Held, that the plaintiffs were bound, as between 
themselves and the guarantors, to appropriate 
the first moneys of the Company which they 
received towards payment of the guaranteed 
debt, and that if tbey omitted to do so, it was 
heir own risk. As the plaintiffs had in 
received sufficient to pay the amount of 
the passage money, the guarantee was dis- 
charged. And it made no difference that the 
cash account, kept bythe plaintiffs with the 
Company, was an ordinary debtor and creditor 
Jul kept by the plaintiffs as bankers or 
agents, or as treasurers of the Company, no 
other account than that being kept by the 
plaintiffs with the Company, and that being the 
account which both parties had in view when 
the guarantee was given. Nicholls v. Wilson. 
Garth, C.]., and Markby, ]., affirming on appeal 
White, ]. ...I. L. Rep. 4 Cal. 563; 3 Cal. 
Rep. 861, 1878. 



D.gmzed by GoOgle 



( 145 ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ARBITRATION— Agreement to Refer to— 
Revocation— Specific Performance. 
See Contract. 8. 

KOEGLBRH. TheCoRIHGA OlL Co. 

I. L. Sep. 1 Cal. 42, 
See Suit for Land . 3. . 

Kkuje «. Frasrr ...L L. Rep. 2 
CaL 44S. 

■ Award, Judgment in Accordance with — 

See Arbitration. 4. 0. 
■ Award, Order to File— Appeal. 

See Appeal-Civil. 13. 13a. 
Award, Refusal to Confirm. 

See Appeal— Civil. 34. 
Award, Remission of. 

See Arbitration. 3. 
— - Award, Setting Aside — Misconduct of 
Arbitration. 

See Arbitration. 7. 
— Award, Validity and Finality of. 

See Arbitration. 7. 

L — - Act XVIII. of 1873 <JV. W. P. Rent 
Ad)— Act XIX. of 1873 (N. W. P. Land Revenue 
Act.)] Under the general law, parties to suits 
may, if they are so minded, before issue joined, 
refer the matters in dispute between them to 
arbitration and after issue joined, with the leave 
of the Court 

Act XVIII. of 1E73 does not prohibit the 
parties to the suits mentioned therein from re- 
ferring the matters in dispute between them in 
such suits to arbitration. Where, therefore, the 
parties to a suit under that Act agreed to refer 
the matters in dispute between them to arbitra. 
tion, after issues bad been framed and the 
evidence recorded, and applied to the Court to 
sanction such reference: — Held (Stuart, C.J., 
dissenting), that the Court was competent to 
grant such sanction, and on receivingthe award, 
to act on it. Gosh At N Girdhariji v. Durga 

Devi I. L. Rep. 2 All. 119,1879, F.B. 

2. Insolvency — Composition — Contract 

Act (IX. of 1872, § 65.)] AT. on the one part, and 
his creditors, in eluding Con the other part, agreed 
to refer the difference between them to arbitra- 
tion. The award recited that A'.'s liabilities 
amounted to Rs. 21,502, while his assets consist- 
ed only of Stores, &c, of the value of Rs. 16,539, 
and " awarded that in payment of the said sum 



ARBITRATION- cantJ. 
of Rs. 21,501, the stores, fee, now in K.'s posses- 
sion, be made over to the creditors ; and the 
creditors have released K, from the payment of 
the said balance of Rs. 4,632; now there is no 
claim for these debts by the creditors against 
K , " and directed that K. should dispose of the 
stores for the benefit of the creditors, and that 
if he misappropriated any of the property, he 
should be personally liable for the loss sustained 
by the creditors. This award was signed by C, 
amongst other creditors, but it was not signed 
by all the creditors. C. received a dividend under 
the award. In a suit by C. against K., to recover 

debt which had been compounded under the 
award, alleging that the award was not binding 
n the ground that all the creditors had 
not signed it ; that several of the creditors who 
signed it had sued and recovered their 
debts from the property assigned under theaward, 
and that K. had fraudulently disposed of some 
of such property; and that, if the plaintiff did 
there would be no assets left to satisfy 
his debts;— 

Held, that C. and all persons who signed the 
award, and who were parties to and signed the 
agreement to refer to arbitration, were bound by 

eir acts. The agreement entered into for the 

tisfactlon of the claims of creditors was a new 
contract substituted for former contracts be. 
veen creditors and K. If creditors who had not 
igned the award obtained decrees, the creditors 
who had signed it could only protect themselves 
under the award. They could not rescind the 
award and fall back on their old debts, in satis- 
faction of which the defendant had assigned all 
his property for the benefit of his creditors, and 
that the suit was not maintainable. Section 65 
of the Contract Act IX. of 1872 did not apply, 
Khbta Mal v. Chuni Lal...L L. Rep. 2 All. 
173. 

3. Act VIII. of i8$$,U 323,334— Remis- 

of Award—No Illegality apparent on face 
of Award- - Refusal of Arbitrator to reconsider— 
Decision by Court.] The plaintiff claimed to 
jet Rs. 52O, being the amount of presents 
ved at his marriage, which he alleged had 
been appropriated by the defendants. The de- 
fendants alleged that a sum of Rs. 1,132 had 
been expended on the plaintiffs marriage out of 
the funds of a firm in which the plaintiff, his 
father, and they were partners ; that they had 
received the sum claimed, but that the plain- 



DigitizsdbyGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ARBITRATION-fln>W. 

tiff's father had received and expended a sum 
Rs. 549 which had been presented to the plai 
tiff on his marriage, and that the plaintiffs father 
had entered the sum claimed in the partnership 
books to the credit of the firm, but that no sum 
on account of marriage presents had come into 
their hands. The parties agreed to refer the 
matter to arbitration, and to abide by the deci- 
sion of the arbitrator. .The arbitrator made an 
award, in which he stated that he had investi- 
gated the case, taken the depositions of witnesses 
and the statements of the parties, and had taken 
into consideration the custom of the brotherhood 
to which the parties belonged, and perused the 
passages in the Hindu law referred to by the 
parties and their pleaders. The plaintiff sub- 
sequently obtained the opinion of certain pandits 
to the effect that under Hindu law, gifts at 
riage are regarded as separate acquisitions, 
applied to the Munsiff to remit the award, with 
these opinions, to the arbitrator. The Munsiff 
did so, requesting the arbitrator to consider the 
opinions and return his own opinion in writing 
within a week. The arbitrator having refused 
to act any further in the matter, the Munsiff 
preceded to determine the suit : and gave the 
plaintiff a decree ; — 

Held (Pearson, J., dissenting), that there being 
no illegality apparent on the face of the award, the 
Munsiff was not justified in remitting the award, 
or in setting it aside and proceeding to determine 
the suit himself, but that he should have passed 
judgment in accordance with the award- 
In the face of the statement In the award that 
the arbitrator had "perused the passages ir 
Hindu law referred to by the parties and their 
pleaders," the Munsiff had no right to as: 
that the arbitrator had - not correctly applied the 
Hindu law; and if the Munsiff differed from 
him, and believed that he had not correctly 
applied the principles of the Hindu taw, 
award was not thereby rendered invalid, and 
ought not to have been remited for reconsider- 
ation. By accepting him as their arbitrator, 
the parties accepted his judgment and opinion, 
and his understanding of the Hindu law appli- 
cable to the case, and were bound by his judg- 
ment and opinion and his law, no matter how mis 
taken he may have been in these respect! 
Nahak Chand e. Ram Narrayan...L L. Rep. 
3 AIL 181, 1878, 17. B. 

4. Matters referred to— Arbitrators 

doubting Correctness of their Decision — Award, 



ARBTTttATrOBT— contd. 

Validity and Finality of— Appeal, Right of— Act 
VIII. of 1859, %% 335-327.] Matters in dispute 
were referred to the arbitration of five peisons. 
Pour of the arbitrators made an award on the 
27th of August T-875. On the 3rd of September 
1875, the same arbitrators granted an applica- 
tion by one of the parties for a re-hearing, but 
before the re-hearing, one of the four died, and 
finally an order was made by two of the survivors 
striking off the application. On the 21st of Febru- 
ary 1875, within thesis months allowed bylaw, 
application by certain of the parties interested, 
ls made to file the award under f 327 of Act 
VIII. of 1859. This application was opposed, 
but the Court ordered the award to be filed, 
and gave a decree for the plaintiff 1 — 

Held, that the award was not a valid and final 
award, and that the decree passed thereon was 
not final, and that an appeal would lie. 

Where there has been an award, and the decree 
passed by the Court below is in accordance with 
that award, that judgment is final; but where 
it can be shown that there was not in fact any 
award on which a judgment could be based, 
there is no final decree, and an appeal will lie. 
In the present case, the arbitrators, after 
making the award and after an interval of only 
a very few days, had expressed a doubt as to 
the correctness of their award by intimating their 
readiness to reconsider their decision. It was 
not the intention of the Act that the Court should 
bind parties by the result of a private arbitra- 
tion when the arbitrators themselves plainly 
showed that they doubted the correctness of 
their decision. Boon] ad Mat hoor *. Nathoo 
SHAHOO. Jackson and Cunningham, J J. ..I. L. 

Rep. 3 6*1. 875 ; 1 0*1. Rep. 458, 1877. 

6. Act VIII. 0/1859, ,317— Denialof 

Arbitration Proceedings.} Section 327 of Act 
VIII. of 1859 intended to provide for those cases 
only in which a reference to arbitration is admit- 
ted, and an award has been made. Where one 
of the parties denies that he had referred any 
dispute to arbitration, or that an award has been 
made between him and the other party, that is 
sufficient cause why the award should not be filed. 
The applicant for its admission should be left 
to bring a regular suit for the enforcement of 
the award. Per Spaniie, J. Hussain Bibi ». 
Mohsin Khan...L I.. Rep. 1 All. ISO, 1876. 
S. C. under Appeal-Civil. 18. 



by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



{ 1M ) 



ARBITRATION— rimfi/. 

a.- 



■I VIII. of 1859, 1 321.— Arbitration 
—Awtrd — Appeal.] No appeal lies trom a decree 
passed by a. Civil Court, in accordance with an 
award of arbitrators made without the interven- 
tion of a Court of Justice, under Act VIII. of 
'S;9, 5 3?7- Lakshman Shivaji v. 1 
Not (8 Bom. H. C. Rep. A. C. J. 17) dissented 
from. Vishnu Bkau Joshi i- Ravji Bi 
Joshi. West and Pinkty, JJ..X L. B«p. 3 
Bom. 18, 1878. 

7. Act VIII. of 18J9, § 317. — SWtf«J 

osideAreard — Misconduct of Arbitrators.'] In a 
application under § 317 of Act VIII. of 1859, < 
have an award riled in Court, so as to be enforce 
as a decree, it was objected, amongst othi 
things, by the defendant, that the award whic 
determined the succession to a talookdary n 
gistcred under Act I. of I&69, having been based 
on a certain will produced, which in terms refer- 
red to another will of the same testator 
produced, there was a miscarriage on the part 
of the arbitrators in making their award; the 
whole of the will, in the absence of the 
last-mentioned document, not having been 
before them. It appeared, that the defendant 
In the proceedings before the arbitrators, not- 
withstanding the knowledge that this document 
was withheld, submitted, nevertheless, to take 
his chances of the arbitration ; suggesting in 
fact favourable presumptions to himself in con- 
struing the will produced, or that the whole will 
not having been produced it should be declared 
not to be operative, and that consequently the 
dispute should be determined according to the 
British law of succession as laid down by Act 
I. of 1869, or according to custom, or according 
lo the Mahomedan law of succession. 

Held, that the defendant could not now set 
aside the award on the objection taken. 

Upon the true construction of Act VIII. of 
1859, the earlier sections are not incorporated 
into the 327th section as they are expressly in- 
corporated into the 336th ; and the words " suf- 
ficient cause" must be taken to comprehend 
any substantial objection which appears upon 
the face of the award or is founded on the mis- 
conduct of the arbitrators, or on any other 
ground which would be considered fatal to an 
■ward on an application to the Courts in England. 
Chciwdhhi Muktaza Hoosein v. Musst. Bibi 
Bechunnissa...Ii. Rep. 8 L A. 209, 1876. 
12 



ARBITRATORS— Miscarriage of— Setting 
aside Award. 
See Arbitration. 7. 

Chowdhm Murtaza Hossein e. 

Musst. Bibi Bechunnksa . 

L. Rep. 3IA, 200. 

Power of— to administer Oath other than 

in prescribed Form. 
See Oath. 1 Act X. of 1873, §5.8, 
10, 13. 
Wali-ul-la t. Ghulam A11...I. ■ 
L. Rep. 1 AIL B3f>. 

Revocation of Authority of. 

See Contract. 8. 

KoEGLER V. CoRINQA OtL Co. ...L 

L Rep. 1 Cal. 48, 466. 
See Suit for Land. 3. 

Kkllis r. Fraser-.Z. L. Hep. 2 
Cal. .446. 

ARSIS— POSSESSION OF — WITHOUT 
LICENSE. 
See Act XXXI. of 1860, f 83, CI. 1. 
Reg. v. Bhista.,.1. L. Rep. 1 
Bom. 308. 

ARRANGEMENT FOR SEPARATE 
PAYMENT OF RENT. 

See Co-Sha.ro ra of Land. 1. 

Gum Mahomed o. Mohan... I. L. 
Rep. 4 Cal. 96. 
ARREARS OF ESTATE UNDER 
ATTACHMENT. 
See Act XT, of 1809, § S. 

BaNWAKEE LALL v, MoHABEER 

Proshad... L. Rep. 1. I. A. 



98. 
ARREARS OF MAINTENANCE- Charg- 
ed on the Estate in hands of Hindu 
Widow — Personal Decree against Widow 
— Right of Execution Purchaser and 
Reversionary Heir. 
See Feraonel Decree against a 
Hindu Widow. 
Baijun Doobby e. Bsrj Bhookun. 
L. Rep. 21. A. 275; L L. 
Rep. 1 Cal. 153. 

- Jurisdiction oF Mofus'il Small Cause Courts 
to entertain Suits for. 
See Small Cause Court— HofusalL 
1.3. 



Digitized byGOOC^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( 



) 



ARREARS OF MAINTENANCE- - 

Apaji v- Ganguai ...L L. Rap. 3 
Bom. 683. 

SlDLINGAPA <r. SIDAVA...L I.. 

Kep . 3 Bom. 634. 
See Hindu Law— Maintenance of 
Widow. 14. 

Savitribai v. Luxmibai.-.L L. 
Bep. 3 Bom. 573. 
— — Limitation — Demand and Refusal. 

St? Hindu Law— Maintenance of 
Widow. 3. 4. 6. 
Rangov. Yamu nadai . . I. L. Rop. 

3 Bom. 44. 
Jivi e. Ramji.,.1 L. Rop. 3 

Bom. 307. 
Krishna v. Okhilmoni.-.L L. 
Rep. 3 Cal. 331. 
ARREARS OF RENT— Bhaoli Rent. 

See Bengal Act VH of 1869, §§ 
314.53. 
KishenGopaulMawakt. Barnes. 
I. L. Hep. 2 Cal. 374. 

■ — Bhaoli — Suit for Money Equivalent. 

Set Act XVIII. of 1873, §03.1. 
Taj ud din v- Rah Parshad ,.L L. 
Rep. 1 All. 317. 
— Enhanced Rent— Interest on. 
See Interest. 8. 

Khajah Ashanoollah v. Khaja 
Aftaboodeen...I. L. Rep. 

4 CaL 584. 

■ ■ Grain Rent — Suit for Money Equivalent 

of Arrears. 
See Act XVIII. of 1873, § 93. 1. 
Tajuddin v. Ram Parshad... I. 
L. Bep. 1 All. 317. 
— — Limitation for Execution of Decree for. 
See Bengal Act VIII. of 1861 
J 59. 

GoLOKEMONEY D. MoHRSH ChUN. 

DER...L L. Rep. 3 Cal. 547. 
1 Limitation to Suit for. 

See Bengal Act VIII. of 1860, j 81. 
Rah Sunker e. Bib Chu: 

I L. Rep. 4 Cal. 714. 
See Limitation. 4. 9. 10. 13. 

Watson & Co. ». Dkonendra... 
L L. Rep. 3 CaL ft- 



ARREARS OF BENX-otW. 

Brojendro v. Rakhal L L. 

Rep. 3 Ca.L 781. 

HURRO PraSHADE. GOi'AUI. DlS... 

Ibid. 817. 

PuRRAN CHUNDERo. MUTTVLAL... 

L L. Bep. 4 Cal. 50. 

Publication and Service of Notice of Sale 

for — defective — " Sufficient Plea." for set- 
ting aside Sale. 
See Bengal Rag. VIIX of 1819, f 8. 

GOWREE LALL V. JoODKISTEER... 

I. L. Rep. 1 Cal. 359. 

Sale for. 

ore Futni Talook. 

Brinoaban Sircar Chowdkrv v. 

Brindadan Dev Chowdhry.. 

L. Rep. 1 1. A. 173. 

Sale of Putni Tenure for— Suit to set aside 

Sale— Date of Publication of Notice. 



Matukgee Churn *. Moorrarv 

Mohun L L.Kop. 1 CaL 

175. 
—Sale of Under-Tenure in Execution of 
Decree for — Process against other Pro- 
perty of Debtor. 
See Bengal Act TUX of 1869, j 61. 

HURRISH CHUNDER V. COLLECTOR 

of j kssoke.X L. Rep. 3 CaL 
718. 

— Suit for — Payment into Court— Limitation. 

See Bengal Act VIII. of 1869, 1 31. 

Rah Sunker v. Bir Ciiunder... 

I. L. Rep. 4 CaL 714- 

— "TYmai" Rent. 

See Insolvency. 3. 

China S. Mudalu>. Kan das w ami 
Reddi-X. L. Rep. 1 Mad. 69. 

— Zemindar! Rent — Right of Mortgagee of 

Putni Talook to prevent Sale of Mort. 
gaged Property. 
See Co-Sharers of Putni Talook. 
Mohesh Chunder ii. Rah Pro- 
susho ... I. L. Bep. 4 CaL 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



( ira ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ABBEABB OP BENT AT ENHANCED 

SATE- -Interest on. 
See Interest. 8. 

K-HAJA.H AsHANOOLLA O. KAJEE 
AFTABOODDSEN...L L. Rep. 

4 Cal. 604. 
ABBEARS OP BEVENUE— Payment of— 
by Lambardar— Suit by Co-Sharer for 
Profits— Set-off. 
See Set-Off. 1. 

Udai Singh v. Jaoam Sinom ...I. 
L. Sep. 1 AD. 130. 
— — Right of Purchaser at Sale for. 
See Mortgage. 8. 

Ramchanbra o. Bhimrav...I. Ii. 
Sep. 1 Bom. 077. 

— Right of Purchaser atSalefor— to enhance 

Rent. 
See Enhancement of Bent. 1. 

PURUAHUND C ROOKJNEE...I. If- 

Bep. 4 Cal. 793. 

— — Sale for— of Estate under Attachment — 
See Act XI. of 1850, ( 5. 

BUNWARER LALL fl. MoKABGER. 

L. Bep. II. A. 89. 
— • Sale for— Purchase by Unrecorded Co- 
Par tner— Encumbrances. 
See Act XI. of 1889, §63. 

Abdool Bari v. Ramdass Cooh- 
□0O...I. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 607. 

Sale for— Purchase by Manager of Joint 

Hindu Family in his own Name. 
See Act L of 1845, 5 21. 

TOONDUJt H. PoKHNARAIN Ik 

Bep. 1 L A, 842. 

Setting aside Sale for — after Judgment 

Debtor's Interest in Surplus Proceed: 
has been sold in Execution. 

Sat Sale in Execution of Decree. 17. 

Ram Tuhul v. Bisseswar L. 

Bep. 2 1. A. 131 ; 15 Beng, 
L. B. 208 ; S3 W. B. SOS. 

— Suit by Purchaser at Sate for— to avoid 

U nder-Tenures. 
Set Sale for Arreare of Bevenue. 1, 
Bhago Bidek -b. Rah Kant Roy 
I. L. Bep. 8 Cal. 293. 



ABBEABS OP REVENTTK— amid. 

-Suit to set aside Sale for — obtained by 
Fraud of Co-Sharer. 
See Bale for Arrears of Bevenue. 9. 
Bkookun Chunder v. Rah 
S00NDEK...I. L. Bep. 3 Cal. 
800, 
- Suit for Damages caused by Sale for. 
See Damages. 1. 

Lallah D. Singh v. Lallah B. 

Dayal I. L. Bep. 1 Cal. 

406. 



"TTBVAI" <BENT)~ 
Sale for — Right of Official Assignee. 
See Insolvency. 2. 

Chiha S. Mudali v. Kanda. 

swahi Rbddi.,.1. L. Bep. 1 

Had. 09. 

ABBEABS OP ZEHTNBABI BENT— 
Right of Mortgagee of Puttti Taluk to 
prevent Sale of Mortgaged Property for. 
Set Co.Bharers of Pntni Taluk. 
Mohesh Chunder jr. Ram Pro- 
soNo...L L. Sep. 4 Cal. 639. 
IT— Damages for Malicious— Want of 
Reasonable and Probable Cause Act 
VIII. of 1859, f soi. 
See Damages. 4. 

Raj'. Chunder v. Shama Soon- 
dari.,.1. L.Bep. 4 Cat 083* 
ABBEST PENDING APPEAL-High 
Court can order — from Acquittal. 
See Appeal— Criminal. 6. 7. 

Reg. v, Gobind Tewari I. !L. 

Bep. 1 Cal. 281. 

Empress v. Mangu...I. Xj. Sep. 

9 All. 340. 

Arrest by Magistrate — Power of High. 

Court. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1872, f 997. 2. 

Reg. o. Gholam Ismail I. L. 

Sep. 1 All. 1. 
ABBEST- PRIVILEGE PB0H. 
See Privilege from Arrest. 

Omritolall Dbv...I. L. Bep. 1 
Cal 78. 



zedbyGOOgle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ARTIFICE AL WATERCOURSE— Right 

Flow of Water through. 

See Easement. 4. 

MCIROABT. KTRET...L L. Rep. S 

Had. 

Right to the Flow of Water— Presumpti 

Right to scour Watercourse.'] The right to the 
water of a river flowing in a natural channel 
through a man's land and the right to water 
flowing to it through an artificial watercourse 
constructed on his neighbour's land, do not resl 
on the same principle. In the former case each 
successive reparian proprietor is, primi facie 
entitled to the unimpeded flow of the water ir. 
its natural course, and to its reasonable enjoy- 
ment as it passes through his land, as a natural 
incident to his ownership of it. In the latter. 
any right to the flow of the water must rest on 
some grant or arrangement, either proved or pre- 
sumed, from or with the owners of the land from 
which the water is artificially brought, or on 
some other legal origin. The right to artificial 
watercourses, as against the party creating them, 
must depend on the character of the watercourse, 
whether it be of a permanent or temporary nature, 
and upon the circumstances under which it was 

Wood v. Wand (3 EX. 748; 18 L. J. [Ex.] 305I 
approved. Primifade, and in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, a right to scour such 
watercourse is presumed by law to be incident 
to the right to the flow of the water. 

Held in this, case, that the plaintiffs legal 
right to the enjoyment of water overflowing from 
an artificial reservoir through an artificial water- 
course on his neighbour's (the defendant's) land 
should be presumed from the circumstances 
under which the same were presumably created 
and actually enjoyed ; subject to the defendant's 
right to the use of the water for the purpose of 
irrigating his land, by proper and requisite 
channels and other proper means. Rameshi/r 
Perskad Narain Sinoh v. Koonj Behabi 
Pattuck...L. Bop. 6 1 A. 33, 1878; L. 
Rep. 1 App. Ca. 121 ; L L. Hep. 4 Cal. 
888. 
AETIZa.1T— Washerman is not an. 

See Madras Act I1X of 1971. 1. 

Poonmi L L. Rep. 1 Mad. 

174. 



ASCETIC— Succession to the Property of an. 
See Hindu Law — Inheritance— 
Ascetic. 
Khuogekderv. Shabupoir ...I. L. 
Rep. 4 Cal. 543. 
ASSENT OF SAPINDAB-Adoption by 
Widow without Written Authority from 
Husband, after Succeeding as Heirto her 
Son- -Motives. 
See Hindu Lav- -Adoption. IS. 
Rajah Vbllanki «. Venkata 
Rama...l. Rep. 4 I. A. 1 ; 
L L. Rep. 1 Had. 174. 

ASSESSMENT— tfxwri- Payment of. 
See Land Tenure* in Kanara. 

Mortgagee in Possession, Liability of— to 

pay. 
See Katrulayatdar Knot. 

Krishna]) v. Ramchandra L, 

L. Rep. 1 Bom. 70. 
See Qhatwali Tenure, 

Leelanund Singh o, Tkakoor 

Munrunjuh L L. Rep.. 3 

CaL 261. 

Right to levy — on Rent-Free Lands. 

See Resumption. 9. 

Kevai. t. Talukdarie Settle- 

vent Officer... I. L. Rep. 1 

Bom. 530. 



affect Proprietary 



- Variation of— does n 
Right. 
See Bombay Act I. of 1866, j 36. 

Collector of Thana o. Daoa- 

bhai I, L. Rep. 1 Bom. 

353. 
ASSESSMENT BY MUNICIPAL COM- 
MISSIONERS— Appeal against 
See Beng. Act HI. of 1864. $ 83. 
Mahessur Dass «. Collector, 
etc., or Chafra...1. L. Rep. 
1 CaL 409. 



■Acquittal of Accused without re- 
■rdingtheOpinionof— Revision— Act X.of I&J2, 
f 297.] Held, where, without asking the opinion 
of the Assessors, a Court of Session acquitted 
iccused person, after his defence had been 
heard, that such omission, though a serious it- 
regularity, yet, as it did not affect the conduct 
of the prosecution, or prejudice the accused in 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



his defence, was not, with reference to the pro- 
visions of ft 383 and 300 of Act X. of 1871, a 
ground for revisional interference. In the matter 
of the Petition of Narain Das- Pearson, J ... I. L. 
Rep. 1 All. 610, 1878. 
ASSIGNEE OF CHOSE IN ACTION— 
Right of. 

See Assignment of Chose in Action, 
Kanhaiya I.al 9. Domingo... I. L. 
Rep . I All. 732. 
ASSIGNEE OF CO-SHARER IN UNDI- 
VIDED ESTATE— Right of. 
See Mortgage. 0. 

BvjWATHO. RAM.X)DMEM,..T..Rep. 

1L A. 106; 21 W. Rep. 
833. 
See Partition by the Revenue Au- 
tnoritiea. 

SHARAT CHltHDBR V. HUKGOBINDO. 

I. L. Rep. 4 Cs.1. 010. 

ASSIGNEE OF DEBT— Devisee cannot sue 
without taking out Probate, or obtaining Certi. 
ficate under Act XXVII.ofitoa.-] The represen- 
tative of an assignee by devise of a debt, who 
has neither taken out piobate of the will of the 
testator, nor obtained a certificate under Act 
XXVII. of i860, to realize the debts due to his 
estate, cannot sue to recover the debt- Sho- 

DONE MllHll.LlAS t. HaLALKHORE MOHALDAK. 
Morris and Prinsef, JJ...I. L. Rep. 4 Cal 640 ; 

3 Cal. Rep. 462, 1878. 
ASSIGNMENT— Power to receive Money— 

See Stamp. 3. 
t Buacvandas e. Abdul Husein... 

I. L. Rep. 3 Bom. 49. 
ASSIGNMENT BY AUCTION PUR- 
CHASER AT EXECUTION BALK 
See Hindu Law— Sale of Land. 1 . 
And see Sale in Execution of De- 
cree. 1. 

Govihd v. Govind-.X L. Rep. 1 

Bom. 000. 

ASSIGNMENT OF CHOSE IN ACTION 

■ — Promissory Note — Suit by Assignee.'] 
promissory note not made payable to order or to 
bearer or to any other person than the payee, and 
therefore not a negotiable instrument, 
assigned to a third person, who sued in his 
name on the note : — 



ASSIGNMENT OF CHOSE IN ACTION 

Held, that by the law of India a chose in 
action is assignable, and the assignee is entitled 
to sue in his own name ; but whatever defences 
might be set up against the assignor may also be 
set up against the assignee, or at least such de- 
fences as might have been set np, up to the time 
when notice of the assignment was given to 
the defendant. Kanhaiva Lal v. Domingo. 
Turner, C.j. (Offg.), and Pearson, J. I. L. Rep. 
1 AIL 738, 1B78. 
ASSIGNMENT BT DEBTOR OF PRO- 
PERTY IN TRUST FOR CREDI- 
TOR. 

See Arbitration. 3. 

Khetu Mal v. Chuni Lal ..I. L. 
Rep. 2 All. 173. 
See Principal and Surety. 4. 

Pooosbc. Bank of Bengal L 

L. Rep. 3 Cal. 174. 
ASSIGNMENT OF DECREE— Cross-De- 
crees — Act X. of 1877, 5 346. 
See Execution of Decree. 3. 

Muru DHARe. Parsctum Dass... 
I. L. Rep. 3 AU. 9L 
ASSIGNMENT OF DECREE FOR SALE 
OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY. 
See Registration. 10, 

Gopal v. Trihbak I. L. Rep. 

1 Bom. 367. 
ASSIGNMENT OF LEGACY BY LEGA- 
TEE TO EXECUTOR. 

See Will. 3. 

Vaugiian v, Heseltine L L. 

Rep. 1 All. 753. 

Hurst v. Mussoorie Bank... 

Ibid, 768, 766. 

ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAOE-AVfu- 

tration Act VIII. of I0J1, f 17 — Extrinsic ttt- 
dence— Evidence Act. I. of 1872, f gi — Title to 
sue — Amendme7it of Plaint — Limitation — Act 
IX. of 1871, i 22, and Sched. II., Arts. 133, 144, 
145 — Power of Attorney — Foreclosure — Dam. 
dupat.] An equitable mortgage was created on 
the 15th of August 1 86z, by deposit of title- 
deeds, in March 1873 the mortgagee, P. D., 
executed an assignment of all his property, and 
of all debts due to him, and alt securities there- 
for, to the plaintiff. The assignment also con- 
tained a power of attorney from the mortgagee 
to the plaintiff, " in the name of the said P. D., 



by Google 



( 169 ) DIGEST OF CASES. { 16© ) 

ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE amtd. ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE-™^. 



his executors, &c, but for the sole use of the 
said Adarji Dadabhai (the plaintiff) Co ask, de- 
mand, sue for, recover and receive of and from 
all and every the person or persons liable in that 
behalf all and every (inter alia) the sum » 
sums of money and debts hereby assigned 
intended so to be, or any of them or any part 
of them, to hold the same unto and to the 
and behalf of the said Adarji Dadabhai, his 
cutors, &c." Some days after the execution of 
the assignment, the title-deeds which had been 
deposited with the mortgagee in 1862, 
handed to the plaintiff, in accordance with the 
terms of an agreement to that effect contained 
in the assignment. The deed of assignment 
was not registered. On the 13th of August 1874, 
the plaintiff, as the assignee of the equitable 
mortgage, sued for foreclosure. The Court of 
first instance (Sargent,},,) held that the deed, as 
an assignment, required registration, and that 
being unregistered, it could not be received in 
evidence; that f 91 of the Evidence Act 1. of 
1872, precluded any other evidenceof the assign- 
ment being given than the deed of assignment 
itself, and this being unregistered and inadmis- 
sible, the plaintiff failed to prove his title to sue 
as assignee of the mortgagor. The Court, how- 
ever, allowed an amendment of the plaint saying 
(p. 320), " It was said that to amend the frame 
of the suit now by making the plaintiff sue as 
attorney for Pestonji Dinsha, would be to intro- 
duce a new plaintiff, as to whom the period of 
limitation must be reckoned back from the 
of the amendment, and that the suit would, 
sequently, be barred under the provisions of the 
Limitation Act (IX- of 1S71). Now, when a 
party is added to the record, no doubt the suit, 
so far as he is concerned, is deemed to have been 
instituted at the time when he is so added. But 
though if this plaint were amended by altering 
the description of the plaintiff, and making him 
sue as the attorney of Pestonjee Dinsha, there 
might nominally be a new suit, yet virtually it 
would be the same. It would still be, in fact, 
the suit of the plaintiff. I should be of opinion 
that no new plaintiff had been introduced, within 
the meaning of the Limitation Act-" His Lord- 
ship then permitted the deed of assignment to 
be given in evidence to show the power thereby 
conferred on the plaintiff to sue for and recover 
all debts due to P. D., and therefore to maintain 
the present suit in respect of the equitable 
mortgage. 



Held, on appeal, that as the power of attorney 
purported to enable the plaintiff to recover the 
debts mentioned in the deed on his own account 
only, and not on account of F. />., if on the one 
hand the suit were regarded as that of P. D., the 
power did not enable the plaintiff to maintain the 
suit for P. D., and if on the other hand the suit be 
regarded as that of the plaintiff, the Court, by 
treating the power in the deed as enabling him 
to recover on his own account, virtually gave to 
that power the effect of an assignment ; and for 
that purpose sucb an assignment, whether legaV 
or equitable, must be registered: ff if and 47 
of Act VIII. of 1871. The Court, however, 
being of opinion that the omission to register 
.was dne to a misapprehension as to the require- 
ments of the law, rather than to any intention 
to evade the Registration Acts, under the cir- 
cumstances of the case, adjourned the case for 
four weeks, to enable the plaintiff to complete 
his title by obtaining and registering and put- 
ting in evidence a fresh assignment from P. D. 

Held also, that the period of limitation for a 
suit for foreclosure by the Limitation Act VIIL 
of 1871, was either twelve years under Art. 133, 
or sixty years under Art. 149 of Schedule II. of 
that Act. 

Held also, that the rule of dam-dupat applied, 
and was not inconsistent with either Art. It8 or 
Art 132 of Schedule IL of that Act. Those 
articles relate to a time within which a suit 
must be brought, whereas the rule of dam-dupat 
prescribes that an amount of interest greater 
than the principal cannot be recovered at once. 
and this rale has not been abrogated by Act 
XXVIII. of 1855 or the Limitation Acts, and 
was applicable in a case like the present, of a, 
mortgage where no account of rents and profits 
has to be taken. Ganpat Pandurang v. Adarji 
Dadabhai. Westropp, C.J. and Green, J. ..I. I,, 
Rep. 3 Bom, 313, 1877. 
ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE FOB, 
MOKE THAN Re. 100, FOR CON- 
SIDERATION LESS THAU Ss. 
100. 
See Registration. 7. 

Satra d. Viseam...I. L. Rep. 3 
Bom. 97 . 
ASSIGNMENT BT MORTGAGEE — 
Rights of Assignee. 
See Mortgage. 11. 

Sabai Pandkvv. Shah Narain... 
I. L. Rep. 2 All. 142. 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ASSIGNMENT OF PROPERTY PUR- 
CHASED AT EXECUTION S ALE— 



See Hindu Law-Sale of Land. 1. 

Govinb v. GOVIKD...Z. L. Rep. 

1 Bom. 500. 

ASSIGNMENT AND RETRAN8FER 

BT ENDORSEMENT OF POLICY 

OF ASSURANCE-Stamp on. 

See Stamp. 1. 

Morrison's Policy. ..I. L. Rep. 3 
Cal. 347. 

ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT TO SITE. 
See Champerty. 3. 

GoCULDAS V- LAKHMIDAS...L L. 

Rep. 3 Bom. 403. 
ASSIGNMENT OF TRUSTEESHIP. 

See Alienation of Right of Man- 
agement of a Pagoda. 
Rajah Vurmah jf. Ravi Vubmah. 
L. Rep. 4 I. A. 76; I. L. 
Rep. 1 Mad. 230, 

ASSOCIATION FOR THE ACQUISI- 
TION OF GAIN. 
See Company. 1. 

Bhikaji v. Bapu...L L. Rep I 
Bom. SCO. 
ASURA MABRIAGE. 



Jaikisondas o. Harkisomdas.-.I. 
L. Hop. 2 Bom. 9. 

ATTACHING CREDITORS— Priority. 
See Execution of Decree. 7. 

Narandas v- Bai Manchha ... I. 
L. Rep. 3 Bom. 317. 

Priority between. 

See Limitation. 54. 

Ram Kishan it. Bhawani Das. ..I. 
L. Rep. 1 All. 333. 

priority—Surplus Sale— Proceeds. 

&cSale in Execution of Decree. 14. 
Mamk Singh b. Paras Ra 

L. Rep. 1 All. 727. 
ATTACHMENT— Alienation of Property 
der — valid when Attachment not j 
perly published. 
See Civil Procedure Code, Act 
VIII. of 1859, f 240.1. 
NuR Mahomed u. Altaf A11...X. 
L. Rap. 2 All. 58. 



ATTACHMENT— centd. 
Alienation of Property— When not a Sub- 
sisting—Alienation valid. 
Set Civil Procedure Code, Act 
TCI. of 1859, f 240. 3. 
Zaib.un-Nissa s. Jairam Gir..,L 
L. Rep. 1 All. 616. 

Of Bonds. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act X. 
of 1877, i JL68. 

NlJRSINGDAS *. TUISIRAM...L L, 

Rep. 3 Bom. 658. 
Of Coparceners' Interest in Undivided An- 
cestral Property. 
See Bombay Act V. of 1869. 

Akdasjr «, Muse...1 L. Rep. 1 
Bom. 601. 
See Civil Procedure Code, Act VIH. 
of :>869,f i69. 

Kalafa v. Venkatesh tl, 

Rep. 3 Bom. 676. 
See Hindu Law— Alienation of An- 
cestral Property. 1. 2, 3.4. 6, 
Brikan Das«. Pura...I. L. Rep. 
3 All. 141. 

GlRDKARI LAL v. KANT0O LAL... 

L. Rep. 1 L A. 321. 

Phoolbas Koonwar o. Lalla 1. 

Sahov...L. Rep. 3 I. A. 7; 

L L. Bep. 1 CaL 2E6. 

Suraj Bunsi Koer ». Sheo Par. 

shad Sing. ..L. Rep. 6 LA. 

jAtuOAR Sino •. Ram Lal ..I. l! 
Rep. 4 Cal. 733. 
See Hindu Law— Liability of An- 
cestral Property in the 
bands of the Heira for the 
Debts of the Ancestors. 
Narrayan ». Narso.,.1. L. Rep. 
1 Bom. 362. 
See Hindu Law— Undivided Fami 
ly. 3. 4. 7. 8. 

DeENDAYAL V. JUGDEEP...L. Rep. 

4 I. A. 147; L L. Rep. 3 

Cal. 198. 

RaiNarain Dash. Nownit Lal 

I. L. Rep. 4 Cal. 809 

Luchhi Dai Koer tr. Asmai 

Singh I. L, Rep. 2 Cal 

213. 

Babaji o. Vasadev L T,. Rep, 

1 Bom. 85. 



Diaxized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ATTACHMENT— amid. 

See Bale in Execution of Decree. 
10. IS. 

i. Venkata- 

...I. I.. Sep. 

1 Mad. 368. 

Vbnkatasami Naikv. Kuppacyan. 

Ibid. 394. 

— Estate under — Sale (or Arrears of Reve- 

nue — Notice. 
See Act XI. of 1869, f S, 

Banwareb Lali. v. Mohabeer 
Proshad... L. Hep. 1 I. A. 89. 

Limitation to Suit to recover Property 

placed under — under Act XXV. of l86l. 

Chap. XXII. 
See Limitation. 43. 

Akilandahmalv. Peri as a mi... I. 
L. Bap. 1 Iliad. 309. 

■ Of Malikatia Rights payable for ever. 

See Execution of Decree. 10. 

NlLKUNTOV. HURRO SOONDEREE. 

I. L. Bap. 8 Cal. 414. 

— By Mofussil Court of Property in hands of 

Receiver of High Court. 

3w Receiver, Property in hands 

of 

Hemchonder Chundu « Pran- 

KEiSTO Chunder.,.1. Ii. Bep. 

1 Cal. 403. 

Of Money. Decree. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act X 
of 1877, §373. 
Sultan Kuar«. Gulzari Lax. 
L I* Bop. % All. 290, 
— - Priority. 

See Limitation. 34. 

Ramkishen 11. Bhawani Das. ..I. 
I. Bep. 1 ALU 333. 
See Registration. 20. 

Ahmad Baksh v. Gobijjdi ..I. L. 
Bep. 2 AIL 216. 

— Will— Demuttw— Gift of Surplus Interest 

— Inconsistent Conditions. 
See Hindu Law— Will 13. 

Ashutosh v- Durga Churn. ..L. 
Bep. 6 I. A. 182. 

Assignment — Surety — Principal — Pay- 

mint.'] The plaintiff was nominally surety, 



ATTACHMENT— contd. 
though realty the principal, in the case of two 
acts entered into by one Rehmu with the 
utive Engineer, Ahmednagar. The plain- 
tiffs position was known to trie Executive 
ineer, Rehmu executed a document autho- 
ig the plaintiff to receive such sums a* 
should become due in respect of the works. 
On the completion of the works, the Execu- 
te Engineer handed over to the plaintiff, with 
ehmu's assent, a cheque on the Government 
treasury for the amount due on the first contract. 
Before the cheque was presented by the plaintiff 
for payment, the defendant, who was a judg- 
ment creditor of Rehmu, served the Executive 
Engineer with a notice attaching any moneys in 
his. hands due by him to Rehmu. The Executive 
Engineer thereupon stopped payment of the 
cheque, the amount of which was eventually paid 
to the defendant 1 — 

Held, that at the date of the notice of attach- 
ment there was nothing left on which it could 
Operate, as the cheque had become the property 
of the plaintiff, and that the defendant should 
refund the amount received by him. 

The second contract was sold to the plaintiff 
by Rehmu, and the account in the Executive 
Engineer's office relating to it, was closed, show- 
ing a sum of money to Rehmu's credit at the 
date of the defendant's attachment : — 

Held, that the plaintiff, being the only person 
really interested, was entitled to this sum also ; 
for, although the Executive Engineer would 
have been legally justified in paying it to 
Rehmu, he was not bound, it being really the 
plaintiff's property, to pay it to a third person 
such as the defendant, the judgment -creditor, 
who, if the sum was paid to him, must refund it 
to the plaintiff. Bhagvandas Kishordas v. 
Abdul Husein Mahomed Ali, West and 
Pinkey, JJ I. L. Bep. 8 Bom. 49, 1878. 

ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY, OF 
THIBDFEBSOK— Liability of Execu- 
tion Creditor in Damages for — Loss of 
Property while under Attachment. 

See Liability of Execution Creditor 
in Damages for Wrongful 



Gopal v. Gokaldas.,.1. L. Bep. 



Digitized by G00gle 



( 166 ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



ATTACHMENT 07 UNRECOGNIZED 
PORTION 07 A BHAG IN A 
BHAGDARI OS NARWADARI 
VILLAGE. 
Ste Bombay Act V. of 1809. 

Ranchodas c Ranchodas...!. L. 

Rep. I Bom. 661. 

ArTiasib v. Muse. .XL. Bop. 1 

Bom. 601. 

Attempt. 

See Fabricating False Evidence. 
Empress o. Mula...L L. Rep. 3 
All 108. 

1. Bigamy—Penal Code, ff 494,511— 

Publication of Baton of ltarrUge.] The act of 
causing the publication of banns of marriage 
with another woman, by a man having a wife 
living at the time of such publication, does not 
constitute the offence of attempting to marry 
again during the life-time of his wife. Reg. c. 
Peterson. ft'<wtmt,J....I. L.ftep.1. All. 86, 
1876. 

3. To obtain a Briie— Penal Code, \% 

161, 511.] To ask foi a bribe is an attempt to 
obtain one; and a bribe may be asked for as 
effectually in implicit as explicit terms. 

Where, therefore, the accused, who. was a 
Clerk in the Pension Department, in an interview 
with A., who was an applicant for a pension 
(having previously informed A. that, as the fact 
was, there had been an anonymous petition re- 
ceived in the Accountant General's Office, 
against A.'s right to the pension, and having 
also falsely asserted to A. that there were still 
difficulties in the way of his, A.'s, getting his full 
pension), after referring to his own influence in 
the office and .instancing two cases in which by 
that influence increased pensions had been ob- 
tained, proceeded to intimate that anything 
might be effected by tCar.ramai, and on the 
overture being rejected, concluded by declaring 
that A. would " rue and repent it" -.—Held, that 
the offence of attempting to obtain a bribe was 
consummated. Empress f. Baldeo Sahai. 
Pearson and Oldfield, JJ...I. L. Bop. 8 All. 
208. 
S. C. under Practice— Criminal. 1. 
ATTESTATION OF CONFESSION 
WHEN UNNECESSARY. 
See Evidence. 16. 

And see Criminal Procedure Code, 
Act X of 1870, i 846. 
Chummah Shah... I. L. Rep- 8 
0*1.760. 



ATTESTATION OF MORTGAGE DEED 

BY PRIOR MORTGAGEE. 

See Conetructive Fraud. 

S A LA MAT All p. BUDH SIKOH...I. 

L. Rep. 1 AIL 803. 

ATTESTATION OF VILLAGE ADMIN- 
ISTRATION PAPER OR W AJIB. 
UL-ARZ BY LESSEE. 
Sec Pre-emption. 10. 

ChaDami Lai. o. MuhaMAdBakSh. 
I. L.Kop. 1 All. 063. 
ATTESTATION OF WILL -Of Hindu. 
See Hindu Law- Will. B. 

Radhabai *. Gakhsj[...I. L. Rep. 
8 Bom. 7. 
— — Signature necessary — Mark insufficient. 

See Indian Succession Act X. of 
1866, t 60, CI. 3. 
Fernandez tr-ALVES... I. L.Rep. 
8 Bom. 382. 
Act X. of 1865, i Jo— Form of Attestation- 
Hindu Will.'] By the Indian Succession Act X. 
of 1865, ( 50, no particular form of attestation is 
required ; therefore, where toa|document purport- 
ing to be her last will and testament the name 
of the testatrix was written by A., and the tes- 
tatrix in his presence affiled her mark, and A., 
r presence wrote beneath it "by the pen of 
A.-," and the testatrix was then identified to the 
Registrar, who was present, by B., who had seen 
her affix her mark to the will, and who in her 
presence put his signature as having identified 
her:- 

Hetd, a sufficient attestation, and probate wa» 
granted. In the Goods of Roymonev Dossbe. 

/'hear, J I. L. Rep. 1 Cal. 160, 1876, 

ATTORNEY AND CLEENT-Bill of Costa 
— Limitation. 
See Limitation. 67. 

Hearn v. Bapu Nairin I. L. 

Rep. 1 Bom. 606. 

Bill of Costs— Right to tax after Declining. 

See Attorney and Client. 8. 



See Privileged Communication. 2. 

MemoN HajI v. Molvi Abdul, ..I. 

L. Rep. 3 Bom. 01. 

- Fiduciary Relationship. 

See Attorney and Client. 1. 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES 



ATTORNEY AND CLIENT— contd. 

Lien for Costs. 

See Mortgage. 38, 

BftljNATH r. JlfGGERNATH ... 1, 1. 

Bep. 4 Cal. 742. 

1. — — Application under Rule 149 of the 
Oomtnon Law Rules of the Supreme Court — 
Limitation — Suit.'} An application by an attor- 
ney, under Rule 149 of the Common Law Rules 
of the late Supreme Court, that his client should 
show cause why he should not pay the balance 
due on the allocatur of the Taxing Master, and 
why, in default of such payment, attachment 
should not Issue against the person and property 
of the client, is not a " suit " within the meaning 
of Act IX. of 1871. There is no limitation- ap- 
plicable to such an application. Abba Haji 
Jshuail v. Abba Thara. Bayley, J...L L. Bep. 
1 Bom. 263, 1876. 

Weitropp, C.J., and Sargent, J., said. On an 
application by the defendant to reverse this de- 
cision, that they considered the order of Bayley, 
J., "perfectly right." 

fl. Fiduciary Relationship— Compound 

Interest — Rate of Interest^ The plaintiff, an 
attorney of the High Court, made advances to 
the defendant, a native banker and merchant, 
for whom he had been, and then was, acting as 
attorney in certain litigation in the High Court. 
At the time of the first advance, the defendant 
was in difficulties about money; and one credi- 
tor had issued execution against his property. 
The plaintiffs firm had also an unsettled claim 
against the defendant for costs for upwards 
of Rs. 33,000, but for which they had not up 
to that time delivered any bills of costs. Before 
the first loan the plaintiff made out and de- 
livered bills for all his costs due up to that 
time, in all forty-six bills of costs ; and also a 
general account showing what was then .due 
for costs. The plaintiff offered to tax such 
of the bills as were taxable, but the defendant 
said there was no necessity for it, as the costs of 
taxation would only increase his expenses. The 
plaintiff then advanced Rs. 34,000, out of which 
the defendant discharged a number of his debts, 
including the plaintiffs costs, the larger portion 
of which had been incurred in suits then com- 
pleted, but some portion were costs incurred in 
pending suits. The defendant executed a mort- 
gage to the plaintiff in 1869, by which the prin- 
cipal sum of Rs. 34,000 was made repayable in 
■871, and the interest thereon was fixed at 13 



ATTORNEY AND CLIENT— amid. 
percent, per annum, payable quarterly. Com- 
pound interest was also to be charged on all 
interest in arrear at the rate of Rs. 11 per cent. 
The plaintiff made a further advance of Rs. 
2,546 in September 1870, and a further mortgage 
was executed by the defendant for Rs. 41,000, 
i. e., the original Rs. 34,000, the interest thereon 
up to that date and the further advance, — upon 
the same terms as to interest as were contained 
in the first mortgage. Further advances were 
made in the same way in October 1S71 and March 
1S76, and similar mortgages executed by the 
defendant, alt of which were prepared in the 
plaintiff's office, but were not charged for. It 
was admitted that in all these transactions the 
defendant had no independent professional 
advice. The plaintiff was the defendant's 
general professional adviser, until the time of 
the present suit which he instituted, asking for 
a sale of the mortgaged property to satisfy his 
claims. The plaintiff abandoned any accumu- 
lations of interest since the date of the third 
mortgage : — 

Held, that having regard to the relation be- 
tween the parties and the circumstances of the 
case, the defendant had not lost his right to 
have the plaintiff's bills of costs taxed and the 
account re-opened by reason of his refusal of 
the plaintiff's offer to tax in 1809, notwithstand- 
ing the delay that had taken place since the 
bills were delivered. Under the circumstances 
the Court would not infer acquiescence from 
that delay, nor would the bare offer by the 
plaintiff to have the bills taxed, and the defend- 
ant's rejection of that offer, deprive the latter of 
that right which he originally had to have the 
bills taxed. 

Held also, that there is no rule which prevents 
an attorney from taking security or otherwise 
arranging with his client for the payment of 
costs which have actually become due, or from 
agreeing for any fair amount of interest in 
making such an arrangement, and that the plain- 
tiff was entitled to a sale of the property, to 
accumulations of interest prior to the date of 
the third mortgage, — calculated by allowing 
annual rests, — to interest at 10 per cent., as 
being a fair rate for the client to have under- 
taken to pay when the mortgages were execu- 
ted, and to interest on his costs. Mgnohur 
Doss e. RomonautH Law. Garth, C.J., and 

Markby, J I. L. Bep. 3 Cal. 478, 1887. 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( 1TO ) 



AUCTION PURCHASER AT EXECU- 
TION SALE— Apical by— from Order 
setting aside Sale. 
St* Appeal— CiviL 22. 

Gopal Singh v. Dulak Kuab... 
L L. Rep. 2 AIL 362- 

Assignment by. 

See Hindu Law— Sale of Land. 1. 

See Salt) in Execution of Decree. 1. 

Govind s. GoviND...L L. Rep. 1 

Bom. 000. 

Right of — to enhance Rent. 

See Bengal Reg. XLIV. of 1793> 
JO. 

MoilINY V. ICHAMOYEB L L. 

Sep. 4 Cal. 012. 
AUCTION PURCHASER AT BALE UN- 
DER BENG. BEG. vm, OF 1819— 
Onus Probandi in Suit against— for Re- 

Sec Onoe Probandi. 3. 

Arfunnhssa «. Peaky Mohun...I. 

L. Sep. 1 Cal. 378. 

AUTHORITY TO ADOPT GRANTED 

BT A HINOR-Beng. Reg. X. of 

"793. 3 33- 

See Hindu Law— Adoption. 10. 

Jauoona Dassya e. Bamasoon- 

i>EBAi...L.Rep.3I.A.72; 

L L. Rep. 1 Cal. 289. 

AUTHORITY OP AGENT-To Bind Prin. 
cip.il by Compounding Criminal Charge 
against Agent. 

See Durese. 

MoUNG SilOAY A IT V. KO ByAW... 

L. Rep. 8 L A 61 ; I. L. 
Rep. 1 Cal. 330. 

AUTHORITY OF CASTE TO DECLARE 
■CARRIAGE VOID. 
Set Penal Code, { 494. 

Reg. *■ Sambhu.-.L L. Rep. 1 
Bom. 847. 

AUTHORITY OF LESSEE TO BIND ' 
OWNER BY ATTESTING VIL- 
LAGE ADMINISTRATION 
PAPER. 

Set Pre-emption. 10. 

Chad ami Lall v. Muhammad 
Bak3h...I. L. Kep. 1 AIL 



AVOIDANCE OF CONTRACT— Duress. 
See Duress. 

Moling Shoay Att ». Ko ByAW... 

L. Rep. 3 L A. 61 ; L L. 

Rep. 1 Cal. 880. 

AWARD— Appeal from Order directing the 

Filing of an. 

See Appeal— CiviL 18. 18a. 

HuSSAlNlBlBIV. MOHSIN KiiAN... 

I. L. Rep. 1 All. 166. 

IUUADHIN V. MAHESK...I. L. 

Rep. 2 AIL 471. 
See Arbitration. 4. 6. 

Boonjad Mathoor v. Nathoo 

Shahoo.,.1. L. Rep. 8 Cal. 

375. 

Vishnu v. Ravji... I. Xi. Rep. 8 

' Bom. 16. 

— Application to File an — Course to be pur. 
sued when Reference to Arbitration 

See Appeal— Civil. 18. 
And see Arbitration. 0. 

Hussaini Blri o. MoHsin Khan.. 
I. L. Rep. 1 AIL 166. 

— Application to File— Jurisdiction. 
See Suit for Land. 3. 

KttLiE 0. Fraser.,.1, L. Rep. 2 
CaL446. 

— Application to File — Setting aside Award — 
Acquiescence in Proceedings of Avbitia 

See Arbitration. 7. 

ChOWDHKI MlJRTAZA «. MlJSST. 

Bin Bechunnissa...L. Rep. 3 
L A 209. 

— Of Arbitrators made without Intervention 
of Court— Decree— Appeal. 

See Arbitration. 4. 6. 

Book] ad Mathoor v. Nathoo 

SHAH00...L L. Rep. 3 CaL 

875. 

Vishnu v. Ravji X. L. Rep. 3 

Bom. 18. 

— Finality and Validity of. 
Sec Arbitration. 4. 

Boonjad e- Nathoo.. .L L. Rep. 
8 CaL 376. 

— Refusal to confirm an — Appeal. 
See Appeal— CiviL 34. 

Howard ». Wilson... I. L. Rep. 
4 Cal. 231. 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



AWABD- eontd. 

Remission of— not Illegal on its Face — for 

Reconsideration. 
See Arbitration. 3. 

Nsnah Chand v. Rah Narrayaw. 

L L. Rep. 2 All. 181. 

•— Validity of — fonnded on Evidence taken 

on Oath illegally administered. 

See Oaths' Act X. of 1873, ff 8, 

10, 13. 

Wali-ul-la v. Ghulaii Au.„L L. 

Hop. 1 AIL 536. 

— Subordinate Judge— Power of, iofde A-mard 
—Small Cause Court—Act X. of 1877, j 525,] A 
Subordinate Judge, though invested with the 
jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes, does not, 
by exercising it, become on that account a Judge 
of a Court of Small Causes, or his Court such 
a Court, within the meaning of the Civil Proce. 
dure Code (Act X. of 1877). Awards, therefore, 
of any amount within the ordinary pecuniary 
jurisdiction of a Subordinate Judge may properly 
be received and filed by him under J 515 of Act 
X. of 1877, even where a Small Cause Court 
exists, the exercise of whose jurlsdict! 
eludes for some purposes the jurisdiction of the 
Subordinate Judge, because the jurisdi 
the Small Cause Court is, as to such a 
excluded. Balkrishna v. Lakshwan. West 

and Pinhey, JJ L L. Sep. 8 Bom. 

S19, 1879. 
BAIL — Convicted Person — Power of Sessions 
Judge to admit to — where no Appeal 
Sec Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1872, §890.1. 
Reo. v. Thakur Parshad...I. L. 
Sep. 1 AIL 151. 
BALAHBH ATT A— Authority of. 

See Hindu Law— Authority of 
Writers. 5. 

MORARJI GOKALDAS B. PaRVATI- 

bai L If. Bep. 1 Bom. 

177. 

BALANCE OF ACCOUNT— Bond to secure. 

See Bond to secure Balance of Ac- 

NAKKAYAH V. MOTILAL...L I.. 

Bep. I Bom. 45. 
•— — Suit for — Jurisdiction of Mofussil Small 
Cause Court. 
See Small CauBeCourt— Mofussil. 7. 

DYBBUKEB V. MUDHOO...I. L. 

Bep. 1 Cal. 128. 



BALANCE OB DBB 

See Company — Winding up— Con- 
tributory. 
The London, Bombay, and ME- 
DITERRANEAN BAKK *. BHAN- 
JI ZUTANI...I. L. Bep. 9 

Bom. 118. 

B ALTJT A— Su.it for— Small Cause Court— Ju- 
risdiction.] A suit to recover Baiuta leviable on 
(he crops of village lands is not a suit for an 
interest in land, but for a share in produce sever- 
ed from the land, and is cognizable by a 
Mofussil Small Cause Court. Nahu Pira v. 
NarO SmDDESHVAR. West *nd Pinkey, JJ...L 

L. Bep. 8 Bom. 28, 1978. 
BANDHUS. 

See Hindu Law — Inheritance- 
Father's Bister's Bon. 
Thakoor Jeebnath it. Court ok 
Wards. ..L. Bep. 2 L A. 
183. 
BANE MEMORANDUM ADVXSINO 
RECEIPT OF HONEY FOB CUS- 
TODIER'S ACCOUNT FROM 
THIRD PEBSON — Requires no 

See Stamp. 8. 

In the matter of Act XVIII. op 
1869, andofTHE Uncovenan- 

ted Service Bank I. L, 

Bep. 4 Cal. 828 ; 8 Cal. 
Bep. 597. 
BANKRUPTCY OF ACCEFTOB OF 
HUNDI. 
See Procedure— Civil. 1. 

Basant Ram v. Kolahal..,I. L. 
Bep. 1 All. 382. 



See Kistbandi. 

Hbera Lall Mookhopadhya v. 
Dhunput S1N0H...L L. Rep. 
4 Cal. BOO. 
See Limitation. 43. 44. 

Kally P. Hazra •, Hurra Lall. 
L L. Bop. 2 CsJ. 488. 

Mungol P. DiCHIT *. Shama K. 

L. Chowomrv ... L L. Bep. 
4 0aL70a 



D.gmzed by GoOgle 



( in ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



mm PTJBCHASS. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act 

vm. of 1869, i aeo. 1. s. 8. 

LokBEb Narrain e. Kalvpuddo... 

X. Rep. a I. A. 164. 

PuranMalv. Au Khan... I. L. 

Bep. 1 AIL 93S. 

Jan Muhammad v. Ilahi Baksh... 

I. L. Rep. 1 AIL 290. 

BENCH 07 MAGISTRATES- .Jurisdiction 

of. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 

X. of 1872, ( 630, 5. 

.Sufferuddin *. Ibrahim... I. L. 

Bep. 3. Oftl. 764. 

BBHOAX ACT HL OF 1804— Public High- 
nays — Ptmer of Municipal Commissioner to close 
wdivert—1 Bengal Act III. of 1864, which 
public highways in Municipal Commissioners 
(or the purposes of the Act does not by so vest- 
ing; them give power to the Municipal Commis- 
sioners, nor d fortiori to the Vice-Chairman 
alone, to stop up or divert such public highways. 
En mi ess it. Peojonath Dey. Markby and Prt\ 

ttp, )}...., I. L. Bep. 2 CaL 426, 1877. 

&*Fazal Haq g. Maha Chand...I. L, 
Bep. 1 AU. 667. 
Under Bight to sue. 4. 

— f 33 — Appeal against Assessment by Muni' 
ripoJ Commissioner.'] A suit to set aside an ordet 
madeon appeal under (33 of Beng. Act III. of 1864 
to the Municipal Commissioners againsj a r; 
assessment, and to reduce the tax levied by them 
under that Act, on the ground that they have 
tried the appeal in an improper way, and have 
exceeded their powers and acted contrary to the 
provisions of the Act, cannot be maintained in 
the Civil Courts. The decision of the Commis- 
sioners in such appeal is absolutely final. Ma. 
hbssub Dass e. The Collector and Munici- 
pal Commissioners of Chafra. Garth, C.}. 
and Mitttr, J...I. L. Bep. 1 CaL 409, 1876. 

BEBTOAX ACT IX OP 1867— H 5 and 6— 
Unauthorized Entry and Arrest of Gam- 
biers — Direct Evidence of House being 
Gaming-house. 
See Gambling. I. 

Nazir Khan *. Proladh Dutta. 
L L. Bep. 4 CaL 669 



BENGAL ACT II. OP ism-contd. 
■ ' ff S ar "l 6 — Gambling — Gaming-house — 
Evidence — Unauthorized Entry and At- 

See Gambling. 3. 

Sreram Chandra n.BipiHDA3S...X. 
L. Bep. 4. CaL 710. 
BENGAL ACT VII. OF 1863. 

See Certificate Proceedings under 
Bengal Act VUL of 1809. 
Hem Lotta b. SrbedhoneBorooa. 
L L. Bep. 8 CaL 771. 
BENGAL ACT VI1X OP I860— Holdings not 
liable to enhancement (Guzashta Kasht) — Suit 
far Removal of Buildings.'} A ryot who relies 
upon an occupancy right must be taken as there- 
by admitting that the letting was of such a cha- 
racter as is contemplated by Bengal Act VIII. 
of 1S69, which applies only to agricultural hold- 
ings. If land is let on the understanding that 
it is to be used for cultivation, the fact that the 
ryot has acquired a right of occupancy does not 
alter any of the terms of the letting, except the 
conditions (if any} fixing a term for the tenancy. 
The statutory right of occupancy cannot be 
extended so as to make it include complete 
dominion over the land, subject only to the pay- 
ment of a rent liable to be enhanced on certain 
conditions. The landlord is still entitled to 
insist that the land shall be used for the pur- 
poses for which it was granted, and although a 
liberal construction may be adopted, it cannot 
extend to a complete change in the mode of 
enjoyment- Lal Sahoov. Dev Naraih Singh 
Ainslie and McDonnell, JJ ...I. L. Bop. S CaL 
781 ; 9 CaL Bep. 294, 1978. 
Set Landlord and Tenant. S. 
—- i 4— Right of Purchaser at Revenue Sale 
to enhance Rent — Presumption in favour 
of Mokurari Tenure. 

See Enhancement of Bent. L 

Purmanund ». Rookinee.-.I. I*. 
Bep. 4 CaL 798. 
— j 14— Notice of Enhancement. 

See Enhancement of Bent. 8. 

Ekram Mundul v. Holodhur 
Pal...L L. Bep. 8 CaL STL 

— ■ f 14— Service of Notice tf Enhancement of 
Rent — Joint Hindu Family.'] Where a joint 
Hindu family owns a tenure, it Is sufficient 
service of notice of enhancement of rent, under 
Bengal Act VIII. of 1869, if any one of the co- 



V Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



BENGAL ACT TOL OP 1869-contd. 
sharers is served with the notice. Nobodkep 
Chundkk SHAHA v. Sonaram Dass. Xilter 

and Maclean, JJ I. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 592 ; 8 

Oal. Hep. 359, 1878. 
— i 14 — 3. Stipulation in Potta for Increase 
of Rental to be made yearly — Suit la recover Rent 
taper Potta — Notice of Enhancement."] Whei 
a potta in its terms expressly stipulates for a 
increase of rental according as the lands let ai 
brought under cultivation, and a measuremei 
taken, a landlord is entitled to recover sue 
increased rent as agreed upon in thefiotta wit! 
out serving on the tenants any notice under f 14 
of Bengal Act VIII. of 1869. Nistarik Dasj 

v. Bonohali Chattkkji X. L. Rep. 4 Ceil. 

941; 4 Cal. Rep. 378, 1879, V, B. 
See Enhancement of Bent. 8. 

Ekbah Mundul s. Holodhur 

Pal...L L. Sep. 8 Cal. 371. 

1 "{ 1 7 — Right of Purchaser at Revenue Sale 

to enhance Rent — Presumption in favour 

of MoHurari Tenures. 

See Enhancement of Bent. 1. 

PuEMANUND '•!. RoOKINEE...!. L. 

Bep. 4 Oal. 783. 

if 21 and 52— Ejectment—Arrears of Rent 

— Bhaoli Rent— Compensation for QccupatU, 
Land — Decree.'] Under the provisions of Bengal 
Act VIII. of 1865, a suit will lie for ejectment 
on non-payment of arrears of rent due on a bhaoli 
tenure, §§ 2 and 21 and 52 covering not only 
rent reserved in money, but rent reserved in 
kind. A suit to recover compensation for the 
use and occupation of land is not a suit for 
arrears of rent due under § 52 of Bengal Act 
VIII. of i860. Where the decree under that 
section (by which the defendant was directed 
to pay a certain amount as arrears of rent within 
15 days, otherwise he was to be ejected) com- 
prised a sum found due for such compensation : — 
Held, that the whole decree was vitiated. The 
tenant is to be ejected, under ( 52 of Bengal 
Act VIII. of 1869, if he does not pay the amount 
of rent specified in the decree. But the amount 
specified in the decree must consist entirely of 
rent due. And if it turns out that there was not 
really so much arrears of rent due, the tenant 
never has had the opportunity, which the law 
gives him, to pay within 15 days that which 
he is liable to pay as arrears of rent. Kishen 
Gofaul Mawar e. Barnes, Marhby and Prin-\ 
tep, jj....„ I. L. Bep. 2 Cal. 374, 1877. [ 



BENGAL ACT VHX OF 1869— roxA*. 

— § 27 — 1. Ejectment, Suit for— Limitation 
■Suit for Possession on Declaration of Title.] 
The only remedy for a person in the position of 
an occupancy ryot, who alleges that be has been 
ejected in contravention of the proviso to i 2a, 
Bengal Act VIII. of 1S60, is a suit on the ground 
of the illegal ejectment, and such suit must, 
ider ( 27, Bengal Act VIII. of 1869, be brought 
within one year from the ejectment. Golabo- 
lee v. Kootosbollah SihcAr. Milter and 

Maclean, JJ I. L, Bep. 4 CaL 937, 1878. 

( 27 — 3. Limitation — Suit for Possession 
with Mesne Profits— Howla Rights— Title.] A suit 
for possession of certain lands " by establishing 
the plaintiff's hernia right," and for mesne profits, 
brought against a shareholder of the talook in 
which the lands are situated, (and who denies 
the existence of the alleged honla right), a 
former talookdar, and certain ryots who paid 
rent to the first defendant, is not a suit to re- 
cover the occupancy of Ihp land from which the 
plaintiff has been illegally ejected by the person 
entitled to receive the rent, within the meaning 
oE Beng. Act VIII. of 1869, j 27, and is not 
governed by the limitation provided by that 
Khajah Ashanoollah u. Ramdhone 
BhuTTACHaRJEE. Jackson And. McDonnell, JJ... 

I. L. Bep. 1 Cal. 33S, 1876. 
§ 2p, — Suit for Arrears of Rent — Expira- 
tion of three years during Vacation — 
Plaint presented on Re-opening of Court 
— Suit barred. 
See Limitation. 13. 

Purran Chunder «. Mutty Lall. 
L L.|Bep. 4 Cal. SO. 
§29— Suit for Rent — Limitation not pre- 
vented from running against — by Land- 
lord's Denial of Tenancy, and Suit to 

See Limitation. 4. 
And Bee Judicata. 18. 

Watson & Co. ». Dkonendra... 
I. L. Bep, 3 Cal. 0. 

§ 29 — Suit for Arrears of Rent — Limita- 
tion — Deduction of Time occupied in 
Unsuccessful Enhancement Suit not 
allowed. 

See Limitation. 9. 

BbiOJENDROO. RAKHAlChUHOER... 

I. L. Bep. 3 Cal. 791. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



BENGAL ACT VIII OF I6WB— «***. 

5 a 9 — Suit for Arrears of Rent— Limitation 

— Deduction of Time occupied in Un- 
successful Suit for filial Possession not 
allowed. 
See Limitation. 10. 

Huero Proshadt. Gopaul Dass. 
L L. Eep. 3 Cat 917. 

— ~ S 39— 1. Limitation — Computation of 
Time according to English Calendar?] Held, 
in accordance with former decisions of the 
High Court, that for the purpose of computing 
the period of limitation prescribed by § 29 of 
Bengal Act VIII. of 1S69, the calculation is to 
be made according to the English Calendar. 
Mahomed Elahee Baksh v. Brojokishore 

Sen, Milter and Maclean,].] I. L. Hop. 4 

Cal. 407, 1878. 

— § 31—Suitfor Arrears of Rent— Payment 
into Court— Limitation."] By a condition in the 
lease of a talook, additional rent became payable 
in respect of all lands which, not being in a 
state of cultivation at the time of the lease, 
should be subsequently brought into cultivation, 
so soon as the lessee had enjoyed them rent- 
free for the space of seven years. 

Rent having become due under this condition 
on certain lands which had not been in a state 
of cultivation at the time of the making of the 
lease, the lessee deposited in Court, as the 
entire rent payable in respect of the talook, the 
same amount as he had paid in previous years. 

In a suit brought a year after the lessor had 
notice of such deposit, to recover the entire rent 
payable in respect of the lands newly brought 
into cultivation : — 

Held, that such suit having been instituted 
more than six months after service of notice of 
such deposit on the lessor, was barred under 
i 31 of Bengal Act VIII. of 1869. Ram Suhker 
Ssnaputty b. Bir Chunder Manikya, Jack, 
ion and Tottenham, |J IL. Rap. 4 Cal. 

714, 1878. 

__ | j8 — Application for Execution of Decree 
for Arrears of Rent— Limitation— Circular Order, 
tilth July 1874.] The words " no process of 
execution of any description whatsoever shall 
be issued on a judgment in any suit * * after 
the lapse of three years," in $ 58 of Beng. Act 
VIII. of 1E69, mean, that execution shall not 
issue unless a proper application for execution 



BENGAL ACT VUL OF 1889— contd. 

made within three years from the date of the 

judgment. Therefore where, on an application 

made on the 5th July 18/5 for execution of 

decree for arrears of rent obtained on the 31st 

of Jannary 1873, a warrant for the arrest of the 

judgment debtors was issued, but not executed, 

subsequent application for execution of the 

me decree made on the 17th March 1S76, was 

held not to be barred. The law as laid down in 

Rhiday Krishna Chose v. Khailas Chandra Base (4 

Jeng. L. Rep. F. B. 8a ; 13 W- Rep. F. B, 3) is 

iot affected by the Circular Order No. 18 of the 

lOthJuly 1874- GOLOKEHONBY DABIA tr. MOHESH 

Chunder Mosa. Starl6y and if titer, JJ. ...L 
L. Rep. 8 Cal. 647, 1877. 

§5 59, <5°i 6ti — Sale of Under-Tenure — 
Right of Purchaser. 
See Execution of Decree. 8. 

Doolar Chand v. Lalla Cha- 
beet. L. Hep. 6 I. A. 47. 

5 6t — Under-Tenure— Arrears— Sale in 
Execution — Execution against other Property?] 
The plaintiff obtained two decrees againt one 
B. ; the first an ordinary money-decree, the 
other a decree for the rent of certain tenures, 
(ecution of the money decree, the plaintiff 
sold n. 's right, title and interest in the tenures 
and afterwards in execution of his decree for 

again put up the same tenure for sale. At 
this sale, the defendant became the purchaser of 
whatever could pass under such sale. The plain- 
tiff subsequently sued and obtained a decree 
against the defendant for arrears of rent due on 
the said tenures since the last-mentioned sale, 
and attached the tenures in execution of that 
decree. Third parties intervening, the tenures 

released from attachment ; and the plain. 
tiff then sought to levy execution on other im- 
moveable property of the defendant : — 

Held, that the tenures not having been sold, 
but having been released from attachment, the 
plaintiff was not entitled to proceed to execution 
against any other immoveable property of the 
defendant, under f 01 of Beng. Act VIII. of i860, 
it being open to him to show by a regular suit 
that the tenures were liable to be sold in execu- 
tion of his decree, and further, that upon the 
facts of the case the plaintiff was not entitled to 
the equitable relief he sought. Whatever may 
be the rights of a zemindar holding a decree for 
rent against one of his tenants in respect of the 
sale of the tenure on which the arrears have 



DiQXLzed by Google 



( ira ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



< 1» ) 



bengal act vm or lses-aww. 

accrued, when such rights ate put forward in 
opposition to the tights of third patties, it is 
impossible fat any zemindar to put forward a 
claim under the rent law Which shall take effect 
against his own acts done, as in the present 
case, under the Civil Procedure Code. Harrish 
ChunDer Roy v. Thb Collector of Jessore. 

Ainslie and Morris, JJ...L L, Rep. 3 Cat 713, 

1878. 

— f 66- -Growing Crops— Sal? of Vndtr-Te- 
nitre.'] At a sale of an under- tenure for arrears 
of rent under ( 66 of Bengal Act VIII. of 186a, 
the growing crop standing on the land passes to 
the purchaser at the auction. sale, unless it has 
been specially excepted by the notification of 
sale, or a custom to the contrary has been 
proved. AfatoolLa Sirdar v. DwarkAnath 
MoiTrY. Jackson and McDonnell, J] L L< 

Hep. 4 Cal. 814 ; 4 Cal, Rap. SB, 1879. 

f 98— Suit fir Value of Crops— Distraint— 

Jurisdiction — Small Causa Court."] The defend- 
ant distrained certain crops belonging to the 
plaintiff, Who subsequently complained to a Ma- 
gistrate against the defendant, bis landlord, for 
forcibly carrying away his crops; Whereupon the 
defendant was tried, and convicted of theft, and 
punished. The plaintiff then instituted a suit 
in the MunsifT s Court, apparently under f 95 of 
Bengal Act VIII. of 1669, and obtained a decree 
declaring the distraint to be illegal, and direct- 
ing the crops to be given' up to him. The 
defendant offered to give up a smaller quantity 
than was mentioned in the decree. The plaintiff 
refused to take the same, and brought a sui 
the Small Cause Court to recover the value of 
the quantity he claimed before the Munsiff, and 
something additional: — 

Held, that the Small Cause Court had no juris, 
diction, and that the suit ought to have been 
brought under ( 08 of Bengal Act VIII- of i86y. 
Hvder Ali v J afar Au. Garth, C. J., and Mac. 
fkerson, J 1 L. Sep. 1 CaL 183, 1870. 

1 Suit for Rent 



See Appeal— Civil. 39. 

LlJNOESSUK KoEE *. SoOKHA 

OJHA...L L, Rep, 8 Cal' 
151 ;1 Cal. Rep. 30. 



BENGAL CIVIL COURTS' ACT VI. OP 
1871. 
Sm Appeal-Civil. 8. 

RUNjlT Sinoh v. MehKrban Roer. 
L L. Rep. 3 CaL 662. 

■ ( 21 —Jurisdiction — Subject-matter in Dis- 
pute— Suii for Cancellation of a Bond-'] The plain, 
tiffs sued for the cancellation of a bond for the 
payment of Rs. 6,000, with interest at the rate of 
four pet cent pet mensem, alleging that they 
bad executed such bond under the impression 
that it was a bond for the payment of Rs. 3,000 
with interest at the rate of one and a half per 
cent, per mensem, whereas the defendants had 
fraudulently caused them to execute the bond 
in suit. The plaintiffs paid into Court Rs. 3,000 
together with interest at the rate of one and a 
half per cent pet mensem ;— 

Held, that the value of the subjcct-i natter in 
dispute, was the difference between Rs. 3,000 
and Rs. 6,000, or thereabouts, and therefore 
that an appeal from tbe Court of first instance 
preferred to the District Judge, was cognizable by 
him. Kali Charas Rai a. Ajudhia Ral, 

Pearson and Oidficld, J] I. L. Rap. 8 All 

148, 1B79- 
BENGAL ACT X 07 1871. 

See Road Can Act (Bengal Act X.) 
of 1871. 

BENGAL REGULATION VHX OF 
1793-i 5 <- 

See' Ghatwali Tenure. 

Leelanund Sikoh v. Tkakoor 

Munrunjun...!. L. Rep. 8 

Cal. 861. 



See Enhancement of Rent. 3. 

HlTRROHATH n. GoBIND ChUNDBI. 

L. Rap. SLA. 198 ; 10 

Bang. L. R. ISO ; 88 W. B. 

808. 



Set Enhancement of Rent. 6. 

Na Money v. Chunderkaht...L 
L. Rep. 8 CaL ISO, 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( 182 ) 



BENGAL REGULATION X. OF 1793- 
t 33 — Minor — Authority to adopt. 
See Hindu Law—Adoption. 10. 



L. Sep. 3. I. A. 73 ; I. L. 
Rep. 1 Cal. 289. 

BENGAL REGULATION XI. OP 1793— 

Effect of — on Family Custom. 

See Family Custom. 

Rajkishent. Ramjov...I. L. Hop. 
1 Cal. 186 ; 19 W. R. 8. 

BENGAL REGULATION XV. OF 1793— 

S§ 2 and 3- 

See Interest. 3. 

Raja Barda Kant Rai v. Bhag- 

wan Das.. I. LRep. 1 AIL 

344. 

BENGAL REGULATION XXVI. OF 
1793— S 2— Minority. 
See Mahomed an Law — Gift. 3. 



L. Rep. 2 I. A. 87 ; 10 

Bang. L. R. 87 ; 23 W. R. 

306. 

BENGAL REGULATION XLTV.OF 1793 

— § 5— Enhancement of Rent—Auction Pur. 
chaser, Right of] According to the decision of 
the Privy Council in Ranee Surnomoyee v. 
Maharajah Sullen Chundcr Roy Bahadoor (10 
Moo. I. A, 123), the right of an auction pur- 
chaser under § 5 of Bengal Regulation XLIV. 
of 1793, is limited to raising the rent of a taluk 
created by the defaulter to what is demandable 
from it according to the parganna rates prevail- 
ing either at the time when the taluk is created* 
or at the time when the auction purchase takes 
place. He cannot demand any higher rent, 
even if at any subsequent time such higher rent 
be in accordance with the prevailing current 
rate. Mohinv Mohun Ror v. Ichamovee 
DasSeEa. Hitter and Maclean, JJ...I. L. Rep. 

4 Cal. 613, 1678. 



See Enhancement of Rent. 2. 

HtutftoNATH v- Gobjnd.L. Rep. 



BENGAL REGULATION IV. OF 1797. 
See Offence committed before the 
Fenal Coda came into oper- 
ation. 
Empress o. Dil;ono Misser...I. 
L. Sep. 3 Cal. 330. 
Empress p. M ulna. ..I. L. Rep. 
1 All. 699. 
BENGAL REGULATION XVIL OF 
1808-(}2and3. 
See Interest. 3, 

Raja Barda Kant v. Bhagwan 
Das.L T..Kop. 1 AIL 344. 

(8 — Foreclosure — Service of Notice — 

Proof— Judge's Office Ministerial— Ad- 
mission of Service by some of several 
Mortgagors. 
See mortgage. IS. 14. 

NORENDEK B. DWARKA LAL...L. 

Rep. OLA. 18; I. L.Sep. 

3 Cal. 397. 

Bank op Hindustan, China, and 

Japans. Skoroshibla Debee. 

I. L. Rep. 3 Cal. 81L 

f 8—1. Mortgage— Foreclosure— Notice.] 

Where land which has been conditionally sold, 
is subsequently mortgaged, the second mort- 
gagee, being the mortgagor's " legal representa- 
tive," within the meaning of that term in f 8, 
Bengal Reg. XVIII. of 1806, is entitled on fore- 
closure proceedings being taken by the condi- 
tional vendee to the notice required by that 
section, and cannot be deprived by the condi- 
tional vendee of the possession of the land, not- 
withstanding foreclosure, where such notice has 
not been given to him. Dirgaj Singh v. Debi 
Sinoh. Stuart, C.j., and Turner, J... I. L. Rep. 

1 AIL 499, 1877. 
BENGAL REGULATION XX. 07 1813 

— f 2, CI. 5 — Secondary Evidence 

See Kahomedan Law— Gift. 3. 

Ameeroonissa v. Abedoonissa... 

L. Rep. 3 L A. 87; 10 

Bang. L- R. 87 ; 33 W. 

B. 303. 

BENGAL REGULATION XIX. OF 1814. 

See Partition by the Revenue 

Authorities. 

Sharat Chander t. Hargorindo. 

I. L. Sep. 4 Cal. 010. 



by Google 



( 



) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



BENGAL BEGTJLATION VI. OF 1819- 

§ 6. Disobedience of Order not to pi; 
Boats near Public Ferry. 
See Disobedience of Order of Public 
Servant. 

MlTTHRA*. JAWAHIR...I. L. Bep. 

1 All. 627. 
BENGAL REGULATION VUL OF 1819 
— i 6— Appeal— Slat- 24 & 35 Vict, Ch. 104, $ 
15. J No appeal lies from a summary order of 
the District Judge, passed under § 6 of Bengal 
Regulation VIII. of 1819, directing the zemindar 
to accept the security tendered and give effect 
to the transfer without delay, though the Judge 
may have used the word ' decree/ and drawn 
up the order in the form of a decree directing 
that an injunction should issue. 

Per Birch, J. — A party who has preferred 
appeal to the High Court where the law gives 
him no appeal, is not entitled on the hearing 
ask the Court to treat it as an application for 
the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction 
under § IS of Stat. 24 and 25 Vict., CI. 104. 
In the matter of the Petition of SoORJA Kant 
Ac H raj Chowdhrv. Birch and Morris, JJ...I. 

L. Bop. 1 Cal. 883, 1878, 



See Putni Talook. 

Brindaban v. Brindaban...L. 
Bep. 1 I. A. 178 ; 21 W. 

B. 324 ; 13 Bang. L. R, 
408. 

. f 8— Service of Notice of Sale—Suit for 

Beversal of Sale."] In a suit for the reversal of 
a patni sale under Beng. Reg. VIII. of 1819, 
was proved that the notice of sale was first stuck 
up in the Cutcherry of the ijaradar (the Mehal 
having been let out in ijara by the patnidar], 
but the gomasta of the ijaradar having refused 
to grant a receipt of the service of the notice 
the peon who took it, it was taken down ai 
subsequently personally served upon the plai 
tiff, the patnidar, at his house, which was 
some distance from the patni Mehal : — 

Held, that the object of the provisions co 
tained in § S of Beng. Reg. VIII. of 1819 rel; 
ing to the service and publication of the notice 
of sale, is, not only to give notice of the sale 
the defaulter, but also to under-tenants, and 
further to advertise the sale " on the spot" for 
the information of the intending purchasers ; 
and although the forms prescribed for the pub- 



BENGAL REGULATION Vm. OF 
1819— ceaM. 

lication of the notice had not been strictly com- 
plied with, yet the defects established by the 
plaintiff in the manner of the publication of the 
notice were not such as amounted to " a sufficient 
plea" within the meaning of f 14 of Beng. Reg. 
VIII. of 1819, for setting aside the sale. The 
plaintiff did not allege that in consequence of 
the defective publication of the notice there 
was not a sufficient gathering of intending pur- 
chasers at the time of sale ; nor did he complain 
that bis under-tenants were ignorant of the 
impending sale of the parent talook, and were 
therefore prevented from depositing the arrears 
of rent to stay the sale, nor was the Mehal sold 
below its value. Goukee Lall Singh 0. 
JoodhistEER HAJRAH. Glover and Mitter, ]]... 

L L. Bep. 1 Cal. 369, 1878. 

f 8, CI. 3— Substantial Persons— Service of 

Notice of Sale— Material Mistatement in Petition 
for Special Leave to appeal.'] In a suit to cancel 
a sale of a putnee tenure under Reg VIII- of 
1819, on the ground that the witnesses who at- 
tested the due publication of notice were not 
'* substantial persons" within the meaning o( f 
8, CI. 2, of the Regulation 1 Held (reversing the 
decree of the High Court), that a " substantial" 
person does not necessarily mean a wealthy 
person from whom damages could be recovered 
by the putneedar, supposing the attestation to 
be false. Wealth is only one element in the 
position and status of the witness, and if he 
lives in the neighbourhood and if he be a re- 
spectable man of good character, on evidence 
appearing of such facts, of which the Judge in 
each case must satisfy himself, the judge, in 
estimating the position of the man, may proper- 
ly come to the conclusion that he is a substantial 
person. Where it is proved that the notice of 
sale has been actually served, the sale is not 
vitiated merely because one of the witnesses to 
the notice is held not to be substantial within the 
meaning of the clause. 

Sana Bebee v. Lallchand Ckomdry ( o. W. Rep. 
242) approved. 

It appearing that the petition on which special 
leave to appeal had been granted contained a 
material misstatement of fact, their Lordships 
refused the costs of the appeal. There must be 
uberrima jides on the part of those who come for 
leave to appeal on special grounds, otherwise the 
order granting it will be rescinded on application 



by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



BENGAL REGULATION Tin. OP BENGAL REGULATION 
181»-eoHtd. 1819— contd. 



by the respondent at any time before the appeal 
has been actually entered upon at their Lord- 
ships' bar; but such objection ought to be taken 
by the respondent as early as the matter is 
brought to his notice, and it is wrong to leave the 
objection until the hearing of the appeal, when 
the record has been sent from India, and when 
all the costs attending the hearing have been 
incurred. 

If such misstatement should appear, even at the 

latest stage, to bavebeen made with the intention 

to deceive, the appeal will be dismissed. Ram 

Sabuk Bose v. Monmohini D05SKK...L. Hep. 2 

I. A. 71 ; 14 Bang. L. B. 394 ; 

33 W. B, 113, 1874. 

i 8, CI. 2.-9. Notice of Sale-Publica. 

lion — Proof of Service.'] Although the provision) 
of { 8, CI. 2, of Bengal Reg. VIII. of 13ig, sped. 
fying the manner in which service of notice ol 
sale should be proved or verified, are merely 
directory, it is, nevertheless, absolutely essen- 
tial to the validity of a sale under that Regulation 
that the notice should be served in strict compli- 
ance with the directions given in the same clause 
and section of the Regulation. 

Gouree Loll Singh v. Joodkistir Hajrah (25 W. 

Rep. 141) dissented front. Bhaqwan Chandrr 

Dassb. Suddek Ally...! L. Bop. 4 Cal. 41; 

2 Cal Bep. 367. 

S 8, CI. 2.-3. Putni Tenure— Sale of for 

Arrears of Rent— Date of Publication of Notice.'} 
In a suit to set aside a sale of a putni tenure for 
default In payment of rent, on the ground that 
the notification of sale was not published befoi 
tbe ijth Bysaclc, as required by CI. a of f 8 of 
Bengal Regulation VIII. of iSlQ, it appeared 
that the receipt for the service oE the notification 
bore date the 13th of Bysack, and was signed by 
four munduls of the village, in which the plain- 
tiffs mil cutcherry was situated. The serving 
peons deposed that they had served the notifi- 
cation of sale on the holder of a four-annas 
share on tbe 13th or 14th Bysack, and, failing 
in the endeavours they made on that and the 
following day to serve the plaintiff, they sent 
for the munduls of the village, read the notice 
to them, and affixed it on the cutcherry, and 
obtained the receipt dated 15th Bysack. The 
sale took place seventeen days afterwards ;— 

Held, that the fact that the receipt of the 
notice of the sale was dated 15th Bysack, and 



did not show that the " notice had been publish, 
ed at any time previous" to that date, was not a 
sufficient ground for setting aside the sale- 
Section 8, CI. 2, of Bengal Regulation VIII. oE 
1819 provides that if it shall appear — i.e., appear 
to the Collector— that the notice has been pub- 
lished at any time previous to the 15th Bysack, 
that shall be a sufficient warrant to proceed. 
The receipt in question bore the signatures of 
three substantial persons, which was to be ac- 
cepted only in case of inability to procure the 
receipt of the defaulter. It might well be that 
the previous days had been spent in vain efforts 
to procure the signatures of the putnidar or his 
agents, and that the receipt was afterwards 
completed by the signatures of the munduls 
obtained on the 15th Bysaclc, and this. might 
well have satisfied the Collector that the notice 
had in fact been published previous to the 15th 
Bysack. This being so, and no injury to the 
plaintiff being made out, and the sale having 
taken place two days after the time prescribed 
by the Regulation, even assuming the publica- 
tion of the notice to have taken place on the 
1 5th Bysack, the Court refused to set aside the 

It would be no " sufficient plea," within the 
meaning of { 14 of the Regulation, or substan. 
tial cause of complaint, that the receipt had been 
obtained, or the notification published on, in- 
stead of previous to the 15th Bysack. Matunoeh 
Churn Mittkk v. Moorrary Mohun Ghosh. 
Jackson and McDonnell, JJ..-L L. Bep. 1 Cal. 
176, 1876. 

i 14— "Sufficient Plea." 

SeeiB; and J 8, CI. 9. 3. 3. 

GOWREE LALL v. JOODHISTEKR...L 

L. Bep. 1 Cal. 309. 

Matunqbe v. Moorrary I. L. 

Bep. 1 Cal. 176. 

BENGAL REGULATION TIL OF 1839. 
See Jamabandi. 

Ta.ru PatuR«. ABIHASH CHVNDBX 

Dun... I. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 79. 

BENGAL REGULATION Tin. OF 

1833— f 9, CI. 1— Suit for Declaration of 
Zemindari Right to Cesses. 
See Declaratory Decree. 8. 

Akbar Khan v. Shkoratan I. 

L. Bep. 1 All. 378- 



by Google 



( : 



) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



BENGAL REGULATION XL OF 1826. 
— ff a and 4, CI. I, 2. 
See Accretion. 

Rughoobur *. Maharajah Ki- 

SHBN...L. Bep. 6 I. A. all. 

BEQUEST TO A CHARITY WHICH 

HAS CEASED TOKHST- -Residuary 

Bequest to Charity — Cyprus. 

See Will. 11. 

Mayor of Lyons t. Advocate-Ge- 
neral of Bengal. ..L. Bep' 
S I. A. 32 ; I. L. Rep. 1 
Cat. 303. 
BEQUEST TO A CLASS— Some of whom 
Dot in Existence at Testator's Death. 
See Hindu Law Will. 4. 

KHERODEMONEY v. DoORGAMONEY. 

I. L. Sep. 4 Cal. 405. 
See Limitation. 88. 

Tree poor asoondery e. Deben- 

DRONATH...I. L. Rep. 3 Cal. 

46, p. S3- 

Remoteness. 

See Hindu Law— Will. 7. 

SouriAMONEY tr. JoOESH ChUN- 

DER...L L.Rep. a Cal. 263. 
Residuary — Postponement of Period of Dis- 
tribution. 

SreWiU.4. 8. 

Massyk c. Fercusson. L L. Rep. 
4CaL304, 870. 



BETROTHAL— Speci 

See Injunction. 1. 
Gum 



Performance— H it 



...I. L. Rep. lCal. 
74. 



HHAQDARI VILLAGE. 

Sec Narvadari Village. 

Veribhai v. Raghubhai...L L. 
Rep. 1 Bom. 226. 

— Attachment and Sale of Unrecognized Por- 
tion of a Bkag . 

See Bombay Act V. of 1862. 1. 3. 
Ranchodass. Ranchodas...L L. 
Sep. 1 Bom. 681 

Ardasir v. Muse Ibid. 601. 

— — Mortgage of Portion of a Bkag in. 

See Bombay Act V. of 18SS. 1. 

Ranchodas v. Ranchodas. ..I. L 

Rep. 1 Bom. 681. 



BHAG.JOTE TENURE. 
See Bigot to roe. 9. 

Hof.ro Nark a in «. S hood ha 

Krishto..,!. L. Rep. 4 Cal. 

880. 

BH A0LI SENT — Arrears of — Suit for 
Money Equivalent of. 
See Act XVIII. of 1873, § 83. 1. 
Tajuddin ». Ram Parskad...I. 
L. Rep. 1 AIL 217. 
1 Ejectment for Arrears of. 

See Beng. Act VHX of 1889, §§ 21 
and 63. 

KlSHKN Goi-aulv. Barnes...L L. 

Rep. 8 Cal. 374. 
Enhancement of. 

See Enhancement of Bent. 4. 

Hanuman Parshad v. Kaulesar 
Pandey...!. L. Rep. 1 All. 
301. 
BIGAMY. 

See Attempt. 

Reg. v. Peterson... I. L. Rep. 1 
All. 316. 
See Hindu Law — Inheritance- 
Illegitimate Bon. 4. 5. 
Rahi v. Govihd..,L L. Bep. 1 
Bom. 97. 
Narayan v- Laving. .. I. L. Bep. 
a Bom. 140. 
Abetment of. 

See Abetment. 2. 

Empress b. Abdool Kureem...L 
L. Bep. 4 Cal. 10. 
Teli Caste. 

&<• Penal Code, J 494. 

Reg. i\ Sambhu.,.1. L. Bep. 1 
Bom. 347. 
BILL OF COSTS— Limitation. 

See Attorney and Client 1. 

Abba Haji ». Abba Thara L 

L. Rep. 1 Bom. 863. 
See Limitation. 67. 

Hearn o. Bapu Naikin I. L. 

Rep. 1 Bom. BOH. 

- Right to tax after Declining— Acquiescence. 
See Attorney and Client. 2- 

MOKOHOR DOSS 0. ROMONAUTK 

LAw...I,L.Rep.3Cal-473. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



( 189 ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



BILL OF EXCHANGE. 

Accommodation Acceptance — Receipt of 

consideration from Drawer. 

51m Principal and Buret;. 4. 

Pogose ii. Bank of Bengal...!. 
L. Bop. 3 Cal. 174. 

Bankruptcy of Acceptor — Suit against 

Drawer and Acceptor residing within 
Jurisdiction of different Courts. 
See Procedure— Civil. 1. 

Basant Ram v. Kolahal.X L. 
Kep. 1 Alt 392. 

— Drawn in Foreign Territory by British 

Subject neither Resident nor Domiciled 
therein in favour of Creditor resident in 
Foreign Territory — jurisdiction of 
Foreign Court. 

.See Jurisdiction. 7. 

Mathappa v. Chellappa,..L 
L. Rep. 1 Had. 196. 

— Power of Directors to bind Company by. 

See Power of Directors to bind Com- 

puny by Bill of Exchange. 

The New Fleming S. & W. Co- 

(Limited). ..I. L. Rep. 3 

Bom. 439. 



BILL OP LADING— Exception in— Lass by 
Fire.] Under the terms of a bill of lading, 
" goods -mere to be delivered from the skip's tackle 
qi fast as the steamer could discharge, failing 
■akich the steamer's agents were to be at liberty 
to land the goods at their godovn" ; the bill of 
lading further amongst other exceptions, provid- 
ed that shipowners should "not to be liable for 
loss by fire." 

The steamer, on arriving at the port of dis- 
charge, came alongside the wharf, and commen. 
ced unloading at the Custom-house godowns 
without giving the consignees the option of 
landing the goods from the ship's tackle. The 
consignees, however, did not object to the goods 
being landed at the Custom-house godowns, and 
they also paid, without objection, a sum for 
wharfage of a part of the goods in the godowns. 
The goods while in the godowns were destroyed 
by Ere, but, without any default on the part of 
the shipowners : — 

Held, that either the placing the goods in the 
godowns was a part of the shipowners' duty 
under the contract of carriage, in which case 



BILL OF UkJOntQ-cvnid. 
they were protected under the exception in the 
bill of lading, providing against loss by fire, as 
much as if the fire had occurred on boardship ; 
or when the goods were placed in the godown 
with the consent of the owners of the goods, 
the shipowners had charge of them as wharf- 
inger (which was the view the Court was 
disposed to take of their true position) ; and in 
that case the goods having been destroyed by 
fire without any default on the part of the 
shipowners, the latter were not responsible. 
Chin Hong & Co. v. Seng Mok & Co. Garth, 
C. J., and Pentifex, J....I. L. Rep. 4 Cal. 786 ; 
3 Cal Rep. 585, 1879. 

BLBT TENURES— Purchase of-by Mori- 
gagee — Right of Mortgagor to redeem. 
See Mortgage. 15. 

Rajah Kisnbndatt v. Rajah 

Mumtaz L. Rep. 6 I. 

A. 146. 

BLINDNESS— To Exclude from Inheritance 
must be Congenital. 
Set Hindu Law— Disqualification 
to Inherit. 1. 2. 

Mukakji v. Parvatibai I. L. 

Rep. 1 Bern. 177. 
Umabai v. Bhavu Ibid. 567. 

BOMBAY ACT V. OF 1B82. 
See Narvadari Tillage. 

Vbribhai v. Ragkitbhai I. Lv 

Bep. 1 Bom. 225. 

L ,( i to3~ Bhagdari Village— Mori. 

gage before Passing of the Act— Court Sale.] 
The plaintiff in 1874 sued on a san mort- 
gage, dated 15th November 1861, It., five 
months before the passing of Bombay Act V. 
of 1S62, to recover a sum of money by sale ot 
the mortgaged property, which formed part of 
a bhag in a bhagdari village, which bhag the 
defendant bad purchased at a Court's sale 
subsequent to the date of the mortgage : — 

Held, that, assuming | 1 of the Act to apply, 
it did not preclude the bearing of the suit, or 
the making of a decree, even tbough the Court 
might anticipate that the section would stand 
in the way of the execution of the decree, and 
that, therefore, the Court was bound to make a 
decree. 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( 



> 



BOMBAY ACT V. OP 1969— contd. 

But held also, that the section did not apply 
as, 1st, retrospective operation waa not to bi 
given to it so as prejudicially to affect existing 
rights ; and, indly, the words " attachment 
sale by the process of any Civil Court" in tl 
section were intended to prevent attachment and 
sale under simple money decrees, and not to 
prevent the sale of mortgaged property in satis- 
faction of the mortgage debt. 

Held, also, that the defendant, being a pur- 
chaser at an -auction sale, bought only the right, 
title, and interest of the debtor, burdened with 
all valid liens created by him, and subject, 
therefore, to the plaintiff's san mortgage. Ran- 
chodas Davaldas h- Ranchodas Nanabhai- 

MelvUl and Kemball, J] I. L. Sep. 1 Bom. 

681, 1877. 

2. — i 3.— Sale of Unrecognised Portion.] 
The sale of a portion of a bkag in a Bhagdai 
or Namadari village, other than a recognize 
subdivision of such bkag, or of a building-sit 
appurtenant to it, is illegal, under J 3 of Bombay 
Act V. of 1862 : and a judgment creditor can- 
not, in execution of his decree, evade the law, 
by describing his debtor's separate portion in 
the hhag as his " right, title, and interest in the 
whole bkag"; for, under { 213 of Act VIII. of 
1859, the creditor is bound to specify the debtor's 
share or interest to the best of his belief, c 
far as he has been able to ascertain the s 

Even if a sale of an undivided share in a bkag 
be lawful, the purchaser cannot insist on any 
particular portion of the bkag, as representing 
his debtor's portion, being delivered to him. All 
he can do is to sue for partition ; but queer 
whether such partition could be made Arda 
sir Nasarvanji v. Muss Natha. Mefailt and 
Kcmbaii, J]... I. L. Rep. 1 Bom. 601, 1877, 

BOMBAY ACT II. OF 1868-* 6, CI. 2- 

N on- Recognition of adoption by Civil Court.'] 
The provision in Bombay Act II. of 1863, { 6, 
CI. 2, as to the non -recognition of adoption by 
any Civil Court relates only to the question of 
the assessability of the lands when raised be- 
tween Government and a claimant of exemption. 
It is not open to a party to rely upon a provision 
of which Government only is entitled to take 
advantage. Vasadkv Anant ■■ RAy Krishna 
Nakravan, Westropp.C.]., and JWWmK, J...L 
L, Bep. 2 Bom. 629, 1878. 



BOMBAY COTTON FRAUDS' ACT IX. 

OF 1883— i 2— Possession of Adulterated Cotton 
— Knowledge.] Possession of adulterated cot. 
ton, even though accompanied by a knowledge 
that the cotton was adulterated, is not sufficient 
to sustain a conviction, under § 2 of Bombay 
Act IX. of 1863, of fraudulent adulteration or 
deterioration of cotton. Theic is no criminality 
attaching to such possession until the cotton is 
offered for sale or compression. Reg. v. Han- 
MAMT Gavda. Melvill and Kemball, JJ...I. L, 

Bep. 1 Bom. 228, 1878. 

BOMBAY ACT V. OF lS6i— Mamlatdar's 
Order under Bombay Act V. of 1864— Possession- 
Revenue Courts— Act XVI. of 1838, § r, CI. 3.] 
A Mamlatdar's order under Act. V. of 1864 is 
not conclusive evidence of the facts of possession 
and dispossession between the parties- The 
power reserved to the Revenue Courts by § I, CI. 
2, of Act XVI. of 1838, to determine thefacts of 
possession and dispossession, was so reserved for 
the temporary purpose of enabling those Courts 
dispose of the immediate possession, which 

a to continue onlyuntil the Civil Court ejected 
the party put into immediate possession. 

Bombay Act V. of 1864, which gives to the 
Mamlatdar's Court jurisdiction in cases of dis- 
possession, within six months from the date of 
such dispossession, also relates to immediate 
possession (§ l), and provides that the party to 
whom such immediate possession is given by 
the Mamlatdar, or whose possession he shall 
tain, shall continue in possession until 
ejected by a decree of a Civil Court (§ 15). The 

irpose of this Act, like that of Act XVI. of 

■38, was temporary only, and chiefly to provide 
for the cultivation of the land and to prevent 
breaches of the peace until the Civil Court 
should determine the rights of the parties. 

The decisions in the Revenue and Mamlat- 
dars' Courts as to possession and dispossession 
ot binding on the Civil Courts in questions 
of title, which the Civil Courts alone can enter- 
tain. Bassappa Murtiappa v. Lakshmappa 
MarITAHaPPA. Westropp, C. J., and N. Harri- 

das, J I. L. Bep. 1 Bom. 624, 1877. 

BOMBAY MINORS' ACT XX. OF 1864 — 

Unauthorized Sale by Guardian of Minor 

See Lien. 1. 

Kuvahji r. Moti Haridas .X L. 
Bep. 3 Bom. 284. 



Diarized by Google 



( 1» ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( I" ) 



BOMBAY VHTOBB? ACT XX. OF 1894 

Undivided Hindu Family— Death of Mem- 
ber of— Certificate cannot be granted if no 
Separate Property. 

See Certificate of Administration 
of lliuor's Estate. 1. 

GURACHARYAfl.SVAMIRAYACHARYA- 

I. L. Bop. 3 Bom. 431. 

. § 2— Procedure — Civil Procedure Codi — Act 

X. of 1877, f 440.] Where a Hindu widow sued 
as guardian of her minor sons without having 
obtained a certificate of administrate 
quired by § 2 of Act XX. of 1864 s— 

Held, that Act XX. of 1864 is not superseded 
by Act X. of 1877 ; and it appearing from the 
frame of the suit, that the widow claimed to have 
charge of the property in trust for her 
sons, it was necessary under f 2, Act XX. of 
1864, if the whole estate was of greati 
than Rs. 250, that she should hold a certificate 
of administration ; but that it was competent 
the Court, if there was any pressing necessity 
(owing to the operation of the law of limitation) 
that the suit should be brought at once, to accept 
the plaint and stay proceedings until the mother 
had obtained a certificate under Act XX. of 
1864. Vijkor v. Jtjibhai (9 Bom. H. C. Rep. 310) 
followed. Murlioharh. Supou. Melvill and 

Kemball, JJ I. L. Bep. 3 Bora. 149, 187&. 

if II and 15— SWt OgfifUt Collector — Ad 

XIV. of 1869, ( ^-Jurisdiction.-] Sections 11 
and Ij of Act XX. of 1864, taken together, 
show that the Collector when appointed to take 
charge of the estate of a minor, is so in hi: 
capacity as Collector, and therefore, as an officei 
of Government within the meaning of % 32 of 
Act XIV. of 1869. Narsinorav Ramchandra 
«. LuxiMANRAV. Westrapp, C.J., and Kemball, ] 

L L. Bop. 1 Bom. 318, 1876. 
BOMBAY ACT 1. OS" 1865-Revenue Surrey 
Registers— Entry of /Chefs Tenants' 
Names as Occupants — Cause of Action, 
Sec Entry of Names of Knot'* Ton- 
ants in the Bevenue Surrey 
Register as Occupants. 
D. R. Bam v. The Survey Com- 
missioner OF RATNAGIRI...L 

Ii. Bep. 3 Bom. 134. 

— i 2— a. j,t,i. 

See Kabulayatdar Knot 

Kkishnaji v. Ramchanbha...!. L. 
Bep. 1 Bom. 70. 



BOMBAY ACT I. 07 1885— contd. 

\ 38— Village Cattle. 

Set Bight of Free Pasturage. 

Collector of Thana «. Bal 

Patel...L L. Bep, S Bom. 

110. 

(35— Land in Sahctte™ Ultra Vires— Go- 
vernment Land — Building — Prescription.'] The 
plaintiff held a cocoanut oart in Bandora, in the 
island of Salsette, in the Thana District, undeT 
a title which extended back, at all events, to the 
In the year 1869 he commenced to 
build and in 1871 completed the building of a 
bungalow upon it, without the permission of the 
Collector, who, under Nos. 4 and 8 of the Rules 
framed under t 35 of Bombay Act f. of 1865, 
and issued on the 1st November 1865, inflicted 
the plaintiff a fine of thirty times the fixed 
assessment of the whole Survey number, and 
doubled that fine under the Supplementary 
framed under Government Resolution No. 
436, dated February 1st 1869; and on the plain- 
tiffs failure to pay the fine, summarily attached 
his land under the provisions of § 48 of Bombay 
Act I. of 1865- 

In a suit brought by the plaintiff to remove 
the attachment : — 

Held, 1st, That it was not within the power of 
the Government of Bombay to make the rule of 
1st February 1869, and no penalty having been 
prescribed by J 35 of the Act for building with- 
out the Collector's permission, and the Governor 
in Council not being authorized to make a rule 
on the subject, the attachment placed by the 
Collector was in pursuance of an unauthorized 
demand and illegal. 

Held, xndly, That f 35 is in terms applicable 
only to occupants of Government land ; and the 
Government land spoken of in that section is 
the same thing as " land belonging to Govern- 
ment" spoken of in f II of the Act, |and must be 
understood as used in the same sense of contra- 
distinction to land " belonging to private indi- 
viduals." And the distinction between Govern- 
ment land and land belonging to individuals is 
not to be sought in the payment or non-payment 
of assessment, but has reference to the proprie- 
tary right in the soil. The expressions, " land 
belonging to Government," and "Government 
land," mean, land of which Government is the 
proprietor, and do not apply to land in which 
the proprietary right in the soil vests in a private 
individual, whether or not it be subject to the 
payment of assessment to Government. 



by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( 1M ) 



BOMBAY ACT I. 07 18BB- tontd. 

$rdly, That from i 40 of Reg. I. of 1808, it 
appeared that the occupants of oarts in the 
island of Salsette vera, from 1800 to 1808 (the 
date of the Regulation) treated as "proprietors," 
and that in 1807 the assessment was fixed on 
the whole extent of the oarts, " however occu- 
pied." There was no reason to suppose that 
the assessment had been altered between 1808 
and 1861, when the new Survey was introduced, 
but even if it had been altered, it would not 
have affected the plaintiff's claim, for the 
assessment on land may be varied, without any 
disturbance of proprietary rights ; and the 
plaintiff, and those through whom he claimed, 
having held as proprietors and without dispute 
from iglj till 1869, the, plaintiff had acquired a 
prescriptive right of property, under Reg. V. 
of 1827, i 1, to the oart, subject only to the 
payment of assessment ; that the land was not 
Government land within the meaning of f 35 of 
Bombay Act I. of 1865,' and therefore that the 
plaintiff was not liable to pay any fine or penalty 
for building on it without the Collector's per- 
mission, and that the attachment of the oart 
by the Collector was illegal, and must be 
removed. The Collector of Than* h- Da- 

dabmai BoMANjl. Uehitt and Kemtall, JJ 

I. L. Rep. 1 Bom. 353. 

■ 48- 

See Kabulayatdar Shot. 

Kris una j 1 v. Ramchandra...I. L. 
Rep. 1 Bom. 70. 

See i 35. 

Collector op Thana e. Dada- 

bha[...L L. Rep. 1 Bom. 

353. 

BOMBAY CIVIL COURTS' ACT XIV. OF 

1860— J 24. 

See Jurisdiction. 19- SO. 

Bai Makhorc. Bulakhi.,.1. L. 

Rep. 1 Bom. 538. 

Kalu 9. Viskam Ibid. 543. 

*3*. 

See Bombay Minors' Act XX. of 
1864, H 11 and IS: 
Narsingrav v. Luxuman...!. L, 
Rep. 1 Bom, 318. 
See Jurisdiction. 18, 

Gangadhar v . Collector of 

AhmedhagAR...!, L. Rep. 1 

Bom. 628. 



BOMBAY ACT VI. 07 I873-, 5— Suit 

nst Municipal Commissioner.'] " Whether 

it (against Municipal Commissioners for 

acts done by them as such) must be commenced, 

und<;r Bombay Act VI. of 1873, in the District 

Court, we do not now give any opinion. It 

may, perhaps, be argued that ( 5 of that Act 

■ges the individuality of the members of the 

' Municipalities in the Corporations thereby 

created, and empowered to sue and be sued in 

corporate name." Per Westropp, C. J. Gan- 

ihar Skivkar it. Collector of Ahmf.iina- 
I. L. Rep. 1 Bom. 628. 

- $ 7 — Jurisdiction — Subordinate Judge. 
See Suit against a Municipality. 

The Ahmbdabad Municipality b. 

Mahauad J amai-.I. Ii.Rep. 

3 Bom. 146. 

- ff 36 to 39— CI. 1, f 74. Non-compliance 
with notices issued by the Municipality under 
i 36 of CI. I of ( 39 of Bombay Act XI. of 1873 
s not an offence punishable under that Act, as 
"I. 1 of ( 74 of that Act does not apply to either 
>( those provisions. The latter clause applies 

only to the second clause of J 39. In re TukA- 
VlTHAL. Westropp, C. J., and {Cembali, 

L L, Rep. 2 Bom. 537, 1878. 



BOMBAY ACT HX OF 1874. 

See Declaratory Decree. 17. 18. 

Chinto v. Lakshmibai I, L. 

Rep. 2 Bom. 875. 

Kkahdov. Apaji.L L. Rep. 2 

Bom. 370. 

BOMBAY ACT X. OF 1876-* 15— Munici- 
palities. 

See Suit attains* a Municipality. 
The Ahmedabad MoNictPALtTve. 
MahauadJamal.,1. L.Rep. 
8 Bom. 146. 

BOMBAY COTTON FRAUDS' ACT VII. 
OF 1878— if 6 and 14— Adulteration in Foreign 
Territory — Possession — Jurisdiction.'} Cotton 
supposed to have been adulterated in foreign 
territory was seized in British territory :— 

Held, that the Magistrate of the place where 
the cotton was seized has jurisdiction to try the 
person In possession of the cotton, as the effect 
of {{ 6 and 14 of Bombay Act VII. of 1878 is to 
make the possession of " adulterated cotton lia- 



DigitizsdbyGOOC^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( 



) 



BOMB AT COTTON FRAUDS' ACT VTL 

OF 1878— could. 
ble to confiscation " punishable with fine, and it 
is immaterial where the adulteration takes place. 
Ihpsratrix t. Khimchand Narrayan. Kem- 
hall and F. D. Melvill, JJ..X L. Bop. 3 Bom. 
384, 1879. 
BOMBAY REGULATION I. OF 1808. 
See Bombay Act I. of 1865, f 35, 
Collector of Thanait. Dadabhai 
Bom an jr. ..I. L. Rep. 1 Bom. 
3S2. 

BOMBAT BEG. IL OF 1827— * 31— Caste 
Question— Office of Chalaadi. 
See Disturbance of Office. 1. 

S HAN KARA »■ HANMA L L. 

Rep. 2 Bom. 470. 
BOMBAT REGULATION V. OF 1827- 
J i, CI. i. 
See Bombay Act I. of 1885, « 35. 
Collector of Thana o. Dada. 
bkai Bohanji.-.I. L. Rep. 
1 Bom. 352. 
BOMBAT REGULATION XVII. OF 
1827— §3. CI. i.andi S- 
Sec Kabulayatdar Khot. 

Krishna if. Rauchandha ...I. L. 
Rep. 1 Bom. 70. 

BOMBAT REGULATION XXVI. OF 

1827— Appointment of Kazi. 
iW-Kazi. 1.2. 

Ja-al Ahmed *.Ja,ialjal 
I. L. Rep. 1 Bom. 

DaUDSHA V, IsMAtLSHA I. L. 

Rep. 3 Bom. 72. 
BONA FIDES. 

See the cases under Act XVHL Of 
1850. 

Of Purchaser with Notice of Trust. ■■ 

Sec Hindu Law— Will. 10. 

HANKLAL V. MlNCHERSHA ...L L. 

Sep. lBom. 269. 
BONA FIDE CLAIM OF RIGHT. 
See Criminal Trespass. 4. 5. 

Empress ». Budhsinoh ...I. L. 
Rep. 2 All. 101. 
Govmo Prasad I. L. Rep, 



IS 



BONA FIDE PURCHASER- Of DnmtUr 
Property. 
Sa Dewutter. 3. 

Konwur Doorganath c. Ram 

Chundgh L. Rep. 4 I. A. 

53 ; L L. Rep. 2 CaL 341. 

BONA FIDE PURCHASER FOR VALUE 

WITHOUT NOTICE OF WIDOW'S 

CLAIM FOR MAINTENANCE. 

See Hindu Law— Maintenance of 

Widow. 1. 13. 

Adhiranee v. Shona Malc.L 

L. Rep. 1 Cal. 365. 

LAKSHMAN e. SaTYABHAMAbai „t 
L. Rep. 2 Bom. 404. 

BOND— Attachment of. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act X. 
of 1877, ( 268. 

NlTRSINGDAS o. TUL5IRAM...X. L. 

Rep. 2 Bom. 558, 

Cancellation of — Suit for. 

See Bengal Civil Courts' Act VI. 
of 1871, (22. 
Kali Char an Rai v. Ajudhia- 
Rai . I. L.Rep. 2 AIL 148. 

Interest on— After due date of Bond con- 
taining Agreement to pay Interest up to 
due Date. 
See Interest. 1. 3. 6. 

Deen Doval t>. Het Narain .. 
L L.Rep. 2 Cal. 41. 

Baldeoh. Gokal L L. Rep. 

1 AU. 0O3. 

Nanchand o. Bapusaheb...I. L, 

Rep. 3 Bom. 131. 

See Mortgage. 80. 

Hasson Arra v. Jawadoonissa. 
I. L.Rep. 4 Cal. 28. 

BOND CHARGING IMMOVEABLE 

PROPERTY— Suit on— Decree payable 
by Instalments. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act X. of 
1877, ( 210. 

Hurueo Das t. Hukam Singh... 
L L. Rep. 2 AU. 320. 

BOND PAYABLE BT INSTALMENTS. 
See Limitation, v.4. 

Ball v. Stow ell... I. L. Rep. 2. 
All. 485. AU. 3-2. 



D.gmzed by GoOgle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



BOND PAYABLE BY INSTALMENTS 

Whole to fail due on any Default— Limi 

tation. 
See Limitation. 30. 

Gumma b. Bhiku...I. L. Rep. 1 
Bom. 136. 

BOND FOR PERFORMANCE OF DU- 
TIES OF OFFICE. 
See Principal and Surety. 1. 

Cbosthwaite b. Hamilton I 

L. Rep. 1 All. 87. 

BOND TO SECURE BALANCE OF AC 

COUNT— Error in Accounts— Estoppel — Eh. 
dorsement— Receipt.] The defendant executed 
to the plaintiff a bond for the payment of the 
balance found due from the defendant to the 
plaintiff, on an adjustment of the account of 
their mutual dealing, which bond contained thi 
following stipulation ;— " I shall pay the money 
after causing the payment to be entered on the 
back of this bond, or after taking a receipt foi 
the same. 1 shall not lay claim to any paymeoi 
except in this way." 

In a suit by the plaintiff upon this bond, the 
defendant, while admitting its execution, said 
that the balance secured by the bond was ii 

at the time of the adjustment, and ever since 1 
had disputed the accuracy of the balance, h 
also alleged that he had made various payments 
in respect of the balance, which were not endors. 
ed on the bond, and for which he held no 

Held, that the defendant could not be permit- 
ted to re-open the question of the correctness of 
the balance for which the bond was given, ai 
he must be taken to have waived his objection 
since, notwithstanding it, he subsequently execu. 
ted the bond and made payments on it The 
case would have been different if his allegation 
had been that after the execution of the bond he 
had discovered errors in the account on which 
the balance was arrived at. In such a case it 
might possibly have been right, on specification 
of some one or more of the alleged errors, to 
have allowed him to re-open the question of the 
correctness of the account. 

Held, also, that the stipulation in the bond 
could not be permitted to control Courts of 
Justice as to the evidence — which, keeping 



BOND TO 8ECUBB BALANCE OF AC 

COUNT— amid. 
within the rules of the general law of evidence, 
they may admit — of payment. There is nothing 
in that law which would warrant the Court in 
excluding direct oral evidence ot payment. The 
absence of endorsement, in the case of a bond 
containing such a stipulation as in the bond 
sued on. is a circumstance of some importance, 
and ought not to be overlooked, but it is by no 
means conclusive, and ought not to be so regard- 
ed. Narayen Undir Path. h. Moitlal Ram 
das. Westropp, C.J. , and Kemball, J...L If. Hep. 
1 Bom. 40, 187S. 
BOND SPECIALLY REGISTERED 

Appeal from Order in Execution of Decree 

See Appeal— Civil 7. 11. IS. 

Bhvrub Chunderh. Go lab Coo. 

mary I. L. Rep.SCaL 

517. 

Rahanand v- Bank of Bohbav ... 

I. L. Rep. 1 AIL 377. 

WlLAYAT-UN-NlSSA V. WaJIB-UN- 

Nissa Ibid. 683. 

Decree on — Mortgage. 

See Sale in Execution of Decree. 6. 

Akhb Ram v. Nand Kishore... 

I. L. Rep. 1 All. 230. 

Limitation for Execution of Decree on. 

See Appeal Civil. IS. 

WlLAYAT-UN-NlSSA e. WaJIB-UN- 

Nissa.JL L. Rep. 1 All. 083. 
See Limitation. 79. 

Jai Shanker b. Tetlev I. L. 

Rep. 1 All. 088. 
BONUS— Refund of. 
See Darpatni, 

TaRACHAND b. RAHGOBtND...L It. 

Rep. 4 Cal. 778. 
BOUNDARIES, SPECIFICATION OF, 
IN PLAINT. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act VTH. 
of 1809, (38. 

Raudaval ■b. Ajooobia I. L. 

Rep. 2 CaL 1 . 
BREACH OF CONTRACT TO DELI- 
VER— Jurisdiction— Whole Cause of 
Action arises at Place of Contract or Per- 
formance. 
See Jurisdiction. 14. 

Muhammad Abdul Kadah ». G. 

I. P. Ry. Co,. J. L. Rep. 1 

Mad. 370. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



( »I ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



BREACH OF CONTRACT TO FOB- 
CHASE GOODS — Measure of Da- 

S/t Damage*.' 3. 

Cohen v. Cassim Nana I. L. 

Sep. 1 Cat 864. 

BREACH OF CONTBAOT TO SUPPLY 
LABOUR. 

See Act ML of 1889. 

Rowson *. Han am a Mestri.X L. 
Rop. 1 Mad. 280. 

BREACH OF TRUST— Criminal. 

See the cases under Criminal Breach 
of Trust. 

Alienation of Charity Property. .] There is 

no such principle of law (hat the alienation of 
charity property by the trustees is, standing by 
itself, a breach of trust. The Court of Chancery 
in many cases authorizes such alienations, and 
that which the Court might have done, on its 
own consideration of what would have been 
beneficial to the charity, may be done by the 
trustees on their own authority in the exercise 
of their legal powers. 

And where a house bad been devised by a 
testator in iSoi, to his widow for life, in trust, 
to allow any Maharaja of the Vallabbacharya 
sect to live in it, and it appeared that no Maha- 
raja ever had lived or was likely to live in it, 
and the house was in a decayed and dilapidated 
condition, and the widow therefore sold the house 
to a bond fide purchaser for value : — Green, J. 
said, had it been necessary to decide the ques- 
tion, that he would have upheld the sale by the 
widow, as being a reasonable and proper exercise 
of her office as trustee, and to have held it not 
to have been a breach of trust at all. Manik- 

LALL ATM ARAM ». MaNCHEHSHA DlNSHAW 

Coachman I. L. Rep. 1 Bom. 268,1876- 

S. C. under Hindu Law— Will. 10. 

BREACH OF WARRANTY OF QUALI- 
TY- Right to rescind Contract. 
See Sale of Goods. 1. 

Shoshi Mohun v. Nobo Krishto. 
L L. Rep. 4 Cal. 801. 

BREAKING OPEN DOORS. 
See Housebreaking. 

Jotharam Davav.„I. L. Rep. 3 



BREAKING OPEN DOORS-centd. 

Execution of Decree — Shop Door — Act X. of 

1877, S 27'.] A bailiff or if amir has authority 
to break open the door of a shop in order to 
execute a writ of attachment, the previously 
existing law on the subject not being altered by 
( 371 of the new Civil Procedure Code (Act X. 
of 1877). Damodeh Parsotam c. Ishvar Jr- 

tha. Mehill and West, J] L L. Rap. 3 

Bom. 80, 1878. 



Acceptance of — by Public Servant. 
See Penal Code, \ 21, CI. 8. 

MudaN Mohun. ..L L. Rep. 4 
Cal. 376. 
See Penal Code, j 16S. 

Empress u. Kahpta Prasad. ..I. 
L. Rep. 1 All. 030. 
Attempt to obtain. 
See Attempt. 3. 

Empress v. Baldev Sahai.-.I. L. 
Rep.2AU.2fi3. 

BRITISH CONSUL AT ZANZIBAR- 

jurisdiction of. 
See Zanzibar. 

Wagji Koriio. Tkaria Topan... 
I. L. Rep. 3 Bom, 68. 

OTHERS— Succession of— in Undivided 
Family— Nephews not excluded by. 
Sec Hindu Law— Inheritance — 
Nephew. 
Bhihul. Doss v. Choonek Lall. 
L L. Rep. 2 Cal. 378. 
See Hindu Law— Inheritance— 
Brothers. 3. 
Debt Persad b. Thakur Dial... 
I. L. Rep. 1 AIL 105. 

-Of Whole Blood succeed, in Bengal, in 
Preference to— of Half-Blood, to lm- 
moveable Property. 
Sec Hindu Law — Inheritance — 
Brothers. 1. 2. 

Rajkishore 11. Gobisd L L. 

Rep. 1 Oal. 27 ; 24 W. R. 

934 ; L. Rep. 4 I. A 163, n. 

Shho Soondarvii. Pirthee Sing. 

L. Rep. 41A. 147* 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



BROTHER'S DAUGHTER'S BON-Right 

of— to inherit. " 

Sri Certificate to collect Debts. 1. 

OonoYCHuRN.,.1. L. Rop.lCal. 

411. 

See Hindu Law — Inheritance— 

Brother's Daughter's Son. 

Juggut Narain v. The Col. 

LECTOR OP MaNBHOOM.I. 

L. Rep. 4 Cftl. 413, n. 
BROTHERHOOD— Acknowledgment of— 

See Mahomed an Law — Acknow- 
ledgment of Brotherhood. 

MlRZA HlMHUT BaHADOOR ». 

Mussamut Sahebzadee Be- 
gum L. Rep. 1 1. A. 33. 

BUILDINGS— Erected by Occupancy Ryot. 
See Bengal Act VIII. of 1869. 

Lal Sahoo v. Deo Narain Singh, 
I. L. Rep. 3 Cal. 761. 

Erection of— by Tenant at Will or from 

Year to Year, on Land demised. 
See Landlord and Tenant. 2. 

Prosunno Coomare it. Sheikh 

Rutton.,.I. L. Bep. 3 Cal. 

696. 

BUILDING ERECTED IN A PUBLIC 

THOROUGHFARE-SuFt to remove. 

See Right to sue. 2. 3. 4. S. 

Gehanji t>. Ganpatj...L L. Rep. 

2 Bom. 469. 

Kabiu BakSH v. Buuha...I. L, 

Rep. 1 All. 249. 

Fazil Haq «. Maha Chand. 

Ibid. 667. 
Raj Koomar Singh v- Sahebzada 
Roy... I. L. Rep. 3 CaL 20. 
BUNDS— Maintenance of. 

See maintenance of Runda. 

Ram [..ill u. Lill Dhary..,I, L. 
Rep. 3 Cal. 776. 
BURMAH COURTS' ACT XVH. of 1876, 
i S 31 and 66. 
See Jurisdiction. 9. 

In re AbdoolHamed...!, L. Rep. 
4 CaL 94. 

- — i 35— " An y Original Jurisdiction"— Trans- 
fer by Judicial Commissioner, from Ses. 
si cms to his own Court, of Criminal 
Case — Appeal. 
See Jurisdiction. 17. 

Tsrr Oob I. L. 

Rep. 4 Cal. 697. 



See Mortgage. 9. 

BYJNATH V. RAMOODEEN...L. Rep. 

1 I. A. 106 ; 21 W. Rep. 
233. 
See Partition by the Revenue 
Authorities. 

Sharat Chander v. Hurgobin- 
co.I. L. Rep. 4 CaL S10. 

Possession given by Ameen n— Effect of. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1872, §530. 2. 
Mackenzie o. Shere Bahadoor 

Sahi LL. Rep. 4 Cal. 

378. 

Effect of— Jurisdiction of Civil Courts.'] By 

a butwara the rights of under.tenure holders are 
In no way affected, and though, as between 
shareholders, the assignment of specific lands 
to each shareholder has binding effect, yet such 
assignment does not of itself entitle the share- 
holder to obtain ihas possession to the depriva- 
tion of the rights of the tenants on the land. 

The Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to disturb 
a butaara which has been effected by the pro- 
perly constituted authorities acting in accord- 
ance with the law. Per Kemp,]. Bemolasoodury 
Chowohrain v. Punchanun Chowuhry.-.I. 
L. Rep. 3 Cal. 706, 707, 
708, 1878. 
S. C. under Res Judicata. 32. 



CANCELLATION OR REPUDIATION 
OP ADOPTION BY ADOPTIVE 
FATHER. 
See Hindu Law— Adoption. 18. 

CANCELLATION 07 A BOND, SUIT 

FOR— Vaiueof Subject-matter in Dispute 

— Appeal — Jurisdiction of District Judge. 

See Bengal Civil Courts' Act VI. of 

1871, 1 32. 

Kali Charan Raiv- AjudheaRai. 

L L. Rep. 2 All. 148. 

CANCELLATION OF DOCUMENT— Suit 
for. 
See Declaratory Decree. 12. 

Shib Lal v. Hira Lal I. L. 

Rep. 1 All. 633. 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



( «os > 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CANCELLATION OF BIGNATUBE — 

Deed— Release — Composition Deed — Misrepresen- 
tation— Negligence— Contract Act {IX. of 187a), 
,f 13, 18, 19.] The firm of Nicol k Co. having 
suspended payment, a general meeting of the 
creditors of the firm was convened, at which it 
was unanimously resolved that the business of 
the firm should be wound up by voluntary liqui- 
elation under the supervision of a Committee ; 
and that the winding up should be conducted by 






; U perv 






itrol 



of the said Committee. At a subsequent me 
ing of the creditors it was resolved that the 
solutions passed at the previous meeting should 
be confirmed, and it was also unanimously 
resolved that "a composition deed should be 
prepared in pursuance of the terms of the above 
resolution." The adoption of this last resolutior 
was strongly urged upon the meeting by the 
solicitor for the insolvent firm. He entirely re- 
pudiated the idea that the members of the firm 
were to get any benefit from the deed, the object 
of which, he assured the meeting, was entirely 
for the benefit of the creditors, and insisted that 
the mode of procedure proposed in the resoh 
tion was proposed solely in the interest of the 
creditors. Neither before nor at either of these 
meetings was any mention made of any release 
to be given to the parties. 

The plaintiffs were creditors of Nicol and Co. 
and K., S., and B. were their respective agent! 
in Bombay. R., 5., and B. attended the meet. 
ings on the plaintiffs' behalf, and were appointee 
members of the Committee of Supervision art 
Control, A few days after the last -mentioned 
Meeting, if., one of the partners of the insolvent 
firm, called upon R-, who was at the time deep, 
ly engaged in pressing an important business. 
H. produced a deed which had been prepared by 
the solicitors of the firm, and which contained 
clause by which the creditors, in consideratio 
of the assignment of the estate to trustees, n 
leased and discharged the members of the firm 
from all claims. If. was aware of the existence 
of the release in the deed, but R. was not. M. 
asked R. to execute the deed, saying it was 
" the trust deed." R. requested .If. to leave the 
document, saying he would peruse and return 
it in the course of the day; but .'/. earnestly 
pressed him to execute the document at once 
stating that it was of the utmost importance 
■bat no time should be lost, as the native cre- 
ditors' were coming to his office, and it was 
necessary that all the members of the Com 



CANCELLATION OF SIGNATURE— 

mittee of Supervision should sign first. R. 
objected to sign the document without reading 
it, and M. thereupon led him to suppose that it 
carried out only the terms agreed to at the credi- 
tors' meeting. On the faith of that assurance, 
R. executed the deed without reading it, on be- 
half of the first plaintiff, in the belief that it was 
nothing more than an assignment to trustees for 
the benefit of creditors. Subsequently, on the 
same day, M. took the deed to S, and asked 
him to sign. 5. was also engaged in pressing 
business, and asked J/, to leave the deedfor 
perusal ; but M. gave the same reason for not 
doing so that he had given to R,, and further 
stated that R. had signed, though he did not 
mention that R. had so signed without reading 
the deed, and that he {*/.) hoped that S. would 
sign also. 5. glanced at the deed, and being 
assured by M. that it was in order, thereupon, on 
the faith of that assurance, and believing that the 
deed was nothing more than an assignment of 
the estate to the trustees, executed the deed on 
behalf of the second plaintiffs without reading 
it. M. subsequently on the same day took the 
deed, with the signatures of R, and S, attached 
thereto, to B., who was also engaged in press- 
ing business, and asked him to sign it. After 
some conversation B. said to M. : " The deed, 
then, is merely an assignment of the firm's 
effects for the creditors P " and M. replied in the 
affirmative. B. then, on behalf of the third 
plaintiffs, executed the deed without reading it, 
believing it to be merely an assignment of the 

On the 15th October, R. and B. heard that the 
deed contained a release by the creditors to the 
debtors, and on the 16th October, S. was also for 
the first time informed of it. On the 16th of 
October, R- and S. wrote a letter to if., repudiat- 
ing their signatures, and refusing to be bound by 
the deed ; and on the *6th of October, B. caused 
a similar letter to be written to H.'s solicitor. 
The plaintiffs sued to have the signatures of 
spective agents and managers cancelled, 
and to have it declared that the deed was not 
binding on the plaintiffs !— 

Held, that the introduction into the deed 
of an immediate release from the creditors 
Jly altered the nature of the arrange- 
:ontemplated by the above resolution, 
ided to be acceded to by the creditors. 
The question as to the release, by the creditors 



jogle 



( Hff ) DIGEST OF CASES. ( 208 ) 

CANCELLATION 07 SIGNATURE- CANCELLATION OP SIGNATURE— 



mtd, 

of the firm, was never brought to their notice in 
any shape whatever, was never presented to 
their minds for consideration, and the deed 
contemplated by the above resolutions could 
not, with any reasonable regard to what took 
place at the meetings, have been intended by 
the creditors to contain an immediate release. 
The deed, therefore, containing as it did an 
immediate release by the creditors of their 
claims in consideration of the assignment of the 
property of the firm, could not, when read by 
the light of what occurred at the meeting of 
creditors, be regarded as a deed made in pursu- 
ance of the resolutions passed at those meetings, 
but was, in its present form, an essentially differ- 
ent deed from that which R., B., and S. intend- 
ed to execute, or thought they were executing 
when affixing their signatures, and that having 
been induced to sign the deed without reading 
it by Sf.'s earnest entreaties to them to sign at 
once, and by his leading them to suppose that 
the deed only earned out the resolution of the 
creditors, and by his silence as to the release, 
their signatures must, so far as the deed opera- 
ted as a release, be treated as nullities, and the 
deed, to that extent, be declared void as against 
the plaintiffs. 

Held also, that though when M. entered R. 
room to ask him to sign the deed, he was under 
no obligation, legally or morally, to 
cate the contents of the deed; the circumstances 
were quite changed by what took place between 
M. and if. When R., on being pressed by M. to 
sign the deed withont further delay, asked M. 
(as 'M. himself admitted) " whether it was all 
right," or (according to ff.'s account) " whether 
it carried out the resolutions passed at the meet- 
ing," M. accepted the confidence placed in him 
by R. by answering the question and purporting 
to tell R. the nature of the deed. It thai be- 
came Jf.'s duty to state fully, without conceal- 
ment, all that was essential to a knowledge of 
the contents of the document, and to have com- 
municated the existence of the release, and IS. 
not having done so, and R. having been thus led 
to execute a release to the prejudice of his bank, 
M. had committed a breach of duty such as is 
contemplated by § 18, CL 2 of the Contract Act 
IX. of 1871. There was no material difference 
in the circumstances connected with 5. and B. 
Held also, that under the circumstances R., S., 
and B. had not the means of discovering the truth 



with ordinary diligence, and that the exception to 
i 19 of the Contract Act was not applicable. 
The Oriental Bank Corporation v. Johm 
Fleming. Sargent, J. ..I. L.Kep. 3Bom. 242, 
1878. 
S. C under Parties to Bait. 3. 



See Hindu Law— Capacity of 
Harried Woman to con- 
tract. 

Nathulal v. Javheh I. L. 

Bop. 1 Bom. 121. 
See Married Woinan'o Property 
Act HX of 1874. 

Alumuddv i. Braham :L L. 

Bep. 4 Cal. 140. 
See Harried Woman's Separate 
Property. 2. 3. 

Hurst s. Mussoorie Bank I. 

L. Hop. 1 All. 762. 
Beresford v. Hurst... Ibid. 772. 

CARGO— Contract for Sale of. 
See Contract. 1. 

Forbes b.Tullockchand...L L. 
Bep. S Bom. 386. 
CARRIES— Burden of Proof of Negligence- 
Loss by Fire. 
See Railway Company. 3. 

ISHWARDSASS D. THE G. I. P. Ry. 

Co... I. L. Bep. 3 Bom, 120. 
— Liability of — for Loss by Robbery. 
See Railway Company. 2. 

Kuvebji b. The G. I. P. Ry. Co. 
I. L. Bep. 3 Bom. 108. 
1 Misdescription of Goods. 

See Railway Company. 8. 

lSHWARDASS D. THE G. I. P- RV, 

Co... I. L. Rep. 3 Bom. 120. 

CASE CERTIFIED BY ADVOCATE 
GENERAL-Power of High Court on 

—to consider the Merits. 

See Evidence. 13. 

RED. il. HtJRRCHOLE CHUNDER 

Chose.,, I. L. Bep. 1 Cal. 
207. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



{ : 



) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CASE CERTIFIED BY ADVOCATE- 

GHNEEAL-™U. 
See Power of the High Court on a 
Case Keaerved or Certified 
to consider the Merita of the 
Case. 

Reg. i>- Pitamber Jin'a I. L. 

Bep. 2 Bom. 81. 

CASE STRUCK OFF FOB DEFAULT IN 
APPEARANCE — Power of Small 
Cause Court to restore. 

See Small Cause Court— Prnsid en- 
cy Town. 1. 
SibChunderil Kissen Dyal...I. 
L. Bep. 1 CaL 476. 

CASHING- STOLEN CURRENCY NOTE. 

See Government Currency Note. 

Empress e. Jocessur Mochi...I. 

L. Bep. 8 CaL 379. 

CASTE— Authority of— to declare a Marriage 

See Penal Code, ( 494. 

Reg. v- Sambhu...L L. Bep. 1 
Bom. 347. 

Custom of— for a Married Woman to con- 

tract a Second Marriage in the Life-time 
or her First Husband and without bis 
Consent. 

See Penal Code, § 404. 

Reg. v. Sambhc L L. Bap. 1 

Bom. 347. 
See Coatom. S. 

Nabayak v. Bhasti...L L. Bep. 
S Bom. 140. 
CASTE QUESTION — Right to perform 
Duties of CkalvaJi. 
See Disturbance of Office. 1. 

SH ANKARA o. HAHNA...I, L. Bep. 

3 Bom. 470. 
CAUSE OP ACTION. 

See the cases under limitation. 

See the cases under Bight to Sue , and 

Suit. 
See Bight to Fish in the Sea. 

Baban v. Nagu L L. Bep. 8 

Bom. 19. 
.See Suit for Laud. 3. 

Ksllib v. Frasbr...I. L. Bep. 2 
CaL 440. 



CAUSE OF A0TION— conW. 

Accruing during Minority. 

See Alienation by Guardian. 1. 

PROSONNA NATH V. AfzOLONESSA 

Begum. ..X. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 
623. 

-Act VIII. of 1859, i 2— Substance not Form 
of Action to be regarded 
See Bes Judicata. 9. 

Krishna o- BoojE5WARj...L.Bep, 

3 I. A. 883 ; I. L. Bep. 1 

Cal. 144. 

— Barred by Act XIV. of 1 859, not revived by 

See Limitation. IB. 16. 17. 

Nocoor Chunder o. Kallv Co- 

HAX...I. L. Bep. 1 Cal. 838. 

Abdul Kariu «. Manji Hans- 

baj I. L. Bep. 1 Bom. 

396, 80S. 

Rahchandra w. Somar...L L. 

Bep. 1 Bom. 809, n. 

Ram Chandra v. Jugguthonmo. 

H1NEV...I. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 

388. 

See Hindu Law — maintenance of 

widow, e. 

Khrishna MoHun v. Okhilmo- 
NEE...LL.Bep.8 0aL331. 

— Disclosed in Plaint. 

See Plaint. 

BlSHESWARI V. GOVIND pERSAD... 

L. Bep. SLA. 194. 

See Uahomedan Law— Dower. 1, 
Ranee K haj ooroonissa v. Ranee 

Ryeesoonissa L. Bep. 9 

LA. 380. 

— Goods obtained in Calcutta by Fraud — 

Pledge of the Goods to Defendant out of 
Calcutta— Leave to sue—High Court has 

Sec Jurisdiction. 13. 

Kartik Churn Settt ». Gopal. 

kristo Paulit.,,1. L. Bep. 

3 CaL 364. 

— Heard and Determined. 

See the cases under Bes Judicata. 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CAUSE 07 ACTION- cenld. 

Second Mortgagee dispossessed by first 

Mortgagee — Subsequent Satisfaction of 
the latter and Re-entry by Mortgagor — 
Suit by Second Mortgagee. 

See Dispossession of Second by 
First Mortgagee. 
NakainSingho. ShimbhooSingh. 
L. Rep. 4 I. A. 16. 

Service Walan held on Tenure of Sue 

cessive Life Estates— Alienation of Ser- 
vice Land by Life Tenant— Suit to 

See Service Wat an. 

Babaji v. Nana... I. L. Rep. 1 
Bom. 635, 636. 

Suit for Contribution. 

Sec Limitation. 60. 

FUCKORADUKEN MaHOMEDb. Ml). 

mmaChundbR..!. J,. Rep. 
4 Cal. 529. 

■ Right to Turn of Worship of Idol. 

See Bight to sue. 6. 

Debendronath v Odit Churn. 
I. L. Bep.3Cal.390. 
CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING WHOL- 
LY IN BOTOBAY-Nundi drawn, in- 
dorsed and delivered at Ajmir, accepted 
and dishonoured in Bombay, 
Sec Letters Patent (Bombay) 1865, 

CI. 12. 
SuGANCHAND tf. MuLCHAND 9 

Bom. H. 0. Rep. 370; 12 

Ibid 113 ; and I. L. Rep. 

1 Bom. 23. 

CAUSE OP ACTION— SPLITTING OP. 

See the cases under Civil Procedure 

Code, Act VIII. of 1869, j 7. 

Omission to Seek Decree for Possession 

in Suit for Declaration of title is not. 

Sec Civil Procedure Code, Act 
VIIL of 1869, I 7. 1. 
Tulsi Ram o. Ganga Ram. ..I, L. 
Bep. 1 All. 252. 
Omission of Part of Claim— Leave to with- 
draw with Liberty to bring Fresh Suit 
including Part omitted— Second Suit not 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act. 
TIIL of 1869, * 7. 2. 

Ilahi Baksh v. Imam BaksH... 

I. L. Bep. 1 All. 324. 



— Omission of Part of Claim through Igno- 
rance of Fact caused by Defendant's 
Fraud, is not. 
See Civil Procedure Code, Act 
TUX of 1869 i 7. 3. 
Lac h man Singh v. Sanwal Singh. 
I. L. Bep. 1 AIL 643. 

Separate Accounts of Tradesmen. 

See Small Cause Court, Presidency 
Town. 4. 
CasbuHs. Tkackur Ltladdur... 
L L. Rep. 2 Bom. 670. 
Simultaneous Suits. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act VHI. 

of 1869, { 7. 4. 6. 

Kaleshar v. Jagan Nath...I. L. 

Bep- 1 All. 660. 

RamTaruns. Hossbin Bitksh .. 

I. L Bep. 8 Cal. 7B5. 

Suit for Declaration of Title without Seek- 
ing for Possession — Subsequent Suit for 
Possession not barred. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act 
VTH. of 1869, f 7. 8. 
Dakboi-.Kksho Rai...I. L. Bep. 
2 AIL 366. 
CAUSE OP ACTION— WHOLE CAUSE 
OP ACTION— Nundi payable in Bombay 
indorsed and delivered at Ajmir. 
See Letters Patent (Bombay), 
1868, CI. 12. 

SUGANCHUND V- MuLCHUM).. 9 

Bom. H. 0. Bep. 270 ; 12 

Ibid 113; and I. L. 

Bep. 1 Bom. 23. 

Place of Contract or Performance. 

See Jurisdiction. 14. 

Mu HAMMED V. E. I. RY. Co... I. 

L. Rep. 1 Had. 876. 
CAUSES OP ACTION— Misjoinder of. 

See Misjoinder of Causes of Action. 
LS. 
Guuani if. Ram Charan...L L. 
Rep. 1 AIL 665. 

jAHOKlMATKe. RaMKun)uN...LIi. 

Bep. 4 Cal. S49. 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



{ 314 ) 



CAUSING HURT, AMD BIOTING. 

See Offence made up of several 
Offence*. 
Eupress v. Ram Adhin.. L L. 
Hep. 2 All. 139. 



See Penal Code, § 430. 

Raiikeiskns t. PALANIYAND1...I. 

L. Rep. 1 Had. SOS. 
CAVEAT-Speeial Citation. 

See Administration. S. 

Hurri DASS...I. L. Bep. 4 CaL 
87. 
CAVEAT EMPTOB. 
fo Maxima. 1. 

See Sale In Execution of a Decree. 
16. 
The Court of Wards u. Gaya- 

PERSAD...I, L. Bep. 3 Ail. 
107. 
CEBTTFICATE— Commissioner for taking 
Accounts, Power of —to grant. 
See Account. 3. 

RuSTOMJEE tr. KESSOWJEE...I. II. 

Bep. 3 Bom. 181. 
CERTIFICATE OF AD MINI ST RATION 
OF MINORS' ESTATE -Still neces- 
sary to enable a Person to sue on behalf 
of a Minor. 
, See Bombay Minors' Act H. of 
1864, i 2. 
Murlidharh- Supdu. I. L. Rep. 
3 Bom. 148. 

i Undivided Hindu Family — Guardianship 

—Act XX. of 1S64.] Where a member of an 

undivided Hindu family dies, leaving to his 

children only his undivided share in the joint 

family property, a certificate of administration 

cannot be granted under Act XX. of 1S64, nor, 

under such circumstances, can a guardian of the 

persons of the minor children be appointed ; 

but if the deceased has left any separate pro. 

perty, a certificate of administration in respect 

of such property may be granted, and a guardian 

may be properly appointed at the same time. 

Guracharva v. Svahirwacharya. Melvill 

and Kimball, JJ...I. L. Bep. 3 Bom. 481, 

1879. 

But see L. Bep. 9 I. A. 27 ; I. L. 

Bap. 8 Cal. 606. 

1G 



CERTIFICATE TO COLLECT DEBTS— 
Appeal from Order refusing. 
5m Appeal— Civil. 1. 

Tarihi Churn o. Bama Soon- 

dehee L L. Bep. 1 CaL 

138, n. 
■^— Mortgage by Holder of. 

Sec Power of Grantee of Certificate 
to Collect Debts to Mort- 
gage- 

Muhia v. Balak Rah I- L. 

Bep. 2 AIL 513. 

Representative of Assignee by Devise of 

Debt, cannot sue without— or Probate. 
Sm Assignee of Debt. 

Shodonb v. Halalkhobr...I. L. 
Bep. 4 Oal. 64S. 

Security — Appeal. 

See Appeal— Civil. 4. 16. 

MoNMOHINEE V. KhATTER Go- 

PAUL...I. L. Bep. 1 Cal. 127. 
RUK111N...I. L. Bep. 1 All. 287. 
Unnecessary to entitle Heir of Decree- 
bolder to apply for Execution. 
See Civil Procedure Code, Act VIII. 
oflBBQ, i 208. 

Karah Au v. Haliha I. L. 

Bep. 1 All. 886. 

1, Act XXVII. ef i860 — Proximity of 

Kinship and Residence.'] Proximity of kinship 
and residence are not such considerations as wilt 
warrant a Judge in granting a certificate under 
Act XXVII. of i860 to any person in preference 
to another who has primi facie the better title 
to inherit and to the beneficial ownership of the 
debts. 

Adopting the principle laid down in Gohind 
Persad Talookdar v. Mohesh Chundet Surma 
Ghuttack (15 Beng. L. Rep. 35; S. C, 23 W. 
Rep. 17) a father's brother's grandson has a right 
to obtain a certificate under Act XXVII. of 
i860 in preference to a brother's daughter's son. 
In the matter of the Petition of Oodaychurn 
Mitter. White and Prime},}}. ..L L. Bep. 
4 CaL 411, 1878. 
SfeJUQOUT Narrayan Sinoh b. Col- 
lector of Mahbhoom L L. 

Bep. 4 CaL 413. 
Under Hindu Law— Inheritance- 
Brother's Daughter's Son. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



( 218 ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CERTIFICATE TO COLLECT DEBTS - 
contd. 
9. ■ Act XX- of 1841— Decree in Adminis- 
tration Suit.'] N., a Hindu, died in 1858 without 
issue, but leaving a widow. If. in bis life-time 
had executed a will of which he appointed D- 
and G. (his brother and nephew respectively) 
executors, but according to the construction put 
upon the will by the Court, they wore only ap. 
pointed for a special purpose, and for a limited 
period, vt*., to look after and take care of the 
natural or adopted son of the testator during his 
minority, and only so far as concerned certain 
property, and D. and G. took under the will no 
further interest or powers as executors. The 
only devise in the will was of the testator's one- 
third share of certain property to G. A certificate 
to collect debts was granted to G. under Act 
XXI. of 1841. Subsequently, a creditor of N. 
filed a suit for the administration of N.'s estate, 
in which suit D and G. were made defendants, 
but the widow of N. was not made a party to the 
suit. A consent decree was made in that suit, 
which directed that the real estate of JV.shouldbe 
sold, and the Receiver of the Court be appointed 
Receiver to collect the outstandings of If. 'a estate. 

In a suit brought by the widow of If. to have 
a certain settlement deed construed, and, inter 
alia, to establish her right as N.'s widow to one- 
third of the property therein comprised, and for 
the administration of JV.'s estate, so far as the 
same was un administered ;— 

Held, that the plaintiff was not bound by the 
decree, or the proceedings in the creditor's suit, 
and that the only property of If. which could be 
affected thereby was the property devised by N. 
to G., and any debts of JV., which G. was autho- 
rized to collect and get in under the certificate 
granted to him. Such certificate only applied to 
debts and moveable estate, and did not give G. 
any interest in, or authority to receive, or repre- 
sent immoveable estate; and as D. and G. had 
no right to recover and no interest in N.'s im- 
moveable estate, any decree made in a suit to 
which they only were defendants, could not 
affect the immoveable estate or the person really 
interested therein ; and though the plaintiff had, 
in her plaint, asked that her present suit should 
be taken as supplemental to the said creditor's 
suit, she was not under the circumstances abso- 
lutely bound by that portion of her prayer, even 
if the suit could be so taken. Th eepoora soon- 
DERir Dosske e. Debendronath Taqosee. 
Pontifex,] L I* Eep. 2 Cal, 40, 1878. 



CERTIFICATE TO COLLECT DEBTS— 

3. Act XXVII. oflUo— Question of Va- 
lidity of Alleged Adoption— Title.] The appel- 
lants, representing themselves as the gyantets 
(cognates) of a deceased Hindu who had died 
forty years before, applied for a certificate under 
Act XXVII. of i860 to collect the debts due to 
his estate. The application was opposed by 
the respondents, whb claimed a similar certi- 
ficate for themselves as the widows of an alleged 
adopted son of the deceased : — 

Held, that neither of the applicants was enti- 
tled to a certificate, the presumption being that 
there were no debts due to the deceased which 
could be recovered, owing to the operation of 
the law of limitation. 

Although in the case of rival applications for 
certificates to collect debts, under Act XXVII. 
of i860, the Judge is bound to inquire which 
itle is made out for the purposes of the legal 
•equirements of the Act, yet no question of title 
can be judicially determined between the parties 
as the result of the inquiry made under that 
Act, and the object of the applications in the 
present case was to obtain a judicial determina- 
tion of the question whether the alleged adop- 
tion had taken place or not; a question which 
could only be decided in a civil suit. Koohj 
B shaky Chowdhrv v. Gocool Ch under 
Chowdhrv— Kirmp and Moms, JJ...L L. Rep. 
3 Cal. 616. 1878. 

4. Act XXVII. of J860— Private Estate 

of Deceased Mohunt — Spiritual Son— Spiritual 
Brother.] The person entitled to collect the 
outstanding debts due to the private estate of a 
deceased Mohunt, is the spiritual son (the Chela), 
and not the spiritual brother (Guru-bhai) of the 
deceased. In re Bkyrub Bharuttee Mohunt (21 
W. Rep. 340) distinguished on the ground that in 
that case the debt was not a personal one. 
D UK A RAM Bharti v. LuCHmaN Biiarti. Anslie 
and Broughton, JJ...L L. Rep. 4 Cal. 964 ; 4 
Cal. Eep. 49, 1679. 

CERTIFICATE OF JURY— Cos? certified by 
Advocate-General — Confession improperly received 
in Evidence.'] On a case certified by the Advo- 
cate-General under CI. 26 of the Letters Patent 
(Calcutta), 1865, to consider whether a certain 
confession made by an accused person bad been 
properly received in evidence against him, the 
Court having held that the confession was in- 



Diaxized by Google 



DIGEST OP CASES. 



( 218 ) 



CERTIFICATE OF JURY— con td. 
admissible and ought not to have been received, 
— a certificate by a majority o£ the Jury who 
tried the case, to the effect that it the confession 
had not been in evidence, they would have given 
a verdict acquitting the prisoner, was tendered 
but rejected by the Court. Reg. v. Hurribolb 
ChuhDBR Ghose, Garth, C. J., and Pontifex,}... 

LI* Rep. lCaL807; wp. 219, n. 
S. C under Evidence. 18. 

CERTIFICATE PROCEEDINGS UN- 
DEB, BENGAL ACT VII. OF 1808- 

Jurisdiction of Civil Court to inquire into Lega- 
lity of.'} In a suit for arrears of rent it ap- 
peared that the plaintiff held possession of the 
land out of which the rent issued under a potta 
granted by the owner subsequently to the issue 
out of a Collector's office of a certificate under 
Bengal Act VII. of 1 868 against the grantor. 
The defendant was the purchaser of the land in 
question at the sale held under that Act, and 
Pleaded that the plaintiff's grantor had no power 
to grant the potta after the certificate had been 
served. The Court of first instance disbelieved 
the witness called to prove service of the certi- 
ficate, and found that no notice was served on 
the plaintiff's grantor under ( tS of the Act, and 
therefore upheld the potta and gave the plaintiff 
a decree. The District Judge on appeal rever- 
sed this decree, considering that a Civil Court 
could not say that the procedure followed by 
the Collector was irregular, and that the proceed- 
ings were null and void, but must, as nothing ap- 
peared to the contrary, assume that they were 
regular, and that the party aggrieved could try 
the correctness of the Collector's proceedings by 
a regular suit. On appeal to the High Court !•» 
Held, reversing the District Judge's decree, that 
in order to meet the plaintiffs case effectually, it 
was necessary that the defendant should prove the 
certificate proceedings in a regular way, and the 
plaintiff was at liberty to question the legality of 
those proceedings and to show that they were 
irregular and ineffective. The District Judge, 
therefore, was bound to examine the proceedings 
of the Collector, and to see that they were legal 
and regular, as to constitute a legal bar to .the 
plaintiffs grantor transferring his interest to the 
plaintiff; and the Judge was not at liberty to 
make any presumption in favour of their legality 
or correctness. Hem Lotta v. Sreedhonk 
BotOOA. Garth, CJ, and Birch,]...!. L-Rep. 
8 CaL 771, 1877. 



CERTTEIOATE (OF REGISTRATION- 
Effect of. 
See Registration. S3. 

Mahomed Ewaz v. Brij LaLl.,.L. 
Rep. 4 I. A. lee. 
CERTIFICATE OF BALE, REGISTRA- 
TION- OF. 

See Registration. 4. 

Kanahia Lal e. Kali Din. ..I, L. 
Rep. S All. 393. 
CERTIFICATED AND UNCERTIFICA- 
TED GUARDIANS— Power of. 
See Alienation by Guardian. 8. 
Ram Chunder a. Bkojohath...X 
Xi. Rep. 4 Oal. 938. 
See Mortgage. 80. 31. 

Abhasee Begum t. Moharanee 

Rajroop.,.1. L. Rep. 4 Cal. 

88. 

Dbbi Dutt V- SUBOODRA...I. L. 

Rep. a CaL 383. 
See Sale by Guardian. 

Soondek Narain a. BennudRam. 

I. L. Rep. 4 CaL 76. 

See Xabomedan Law— Sale by 

Guardian. 

Hasan Ali v. Mehdi Husain...L 

L. Rep. 1 AIL S88. 

See Review. lO. 

MadhoDasv. Rukman Sevak... 
I. L. Rep. 3 AIL 387. 

PURCHASER — SUIT 
AGAINST. 
See Civil Procedure Code, Act 
vni. of 1859, ( 380. 1. a. 

LOKKKB NaKAIN v. KALVPUDDO... 

L. Rep. 2 I. A 154. 

Pueah Mal o. Ali Khan... I. L. 

Rep. 1 AIL 386. 

CERTIFIED PURCHASER— SUIT BY. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act VHX 

of 1859, ( 260. 1. 3. 

Lokhre Narain «. Kalypuddo... 

L. Rep. 8 L A. 164. 

Jan Muhamad v Ilahi Baksii... 

X L. Rep. 1 AIL 290. 

CESSATION OF SERVICE — Right to 
ssume or assess Service Lands on. 
See Ghatw ali Tenure. 

Lbelanuno Singh * Thakoor 

MUNRUNJUN...I. L. Rep. 8. 

Oal. 3BL 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CESSATION 07 SERVICE— amtd. 
See Resumption. 2. 

Keval Ruber V. TaUKWDAREE 

Settle a ent Officer. ..I. L. 
Hep. 1 Bom. S86. 
CESSER OF RE8TD ENCE. 
Sh Will. 10. 

Tagoee t. Tagorr...L. Rep. 
1 1. A. 387. 

CESSES— Zemindari. 
Sa Custom. 4. 

Lachaman- Raj e. Akbar Khan... 
I. L. Rep. 1 All. 440. 

■ 'Zemindari — Suit [or — Jurisdiction ot Mo- 

fussil Small Cause Court. 
See Small Cause Court — Hofuseil. 



Nanku ». Board of Revenue... 

L L. Sep. 1 AIL 444. 

- Zemindari Right to — Suit for Declaration 



See Declaratory Decree. 8. 

Akbar Khan o. Sheoratah 

I. L. Rep. 1 AIL 373. 



—Act XIX. of 1873 (AT. W. 
P. Land Revenue Act), f 66.] A cess leviable 
m accordance with village custom which 
recorded under the general or special 
of the Local Government cannot, under f 66 of 
Act XIX. of 1873, be enforced in a Civil Court. 

A custom to be valid must be ancie 
have been continued and acquiesced 
must be reasonable and certain. 

The fact that a cess leviable in accordance 
with village custom has been recorded by 
settlement officer is important evidence of the 
custom, but not conclusive proof of it. La 
V. HlRA Singh. Stuart, C. ]., and Old-field, J... 

I. 1. Rep. 9 All. 49, 1878. 

CESSION OP TERRITORY— Prerogative of 
the Crown.] The Crown is competent to cede 
territory in British India in time of peace, to a 
foreign prince or feudatory, without the interven- 
tion of the Imperial Parliament. The prerogative 
of the Crown is exercised with the advice and 
through the agency of the responsible Ministers 
of the Crown ; and when a cession of territory is 
proved to have been made by the Government of 
India, and accepted by the Secretary of State as 



CESSION OP TRRRTTORT-fimW. 

fulfilling instructions conveyed to the Govern- 
ment of India, an to have been approved of by 
Majesty's Government, that is sufficient 
evidence of a cession by the Crown ; and when it 
proved that a cession has been so made, it is 
it comptent to the Civil Courts in British India 
enquire whether in the particu instance the 
ercise of the prerogative was called for. 
In determining whether or not there has been 
cession of territory in full sovereignty, the 
surt will look* not to the documents by which 
the transfer is made as operating by their own 
force to transfer sovereignty, but will look to 
what was done, though the language of the do- 
may be considered as evidence of what 
was intended to be done. The circumstance that 
the transfer was recorded in a sanad, is not in- 
ipatible with a cession, nor is it inconsistent 
with a cession of sovereignty that it should be 
accompanied by conditions for the benefit of the 
inhabitants of the ceded territory, *. g., that 
existing rights and tenures should be respected. 
The Nawab of Rampur is in possession of such 
powers of sovereignty as are enjoyed by the feu- 
datories of the Empire, and the State of Rampur 
is held by him, subject indeed to the extraordi- 
nary control of the Paramount Power, but other- 
wise independent ; and such sovereignty is not 
inconsistent with the name " Jaghir " which was 
applied to the territory before the cession of 
Robilkhand, and has since been retained. 

By a sanad dated the 13rd June i860, execu- 
ted by the order of the Governor-General, and 
ratified and confirmed by the Secretary of State, 
19 villages in Bareilly and Moradabad were, in 
consideration of services rendered by him during 
the Mutiny, granted to the Nawab of Rampur 
and " annexed to the old territory of the Nawab 
on the same conditions on which he holds that 
territory." Possession of the villages wasgiven 
to the agents of the Nawab, to whom also the 
revenue records were delivered, and from the date 
of the grant, administrative and judicial func- 
tions were exercised in the village under no 
other authority than that of the Nawab, who, in 
answer to a communication from the Lieutenant- 
Governor with reference to a petition presented 
to the Government of India by the Zemindars 
of the transferred villages for the maintenance 
of their proprietary rights, assured the Lieute- 
nant-Governor that the rights of the petitioners 
should be respected. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CESSION OF TERRITORY— conid. 

In a suit brought in 1876 on a mortgage bond 
executed in 1871, mortgaging, among other 
property, these 19 villages, to enforce the 
mortgage debt by sale of the villages : Held, that 
the villages had passed by valid cession out of 
British territory before the institution of the 
suit, and that the Court of the Subordinate 
Judge of Bareilly, in which the suit was institu- 
ted, had no jurisdiction to order a sale of them. 
Lachhi Nabain ». Raja Pektab Singh. ..I, L. 
Bap. a All. 1 1878, F. B. 

2. Prerogative of the Crown— Transfer 

of Jurisdiction — Concurrence of Imperial Parlia- 
ment— Evidence Act 1. of 1872, f 1 13.] In the 
province of Kattywar, subject in its entirety 
since 1820 to the supreme authority of the 
British Government, the Thakoor of Bhownug- 
gnr was possessed of certain talooks, which had 
never been brought under the ordinary British 
administration, and in which the Thakoor 
exercised a wide civil and criminal jurisdiction, 
subject only to the supervision, laws and regu- 
lations of the Kattywar Political Agency. He 
also possessed within the same province othei 
talooks. including Gangli, which in 1S02 had 
been ceded to the British Government, and 
1815 had been placed under the ordinary jur 
diction of the British Courts of the Bombay 
Presidency. In 1S48, Gangli was included 
lease granted by the British Grovernnmen 
the Thakoor, which, by mutual agreement, dated 
33rd of October i860, was cancelled, and thei 
under the British . Government conceded, " 
a favour, and not as a right, the transfer of 
Gangli and other territories from the disti 
of Gogo subject to the regulations, to 1 
Kattywar Political Agency." Delay having 
arisen in completing this transfer, the Governor- 
General in Council, on the 31st of May 1865, 
authorized its completion, " Her Majesty's 
Secretary of State having decided that Katty. 
war was not British territory." Thereafter, on 
the 29th of January 1866, it was notified, in 
effect in the Bombay Government Camette, that 
Gangli, by reason of the cession thereof by the 
British Government to the Thakore of Bhow- 
nuggur, was removed, from and after the 1st 
of February of that year, from the jurisdiction 
of the Revenue, Civil and Criminal Courts of the 
Bombay Presidency, and transferred to the super, 
vision of the Political Agency in Kattywar, on 
the same conditions as to jurisdiction as the 
villages of the talookaof the Thakoor of Bhow- 



CESSION 07 TERRITORY-™-.;,* . 
nuggar heretofore in that province. And on the 
4th of January 1873 (after the Evidence Act I. 
of 1872 had come into operation), it was notified 

effect in the Indian Gazette that Gangli Was, 

1 the 1st of February 1866, ceded to the State 

Bhownuggur. 

Previous to the notification in 1866, a decree 
for redemption of mortgaged lands in Gangli was 
made by the British Court of Gogo, and reversed 
by the Judge of Ahmedabad, the case being 
subsequently remanded by the High Court of 
Bombay to the Judge, who thereupon restored 
the original decree, notwitstanding that in the 
iterval the first- mentioned notification had 
appeared. The High Court confirmed this order, 
holding, on review, that the power to cede terti- 
was not one of the powers to which the 
Secretary of State suceeded under the Act 
(Stat. at & 22 Vict., C 106,) transferring the 
Government of India to Her Majesty, as it was 
not one of the powers possessed by the East 
India Company, either alone, or by the direc- 
tion and with the sanction of the Commissioners 
of the Affairs of India. 

And that the Indian Legislature could not 
make, and the Crown could not sanction, a law 
having for its object the dismemberment of the 
State in time of peace, as such a law must of 
necessity affect the authority of the Parliament, 
and those unwritten laws and constitutions of 
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ire- 
land whereon depends the allegiance of persona 
to the Crown of the United Kingdom. 

And that , 1 13 of the Evidence Act (I. of 1872) 
was, therefore, not protected (though not dis- 
allowed) by Stat. 24 & 25 Vict., C. 67, f 24, and 
the direction therein contained that a notifica- 
tion in the Gatette of India, that any portion of 
British teritory had been ceded to any Native 
State, Prince, or Ruler, shall be conclusive proof 
that a valid cession of territory took place on 
the date mentioned in such notification, could 
not be followed. 

Held, on appeal from this last- mentioned 
order that the appeal must be dismissed, but 
without reference to the question whether the 
law laid down by the High Court was correct, 
though their Lordships entertained such grave 
doubts (to say no more) of the soundness of the 
general and abstract doctrine laid down by 
the High Court, as to be unable to advise 
Her Majesty to rest her decision on that 
ground. But in point of fact there had been 



oogle 



DIGEST OF CASES- 



CESSION OF TERRITORY— tttihJ. 
no cession of territory. The language of the 
above agreement of i860 was not the language 
of cession. It was frimi facie nothing more 
than an engagement for the transfer of the 
places mentioned (including Gangli), which were 
then, beyond question, British territory, from 
a regulation province to an extraordinary juris. 
diction. Nor would the opinion attributed by the 
Gove mo r -General in Council in 1S65, when 
authorizing the completion of the transfer con- 
templated by the agreement of i860, to the 
Secretary of State for India, via " that Kattywar 
was not British territory," even if it bad been 
proved to have been expressed, and to have been 
well founded, have the effect of converting a 
transfer of certain British territories from ordi- 
nary British jurisdiction " to the supervision, 
laws, and regulations of the Kattywar Political 
Agency," into a cession of British territory to a 
Native State. Such a cession would be a trans- 
action too important in its consequences, both 
to Great Britain and to subjects of the British 
Crown, to he established by any uncertain in- 
ference from equivocal acta. 

A re-arrangement of jurisdiction within 
British territory by the transfer of British terri- 
tories from an ordinary British jurisdiction to 
the supervision, laws, and regulations of a Politi- 
cal Agency, by excluding such territories from 
the British regulations and codes theretofore in 
force therein, and from the jurisdiction of all 
the High Courts, with a view to the establish- 
ment therein of a native jurisdiction under 
British supervision and control, cannot be 
effected without a legislative Act. 

Such transfer of jurisdiction, even if valid 
without a legislative Act, would not depri' 
Crown of its territorial rights over the 
fened district, or the persons resident therein of 
their rights as British subjects. 

The jurisdiction, therefore, of the British 
Courts of the Bombay Presidency over Gangli 
rested, in 1866, on British Statutes, and could 
not be taken away (as long as Gangli 
British territory) so as to substitute for it any 
native or other extraordinary jurisdiction, 
cept by legislation in the manner contemplated 
by 3 * 4 Wm. IV., C 85, § 43, 24 & as Vict., 
C. 67, § 3J, 34 & 35 VicL, C. 104, f 9. 

The Governor -Genera I in Council being pre- 
cluded by Stat. 24 & as Vict., C 67, § aa, from 
legislating directly as to the sovereignty 



CESSION OF TERRITORY— amtd. 
dominion of the Crown over any part of its 
territories in India, or as to the allegiance of 
Ish subjects, cannot, by any Legislative Act 
purporting to make a notification in a Govcrn- 
i< Gatette conclusive evidence of a cession 
of territory, exclude inquiry as to the nature 
nd lawfulness of that cession. 
If Gangli had by valid cession ceased to be 
British territory, the foundation of the jurisdic- 
: British Courts of the Bombay Presi- 
dency over the subject-matter of this suit, and 
the parties thereto, being territorial, could no 
longer be exercised (whatever might be the 
stage or condition of the litigation at the time), 
after such a valid cession had been made. 
Damodhar Gordhan ». Deoram Kanji...Ii, 
Rep. 3 1 A. 103, 1870 ; S. C. I. L. Rep. 
1 Bom. 397 ; L. Rep. 1 App. Ca, 333. 
CESTTJI-aUE-TRUST CREDITOR— 
Proof by— in Insolvency. 
See Insolvency. 7. 

Vabdala Charri...I. It, Rep. S 
Mad. 10. 
CHAKEHAN lAXtoB- Ejectment— Occu- 
pancy Right."] A distinct refusal by a tenant to 
perform services incidental to his holding ren- 
ders him liable to ejectment. 

Simble.— No right of occupancy can be ac- 
quired in lands held under a service tenure- 

HlIRROGGOBIN RaHA V- RAMKUTNO DeV. Garth, 

C. J., and McDonnell, J...1 L, Rep. 4 OaJ. 67, 
1878. 
CHAXWADI— Office of. 

See Disturbance of Office. 1, 

Shankara *. Hamma...L Ij.Rop. 
8 Bom. 470. 
CHAMPERTY. 

Set lienor and Lessee. 

LoKENATH GHOSK «. JtJOOBUNDHOO 

Roy... I. L. Rep. 1 Cal. 997. 
l.—Maintenantt— Undue Influence — Con- 
sideration— Novation.^ ^..astranger.advanced 
money to enable B., C-, and D., childless Hindu 
widows, on a false claim of inheritance, to take 
the estate of the family from £., the rightful heir ; 
A. got the entire control of the suit and of the 
affairs of B., C, and D.\ and B., C, and D. 
executed an instrument purporting to secure 
to A. a. large sum of money on their obtain- 
ing the property, and also gave him a bond for 
s sum alleged to have been advanced by him. 



Diarized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



B., C, and D. having agreed with B. to withdraw 
the suit upon terms of compromise, E. tu in- 
duced to execute a bond to A., by which E. in 
effect engaged to pay to A., in discharge of 
his claim upon B., C, and D., a fixed sum, 
which was claimed by A. as the amount due to 
bin ; and A. agreed to abandon his claim upon 
them on such payment, retaining the securities 
be held from them till £.'s bond was satisfied. 

At the time of entering into this bond, E. had 
only just attained his majority, was without 
proper counsel or assistance, and was threatened 
by A. with the consequences of not immediately 
acquiescing in his demand, the threats not being 
of bodily violence but of carrying on the suit to 
bis ruin ; and such threats overcame bis free 
will, and induced him, contrary to his own 
judgment and sense of right, and without any 
evidence that the sum claimed was due, to 
execute the bond. 

On a suit by A. to enforce the bond i— 

Held, ist, that, assuming that there was a 
real substantial debt due to A. from B., C, and 
D. on an agreement to which no objection 
could be taken ; that there was a bond fide 
arangement by which B., C, and D. were to have 
their suit dismissed ; and that one term of that 
arrangement was that they should be relieved 
of the debt due to the plaintiff; yet the transac- 
tion would not amount to a novation. B., C. 
and D. were not, by the transaction, released 
altogether from the debt which they had incurred 
to the plaintiff, nor was the plaintiff's position 
altered by reason of his having lost bis remedy 
against them ; for on the face of the bond exe- 
cuted by E., he, A., was to retain the securities 
against B-, C, and D. until the bond was paid ; 
the contract on his (A.'s) part was, in fact 
rather an agreement to abandon his remedy 
against B., C, and D. on the payment of the 
Rs. 67,000, than an actual abandonment at the 
time of the transaction. 

tndly, though the law of champerty or main. 
tenance is not the same in India as it is in 
England (the Statute of Champerty being part 
of the Statute law of England, and of no effect in 
the Hofussil of India) — and the Courts of India 
admit the validity of many transactions of that 
nature, which would not be recognized or treated 
as valid by the Courts in England, yet the Indian 
Courts will not sanction every description of 
maintenance. Administering — as those Courts 



are bound to administer —justice according to 
the broad principles of equity and good con- 
science, they will consider whether the transac- 
tion is merely the acquisition of an interest in the 
subject of litigation bona fide entered into, or 
whether it is an unfair or illegitimate transaction 
got up for tbe purpose merely of spoil or of liti- 
gation, disturbing the peace of families, and car. 
ried on froma corrupt or other improper motive) 
and the Courts would be exercising a very unsound 
discretion, and acting on a very erroneous prin- 
ciple, if they were to allow a stranger to inter- 
fete in family affairs, by an agreement between 
him and the real heirs that, if they should esta- 
blish their claim, he should be entitled to a share 
of the estate- Applying these principles, quart 
whether the plaintiff could have recovered on 
the agreement between himself and B., C, and 
D., if the question had arisen between him and 
them after he had got the estate for them ; but 
boweverthat m ight be i t wo u Id be contrary to every 
sound principle of justice and policy to permit 
tbe plaintiff, who had got up, or at all events 
intervened in, a suit in which he had no neces- 
sary concern ; who bad made himself dominus 
litis in that suit, and acquired over the plaintiffs 
in it (B., C, and D.) the power of preventing 
them from doing what they felt to be right and 
just (>-«., of compromising and bringing about 
a family arrangement}, and from interested and 
corrupt motives was exercising that power, to 
make that power tbe means of extorting a large 
sum of money from the person whose title had 
been unjustly challenged. 

ydty, that the transaction was not one entered 
into between two persons, each of whom was 
capable of taking care of himself ; the defendant 
being, at tbe time of the transaction, a boy of 
iS, without proper counsel or assistance, and 
prevented from being a free agentby the threats 
held out to him; and that the bond, therefore, 
was wholly void as against E., and could not be 
made to stand as a security for what might 
really have been advanced by A. to B., C, and 
D., as nothing was ever due by E. to A., and 
there existed no privity of contract between them. 
— Chedambaka Chetty e. Runga Krishna 
Muthu Vira Puchaiva Naickar...L. B,ep . 1 
X A. 841 ; IS Bang. It E. 609 ; 
83 W. R. 148, 1874. 

3. Maintenance— Agreement to short 

the Subject of Utigatum, wktn against Public 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OP CASES. 



CHAMPERTY —contd. 
Policy^Non-Liabiiity of Stranger to the Record 
far Costs of Sutl, in Absence of Malice and Want 
of Probable Cause.'] The respondent was, by an 
agreement between him and M . and his wife, 
which recited an apparently good title of the 
latter to certain property, apointed the attorney 
and mooktear of M. and his wife to conduct certain 
suits to recover that property from the appellant, 
and he managed the said suits, and made all the 
necessary advances for that purpose and for the 
subsistence of M. and his wife, having stipulated 
that all the advances should be repaid with 
interest at 11 percent., and that as remuneration 
tor his trouble and risk, the respondent should 
have a third part of the clear net profits of the 
suits, and, as security, should receive all moneys, 
and take possession ot all lands recovered. He 
was oeither an original nor an added party to the 
suits, which, on appeal, were decreed in favour 
of M. and his wife by the Higb Court, but were 
afterwards dismissed by the Privy Council with 
costs, which M. and his wife were utterly unable 
to pay- Pending that appeal, the respondent 
purchased the property in suit, and thereafter 
conducted the appeal in his own interest. 

In an action brought by the appellants again! 
the respondent to recover the amount of cost 
incurred by them in the above litigation", it wa 
alleged, but not proved, that the suits wer 
brought or instigated by the respondent mall 
ciousty and without probable cause ; and failing 
such proof, it was contended (i) that the agree 
ment and acts of the respondent amounted tc 
champerty, or were otherwise illegal as being 
against public policy, and that the appellants 
had suffered special damage from them ; and (2) 
that the respondent was the real actor in the 
former suits and had an interest in them, and 
was, therefore, responsible for the costs of them. 

Held, that the English laws of maintenance 
and champerty are not of force as specific laws 
in India. So far as concerns the Mofussil, thi 
is no ground on which it can be contended that 
those laws are in force there ; and the condition 
of the Presidency towns, inhabited by various 
races of people, and the legislative provision 
directing alt matters of contract and dealing 
between party and party to be determined in 
case of Mahomedans and Hindus by their c 
laws and usages respectively, or where only 
of the parties is a Mahomcdan or Hindu by 
the laws and usages of the defendant, furnish 



CHAMPERTY— co n td. 

reasons for holding that these special laws are 

inapplicable to the Presidency towns. 

A fair agreement to supply funds to carry on a 
suit in consideration of having a share of the 
property, if recovered, ought not to be regarded 
as being, perse, opposed to public policy. But 
agreements of this kind ought to be carefully 
watched, and when found to be extortionate and 
unconscionable, so as to be inequitable as 
against the party ; or to be made, not with the 
bond, fide object of assisting a claim believed to 
be just, and of obtaining a reasonable recom- 
pense therefor, but for improper objects, as for 
the purpose of gambling and litigation, or of 
injuring or Oppressing others by abetting and 
encouraging unrighteous suits, so as to be con- 
trary to public policy, — effect ought not to be 
iven to them. Whenever the right of the par- 
es to this agreement as between themselves, 
light be, it did not constitute a punishable 
offence, and could not give to the appellants, who 
strangers to it, a right of action against the 
respondent. 

Such agreement created no legal privity be- 
tween the appellant and respondent, from which 
a promise could be implied on the part of the 
respondent to pay the appellant the costs of the 
former suit on which an action of contract could 
be founded ; nor did it establish a legal wrong, 
for the former action was brought without im- 
proper motives and upon reasonable cause. 

An action cannot be maintained against a 
third person on the ground that he was a mover 
of, and bad an interest in, the suit, in the absence 
of malice and want of probable cause. Cotterdl 
v. Jones (11 C- B. 73s) approved. 

Where it appears that the plaintiff in a suit is 
1 fact suing on behalf of another person who 
not a party to the record, the ordinary practice 
to require security for costs, and to stay pro- 
ceedings till it is given. 

The fact that an application to the Court, 
under ( 73 of Act VIII. of 1859, to make a stran- 
ger who has an interest in the suit a co-plaintiff, 
was rejected, will not give ground for an action 
against such stranger for costs incurred in the 
suit which would not otherwise lie. Ram Coo- 
mar Coondoo e. Chundbr Canto Mookkbjke. 
L. Sep. 4 I. A. 23, 1876 ; I. L. Sep. S CaL 
238 ; L. B. 2 App. Co,. 166. 



' D.gmzed byGOOgle 



DIGEST OE CASES. 



CHAMPEST"?— ™*r<f. 

S. — Maintenance and Champerty.'] In 
Jane 1869, P., the liquidator of the National 
Financial Company, compromised the claims of 
the Company against the defendant Mulji Kanji, 
for Rs. 15,000. P. was induced to agree to this 
Compromise in consequence of representations 
made to him by the friends of Mulji Kanji, that 
the latter had no available assets and could not 
meet his liabilities. In 1878 the plaintiff, who 
was neither a creditor nor shareholder of the 
Company, alleging that the compromise had been 
fraudulently effected, and that the defendant 
Mulji Kanji, at the time of the compromise had 
been, and still was, possessed of property amply 
sufficient to pay off his debts, induced the 
liquidator of the Company to assign to him the 
Company's claim against Mulji Kanji, and 
brought this suit praying that the compromise 
with P. might be declared not binding, and that 
Mulji Kanji might be ordered to pay the plain- 
tiff, as assignee of the National Finance Com- 
pany, the sum of Rs. 1,61,500, 

The liquidator, by a letter of the 3rd of Octo- 
ber 1878, addressed to the plaintiff's solicitors, 
after recapitulating the information he had pre- 
viously given relating to the compromise of the 
claim against Mulji Kanji, stated as the condi- 
tions on which he accepted the con side ratio n- 
money for the assignment to be, (1) that even if 
it should appear that there was no spark of assign- 
able interest remaining in the Company, the con- 
sideration-money should not be refundable ; (z) 
that he should execute an assignment of the Com- 
pany's claim against Mulji Kanji, such as it was 
with all its defects, there being no warranty or 
his part that the Company had any assignable 
interest, and that the assignment should contain 
the usual power for the plaintiff to 
Company's name in any proceeding he might 
be advised to adopt J and (3), that the plaintiff 
should indemnify the Company and the liquidator 

On the 4 1 st January 1879, the liquidatt 
cuted an assignment deed which recited the 
compromise, and that it was alleged on behalf 
of the plaintiff to be null and void, and the 
liquidator had consented to assign the Com. 
pany's claims against Mulji Kanji to th« 
plaintiff; and stated that the liquidator mi 
unwilling to embark in litigation at hit own risl 
when he entered into the above transaction with 
the plaintiff, and concluded with a covenant by 
17 



CHAMPERTY— could. 

the plaintiff to indemnify the liquidator against 
all costs. The liquidator did not make an allega- 
tion of fraud in respect of the compromise of 
Mulji Kanji's claim, nor did he verify the plaint 
which alleged fraud: — 

field, that according to the English law the 
al test in cases of this nature was whether 
the transaction was a doni fide purchase of the 
matter in dispute, or one for the purpose of 
intaining or proceeding With the litigation j 
and where such is the case, Courts of Law and 
Equity will treat the transaction as an infringe- 
ment of the laws against champerty and main- 
tenance, and as having neither validity between 
the parties thereto, nor conferring any right of 
action against third parties. And though the 
principles to be deduced from the decision of 
the Privy Council in Sam Coomar v. Ckunder 
Canto Mooierjee (L. Rep. 4 I. A. 46) and Che- 
dambara Chstty v. Ranga Krishna Naickar (L. 
Rep. I I. A. 341) are more elastic than the rules 
which are to be gathered from the English 
on the law of Maintenance and Cham- 
perty, and though it may be that some trans- 
actions, effected under special circumstances, 
albeit for the purpose of and with a view to 
litigation, may be supported in India — yet, the 
present was a case of a stranger officiously 
interfering for reasons of his own, and in no way 
at the request or even suggestion of the com- 
pany or liquidator, in a matter in which he had 
himself no connexion whatever, with the sole 
object of enabling himself to dispute transac- 
tions which occurred ten years ago, and in which 
independently of the assignment he had no 
interest whatever, the assignment being effected 
with a view to litigation by a person himself 
unwilling to litigate. A suit of such a nature 
and instituted under such circumstances fell 
within the class of cases which both the English 
law and the principles enunciated by the Judi- 
cial Committee alike forbid. Goculdas Jaomo- 
HADASV. LAKUtDAS Khimji. Sargent, J...L L. 

Bap. S Bom. 403, 1879. 

OHANQE IN FQBV OF BUTT. 

See Amendment of Plaint. 
See Land Tenures in Kaaara. 
See Suit for Confirmation of 
PoBaeesion. 



by Google 



( an ) 



DIGEST OP CASES. 



CHABGE— Amendment of— Sanction to pro. 

secute under { an, Penal Code, authorizes 

Charge under ( 192. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 

X. of 187S, f 143. 1. 

Empress g. Nipcha...L It. Rep. 

4 00,1. 712. 

—— Vagueness of — of False Evidence. 

Set Criminal 1'rocedure Code, Act 
X of 1873, , 471. 2. 
Reg. t. Baijoo Lall...I. L. Bep. 
1 Cal. 460. 

— Vagueness of—under i 217 of Penal Code. 

Set Charge. I. 

Ihfx. «. Baban Khan X. L> 

Bep. 3 Bom. 142. 

— Vagueness of — under {.{ 392 and 294 of 

Penal Code. 
See High Court Criminal Procedure 

Act X. of 1875, f 147.4. 
And see Charge. 9, 

Reg. v. Upbndronath Doss.... I. 
L. Bep. 1 Cal. 306. 

— Withdrawal of. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
Xofl878,f.910. 
In re Mi:sE,..X L. Rep. 3 Bom, 
653 

1. Vagueness of Charge,'] The accused 

was charged under ( 3i 7 of the Penal Code ; but 
the charge did not state distinctly what the 
direction of the law was, which he had disobeyed, 
or how he had disobeyed it. 

Held, that the charge did not give the accused 
the information which the law intended him to 
have of the particular offence, expressed cir- 
cumstantially, to which he was called upon to 
answer ; that the accused having been convicted 
on such charge so vaguely expressed, the prose- 
cution on appeal must be limited to the sense in 
which the charge was understood at the trial. 

Ihfx. «. Babah Khan I. L. Bep. S Bom. 

143. 

9.^— Penal Code, ff 292-294 — Specific 
Charge^ Semite — That a charge under f f. 292 
and 294 of the Penal Code should be made specific 
in regard to the representations and words alleged 
to have been exhibited, uttered, and to be ob- 
scene ; and the Court, in its decision of the matter, 
should state distinctly what were the particular 
representations and words which it finds on the 



CHARGE— contd. 

evidence the accused persons had exhibited and 
uttered, and which it adjudges to be obscene 
within the meaning of those sections. Reg. v. 
Upbndronath Doss. Phear and Markby, JJ....Z. 
L. Bep. 1 Cal. 856, 1876. 
S. C. under High Court Criminal Pro- 
cedure Act X of 1875, (. 147. 4. 
CHARGE OK LAND— Transfer of the 

See Covenant running with tho 
Land. 
Abadi Begums. Asa Ram. ..X. L. 
Bep. 8 AIL 189. 
CHARGES— Joinder of. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X Of 1879, ,482. 
Reg. v. Hanmanta...L L. Bep.l 
Bom. 810. 
CHABITABLE BE ftTJEST— Uncertainty— 
Void Request. 
See Hindu Law— Will. 3. 

Surbomuncola v. Mohendro- 

nath I L. Bep. 4 Cal. 

008. 
See Will. 7. 

DwARKAHATH *. BuRRODA PER- 

sauc.L L. Bep. 4 Cal. 448. 
CHABITABLE TBTJBT— Purchaser with 
Notice of. 
Set Hindu Law— Will. 10. 

MANIKLAL V. MANIKSHAH...X. L. 

Bep. 1 Bom. 380. 
CHARITY— Bequest to a— which has ceased 
to exist — Cy-pres. 
See Will. 11. 

Mayor of Lyons v. Advocate 

General of Bengal L. 

Bep. 8 I. A. 83 ; X. L. 
Bep. 1 Cal. 803. 
CHABITT PBOPEBTT-Alienation of, by 
Trustee. 
Set Breach of Trust. 

Maniklal «. Manikshah.,.1. L. 
Bep. 1 Bom, 368. 
CHARTER ACT. 

See Stat. 94 ft 30 Vict., C. 104, 
CHEATING — Compounding Offence of. 



Reg. b. Lakhu I. L. Bep. 1 

Bom. 108, n. 



D.gmzed by GoOgle 



( 



) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CHELA-— Right of— to Certificate to collect 
Debts due to Private Estate of Deceased 
ttohunt, to Exclusion of Guru-Mai. 
See Certificate to collect Debts. 4. 

DUKHARAH9. LUCHHUN I. L. 

Rep. 4 Col. 064. 
— — • Right of— to succeed to Guru. 

See Hindu Law— Inheritance— Sa- 
niasis. 

Madho Das b. Kamta Das I- 

L. Rep. 1 AIL 536. 
CHEQUE IN PAYMENT OF DEBT - 
Tender of— Costs. 
Bee Tender. 1. 

Boyle Chunu Singh ». Moulard. 
L L. Rep. 4 Cal. 572. 
CHILDLESS WIDOW— Daughter's Succes- 
sion by Survivorship not defeated by 
becoming a. 

Set Hindu Law — Inheritance— 
Daughters. 9. 
Aumirtoi.au. Bose n. Rajone- 

kant Miti'er L. Rep, 9 

I. A. 118. 
CHILDLESS WIDOWED INDIGENT 
DAUGHTER— RIGHT OF, TO IN- 
HERIT— Benares Law. 
See Hindu Law — Inheritance — 
Daughters. 3. 
Srimati Uma Devi v. Gokoola- 
NAND...L, Rep. 6 I. A. 40; 
I. L. Rep. 3 Cal. 687. 
CHILDLESS WIDOW OF PREDE- 
CEASED SON OF A FARSI IN- 
TESTATE. 
See Act XXI. of 1865, f 5. 

M. K. Davur v. Mithibai...I. L. 
Rep. 1 Bom. 80S. 
CHOSE IN ACTION— Assignment of. 

See Assignment of Chose in Ac- 
tion. 
Kakhaiva Lal t. Dohihgo...L 
L. Rep. 1 All 732. 
CIRCULAR ORDERS OF THE CAL- 
CUTTA HIGH COURT, Nos. 41 OF 
1808 (2nd OCTOBER) AND 25 OF 
1870 (96th AUGUST)— Power of Dis- 
trict Judge to interfere with an Order for 
Local Investigation. 

Sea Local Investigation. 

Nnton Kris h no Roy «. Wooma- 

hath Mookerjek...!. L.Rep. 

4CaL718. 



CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AOT TUX 
OF 1859-f a. 



— J 5 — Dwellings Residence. 

See Jurisdiction, 8. 

Fatiha Began ». SakiNa Begam . 
I. L. Bep. 1 AIL 61. 

— i 5— Redemption Suit— Lands situated in 

different Districts. 
See Jurisdiction. 4. 

Giedrariv. Sheoraj...!. L. Rep. 
1 AIL 481. 

— § 6-Act XXIII. of 1861, § 3 g-»« c rfia. 
neons Proceedings — Execution of Decree — Trans- 
fer.} The provisions of 5 6 of Act Vfll. of 1850 

extended to miscellaneous proceedings* and 
proceedingsin execution are"miscelIaneous pro- 
logs " within the meaning of that term in 
§ 38 of Act XXTII. of 1861. A District Court, 
therefore, is competent, under § 6 of Act Till. 
of 1859, and| 38 of Act XXIII. of 1861, to 
transfer to its own file proceedings in' execution 
of decree pending in a Court subordinate to it. 
Gva Pars had p. Bhup Singh.. .L L. Rep. 1 
AIL 180, 1876, F. R 

- 5 7 — Specially registered Simple Mortgage 

Bond— Money Decree on — Subsequent 
Suit to enforce Lien on Mortgaged pro- 
perty. 
See Res Judicata. 39. 

Doss Money Dossbb v. Jonhbn. 

joy Mlfllick...I. L. Rep. 3 

Oal. 8SS. 

- i 7 — Splitting Cause of Action— Separata 

Accounts of Tradesman. 
Sec Small Cause Court— Presi- 
dency Town. 4. 
Cassum v. Thakoor Lilladur... 
L L. Rep. S Bom. S70. 

1. , 7-— Spitting Cause of Action.] 

Section 7 of Act VIII. of 1S39 does not apply to 
i in which a. plaintiff, though entitled to 
1 more than one kind of relief in a suit, 
s to seek relief in respect of a portion of 
his claim in such suit, and seeks for the time 
le remedy only. 

Therefore, where the plaintiff in 1864 sued the 
defendant's father for a declaration of his rights 
on a deed of sale executed by him in the plain- 
tiffs favour, on the ground that the defendant's 



hy Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CIVIL FEQaKDOKK CODE, ACT VttL 

OF 180& -conld. 
father bad tailed to fulfil his promise to put him 
in possession, and obtained a decree declaring 
his right* i — 

Held, that a subsequent suit brought against 
the defendant to obtain possession of the land 
■old under the deed, and mesne profits, was not 
barred by § 7 of Act VIII. of 1859. TitlsiRam 
». GahqaRam. Turner and Span/tie, J]. ..I. L. 
Bap. 1 All. ana, 1876. 

3. ) 7-— Omission of Part of Claim— 

Withdrawal of Suit- Institution of Frtsk Suit 
including Part ef Claim omitted.'] Where the 
plaintiffs in a suit were permitted to withdraw the 
Hme with a view to bringing a fresh suit, which 
should include a portion which had been omitted 
before of the claim arising out of the cause of 
action, and such fresh suit was brought, the ad- 
ditional portion of the claim in that suit 
bUd not to be barred by f 7 of Act VIII. of 
1850. IlaHI Baksh e. Imam Baksh. Stuart, 

C}-, mi Pearson, J LXi.Rep.l All. 384, 

1876. 

8. — § J.— Relinquishing or Omitting tc 
tut for Portion of Claim— Fraud— Concealment.] 
S-, as one of the heirs of his brother M., sued the 
tons of it., the other heirs of At., for, amongst 
ether things, a declaration of his right to share 
In the rights and interests of It. as the mort. 
gagee under a deed of mortgage, which he valued 
at the amount of the principal sum advanced 
under the mortgage, via., Rs. 5,000, stating his 
cause of action to be the obstruction caused by 
the sons of M. to his sharing in it's estate. He 
obtained a decree declaring his title to the 
share claimed. S., one of the sons of IS., had 
fraudulently concealed from and kept S. in 
Ignorance of the fact that previously to the 
suit he had realized Rs. 8,624 under the mort. 
gage. On this fact coming to S.'s knowledge, 
be sued the sons of M., to recover bis share of 
that sum -.—Held, that this second suit 
barred by Act VIII. of 1850, ( 7. Bulwunt 
Singh v. Chittan Singh (H. C. Rep, N. W. P. 
1871, p. 27) followed. Lachhan Singh v. 
Sanwal Singh L * L. Rep. 1 All. 618. 

4. — I 7>— Relinquishing or Omitting to 
tut for Portion of Claim- Simultaneous Suits.'] 
The plaintiff instituted two suits at the sain 
time : one against J., lambardar, for profits of 
moruia for 1281 and 1283 Fasli, the other against 
y. and. another shareholder, B-, for a settlement 



CIVIL, PBOOSDTTKB COD*, ACT TUX 

OF 1866— tentd. 
of the account of the Sir- land held jointly by the ■ 
parties for isSi, 1282, and 1183, Fasli :— 

Held, that even assuming that the accounts 
of the Sir-land were included in the general 
of the profits of the village which the 
lambardar was liable to account for to the plain- 
to give in both suits the same cause of 
action to the plaintiff against J., the second suit 
would not necessarily be unmaintainable against 
B., and even as against J. the provisions of § 7 
of Act VIII. of 1859 would not bar such suit. The 
claims were divided for convenience of trial, but 
the plaints in the two suits were filed at the same 
:, and there was no relinquishment of a claim, 
not would there be any question of entertaining 
after such relinquishment or omission 
within the meaning of £ 7. If the Court in 
which the plaints were filed considered they 
iliould have been tried together, the proper 
course was to allow one of the plaint? to be 
amended, so as to combine both claims. Kale - 
shab Prasad v. Jagan Nath. Pearson and 

Oldfield, JJ I. L. Rep. 1 AIL 660, 1878. 

6. §7.— Splitting Cause of Action.] The 

plaintiff sued in the Court of the Munsiff of 
Sealdab for a certain sum due on a khatta.book ; 
and he also brought another suit in the Sealdah 
Small Cause Court for the balance of the price 
of grain sold by him to the defendant. The de- 
fendant in the Small Cause Court objected that 
instituted there could not proceed, inas- 
much as he bad given a hatckitta to the plaintiff 
which would show that the two accounts were 
not separate but one. The plaintiff then filed a 
supplemental plaint in the Munsiffs Court, en- 
hancing his claim by the amount sued for in the 
Small Cause Court. The defendant pleaded 
that the plaintiff having at first omitted to sua 
for this sum, could not include it in the present 

Held, that as the suit was originally bud, the 
causes of action were distinct, but whan the 
plaintiff sued on the hatckitta they became 
united, and therefore, as the suit was originally 
laid, there was no relinquish meat within the 
terms of f 7 of Act VIII. of 1859, and that the 
amendment of the plaint was rightly made. 
Mohummud Zakoor Alt Khan w. TtusMoorantt 
Rutta Koer (11 Moo. I. A. 68) followed. Rah 
Tuxrun KooNDoe>«. Hossein Birxs.fr. Uarkby 
and Prinset, }J.„L L. X«p- 8 Cart. 788 ; 8 
Cart. Rep. 886, 1878. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



( 197 ) DIGEST OF CASES. 

OXVTX PROCBDTJRE CODE, ACT VIII. OIVTX PROCEDURE CODB, ACT TUX. 

07 1869 —contd. OF 1858- -contd. 

6. 1 7.— SplitHngClauseafAe A«i.]",The 

plaintiff, on her husband's death, sued the de- 
fendant for a declaration of her title to succeed, 
as her husband's heir, to certain property, and 
for a declaration that the defendant was not the 
adopted son of her deceased husband. On ap- 
peal, the High Court held that she was entitled, 
for the protection of the property in her pos- 
session, to a decree that the defendant was not 
the adopted son of her deceased husband, and 
in respect of the property of which she 
in possession, (and for the possession of which she 
had not sued in that suit,) referred her 
for possession. The plaintiff then sued for 
possession -.—Held, that the suit was not barred 
by § 7 of Act VIII. of 1859. Dakbo e. Kesro 
Rai I. L. Sep. 3 AIL 866, 1870, P. D. 



(f 11, 12, 13— Transfer ofSuit. 

See Petition for Leave to sue ia 
forma. Pauperis. S. 
Skinner v. Orde...I.. Rep. 6 L A. 
138; I. L. Hop. 2 AIL 241, 

— , 13 — Suit for Land in Southal Parganas — 

Sanction of High Court. 
Bee Sonthal Parganas. 

Kaliprosad v- Meher Chundro .. 
I. L. Sep. 4 Cal. 223. 

i >5- 

Set the cases collected under Declara- 
tor 7 Decree. 
^— I »6, CI. 4 and 5— ffaint— Estate hearing 
Name — Boundaries.'] Taking CL 4 and 5 of 
( 36 of Act VIII. of 1850 together, when a whole 
estate bearing a name is sued for, the bounda. 
ries need not be given. Raudayal Khan b. 

Ajoodia Ram Khan L L. Bap. 2 Oal. 1. 

S. C under Amendment of Plaint. 3. 

— f 30— Return of Plaint 

See Jurisdiction. 19. 20. 

BAI MaKKOR v. BULAKHI...T, L. 

Rep. 1 Bom. 538. 
Kai.u v. Vjsh ram.. .Ibid. 543. 
13". 

iSwDuw for BeUgiona Services 



Tntu Krishnama Chakiar e. 

Kribhna Swani Tata Cha- 

aui„,Ik Bop. 61 A, 180. 



See OouTt Peea. S. 
Narayan t. Collector of Tanna... 

I. L.Rep. 2 Bom. 145. 

— ~™ 5 73 — Abatement of Appeal — Death of 
Appellant— Right of Purchaser to carry 
on Appeal 

See Abatement of Appeal— CiviL 



1. 

MoHESHWAR V. KUSHABA...I. Tj. 

Rep. 3 Bom. 248. 

, 73— Abuse— Defamation— Parties. 

See Parties to Bolt. 6. 

SUBHAIYYAR V. KrISHNAYYAR... 

1 1. Rop. 1 Mad. 388. 

i 73— Adding Parties. 

See Parties to Suit, 7. 

KOBGLEK O. PH0SS0NNO...I. Tj. 

Rep. 2 Oal. 473. 

H 9*-93— Suit for Specific Performance of 

Contract to. give in. Marriage — Interim 
Injunction to restrain Breach will not 
be granted. 
Sen Injunction. 1. 

Gunput N a rain Singh L L. 

Bep. 1 Cal. 74. 

i 102. 

See Abatement of Appeal— Civil. 1. 

MuEESHWAR V. KUSHHAHA...L L. 

Bep. 3 Bom. 848. 

f IIO— Failure of Plaintiff to pay Court Fee 
for Issue of Summons — N on- Appearance of Defen- 
dants— Dismissal of Suit— Fresh Suit.] Where 
the plaintiff failed to deposit the talabana required 
for the purpose of issuing summonses to certain 
persons whom it was proposed to make defend- 
ants in addition to the original defendants, 

id the Court on that ground irregularly dismiss- 
ed the suit as against such original defendants 
before the day fixed for the hearing of the case, 
by an order purporting to be made under , no 
of Act VIII. of 1859:— 

Held, that such order of dismissal did not pre- 
clude the plaintiff from instituting a fresh suit 
against the original defendants. Gulah Dai o. 
JlWAN RAM. Stuart, C.]., and Pearson, J. ..I. 

7* Bep. 8 AIL 318, 1878. 



by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



§ Iig— Judgment Ex-parte— Written State- 
ment rejected— Defendant's Pleader 
allowed to cross-examine Plaintiff's Wi 



Sen Judgment Ex-parte. 3. 

Raohapa n Pabapa..X L.Bep. 1 

Bom. S17. 

1 ( 1 1 9 — Right of Respondent to Appeal from 

Judgment ex-parte in Appeal. 
See Appeal— Civil. §. 

Kali Kishorb v. Dhunun;ov..,I. 
L. Bep. 3 Cal. 228. 

L (H9-— Judgment ex.pa.rte— Appeal.] 

The provisions of § lit) of Act VIII. of 1859, 
" that no appeal shall lie from a judgment pass- 
ed ex-parte against a defendant who has not 
appeared," must be understood to apply to the 
case of a defendant who has not appeared at all, 
and not to the case of a defendant who, having 
once appeared, fails to appear on a subsequent 
day to which the hearing of the cause has been 
adjourned. Zaik-ul- Aunts Khan e. Ahmad 
Raza Khah..,Z. L. Bep. 2 All. 67, 1678 ; L. 
Bop. 6 I. A. 233. 

8.— | itg^-Ex-ptite Decree— Rekearing 

granted after Expiration of Time limited for 
Application.] The plaintiff obtained an ex-parte 
decree on the 3rd July 1873, of which he took 
cut execution on the 9th August 1873. On the 
llth November 1873, tnc defendant applied for 
and obtained a rehearing under 5 119 'of Act 
VIII. of 1859. On the rehearing his suit was 
dismissed on the merits by both the lower 
Courts. On special appeal to the High Court: — 
Held, that, although § 119 provides that an 
order for rehearing shall be final, it is final only 
in the sense that the order by itself is not open 
to appeal, and that the plaintiff was not preclud- 
ed by that section, from raising, on special 
appeal, the objection that the order for rehear- 
ing was made after the time limited by that 
section, and therefore ought to be set aside as 
made without jurisdiction. Runglall Misser 
v. Tokhijn Misser. Ainsiie and Birch, JJ...I. 

L. Bep. 8 CaL 114, 1876. 
(H3. 

See Variance between Written 
Statement and Proof*. 
Chova Kara ». Isa Khalifa. 
L L. Sep. 1 Bom. 208. 



S> '39 and 141. 

Set Amendment of Plaint. 2. 

Ram Dayal «. Ajoodhia Rah... 
I. L. Bap. 2 Cal. 1. 

i JaB— Adjournment— Dismissal of Suit.] 

In a suit issues having been settled, the final 
hearing of the suit was adjourned to a fixed 
date for disposal. On that date the plaintiff did 

appear, and the suit was dismissed under 
§ 148 of Act VIII. of 1859 i— 

Held, that as this was not a case which had 

been adjourned in favour of either party to 

enable him to " produce his proofs or cause the 

idance of his witnesses," the order was not 

which could properly be made. Rvall *. 

Sherman. Morgan, C J., and Innes, J I. L. 

Bep. 1 Had. 287, 1877. 

5 170. 

See Be* Judicata. 17. 

Oram hove Daasu «. Kkisto 

MomjN...I. L. Bep. 3 CaL 

922. 

1 181. 

See Account. 2. 

Watson «. Aoa Mehedee She- 
RAZu...L.Bep. 111. 346. 
See Practice— Civil. 2. 

Seth Guj m i.'li. p. Musst. Chabeb. 
I. L. Bep. 2 L A, 84. 

— — | 194— Decree payable by Instalments — 

Discretion. 

See Decree payable bylnat&lmenta. 

1.8. 

Bindo Persad v. Madho Pbrsad. 

I. L. Bep. 2 AIL 128. 

Caryalhoii' NuRBtBi.,.1. Ii.Bep. 

8 Bom. 802. 

— § 194— Interest from Date of Suit— Award 

of— Discretion. 
See Interest. 7. 

Carvalhop. Nurbibi...!, L.Bep. 
3 Bom. 80S. 

§ 197— Suit for Possession— Decree- Appli- 
cation for Assessment of Mesne Profits — Order— 
Execution— Limitation.'] The plaintiff obtained, 
on the 31st January i860, a decree for posses- 
sion of certain property and mesne profits. Exe- 
cution was taken out in 1863, and possession 
obtained, and a portion «f the interest realized 
on the 6th March 1863. On the 3rd March 1866, 



by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. ( 242 ) 

CIVIL PBOOXDTJRB CODE, ACT VHL CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT VIII. 
OF laOO—codtd. 
daughter, who was of age, to reside in her house, 
but there was no evidence that there had been 
an; interference on the part of A. with the return 
of her daughter to her husband since the date of 
the decree: — Held, that something more must be 
shown than that A.'s daughter was permitted to 
reside wilh A. to justify the execution of the 
decree against her under the provisions of § 300 

Of Act VIII. Of 1859. AjNAS] KlJAR D. SUKAj 

PrASaij. Stuart, C. J., and Turner, J... I: X..Rep. 

1 AIL 601, 1877. 



the plaintiff applied to the Court to determine 
the amount due to him as mesne profits, 
question having been reserved, under | 197 of 
Act VIII. of 1859, in the original decree, 
inquiry having been held, the judgment-debtor 
(the defendant) objected to the assessment 
posed. These objections were disposed of by 
the first Court on the 29th of June 1869, and the 
order of that Court was confirmed on appeal on 
the 31st August 1871. On the 14th August 
1874, the plaintiff applied to the Court to realize 
the amount due to him as mesne profits, and 
the defendant objected that the application was 
out of time ;— 

Held, that when a decree is made under $ 197 
of Act VIII. of 1859, proceedings taken after thi 
original decree for possession for the purpose of 
determining the amount of mesne profits payable 
to the plaintiff, are in effect proceedings in 
tinuance of the original suit, and that until those 
proceedings are brought to a close and a decla- 
ration has been made as to the amount actually 
due, no decree for any specific sum can be said 
to exist. 

The wording of j 197 of Act VIII. of 1859 is 
perfectly consistent with the view, that where the 
inquiry as to the amount of mesne profits is 
reserved, the decree for the possession of land is 
only a partial decree in the suit, and that there is 
to be a further inquiry, and a further decree in 
respect of mesne profits- The words " for the exe- 
cation of the decree " refer only to the execu- 
tion of the decree for the land, and cannot refer 
to execution of that which has not yet taken the 
form of a decree. 

Muni. Fumettun v. Syvd Keramut Hcssrin (SI 
W. Rep. 24a) and Bunsn Singh v. Mima Nutuf 
AH Beg (ai W- Rep. 328) approved. Dildar 
Hoshink Mujebdunnusa. Ainslic and WU. 

son, JJ. I. L. Rep. 4 CaL 639, 1878. 

5 aoo. 

&r Kotfituti<m of Conjugal Rights. 
1. 

Yakunabai e. Pbndse I. L. 

Rap. 1. Bom. 164. 

— - § 300— Decree for the Performance afapar- 
tietdar Act — Execution of Decree.'] A., who had 
been directed by a decree to refrain from pre- 
venting her daughter returning to her husband 
after the date of the decree permitted her 



§ 301 — Arrest under Ex-parte I 
Judgment- Debtor possessed of Property — Malice 
—Want of Reasonable and Probable Cause. 
See Damages.;4. 

Raj Chl'nusr r. Skama Soon. 
dbri...I. L. Rep. 4 Cal. 688. 

i 307 — Application by Mooktisx on behalf 

of Judgment-Creditors. 

See Execution of Decree. 2. 

AHTO MlSREK V. BlDHOOHOOXHXB 

Da bee. I. L. Rep. 4 CaL 606. 

§ ioS* - Application by alleged Purchaser of 

Decree for Execution — Appeal. 

See Act 3CCIU. of 1861, g 1L 1. 

SOBHA BlBEIV. MlRIA SaKHAHUT 

Au„X L. Rep. 8 CaL 871. 
— i 308— Execution of Decree — Transferree 
of Decree— Question of Legitimacy of 
Son of Deceased Decree-holder — Juris- 
diction—Act XXIII. of 1861, J 11. 
See Execution of Decree. 9, 

Abkedoonissa t. Aubbroonissa... 

X>. Rep. 4 I. A. 66 ; I. L. 

Rep. 3 CaL 337. 

$ 208— Purchaser of Decree, Application 

by to execute — Appeal- 
See Appeal— Civil. 9. 

Runjit Singh b . Meherban Koer. 
L L. Rep. 3 Cal. 663. 
§ 308 — Execution of Decree — Transfer of 
Decree by Operation of Lav — Certificate to collect 
Debts— Act XXVII. of i860.] The obtaining of a 
certificate to collect debts, under Act XXVIL 
of i860, is not indispensable to the competency 
of an heir of a deceased person to apply for 
ition, under f 108 of Act VIII- of 1859, of a 
decree held by such deceased person- But it is 
open to tbe Court in the exercise of its discre- 



DigitizsdbyGOO^Ie 



( US ) DIGEST OF CASES. ( Hi ) 

Oini PROCEDURE CODE, AOT VOL OZVZL PROCEDURE OODE, ACT VHX 
OF 1888— amid. 07 1850— contd. 



tion, if there is any doubt that the person apply- 
ing fat execution, is entitled by inheritance to 
the rights decreed, to refuse the application 
until a certificate has been obtained. Karam 
Ali tr. Hauiia. Turner, CJ. (Offg.), and Pear, 
ton,] I. L. Rep. X AIL 686, 1878. 

— IS 2 3St 2 3^* 237— Attachment of Matikana 
Rights payable for ever. 
See Execution of Decree. 10. 

NlLKUNTOe. Ht'ERO SoONDERES... 

X. I* Rep. 3 Cal. 414. 

1. f 240.— Attachment of Land — Private 

Alienation after Attachment— Act VIII, of 1859, 
f z 35-j Certain land was, in execution of a decree 
ordered, by the Court executing the decree, to 
be attached. The written order required by 
4 335 of Act VIII. of 1859 issued, but it was not 
made known as directed by ( 339 of that Act. 
It was not fixed up at all in the Court-house of 
the Court executing the decree, nor was it sent 
to, or posted up in, the office of the Collector of 
the district in which the land was situated. 
Subsequently to this attachment the plaintiff 
purchased the land from the judgment-debtor ; — 
Held, that as the attachment had not been 
made known as required by law, the provisions of 
\ 340, Act VIII. of 1S59, did not apply, and that 
the sale was not Dull and void. Indra Chandra 
v. The Agra and Masterman's Bank (to W. Rep. 
364, S. C. 1 Beng. L. Rep. S. N. xx.) followed. 
Nur Ahmad r. Altaf Ali. Pearson and Turner, 
jj .....I. 1. Rep. 3 AIL 68, 1878. 

2. f 340. — Alienation of Property under 

Attachment.} The property in suit was at- 
tached in May 1871 in execution of a money- 
decree held by the defendant against A. In 
July 1S71, the execution case was struck off 
the file by the Court executing the decree. In 
August 1S73, the defendant again applied for 
execution of his decree by attachment and sale 
of the property. On the 13th of September 
1873, notice was issued to the judgment .debtor 
under f 316 of Act VIII. of 1850. On the 17th 
of September 1873 the judgment-debtor sold 
the property to the plaintiff, and on the a8th 
of November 1873 the Court ordered the pro- 
perty to be attached in execution of the defend- 
ant's decree against A. In a suit brought by 
the plaintiff to establish her right to the proper - 



Held, that the alienation to the plaintiff was) 
not void under the provisions of ( 340 of Act 
VIII. of 1859, as there was 00 subsisting nt. 
tachment of the property at the time of his pur- 
chase 1 and the object and intention of the 
orders in the former proceeding must be given 
effect to, which was the principle of tbe decision 
in Ahmud Hossein Khan v. Mahomed Ateem 
Khan (H. C. Rep. N. W. P., 1869, p. 51). Zaib. 
Nuba v. Jai rah Gir. SpanJde and Oldfield, 

Jj..... I. L.Kop. 1 All. 616,1878. 

I 343 — Power of Manager appointed by 

the Court. 

See Mortgage. 39. 

MOKAN t. MlTTRR BlBEE-.I. Xl. 

Rep. 3 Cal. 53. 

1. S 243- — Detre* on Mortgage — 

Manager.} Section 343 of Act VIII. of 1859 does 

not apply to a decree founded on a mortgage, 

when the decree declares that certain property is 

be sold in satisfaction of the mortgage debt. 

manager, therefore, cannot be appointed 

under j 343 in such a case. Wouda KbanUm e. 

Rajkoop Koeb. Ainslie and Kennedy, JJ...I. 

L. Rep. 8 CaL 336, 1877. 

— 4 246 — Order disallowing Claim to At. 

tached Property — Suit to set aside, and 
for Declaration of Title— Court Fees. 
See Court Fee*. 1. 

Gulzari Mai* Jadauh Rat. ..I, 
L. Rep. 9 All. 63. 

— S 346— Order Refusing to release from 

Attachment Property ordered to be sold 
in Execution— Suit to establish Title- 
Limitation. 
See lainitation. S3. 

Kovlash Chuhdbk v. Preonath. 

X X.. Rep. 4 CaL 610; 

8 CaL Rep. 98. 

S 346— Suit to Establish Right— Court 

Fees. 
Sec Court IToea. 11. 

Chuwia v. Ramdial..X Xi. Rep. 
1 AIL 360. 
L — § 346. — Adjudication of Right— 
Effect of -Limitation — Suit te establish Bight.'] 
The share of a judgment -debtor in certain land 
being attached in execution of a decree against 
him, one K. claiming the whole of the property 
attached, appeared as an objector under § 346 of 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT VHX 

OF 1858- -contd. 
Act VIII. of 1S59, but his claim was disallowed, 
and the property adjudged to be in the posses- 
sion of the judgment -debtor. The property 
was put up for sale and purchased by the plain- 
tiff. Subsequently, ff.'s alleged right in the 
whole of the same property was attached in 
execution of another decree and purchased at a 
Court sale by the defendants, who were put in 
possession. Neither P.. nor the defendants took 
any proceedings to set aside the order dismiss- 
ing R.'s claim under § 246 of Act VIII. of 1850. 
In a suit brought by the plaintiff four years after 
the date of that order to establish his right to 
the property as the auction purchaser thereof :— 
Meld by a majority of the full Bench, that 
when an inquiry has been duly held under ( I46 
of Act VIII. of 1859, and an order passed there- 
on, so long as the order remains unquestioned 
by the procedure directed by that Act, it is as 
final and conclusive on all persons who are par- 
ties to it, as any other final order or decree of a 
Court of Justice. Until it has been overruled in 
a regular suit, brought in virtue of the permission 
expressly given by the Code, no Court is at 
liberty afterwards to go behind the order and 
inquire whether the Court, which disallowed the 
objection, had correctly appreciated the evidence 
as to possession, or had come to the conclusion 
erroneously, that possession was with the judg- 
ment-debtor. The effect of the order cannot be 
affected by the propriety, or otherwise, of the de- 
cision at which the Court, which investigated the 
claim, arrived as to the factof possession. That 
order until reversed is conclusive of the right, 
ft, therefore, and the defendants having failed 
to prove the right of R. within the time allowed 
by , 246 of Act VIH. of 1859, such right < 

By Pearson, J.— The finding of the Court under 
S 246 of Act VIII. of 1859 is an adjudication of 
proprietary right on the basis of possession. 
The order which may be passed on such finding 
is declared not to be subject to appeal, and 
would not be contestable at all, but for the express 
permission given by the concluding words of 
that section, to the party against whom an order 
may be given, to bring a suit to establish his 
right. Those words show that the matter in dis- 
pute between the decree- holder and the claimant 
is not by reason of the finding and order under 
§ 346 so absolutely rtt judicata, as not to be 
IB 



CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT VUI. 

OF 1859-centd. 
open to re-adjudication in a suit by the party 
against whom the order was passed, to establish 
his right. But in the event of no such suit 
being brought, the matter in dispute must be 
held to have been finally disposed of by the find- 
ing and order under ( 246, and to be absolutely 
judicata. Badri Prasad ». Muhammad 
Yusitf I. L. Rep. 1 All. 381,1877. 

2. § 246. — Effrctof Order under —Suit 

toestablish Right — Limitation.] B. caused acer- 

dwel ling-house to be attached in execution 
of a decree held by him against M., as the pro- 
perty of M. y. preferred a claim to the property, 
which was disallowed by an order made under 
§ 24601 Act VIII. of 1859. Two days after the 
date of fueh order, M. satisfied B'a decree. 

! than a year after the date of this order, J. 
Sued B. and M. to establish her proprietary right 
to the dwelling-house, alleging that St. had 
fraudulently mortgaged it to B. 

Held, following Badri Prasad v. Muhammad 
Yusuf (I. L. Rep. I All. 381), that the suit was 
barred, no suit having been instituted by the 
plaintiff within one year from the date of the 
order under f 246, to establish her right, and it 
made no difference that the decree was settled 
after the order was made. Yaom e. Bhagwan 
Sahai. Spankit and OldJUld, }). ...L L. Rep. 
1 All. 641, 1878. 

8. f 246. — Judgment.Debtor—Limita- 

tion.] When the judgment-debtor is not made 
a party to a proceeding under | 246 of Act VIII. 
he is not bound by the law of limitation to sue to 
establish his right to the property within one 
year from an order made under that section 
releasing it from attachment. Imbichi Koya v. 
KakKUMAT UpPAKI. Morgan, C.J., and Innes, 

j L L. Rep. 1 Mad. 391,1878. 

— J 248— Land paying Revenue — Remission 

of Revenue for Term of Years. 
See Bale in Execution of Decree 8. 
Showers 11. Seth Gc-bind Dass .. 
I. L. Rep. 1 All. 400. 

— i 249 — Government Revenue — Error in 

Statement of— Waiver. 

See Bale in Execution of Decree. 18. 

Girohari.v Hurdeo L. Rep. 

3 I. A. 230. 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CIVIL PROCEDURE COBB, ACT VIH. CIV 11 PBOCEDUBE COSE, ACT VHX 
OP 1B88— ton Id. OF 1B09— contd. 



— — § 349 — Material Irregularity. 

See Sale in Execution of Decree, 11. 

Shib Prokash v. Sardar Doyal .. 

I. L. Bep. 3 Col. 044. 

— - f 349 — Postponing Sate — Fresh Proclama- 

See Sale in Execution of Decree. 6. 

Goopkit Nath e. Roy I.uchme- 

HJT..X L.Rop.SCal .542. 

S254- 

See Beeale in Execution of Decree. 
Anakdrav v. Shekh Bada ...I. L. 
Bep. 3 Bom. 563. 
— — § a 54 — Appeal from Order under. 
See Appeal— Civil. 17. 

Ram Dial*. Ram Dai I. L. 

Bep. 1 All 161. 

§5 *S°. 3S7- 

See Sale in Execution of Decree. 

ie. 

Ths Court of Wards *. Gaya 

Persad I. L. Rep. 3 All. 

107. 

§5 256, 257— Act XXIII. 0/1861, § U— Auc- 
tion Sale, Order cancelling—Suit to set aside."] A 
Munsiff having cancelled an auction sale of 
lands on the sole objection of the judgment- 
debtor that the property realized a low price, 
and the Judge having dismissed an appeal by 
the auction purchaser against such order, 01 
ground that though the Munsiff's order 
invalid, yet inasmuch as it was passed u 
f 11 of Act XXII I. of 1 56i, and not under ( 257 
of Act VIII. of 1859, under which the Munsiff 
assumed to act, no appeal would lie on the part 
of an auction purchaser who was no party t 

Held, that such order passed by the Munsiff 
was not a proceeding under ( II of Act XXIII. 
of 1861, but was an order passed ultra vires un- 
der § 257 of Act VIII. of 1859, and that a suit 
would lie for its cancelment, the finality of an 
order under §{j 256, 257 of Act VIII. of 1859 
depending on its compliance with the terms 
of those sections. Sukhai -<j. Daryal. Spankie 

and QUfitid, JJ L L. Bep. 1 All. 374, 

1877, 



See Sale in Execution of Decree. 3. 

Ghazi «. Kadir Baksk..... I. L. 

Bep. 1 All. 313. 



See Sheriff'*: Sale. 4. 

Bbjanji v, Hormasji...L L. Bep. 
3 Bom. 268. 

L— — J 260.— Suit by a Certified Purchaser.] 
Section 260 of Act VIII. of 1S59 must be con- 
strued strictly and literally, and is applicable 
only to > suit brought against the certified 'pur- 
chaser to assert the benamee title against him ; 
and the real owner for whom the purchase is 
made, if in possession, and if tbat possession 
has been honestly obtained, may defend a suit 
brought by the holder of the certificate, and show 
that he was the apparent owner only, and a mere 
trustee. Lokhee Narain Rov Chowdry 0. 
Kalyfuddo Bakdopadhya ..L. Bep. 2 I. A. 
154 ; 23 W. B. 368, 1876. 

3. fioO.— Execution of Decree— Certified 

Purchaser.] A. sued for a declaration that P., 
the certified auction purchaser of certain im- 
movable property, was merely a trustee for R., 
A.'s judgment. deb tor, that the purchase in P.'s 
name was made with the intent of defeating or 
delaying him in the execution of his decree, and 
tbat he was at liberty to apply for execution 
against the property ai the property of his 
judgment -debtor : — 

Held, following SohuH tail v. Gya Parshad 
(H. C. Rep. N. W. P., 1S74, p. 265), that ( 260 
of Act VIII. of 1S59 was in no way a bar to the 
suit. Puran Mal o. Au Khan. Turner and 

Spankie, JJ I. L. Bep. 1 AIL 336, 1876. 

3. i 260.— Certified Purchaser.] Section 

260 of Act VIII. of 1S59 must be construed 
literally and applied strictly. The Court will 
not apply it so as to assist the certified purchaser 
to enforce his claim against the party in posses- 
sion, by relieving him from the necessity of 
showing the justice of his claim, or excluding 
inquiry as to its fraudulent character. 

In a suit brought by the certified purchaser at 
an execution sale, to establish his right to the 
property and for possession :— 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CUm PSOCEDUBH CODE, ACT VUL 

OF IS&Q—coHid. 
Held, that the defendant was not precluded by 
| 260 of Act VIII. of 1859 from showing that he 
was the actual purchaser of the property. Jan 
Muhammad *. Ilahi Raksh. Stuart, C.J., and 
OUfistd, J L L. Kep. 1 AIL 890, 1676. 

■ | 269— Dispossession of Third Person under 

Execution Sale — Obstruction to Purcha- 
se Sale in Execution of Decree. IS. 
Hakasatdollah v. Brojonath 

Ghose I. L. Kep. 3 CaL 

789 

I 269— Possession— Undivided Hindu Fa- 
mily—Sale of Interest of one Coparcener.'] When 
the defendant is in possession in virtue of an 
Older under §269 of Act VIII. of 1859, the 
plaintiff can only succeed on the strength of 
faia own title. 

K. and R., two out of five undivided Hindu 
brothers, sued V., a purchaser at an execution 
sale of the interest of one of the brothers other 
than K. and R., for the recovery of certain 
which V. had obtained possession of under j 269 
of Act VIII. of 1859. The lower Courts awarded 
two-fifths of the land to K. and R., as being the 
amount of their share in the land. 

Held, that the decree could not be maintained 
as K. and R., being two of several coparceny 
undivided property, could not say that they 
entitled to a specific share in any portion of that 
property. They might have sued for a ge 
partition, or for a decree declaring them entitled 
to possession jointly with V. 

Such possession decreed, following Babaji b. 
Tasadev (I. L. Rep. t Bom. 95). 

A purchaser at a Court's sale ought not to be 
put in exclusive possession of the whole undi- 
vided land by virtue of a decree against one 
coparcener only. Kalapa Girmallapa v. Ven- 
KATESH Vihavak. Mefoill and Kembalt, JJ ..I. 
L. Rep. 9 Bom. 670, 1678, 

5 270. 

Set Executio n of Decree. 7. 

Narandas v Bai M*nchha,.X 
L. Bep. 3 Bom. 317. 

5*71- 

See Sale In Execution of Decree. 14' 

Manik Singh v, Paras Ram ...I 

L. Seii. 1 All. 737. 



CIVIL PBOCBDUBE CODE, ACT VHT. 

op laoe-contd. 

51 270 and 271— First end Subsequent 

Mortgagees— Rateable Distribution of Sale Pro- 
ceeds.] The purport of §§ 270 and 271 of Act 
VIII. of 1859 (with which § 295 of Act X. of 
1877 corresponds) is not to alter or limit the 
rights of parties arising out of a contract 
but simply to determine questions between 
rival decree-holders standing on the same foot. 
and in respect of whom there is no rule for 
wise determining the mode in which pro- 
ceeds of property sold in execution shall be 
distributed. HasoonArra Begun v. Jawadoo- 
nissa Satooda Khandan ...I. L. Bep. 4 CaL 
89. 
J 285 — Application under — is an Applica- 
tion to enforce or keep in force a Decree- 
See Limitation. 77. 

HUSSAIH BAKSH V M ADGK...I. L, 

Kep. 1 AIL 636. 

§§ 285, 286— Power of Court to which 

Decree transferred for Execution to give 
Certificate under. 

See Execution of Decree. 13. 

Shib Naratn 0. Bspin Behari... 
I. I* Bep. 8 Cal. 613. 

5287- 

See Execution of Decree. 84. 

Jagjivan Nanabhoy...!. L. Kep. 
1 Bom. 88. 

1 299 — Unsuccessful Application for Leave 

to sue in fortni, Pauperis not a Demand 
by Way of Action. 

See Mahomedan Law— Dower. 1. 
Ranee Khajooroonissa v. Ranee 
Rveesoonissa...L. Bep. 3 
I. A. 386, 

5 308— Unsuccessful Application for Leave 

to sue in formd Pauperis not a Demand 
by Way of Action. 
See Hahomedan Law— Dower. 1. 
Ranee Khajooroonissa -b. Ranee 
RVEES00NISSA...L. Bep. 3 I. 
A. 88ft. 
Si 308-310— Petition to sue in formd Pau- 
peris is a Plaint from the Date on which 
it is filed, though Court Fees subsequent- 
ly paid, if no Fraud of Plaintiff. 
See Petition tor Leave to ana ia 
forma Pauperis. 9. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



( 261 ) DIGEST OF CASES- ( 262 ) 

CIVIL PROCKDTJRE CODE, ACT VUL CIVIL PBOCEDTJBE COSE, ACT Tin. 
OF 1859—™;,/. OF 1869— conld. 



Skinner v. Ordb...L. Bep. € I. 

A. 126 ; I. L. Bep. 2 AIL 

341. 

See Chunder Mohun Roy v. Bhubon 

Mohihi Dabea...I. L. Bep. 

2 CaL 339. 

Under Limitation. 37. 



Prerogative al Crown. 
See Prerogative- of the Crown. 

Collector of Morodabad*. Mu- 

hamad Daiu Khan. ..I. It. 

Bep. 3 All. 196. 

1. t 3°°- Court Fees—Prerogative of the 

Crown.] The Crown has the first claim to 
proceeds of a pauper suit, to the extent of the 
■mount of the Court fees that would have been 
payable at the institution of the suit, had the 
plaintiff not been a pauper. 

Section 309 of Act VIII. of 1859 does not 
preclude the Crown, orits representative, from 
urging its prerogative, and insisting on its right 
of precedence. It is a universal rule that pre- 
rogative, and the advantages it affords, cannot be 
taken away except by the consent of the Crown, 
embodied in a statute. This rule of interpreta- 
tion is well established, and applies not only to 
Statutes passed by the British, but also to Acts 
of the Indian Legislature- G an pat Putaya v. 
The Collector of Kahara. West and JV. 

Harridas, J] I. L. Bep. I Bom. 7, 1876. 

3. S 3°9- Ptuper Suit— Court Feet— 

Attachment in Execution of Decree— Prerogative 
of the Crown.] The plaintiff was allowed ti 
the defendants in formA pauperis. His suit 
dismissed, and on appeal, the decree of the 
Court of first instance was confirmed with c 
The defendants applied to recover, in execi 
of these decrees, the costs incurred by them, and 
certain houses belonging to the plaintiff 
accordingly attached, and sold : — 

Held, that the Crown was entitled to be paid 
first out of the proceeds of such sale the arm 
of the Court fees which the plaintiff would have 
had to pay if he had not been allowed to sue 
formA pauperis. The principle of the ruling in 
Gvnput Putaya v. The Collector of Kanara (I. L. 
Rep. 1 Bom. 7) followed. Gulzari Lai, v- The 
Collector op Bareillt. Pearson and Spankie, 
JJ L L. Bep. 1 All. 696,1878. 



S% 323, 32*— Remission of Award not Ille- 
gal on its Face, for Reconsideration with 
reference to Opinions of Pandits as to 
Hindu Law applicable. 
See Arbitration. 8. 

KanakCuand v. Ram Narrayan. 
I. L. Bep. 3 All. 181. 

1 32S— Refusal to confirm Award— Appeal. 

See Appeal— Civil. 34. 

Howard v. Wilson... I. L. Bep. 
4 CaL 331. 

((325-327 — Validity and Finality of Award 

See Arbitration. 4. 

Boon] An Nathoo v. Nathoo 

Shahoo-.I. L. Bep. 8 Cal. 

876. 



See Suit for Land. 3. 

Kblmev. Fraskr...L L. Bep. 2 
Cal. 446. 

i 337— Award, Judgment according to— 

See Arbitration. 8. 

Vishnu v. Ravji I. L. Bep. 8 

Bom. 16. 

Denial of Arbitration Proceedings. 

See Arbitration. 6. 

Hussain v. Mohihi. ..I. L. Bep. 1 
AIL 166. 

Misconduct of Arbitrators. 

See Arbitration. 7. 

Chowdhrv Murtvza v. Musst. 



Bibi.. 



..L. B. 3 I. A. 209. 



f 337— Decree on Appeal.) The Court of 

appeal has power, under ( 337 of Act VIII. of 
1859 (corresponding with | 544 of Act X. of 1877) 
to draw up what would be a fair decree as re- 
gards all the parties to a suit, though some of 
them may not have appealed. Joykisto Cowak 
v. NITTY AHUND NunDv. Garth, C.J., Maribyind 
Hitter, JJ...I. L. Bep. 8 CaL 738 ; 3 CaL 
Bep. 440, 1878. 
S. C. under Hindu Law— Ancestral 
Trade. 



D.gmzed by GoOgle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



S338. 

See Stay of Execution. 

Ik the mailer of the Petition of 

Harshankar Parsad I. Ii. 

Bap. 1. All. 178. 
S« Sureties. 

ArpAji *, Shivlal ...I. L. Rsp, 
8 Bom. 304. 

■ { 338 — Stay of Execution pending Appeal~ 

Sureties— Extent of Liability ] 5. obtained a 
decree against B. in the Court of the Subordi- 
nate Judge of Poona. B. appealed to the Dis- 
trict Court, and pending such appeal S. applied 
for execution. B. prayed for its stay, and 
execution was accordingly stayed, upon A. and 
V. becoming securities, under f 338 of Act 
VIII. of 1S5.9, " for the due performance of the 
decree or order of the Appellate Court," and 
executing a bond whereby they bound them. 
selves to " obey and fulfil all such orders and 
decrees as might be given against the said 4 
fendant B. in such appeal," and in default of 
so doing, "to pay jointly and severally, at t 
order of the said Court, all such sums as the said 
Court should, to the extent of Rs. 812-8-0, 
adjudge" against them. The decree of the 
Subordinate Judge was reversed in appeal, but 
in special appeal the decree of the lower Appel- 
late Court was reversed, and the cause remanded 
for further trial, which resulted in the District 
Court confirming the original decree of the Sub- 
ordinate Judge : — Held {Pinkey, J, diss.}, that 
the obligation of the sureties to fulfil the decree 
of the Appellate Court was not confined to the 
first decree of that Court, which reversed the 
decree of the Subordinate Judge on which exe- 
cution had been applied for, but extended to 
the final decree which it passed on remand by 
the High Court in special appeal. ShivlalL 
Khusch asd «. Afpaji B hivrao. Remball and 
Pinkey, JJ I. 1. Rep. 3 Bom. 064, 187S. 

■— i 343— Security for Costs— Enforcing Bond 
against Surety in Execution proceedings. 
Set Security Bond. 

ChutterdharbeLals. Raubela- 

shbe Koeh...I. L Bop. 8 Cal. 

818. 

— $34*. 

See Pauper Respondent. 

Babaji v. Ballal ... I. L. Bap. 1 
Bom. 75. 



i 35° — Error not affecting Merits — Impro- 
per Admission of Unstamped Document 
See Error not affecting the Merita. 
Afzal-un Nissa v. Tbj Bah ...L 
L. Bop. 1 All. 730. 

f 354— Hemand— Objections.'] Where an 

Appellate Court under 5 354 of Act VIII. of 
1859, refers issues to a lower Court for trial, and 
fixes a time within which, after the return of 
the finding, either party to the appeal may file a 
memorandum of objections to the same, neither 
party is entitled without the leave of the Court, 
to take any objection to the finding, either oral. 
ly or otherwise, after the expiry of the period so 
fixed, without his having filed such memoran- 
dum. Ratan Singh 11. Wazir ..I. L. Rep. 1 
AIL 186, 1876, F. B. 

i 364— Application for Execution of Decree 

by alleged Purchaser. 

See Act XXIII. Of 1861, ( 11. 1. 

SoBHA BlBBE V. MlRZA SaKHAKIJT 

Ali...I. L. Rep. 3CaLS71. 

S5 3^7 *o 37' — Continuation in formd 

Pauperis of Suit commenced in ordinary 

See Suit in forma Pauperis. 

Nirmul Chandra v. DOYAL Nath. 
I. L. Rep. 3 Cal. ISO. 

§ 372— Special Appeal in Rent Suit under 

Rs. 100. 
Set Appeal— Civil. 83. 

LUNGESSUR KOOEH V. SOOKHA 

Ojua I. L. Rep. 3 Cal. 

161. 
— -SS 37610378. 

See the cases collected under Review. 

And see Practice- Privy Council. 8. 

Meer Reeasut v- Hadjee Ab- 

doollah L. Rep. 1 1. A. 

73. 

§ 386— District— Sou thai Parganas. 

See Sonthal Farganas. 

Kaliproshad Rai «. Mbhrr 

Chandro Roy... I. L. Rep. 

4 Cal. 333. 

CIVIL FROCEDTJRE CODE, ACT X OF 

1877—1 a—" Decree"— Order passed in 

Execution — A ppeal . 

See Appeal— Civil. ;36. 

Thakur Prasad t.Ahsan Ali... 
I. L. Rap. 1 All. 668, 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



( SIC ) DIGEST OF CASES. { 160 ) 

CI V IL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT X. OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT X. OF 
1877— tonW. 1877— contd. 



— i 2—" Decree"— Order in Executi 

Sa Appeal— Civil. 23. 

MURLI Dhar v 

I. L. Rep. 9 All. 91. 

■ § % — " Decree" — Order in Execution of 

Decree — A ppeal . 

See Appeal-Civil. 98. 

. Uda Began «■ Imam-ud-din . L 
L. Rap. 9 AIL 74. 
•— S 1 — " Decree" — Order of Reference to 
Commissioner for taking Accounts. 
Set § 8, pott. 

Rusrouji «. Kessowji I. L. 

Rep. 8 Bom. 161. 

— ■■- S 3 — Decree — Order rejecting Petition for 

Leave to sue as Pauper. 
Set Appeal— Civil. 18. 

Collis «■ Mahohar Das.. I. L. 
Rep. 1 All. 740. 

i J 2 — Decree — Order refusing to set aside 
Ex-partt Decree. 
See Appeal— Civil. 2. 10. 

Guua Singh ». Lac km ah Das... 
I. L. Rep. 1 All. 748. 

Lll KM I DAS V. EBRAHIH ..I. L. 

Rep. 9 Bom. 644. 

— | a Judicial Proceeding.'] In the defini- 
tion of the term " decree " in § 3 of the Civil 
Procedure Code (Act X of 1877), the expression 
" suit or other judicial proceeding " must be 
understood to mean a suit, or other judicial pro- 
ceeding of the same nature as a suit. The 
definition limits the term " decree " to a " formal 
order in which the result of the decision is em- 
bodied," and this indicates that it applies only 
to those orders which the law requires to be 
drawn up after a decision has been recorded in 
a particular formal manner, i.e., to those orders, 
or their like, which are described as decrees, and 
of which the form is given in 4 3o6 of the 
Code; e.g., orders under ff 333, 533, 536, and 
531. Dalfatbai Bhagubhai v, Amarsang 
Khemabai. Melvill and Kemball, JJ 1 L. 

Rep. 9. Bom. 558, 1878. 

*3- 

See Appeal— Civil. 96. 38. 

Thakur Prasad «. Ahsan AlJ .. 

I. L. Rep. I All. 668. 

Uda Bsgam v. 1mam-ud~din...I. 

L. Bop. 9 All. 74. 



- 5 3—" Decree." 

See Appeal-Civil. 9. 

Runjit Singh v. Meherban Koer 
I. L. Hep. 8 OaL 662.' 

S 3— Practice and Procedure in Suits pend- 

ig at the date of the Enactment of Act .AT. 0/1877 
-Power of Commissoner for taking accounts to 
grant Certificates— Appeal from Decision ofCom- 
Issioner—Decrce.] The effect of the proviso 
5 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (Act X. of 
1S77) taken in connection with the definition of 
the word " decree " in f 3 is, that, in all pending 
"uits down to their final result, i.e., when nothing 
■emsinj to be done but to execute the decree or 
to appeal from it, the practice and procedure 
which would have been followed apart from the 
Code, are to be observed ; but that for pur- 
poses of all subsequent proceedings in execution 
of the decree, or in appeal from it, the new Code 
1 to apply. 

The word " decree " in { 3 oftbat Code means 
decree final in its nature, and not an order of an 
interlocutory nature, such as an order of refer- 
fice to take accounts, though such an order in 
. general way may be properly termed a decree, 
>nd, therefore, a suit which has been referred by 
the Court to the Commissioner to take accounts 
is still in a stage " prior to decree" within the 
meaning of § 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (Act 
X. of 1B77). Rustouji Burjorji v. Kessowji 

Naik. Green,] I. L. Rep. 8 Bom. 161, 

1878, 
S. C. under Account*. 8. 

I 5 — Jurisdiction — Insolvency — Small 

Cause Court.} The effect of § J of the Civil 
Procedure Code (Act X. of 1877), coupled with 
the 2nd Schedule to that Act, is to render the 
whole of Chapter XX. of the Code, including 
( 360, Inapplicable to Courts of Small Causes in 
the Mofussil, notwithstanding the words " any 
Court other than a District Court," and " any 
late in his district," which occur in 
Ion. Consequently, the Government 
Resolution, No. 3133, of 3rd April 1878, invest- 
ing the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at 
Ahmedabad with powers, under the said chapter, 
adjudicate in insolvency matters, is ultra 
vires and invalid. Sallu Ganebh v Ranchod 
Kahahdas. Westrepp, C.J, and Kimball, J... 
I. L. Rep. 2 Bom. 641, 1878. 



Diarized by Google 



{ m ) DIGEST OF CASES. ( 2K ) 

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AOT X. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT X OF 

OP 1877— contd. 1877— coatd. 



- S 13— Former Judgments and Decrees. 

. See Evidence. 1. 

NARANJI BHiKUBHAI t!. Dip* UhBD. 

I. L. Rop. 3 Bom. 8. 



-138. 



See Misjoinder of Causes of Action. 

JANOKINATH*. RAM RUNJUN...L L. 

Rep. 4 Cal. 949. 

f an— Section 29 of the Civil Procedure 

Code (ActX. of 1S77) permits the joinder of the 
Drawer and Acceptor of a bill of exchange in a 
suit by '.lie holder. Psstonjbb Eduljee Guz. 
duke- Mihza Mahomed Allv. Pontifex, J.... 
I. L. Rep. 8 Cal. 541, 1S78. 

1 31. 

See Misjoinder of Gauges of Action. 

Janokinath v. Ramkitnjln ...I. L. 

Rep. 4 CaL 949. 

— is*. 

Set Appeal— Civil 32. 

Gopal Singh v. Dular Kuar ..I. 
L. Rep. 2 AIL 352- 

1. i 3a. — Practice — Joinder of Parties.'] 

The defendants purchased from one P. E. a 
cargo of rice at Chandbally of three dtfferenf 
qualities according to sample. The defendant! 
then telegraphed to the plaintiff an offer to sell 
biro a cargo of rice at Chandbally by descrip- 
tion ; and that offer was accepted by telegrar 
The defendants afterwards Bent the plaint 
samples of the rice comprised in the cargo 
which were not objected to by the plai 
differing from the description under whi 
rice had been sold by telegram ; but 
arrival of the cargo the plaintiff complained that 
the bulk did not correspond with the sample, 
and instituted a suit for damages on that ground 
against the defendants. On an application by 
the defendants, under § 32 of the Civil Proce- 
dure Code (Act X. of 1S77), to add their vendor, 
P. £., as a defendant to the suit;— Held, refusing 
the application, that though it would be a great 
saving of expense and would prevent further 
litigation if P. E. were added as a party, yet that 
the language of § 33 did not apply to the case; 
as the Court could not say that the plaintiff 
ought to have joined P. E. as a defendant, or 
that P. E.'s presence was necessary to enable 
the Court effectually and completely to adjudi. 
cate, and settle the question involved in the suit 



between the plaintiff and defendants. Ma- 

HOMED BADSHA «, NlCOL, FLEMING Si Co. Ponti- 

/m,J...I.L. Rep.4C«J. 306; 3 Cal. Rap. 
830, 1878. 

*■ S &.— Adding Parties -Suit by one 

0/ two Mortgagees, Lessors, for Rent—Act XVIII. 
"/ '873, $ jo6.] B. and JV., joint mortgagees 
of the shares of the defendants in an undivided 
granted the mortgagors a lease of the 
property, by the terms of which the mortgagors 
were to pay the mortgagees! certain half-yearly 
rent on account of the right they held in equal 
shares, and it was provided that in case of de- 
fault the mortgagees might bring a suit and 
realize the amount due. Default having been 
made in the payment of rent, and N. having re- 
fused to join in a suit against the mortgagors to 
recover it, B. sued them alone, for a moiety of 
the rent due. The Revenue Court of first in- 
stance dismissed the suit, on the ground that B- 
could not sue alone. On appeal, the Judge 
considering that, as B. could get no redress 
unless the Court exercised its power under f 32 
of Act X. of 1877, remanded the case in order 
that the plaint might be amended by adding JV. 
as a defendant :-— 

Held, that such order was not illegal, though 
the provisions of § 3a of Act X of 1877 were 
not made applicable to the procedure of the 
Revenue Courts. Per SpanUt, J., that if §106 
of Act XVIII. of 1873 applied to the case, the 
plaintiff should be instructed to sue for the 
:ire share due, making the co-mortgagee a 
defendant ; but that that section did not in 
any way operate as a bar to the suit. The pro- 
perty referred to in that section is an undivided 
landed estate, and the co-sharer is the co-sharer 
in that estate, which was still the property of 
:he mortgagors. And though the mortgagee 
-cpresented the mortgagor* as being in tem- 
porary proprietary possession of the property, 
it was not in the character of a co-sharer in 
undivided property that the plaintiff brought 
; suit. The terms of the lease showed that 
the equal shares of the mortgagees in the mort- 
1 recognized by the mortgagors; and 
there was a recognition by the lessees that, 
under the terms of the mortgage deed, the 
plaintiff was entitled to half the sum payable 
under the lease, and on that account the plain- 
entitled to sue for his share of it, 



DiQitized by GOOgle 



( 269 ) DIGEST OF CASES. ( 260 ) 

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT X. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT X. OF 
OP 1877— eantd. l&77—contd. 



though it might be more strictly regular that 
he should sue for the whole sum due, making 
his co-mortgagee a defendant, Shib GopALe- 

Baldeo Sahai. Pearson and Spankie, JJ I. 

L. Hep. 2 All. £61, 1879. 

§45- 

See misjoinder of Causes of Action. 

JiNOKINATH if. Ra MR UN] UN... I. 

L. Rep. 4 Cal. 049. 

( 57, CI. c. — Appeal from Order — Return- 

ing Plaint after Issues filed. 
See Appeal- -Civil. 23. 

Abdul Samad o- Rajindro Ki- 

3hor Singh... I. L. Hep. 2 

All. 357. 

5 83— Substituted Service of Summons- 
Setting aside Ex. parte Decree.] Substituted 

by § 83 of the Civil Procedure Code (Act X. of 
1877) as effectual as personal service, merely 
for proceeding with the suit, and nothing more. 
The section does not make service on a defend- 
ant's house in Bombay equivalent 10 personal 
service on tbat date. When substituted service 
of the summons is ordered, under } 82 of the 
Code, a sufficient time must be allowed, under 
I 84 for notice of the fact to reach the defend- 
ant, wherever he may be ; and if an ex-parte 
decree be obtained by the plaintiff, the Court, 
on being satisfied that the time fixed was insuf- 
ficient, will set aside the decree. Mirza Ali 

BeBANEE 1. SVED HVDBR HOSSEIH. Pinhey,]... 

L L. Rep. 2 Bom. 449, 1878. 

— { in — Set-off — Unliquidated Damages 

cannot be. 
See Bet-oft 2. 

Rac.hu Nath v. Askraf Husaih. 
I. L. Rep. 3 AIL 263. 

5 '3° — Discretion to refuse Inspection — 

Privileged Communications. 
See Inspection. 2. 

Wallace & Co. «. Jefferson... 
I. L. Rep. 2 Bom. 403. 

( 303 — Heir Representative — Deceased 

Mahomedan — Absentee Heir — Consent 
Decree— Sale in Execution. 
5m Mahomedan Law. 1. 

ASSAHATHEH NESSA v. ROV LuTCH- 

meput, I. L. Rep. 4 Cal. 

142. 



f 306— Decree— what it should contain. 

See Decree. 

Thahhah Singh v. Gahqa Rau. 
I. L. Rep. 2 All. 342. 
Harsukho-Mbghraj.. .Ibid. 346. 
f 310. 

See Decree payable by Instal- 
ments. 1. 
Binda Prasad d. Madho Prasad. 
I. X.. Hep. 2 All. 129- 

§JIO — Suit en Bond charging Immoveable 

Property— Decree payable by Instalments.] The 
provisions of § 210 of Act X. of 1E77 are not 
applicable to a suit for the recovery of the 
amount of a bond debt by the sale of the pro- 
perty hypothecated by such bond. 

In such a suit, therefore, the Court cannot 

direct that the amount of the decree should be 

payable by instalments. Hurdeo Das v. 

Hijk.au Singh. Stuart, C. J. and Pearson,].. X 

L. Rep. 2 All. 890, 1878. 

f 2*3— Court of Small Causes— Act X. of 

1877, ,648,] Section 223 of the Civil Procedure 
Code does not apply to Courts of Small Causes. 
.Section 648 of the same Code does not apply to 
case in which the defendant resides within tbe 
same district in which the Court issuing the 

Therefore, a Court of Small Causes may 

issue a warrant for the arrest of a person resid- 
ing in another district, but not if he resides 
within the same district in which the Court is 

situated, but without its local jurisdiction. 
Chunilal Sobharau v. Parbhudas Kursan- 
das. • SfelvilUnd Jtemball, JJ I. L. Rep. 2 

Bom. 060,1878. 

S230. 

See Application for Execution of a 

Byraddi Subbaredi o Dasappa 

Rau I. L. Rep. 1 Had. 

408. 

1, I 230— Execution of Decree—" Last 

Preceding Application."] Held, that the words 
" last preceding application" in the 3rd clause of 
(230 of Act X. of 1S77, mean an application 
under that section, and not an application under 
Act VIII. of 1859. Ram Kishen «. Sedhu. 
Sfankie and Oldfitld, JJ X, L. Rep. 2 AIL 

275, 1879. 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



2. %3Tfi.—Executionof Decree— Limita. 

Hon.} The concluding clause off 230 of Act X. 
of 1877 refers to the question of limitation, and 
not to that of diligence. Where, therefore, the 
decree-holder had not on the last preceding 
application under § 230 of Act X. of 1877 used 
due diligence to procure complete satisfaction of 
the decree, and Act X. of 1877 bad not been in 
force three years; — 

Held, that the provisions of the third clause of 
§ 230 of Act X. of 1877 were applicable to a 
subsequent application under that section. So- 
ihan Lal jr. Karim Baksh. Pearson and 
Spankie,]] .....L L. Rep. 2 AIL 381, 1878. 

§ 244 — Execution of Decree — Appeal. 

See Appeal— Civil. 23. 28. 

Muhli Diiar jr. Parsotam Dass... 

L L. Bap. 3 All. 91. 

Uda Bbgam v. Imam-ud-din.. I. 

L. Rep. 2 All. 74. 

See I 588, post. 

SlTRYAPRASAKA V. VAISVA SlNNV- 

Aaiv...l L. Rep. 1 Mad. 401. 
5 244— Moneys unduly realired in Execu- 
tion — Recovery of. 
See Execution of Decree. 6. 

Pastas SiMOHe. Ben: Ram. ..I. Ii. 
Sep. 2 All. 61, 

§ 244— Appeal from Ordcr~~Execution of 

Decree— Judicial Proceedings— Act X. of 1872, 
i 588.] An order made under § 244 of the 
Civil Procedure Code (Act X. of 1877), deter- 
mining questions between the parties to a suit as 
to the amount of the mesne profits recovered by 
the plaintiff subsequently to the decree, and as to 
the amount payable on account of the execution 
of that decree, is not appealable, under ( 588, CI. 
/, not being of the same nature with " appealable 
orders made in the course of a suit." The "ap- 
pealable orders made in the coarse of a suit ' 
must be taken to be the orders mentioned in the 
other clauses of § 588 as appealable, and they 
generally interlocutory orders, not going to the 
merits of any question arising in the suit. Dal- 

FATBHAI BhACUBHAI V. AMARSANG Kh EMABHAI. 

Udvill and KembaU, J J... I. L. Rep. 2 Bom. 
603, 1878. 

§ 246— Cross-Decrees. 

See Execution of Decree. 3. 

MURIJ DHAR «. PURSOTAM DASS... 

I. L. Rep. 3 AIL 81. 



I 252— Representative Heir—Deceased Ma- 

homedan — Consent Decree — Absentee 
Heir — Sale in Execution. 
See Kahomed&n Law. 1. 

ASSAMATHEM NeSSA V. ROV LUTCH- 

mbput L L. Bop. 4 Cat. 

143. 

— i 268— Court of Smalt Causes— Attachment 
:d Sale of Bond.'] Under the provisions of § 
8 of the Civil Procedure Code (Act X- of 1877), 

bonds cannot be sold till the end of six months 

from the date oF their attachment. 

A Small Cause Court cannot appoint a 
ceiver. Bonds, therefore, on which recovery 

will become time-barred before the date on which 
sale can legally be made, cannot be available 

for the satisfaction of the judgment-creditor's 

debt. NlTRSINGDAS RuCHUNATHDAS O- TULSL- 

rak Daulatram I. L. Rep. 2 Bom. 559. 

5 271— Breaking open Shop Door in Exe- 
rtion of Decree. 
See Breaking open Door*. 

Damodarb. Is h war... I. L. Rep. 
3 Bom. 88. 

( 273 — Execution of Decree — Attachment 

ind Sale of Decree for Money.'] Although debts 
ire mentioned in the category of property liable 
to attachment and sale in execution of a decree 
in ' 166 of Act X. of 1877, yet it is apparent 
from the provisions of $ 273 of the Act that the 
sale of a money-decree is not contemplated as 
tbe result of its attachment, and that an attach- 
ent in the mode therein ordained cannot lead 

The last clause of § 273 applies to other than 
oney decrees. 

Where two decrees for money, although they 
were not passed by the same Court, were being 
executed by the same Court : — 

Held, that the provisions of the 1st Clause of 
{ 273 were applicable on principle. Sultan 
Kuar v. Gl'lzabi Lal. Pearson and Oldfield, 

]J I. L. Bep. 2 All. 280, 1B78. 

§ 383— Small Cause Court — Jurisdiction — 

Act XI. of 1865, § 12.] A suit brought by a de- 
feated claimant under § 283 of Act X. of 1877 
to establish his right to, and recover possession 
of, certain moveable property attached in execu- 
tion of a decree of a Small Cause Court, is with. 
in tbe jurisdiction of, and must therefore, under 



by Google 



( 283 ) DIGEST OF CASES. ( ZB* ) 

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT X. 07 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT X. OF 

1877— contd. 1B77— contd. 



Act XI. of 1S65, § 12, be instituted in a Small 
Cause Court. Gordhan Tema u. Kasandas 

Balmukandas. Melvili and Kemball, JJ. I L. 
Rep. 3 Bom. 179, 1870. 

■ S*95- 

See Execution of Decree, 7. 

Narandas if. Bai Manchha...I. 
L. Rep. 8 Bom. 917. 

*$ 3II.3". 

See Appeal- -Civil. 32. 

Gopal Singh v- Dular Kuar... 
I. L. Rep. 9 AIL 382. 

* 315— ** CI//. 0/ l8j9— Salt in Execu- 
tion of Decrti under Act VIII. of 1859— Evic- 
tion of Purchaser— Refund of Purchase-Money.) 
In September 1877, certain immoveable property 
was sold in execution of a decree under the pro- 
visions of Act VIII. of 1859. The auction pur- 
chaser was subsequently, after Act X. of 1877 
came into operation, deprived of the property 
on the ground that the judgment -debtor had no 
saleable interest therein. He thereupon applied 
under j 315 of Act X. of 1S77 to the Court exe- 
cuting the Decree, for the refund of his pur- 
chase-money, and the Court made the order, 
holding that J 315 of Act X. of 1877 applied : — 

Heid, that the order was a right, just and pro- 
per one. The proceedings commenced under 
Act Vlll. of 1859 appeared to have terminated 
with the sale. The application under j 315 of 
Act X. of I877 might be regarded as a new pro- 
ceeding ; and the Court was not prepared to say 
that the Judge could not entertain the applica- 
tion under the second clause of that section, and 
therefore declined to interfere. 

In the matter of the Petition of Ml/LO. Pearson 

*nd Sfiantic,]].. .1.1*. B#p. 3AU. 399, 1B79. 

Dissented from in Hira Lall b. Karim- 

Vn-Nessa LL Rep. 3 All. 780. 

See Vol. 3, Col. 1810. 

i 33* — Execution of Decree — Resistance to 

Execution — Mortgagee in Possesion,'] A mortga- 
gee who is in possession of the mortgaged pro- 
perty under the mortgage, is in possession " on 
his own account " within the meaning of § 333 
of Act X. of 1877. 

In pursuance of an order made in execution 
of a decree passed before Act X- of 1877 came 
into force, the mortgagees in possession of 



the mortgaged property under the mortgage, 
were dispossessed thereof after Act X. of 1877 
came into force. On an application by the 
mortgagees under 1 33a of Act X. of 1877 to be 
restored to possession of such property 1 — Held, 
that they were entitled to the benefit of that 

A person claiming under J 33a of Act X. of 
1S77 need not prove his title, but only the fact 
of possession. Shafi-iid-din v. Lochan Singh. 
Turner aaASpantie, JJ...L L. Rep. 9 AIL 94, 

1878. 

i 336, CI. 5 -Smart Cause Court— Debtor.] 

Clause S of f 336 of Act X. of 1S77 applies to 
Small Cause Court debtors; such persons can 
obtain the benefit of Chapter XX. of that Act by 
applying to a Court which has jurisdiction under 
that Chapter. Strd Moidin v. Sundaramuyha. 
Morgan, C. J., and Forbes, J I. L. Rep. 9 

Mad. 9, 1878. 

H 34'. 343- Imprisonment for Contempt. 

See Imprisonment for Contempt. 
Martin v. Lawrence.. X L. 
Rep. 4 Oal. 6B8. 

S 3*a— ■*=' Vlll. 0/1859, ff 273 to 381— 

Act X. of 1877, ($ 3. 328 to 243— Act I, of 1S6S, 
f 6 — Construction — Procedure — Retrospective En. 
aettnent— Discharge from Custody.] Held, by a 
majority of the Full Bench (Sargentand Bayley, 
JJ., dissenting), that a judgment -debtor, impri- 
soned in satisfaction of a decree against him 
under Act Vlll. of 1859, is not entitled, under 
Act X. of 1877, to De released on the coming 
into operation of the latter Act, if he have then 
been imprisoned for more than six months but 
less than two years. 

Per Westropp, C.J.:— The judgment-creditor 
had, under Act VIII. of 1859, a right, on the con- 
dition of regularly paying the subsistence money 
in the order of committal directed to be paid, to 
have the judgment debtor detained in custody 
for two years, if he did not in the meantime 
fully satisfy the decree. The language of 
Chapter XIX. of the new Civil Procedure Code 
(Act X. of 1877) is purely prospective, i*., deals 
with the future only, and does not touch any 
proceedings already taken in execution of 
decrees. Sub-division I. of that Chapter is 
essentially prospective throughout, and f 34a 
must be considered to relate to future imprison. 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



( 265 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 

CIVIL PBOOEDUBE COSE, ACT X. OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT X, OF 

1877— contd. 1877-cmtd. 

mcnt consequent on arrests to be made under 
Act X. of 1877. There is no trace in Chapter 
XIX of any intention on the part of the Legis- 
lature to deal with imprisonment commenced 
before the new Code came into force. 

The committal under the old Code, while yet 

in force, of a judgment debtor by a Judge to- 
wards satisfaction of a decree against that judg- 
ment debtor, being a. thing done under that Code, 
is clearly within the language and meaning of, 
and saved by, the General Clauses' Act (1. of 
1S68), i 6, notwithstanding the repeal of the old 
Code, under which that thing was done ; and if the 
continued detention of that judgment debtoi 
be regarded as procedure, that detention, having 
commenced before the new Code, which repealed 
the old Code, came into force, is expressly saved 
by the General Clauses' Act, and cannot be go- 
verned by the new Code. The effect of Act I. 
of 1868, f 6, and Act X. of 1877, f 3, is to re- 
move from the scope of the latter Code such 
proceedings (after dceree) as had been initiated 
before and were pending when the new Code 
came into force, and to leave within its range 
all proceedings (after decree) initiated subse- 
quently to its coming into force, even though 
the suits in which such last -mentioned proceed- 
ings may be taken be suits which were com- 
menced, and the decree itself made, before the 
new Code came into operation. 

Therefore, even supposing the rule laid down 
in Wright v. Hole (6 H. & N. aaj), as to the re- 
trospective effect of enactments relating to pro. 
cedure, to apply, still ( 34a of Act X. of 1877 is 
not retrospective. Togive tosuehanenactment 
as J 343 of that Act a retrospectivi 
lion, would be no mere alteration of procedi 
but a distinct deprivation of a right to keep the 
debtor in prison for two years, subject to sucb 
application as he might make under the Insolvent 
Debtors' Act, or g§ 280 and 281 of the old Civil 
Procedure Code. And, in the absence of ex. 
press direction or unmistakable implication to 
the contrary in the taw itself, the presumption 
is that a statute depriving the subject of a vest- 
ed right is not retrospective. Though it may 
be that this presumption does not exist where a 
statute is remedial and merely alters procedure, 
yet if the change of procedure when sought to 
be applied retrospectively be complicated by the 
divestment of a pre-existing right, the presump- 



tion against such 
strength. 

Per Sargent,].-.— The effect of f { I and 3 of 
Act X. of 1877 and f 6 of Act I. of 1858 is that, 
whilst saving all acts already done in execution 
of a decree in a suit instituted before Act X. of 
1877 came into force, all matters of procedure 
in execution subsequent to that date must be 
determined by the Act itself. The question 
before the Court was one of procedure. The 
writ of imprisonment is by its very nature con- 
tinuous in its operation, and the conditions and 
periodunderandforwhich it remains in force and 
activity, are as much matters relating to proce- 
dure, as the issuing of the writ itself. Neither 
the words ol § 341, nor of the heading to Chapter 
XIX. of Act X. of 1S77, necessarily confine the 
imprisonment there referred to, to imprisonment 
commenced since the Act came into operation. 
Though the judgment creditor by the attach- 
ment of bis debtor's property, as well as by the 
arrest and imprisonment of his debtor, acquires 
a right of a very distinct and specific nature, and 
different from the mere right of a plaintiff to 
have his cause of action tried according to a 
certain procedure, yet the rule that an Act is 
not to be so construed as to defeat an existing 
right, is only a rule of construction, and must 
yield to the intention of the Legislature. That 
intention may be gathered with sufficient cer- 
tainty from §§ I and 3 of Act X. of 1877, cou- 
pled with the strong presumption which arises 
from the nature of the change in the law ; for it 
is difficult to suppose that the Legislature, when 
introducing a most important and benign change 
in the law of debtor and creditor, in harmony 
with modem legislation, could have intended 
that the two laws should continue for the next 
two year* to operate concurrently, and that 
debtors who were imprisoned on the day previ- 
ous to that on which the Act came into force, 
should be liable to be detained under the severer 



Per Bayley, J.:— Formerly In England, and in 
Bombay until the Supreme Court was abolished 
in 1862. the power of a judgment creditor to 
keep bis judgment debtor in prison lasted until 
the latter paid or tendered the amount directed 
to be levied, or unless he was released under 
the provisions of the Indian Insolvent Act. 
This power of detention of the judgment debtor 



3l g ltl z S db»COOglC 



( 267 ) DIGEST OF CASES. 

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT X. OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT X. OF 

ia77—cotHd. lBT7—c<mtd. 



in prison was limited by Act VIII. of 1859 to 
two years, by § 280 of that Act. Further limits 
on that were placed by JJ 273 and 280, and the 
case of Coombe v. Can (13 Beng. L. Rep. 268, 
22 Cal. W. Rep., Civ. Rut. 257) is inconsistent 
with the inviolable right claimed for the judg- 
ment creditor to detain his judgment debtor in 
prison for two years. 

The sections of Act VIII. of 1859 relating to 
imprisonment in execution of a decree and its 
duration relate to procedure alone. 

To describe the power, which the execution 
creditor in India has had in the Presidency Towns 
since 1862, of putting and keeping his judgment 
debtor in prison, as an inviolable right, or any- 
thing equivalent to it, is fallacious. The defini- 
tions of " decree" and "judgment debtor" in Act 
X. of 1877 are sufficiently wide to embrace 
decrees passed, and judgment debtors who have 
become such, before 1st October 1877, 1 
that Act came into force. Sections 341 and 342 
of Act X. of 1877 are applicable to proceedings 
pending when that Act came into operation. 
The Legislature intended the improvements which 
are in the new Code to apply to suits brought 
under the old Code in those cases in which, 
consistently with the provisions of the new Code, 
they might, upon the ordinary principles of the 
interpretation of statutes, be clearly applicable. 
Section 3 of Act X. of 1S77 implies that the 
procedure after a decree, in a suit instituted 
before the Act came into force, shall be accord- 
ing to the provisions of Act X. of 1877, and the 
present application must therefore be regulated 
by that Act. Act 1. of 186S, f 6, does not apply 
to the present case. 

When of two possible constructions, one is in 
strict harmony with the improvements contained 
in the Act, and is not merely not inconsistent 
with the plain grammatical language used, but 
follows the provisions and directions therein 
contained, as well as the benign spirit of modern 
legislation on the subject of imprisonment for 
debt, and, moreover, prevents a grave injustice 
being inflicted upon the civil prisoners already 
in custody in British India when the Act came 
into operation, while the other construction 
treats the point under consideration as not hav- 
ing been considered by the Legislature at all, the 
former construction should be adopted. 



Per Green, J. :— Apart from § 1 and the proviso 
to § 3 of Act X. of 1877, there is no provision 
in that Act as to its operation with regard to 
pending or past proceedings. 

Section I does not alter or abridge the legal 
effect, after the 1st October 1877, of proceedings 
had and Anally determined under Acts VIII. of 
1S59 and XXIII. of 1S61, before the new Code 
came into operation; and in construing f 3, 
regard must be had to Act I. of 1868, f 6, though 
the general rule of construction in the last-men- 
tioned section must yield to the intention of 
the Legislature expressed in any subsequent Act, 
that to a greater or less extent that rule is not 
to apply to such subsequent Act ; and in the 
proviso to I 3 of Act X. of 1877, coupled with 
§ I of that Act, is to be gathered the intention 
of the Legislature that, to a certain extent at 
least, such rule was not to apply so far ast 
concerned the repeal of the previous procedure 
laws effected by § 3. Ample effect would be 
given to the proviso, and to such intention, 
while at the same time regard would be had 
to § 6 of Act I. of 186S, by holding that in all 
future — i. c, future with reference to 1st Octo- 
ber 1877 — steps and proceedings, not being 
prior to decrees in suits instituted and appeals 
presented before 1st October 1877, the provi- 
sions of the new Code are to be observed anil 
operative. The cases as to the restropeetive 
effect ot statutes relating to procedure all deal 
with the question whether, where some new step 
is taken in the course of pending proceedings 
after the new statute came into operation, and 
on which new step being taken the new statute, 
has imposed some restraint or conferred some 
benefit on one or other party to the proceeding, 
such restraint or benefit is not to have effect, 
and they do not involve this, that a statute con- 
cerned with judicial procedure, though affecting 
pending suits as to all future, proceedings in 
such suits, interferes with or affects steps and 
»dings already, at the time such statute 
! into operation, taken and determined, la 
the present case, no new proceeding had been 
taken, or was necessary to be taken, to detain 
the petitioners in custody under warrants issued; 
by virtue of Act VIII. of 1859. The right of 
the execution creditors to detain their debtor! 
custody till satisfaction of the decree, (but 
exceeding the period of two years,) is a 
right having relation to property, and is not t» 



D,„i„.db»Googlc 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



be taken away, except by the clearly expressed 
will of the Legislature, and is in no way affected 
by Act X. of 1877. 

Per West,].: — A legal relation between the 
parties concerned is equally constituted by a 
judicial order as by their own agreement. The 
judicial transaction, consisting in any inquiry 
and an order of the Court under a particular 
law, is a matter as to which that law, though 
repealed, atin has full effect. The decision 
ascertains or creates a legal right, which must 
afterwards be guarded in the unfolding and out- 
growth of all its regular consequences. Act 
VIII. of 1850 must have clothed the Court's 
orders with an abiding validity, the judgment 
creditor with an abiding right, or else with none 
at all. The ministerial officer is to act on the 
order of the Court according to its original 
purport, and the jurisdiction under which it was 
issued. The order itself, in the absence of an 
express provision to the contrary, retains its 
validity until it is withdrawn or varied ; and the 
new procedure, therefore, does not apply, except 
perhaps in matters of mere administration, or pro- 
visional arrangement, whether as touching person 
or property. It cannot apply, so as to annul an or- 
der properly made, a relation legally constituted, 
and thus deprive the creditor of his right once 
acquired by the arrest of his judgment debtor in 
execution. Any change in the relations of the 
parties can be made only iu accordance with the 
latter and existing law ; but their previously sub- 
sisting relations continue to exist as before. It 
is unlikely that the Legislature intended the limit- 
ing provision of § 343 of Act X. of 1S77 to be 
applied to cases of imprisonment other than 
those arising under the Code itself. As a simply 
negative provision, § 342, by itself, would have 
no effect, but the affirmative provisions with 
which it is to be read are found in the same 
chapter, and they can only be applied to cases 
arising after the Act came into force, and thus 
the limiting provision (§ 342) would itself be 
limited. Had the change in the maximum of im- 
prisonment been from six months to two years, 
it could not have been contended that debtors 
already in jail might be detained there eighteen 
months longer, under the new Code, than the old 
one allowed. The close of the litigious transac- 
tion, like that of a contractual one, fixes the 
rights of the parties according to the then exist- 
ing law, and in principle there is no distinction 



between a construction of a new law, prejudicial 
to the debtor, and one prejudicial to the credi- 
tor. The imprisonment under Act VIII. of lS<y 
as a " proceeding commenced," comes within 
§ 6 of Act I. of 1868, and would therefore not 
be affected by the rules in Act X. of 1877, even 
if there had been no provision in that Code as to 
matters still pending. Tbeiefore, Act VIII. of . 
■ S50, and not Act X. of 1877, governed the en- 
forcement, or attempt to enforce the judgment 
creditor's decree throughout the proceedings 
consequent on his application for the debtor's 
imprisonment Under Act VIII. of 1859 the ap- 
plicants were not entitled to be released, and 
their applications should therefore be rejected. 
If the present application for discharge be a pro- 
ceeding commenced since the new Act came into 
force, it is not integral with the previous proceed- 
ings in execution, and therefore cannot affect the 
law by which they must be governed. If, on the 
other hand, it is integral with them, it is part of a 
proceeding commenced before the new Act came 
into force. In neither case can it hring within 
the new Act, orders deriving their validity and 
effect from another law. In the matter of the 
Petition of Rattansi Kalia.vji I. L. Bep. 

3 Bom. 148, 1877. 

SS 34*. 345. 35"— !nsol*ency-0«*s Pro- 

bandi — Appeal.'] A person applying under 
§ 344 of Act X. of 1877 must satisfy the Court 
that his case comes within the provisions of 
§351, and the burden of proof lies upon hi™. An 
Order dismissing such an application is appeal- 
able under § 588 (n). MuMTAZ Hossein v. 
Brij MoHUM THAKOOR. Jacksen and McDonnell, 

Jj 1. 1,. Rep. 4 Cavl.888, 1878. 

Chapter XX. 

Ste Jurisdiction. S. 

AbDOOL HAMBD...X. L. B«P. 4 

Cat. 94. 
__ § 360— Inapplicable to Small Cause Court 
See § 5, ante. 

Lallv v. Ranchoo-.I. L. Hop. 
S Bom. 641. 

§ 380— Residence —Practice — Security for 

Costs.] The word " residence " may receive a 
larger or more restricted meaning according to 
what the Court believes the intention of the 
Legislature to have been in framing the particular 
provision in which the word is used. Sectiou 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



( m } DIGEST OF CASES. 

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT X. OF CIVIL PBOCEDITBJI CODE, ACT X. OF 

1877— ttmtd. 1877— centd. 



383 of Act X- o( 1877, shows the intention of 
the Legislature that the " residence " spoken of 
in | 380, should be residence under such cir- 
cumstances as will afford reasonable' probability 
that the plaintiff will be forthcoming when the 
suit is decided. Each case must, therefore, 
depend on its own particular circumstances. 
Mahomed Shufi'li v. Laldih Abdulla. Sar. 
j„nt, J I. L. Sep. 8 Bom. 837, 1878. 

IS 394. 395- 

Set Account. 3. 

RUSTOHJI V. KESSOWJ1 ... Z. Ir. 

Rap. 8 Bom. 161. 

,407. 

See Appeal-Civil. 18. 

Co [.lis *. Manohar Das... I. I>. 
Sep. 1 All. 745. 

„w I 440— Suit by Mother as Guardian of 
Minor Sons— Certificate necessary. 

See Bombay Minor*' Act XX. of 
1864,(8. 

MUBLIDHABfl. S(jraU...I.tl.EBp. 

8 Bom. 149. 
-— S 515— Subordinate Judge with Small 
Cause Powers. 
St Award. 

Balkrishna v. Lakshi>an...I. L. 
Bep. 3 Bom. 310, 

i S3 3 — Practice— Summery Butt on Pro. 

misiory Note— Extending Time fir Defendant 
to appear.] Inasmuch as 5 532 of Act X. of 
1877 provides that the summons shall issue 
either in the form mentioned in the schedule, or 
in such other form as the High Coart may from 
time to time direct, the High Court has power 
to extend the time within which a defendant in 
a suit brought under Chapter XXXIX. of the 
Civil Procedure Code (Act X. of 1877) can 
come in and obtain leave to defend. Where it 
appeared that the defendant was an officer 
stationed at Peshawar, the time for the defendant 
to obtain leave to appear and defend was 
extended to 28 days. Groom «. Wilson. 
Pontifex, }..■■!. L. Sep. 8 Oal. 680, 1878. 

S 539- Devaitkan Property. 

See Right to Saw. 10. 

Radhabai v- Chtmnaji Rakji 
Sali. L Xj. Bep. 8 Bom. 97. 



-§540. 

See Appeal— Civil. 6. 

RuHjrr Singhv. Mbhbbbah Koeh. 
I. L Rep. 3 Oal. 663. 
-5S4o. 

See Appeal— CiviL, 3. 

Lakhmidas v. Ebraiiim Lit. 

Rep- 3 Bom. 644. 

- § S44 — Decree on Appeal. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act 
VHLofl85&, J 887. 
Jovkisto v. Nittyanund...I. L. 
Bep. 3 Cal. 788. 
-SS49- 

See Security for Cpata. 1. 

Haidri Bai ». E. I. Ry. Co L 

L. Rep. 1 AIL. 687. 

- § 575- 

See Letters Patent — Bombay — 
I860, CI. 36. 
Appajiv- Shivlal...!. It. Bep, 
8 Bom. 204. 

- § 584— Appeal from Order returning Plaint 

for Presentation of Plaint to proper 
Court, made after Admission of Suit. 
See Appeal— CiviL 30. 

Kalian Das e. Nawal Singh,.. 
1 L. Bep. 1 ALL 630. 
_ § 584 — Execution of Decree — Appeal from 
Order. 
See Appeal— Civil. 38. 

Uda Beg am v- Imam-ud-din... 
I. L, Bep. 3 AIL 74. 
-§S»- 

See Appeal— Civil. 0. 

RUNJIT SlNQH V. MSHBBBAN 

Koer...I. I.. Bep. 8 CaL 
683. 

- 3 j88— Appeal against an Ex-parte Decree 

and Order refusing to set the same aside. 
Sec Appeal— Civil. 3. 18. 

Lakhmidass d. Ebrahiu.-I. L. 
Bep. 3 Bom. 644. 

GULAB Singh 1. LaOImAp) Das... 

L L.Rep. 1 All. 748. 

- i J88— Appeal from Order passed in Exe- 

cation of Decree before Act X. of 1877 
came into force 
See Appeal— Civil. 96. 

Thakur Prasad •. Ahsah A11...I. 
L. Bep. 1 All. 668, 



lionized by Google 



( lit ) DIGEST OF CASES. < 274 ) 

CIVIL FBOOEDtTSE CODE, ACT X. 07 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT X. OF 
1877- 1»»«. 1877— centd. 



— % 588— Appeal from Order refuting Leave 

to sue infbTtH&PauprrU. 
See Appeal— Civil. 18. 

Colus «. Manohar Das... I. L. 
Rop. 1 AIL 746. 

— | 588— Execution of Decree— Btmd— Regis- 
tration Act XX. 0/ [366— Appeal.'] An applica- 
tion was made to a District Munsiff, on the 16th 
July 1877, to issue execution on a decree dated 
6th November 1869, obtained on a bond regis- 
tered under $ 53 of Act XX. of 1S66. He made 
an order refusing the application, tbe decree 
being one passed not in a regular suit, but ii 
summary suit, and governed by the period of 
limitation prescribed by Article 166, Scbed. II, 
Act IX. of 1871. On appeal the Subordinate 
Judge reversed the order of the Munsiff, holding 
that Article 167, Sched. II. of Act IX. of 187) 

On application to the High Court— Held, that 
as I 588 of Act X. of 1877 provided that orders 
passed in appeal from orders under § 344 of that 
Act should be final, no second appeal lay. 

Held also, that Che High Court could not inter- 
fere, under $ 621 of the Act, as the Subordinate 
judge had jurisdiction to hear tbe appeal. Su- 

KYAPRASAKA RaU H. VaISYA SaNNYASIRAZV. 

Ktrnan-Aai Sfuttusarxi Ayyar, JJ...I. L. Rep. 

lHad. 401, 1878. 

— i 588 (<)— Appeal from Order returning 

Plaint after Issues framed. 
Set Appeal— Civil. S3. 

Abdul Samao «, Rajindro...I. L. 
Sep. 3 All. 307. 

S 5*8 0)— Execution of Decree— Appeal 

from Order. 
See ante, g 944. 
See Appeal— Civil S3. 88. 

Miirli Dkar v. Pursotuh Das... 

X. L. Sep. 3 All. 91. 

Uda Begam 1. 1uah.ud.din... I. 

L. Sep. 8 AIL 74. 

i 588 (»). 

See Appeal-Civil. 89. 

GC-PAL SlHBH B. DlILAK Kdar... 

I. L. Sep. 8 All. 868. 
( 588 (») — Appeal from Order refusing Ap- 
plication under f 344. 
Stei 844. 

MiiMTAZ Hossein v- Brij Mohun. 
X L Step, 4 CaL 888. 



— S 591 — Appeal against an Ex.parte Decree 

and an Order refusing to set the same 

See Appeal -Civil. 3. 18, 

Lakh hid as b, EettAHiM I. L. 

Sep. 8 Bom. 644. 

Gulabh Singh v. Lac khan Das... 

I. L. Sep. 1 AIL 748. 

_g 6jj — Execution of Decree — Error in 

Law — Appeal. 

See 5 688, ante. 

S IT BY APR AS A KA V. VAISYA SaNNI- 

yasi.-.I. 1 Sep. 1 Had, 401. 
-*6*7. 

See Appeal— Civil. 88. 

Gopal Singh v. DularKuar... L 
L. Sep. 8 AIL 80S. 

- J 647 — Proceedings in Execution instituted 

before Act X. of 1877 came into force— 

See Appeal— Civil. 88. 

Thakur Prasad v. Ahsam Au... 
I. L. Sep. 1 All. 668. 
-5648. 

See Execution of Decree. 81. 

Badah Bbbajea o. Kala Chand 
Bbbajea. .,L L. Sep. 4 CaL 
883. 
CLAIM AGAINST ESTATE OF LNTES- 
TATXIFOB MONEY T AH) AFTER 
HIS DEATH EOS THE SURVIV- 
ING MEMBERS OF HIB FAMILY. 
See Administration. L 

Danjibhai «. Navazbai X L. 

Sep. 3 Bom. 76. 
CLAIMS TO IMMOVEABLE PRO- 
PERTY AGAINST EXECUTORS 
OS TSU BTEEa 
See Aot XXVII. of I860, j 3. 

Trrrpoorasoondrry v. Drbeh- 

dronath...L L. Rep. 8 Cat, 

46. 

CLASS — Bequest to a — some of whom not in 
Existence at Testator's Death. 
-S*. Hindu Law— WilL 4. 

Kherodbhoney o. Dogroauohry. 

L Xi. Sep. 4 CaL 466. 

And see Trebpoobasoondery v. 

Debendronath...I. L. Sep. 

8 Cal. 46, p, 58. 

Under Limitation. 38. 



zedbyGOOgle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



VLABB-contd. 

Bequest to a — Remoteness. 

See Hindu Law— Will 7. 

SoUDAMOHEY B. JoOESH CHAMBER. 

I. L. Sep. 9 Cal. 862. 
— — Gift of Residue to a. — Postponement of 
Period of Distribution— Act X. of 1865, 
H 98, IOI, 102. 
See Will. 4. 6. 

Masevk v. Fergusson I. L. 

Hep. 4 Cal 304, 670. 
CLAUSE IN WILL RESTRAINING 
PARTITION OH ENJOYMENT. 
Set Hindu Law— WilL 1. 

MoKOONDO L*LL «. GONESH CHUN. 

DBR...L L. Bap. 1 Cat. 104. 

CLOSE HOLIDAY— Limitation to Suit for 
Arrears of Rent expiring on — Presenta- 
tion of Plaint next Court Day, too late. 
See Limitation. 13. 

PUKKAN ChUNDBR e. MuTTY LaLL. 

I. L. Hop. 4 Cal. 60. 
——Limitation expiring on — Presentation of 
Plaint next Court Day. 
Ste Limitation. 6. 

Bis man Chano v. Ahmad Khan. 
L L. Hep. 1 All. 263. 
COINAGE, CONVERSION OF. 

See Enhancement of Kent. 8. 

Mber Mahomed Hossain v. 
Forbes ,.L, Hep. 3 I. A. 1 
CO-XHAHDARB. 

Suit by one of two Co-Inamdars to Eject a 
Tenant.'] One of two co.inamdars, even though 
be may be tbe manager of the inam estatt 
as to bind his co-sharer by his acts, cannot n 
tain a suit to eject a tenant against the express 
wishes of his co-sharer. Krishnaravd. Govind. 

Kembatl and N, ffarridas, JJ L L. Bap. 3 

Bom. 26, n., 1870. 
COLLECTION OB POSSESSION OP 
SALT EARTH. 
S« Madras Reg. I. of 180B, % IS. 
Reg. «. Pyla Atchi...L L. Hop. 
1 Had. S76. 
COLLECTOR— Acts done by — in Official 
Capac ity — J urisdiction- 
See Jurisdiction. 18. 

Gangadhar *. Collector 
AHMBDNACAR...Z. L. Bep. 1 

Bom. eas. 



COLLECTOR— contd. 

— Appointed to take Charge of the Estate of 

a Minor — Jurisdiction over. 
See Bombay Minora' Act XX. of 
1864, 5511 and 18. 

NaKSIHCRAV r. LlfXAMAN.I. L. 

Bep. 1 Bom. 318. 

— Report of. 

£w Reports of Collectors. 

Rajah Mitter r. Pekianayagum. 
L. Rep. 1 L A. 309. 

COLLECTOR OF BBA CUSTOMS, MA- 
DRAB— Suit against— Jurisdiction. 
See Juried icti on. 13. 

Collector of Sea Customs, Ma- 
dras, V. PANNIAR CHITHAM- 

baram...L L. Bep. 1 Had. 
89. 

COLLUSIVE CONVEYANCE TO DE- 
FEAT THE RIGHTS OF THIRD 
PERSONS- Denial by Grantee of Trust 
in Favour of Grantor — Right of Grantor 
to show the Nature of the Transaction. 
S« Estoppel. 8. 

Param Singh •. Lalji Mai... I. 
L. Bep. 1 All. 403. 

COHHE CENMENT OF PROSECUTION 
A prosecution commences when the com- 
plaint is made, the reception of tbe complaint 
being a stage of the judicial proceedings to- 
wards a conviction. Ivpx. e. Lakshmak Hari. 
and Pinhey, J J ...I. L. Bap. 8 Bom. 481, 
1877. 
S. C. under Sanction to Prosecute. 4. 

COMMISSION— Awarded to Administrator 
General — Appeal from Order. 
See Administrator Generals' Act 
II. Of 1874, §27. 
Soma sun dar am Chetti v. Admi- 
nistrator General. ..I. L. 
Bep. 1 Had. 148. 
- Right to be examined on. 

See Fardanasbin Female. 1. 
Hurroo Soondhrv...L L. Bep. 4 
Cal. 90. 



1 SALES— Compensation 
for Loss of Life — Agent of Company — 
Winding up — No implied Contract to 
continue Partnership at all risks (or 
Abandonment of Right to wind up), or to 
pay Compensation. 



b, Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



<-« ) 



COMMISSION ON SALES— contd. 



Lalbhai v. K>vasji...8 Bom. H. C. 

Bep. 0. C. J. 208 ; I. L. Bop. 1 

Bom. 468 ; and L. Hop. 3 L A. 

SOO. 

COMMISSIONER FOB TAKING AC. 

COUNTS— Motion to discharge or vary 

Report of. 

See Practice— Civil, 7. 

Suiiab Ahmed v. Haji Ismail... 
I. L. Bep. 1 Bom. 168. 

— Power of— to Grant Certificate. 
Sir Account. 3. 
Rustomji n. Kisowji...! L. Bep. 8 
Bom. 181. 

Reference to, Effect of. 

See Account. 2. 

Watson v. Aga Mehedke She- 
razee.. .L. Bep. 1 1. A. 348. 

COMMISSIONER'S REPORT— Motion to 
discharge or vary. 

See Practice— Civil. 7. 

Sumar Ahmed v. Haji Ismail... 
I. L. Bep. 1 Bom. IBS. 

COMMITTAL— After Charge drawn up. 

Set Criminal Procedure Code, Act 

X or 1878, §§220,231. 

Empress v. Kudrutullak...I. L. 

Bep. 3 Cat. 495 ; 3 Cal. 

Bep. 3. 

By Magistrate to whom Case referred for 

Enhancement of Punishment. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1873, (48. 
Chinnimarioadu.-.I. L. Bep. 1 



COMMON-Right of. 



VlSHVANATH V. MaHADAJI. ,.I. Tj, 

Bep. 2 Bom. 147. 

COMMON LAW RULES OF SUFBBME 
COURT— Rule 149— Application by At. 
toroey under. 
Set Attorney and Client. 1. 

Aba Ishmail v. Aba Thara.X 
L. Bep. 1 Bom.. 368. 



COMMUNICATION BY CLIENT TO 

HIS ATT0B.NET IN PREBENCE 

OF THE OTHER SIDE. 

See Privileged Communication. 2, 

Memon Hajee Harooh Maho- 

MED «r. MoLVI ABDUL KaRIM. 

I. L. Bep. 3 Bom. 81, 
COMPANY- Agreement to take Shares in. 

See Agreement to take Snares in a 
Company. 

ANANDJI VlSRAM V. THE NARIAD 

S. and W. C0...I. L. Bep. 1 
Bom. 320. 

Contributory. 

See Company— Winding up— Con- 
tributory. 
The London, Bombay, and M bdi- 

TERRANEAN BANK V. BHANJI 

Zi/tani...L L. Bep. 3 Bom. 
116. 

Directors — Powers of, to borrow and 

mortgage. 

See Powers of Directors to Borrow 
and Mortgage. 
Irvine v. Union Bank of Aus- 
tralia ..L. Bep. 4 L A. 
86; I. L. Rep. 3 CaL 280. 
— Directors— Ratification of particular Acts 
of Directors in Eicess of Authority, not 
an Extension of Future Authority. 
See Powers of Directors to Borrow 
and Mortgage. 
Irvine v. Union Bank of Aus- 
tral [ a.. L. Bep. 4 L A. 
86 ; L L. Sep. 3 Cal. 280. 

Illegal — Unregistered Association of more 

than twenty Artizans for purposes of Gain, 

Sri: Company. 1. 
— ^— Memorandum of Association' — -Provision in 
Memorandum of Association of — em- 
powering Subdivision of Shares. 
See Agreement to take Snares. 
Anandji Viskam d. Nariad S. & 
W. Co... I. L. Bep. 1 Bom. 
330. 

Memorandum of Association — Variance 

between Memorandum of Association and 
Prospectus. 
See Agreement to take Shares. 
Anandji Visum v. Nariad S. ft 
W. Co.., I. L. Rep. 1 Bom. 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



COMPANY— contd. 

Power of Directors to bind — by Bill of 

Exchange. 

See Power of Directors to bind 
Company by Bill of El- 
change. 
New Fleming S. and W. Co. 

(Limited) I. L. Bop. 3 

Bom. 439. 

Powers of Directors to Borrow and Mott. 

gage. 
See Powers of Directors to Borrow 
and Mortgage. 
Irvine b. Union Bank of Austra- 
lia...!.. Bep. 41 A. 86; 
L L. Bep. 3 CaL 280 

— Ratification by — of particular Act of Direc 

tors in Excess of Authority, not an Exten- 
sion of Future Authority. 

See Powers of Directors to Borrow 
and Mortgage. 
Irvine o. Union Bank of Austka- 
lia.-.L. Bep. 4 L A. 86; 
I. L. Bep. 3 CaL 280. 
■ "-Unregistered Association of more than 
twenty Artizans for purposes of Gain. 
See Company. 1. 

Buikaji «. Bapu...I. L. Bep. 1 
Bom. 650. 

•—Variance between Memorandum of Associa- 

tion and Prospectus. 

Set Agreement to take Shares. 

Anandji Visram v- The Nariad 

S. andW. Co...I.1. Bep. 1 

Bom. 320. 

Act X. of 1866, f 4— Association of Atti. 

tans— Illegal Agreement.} An association of 
artizans for the purpose of enhancing the price 
of the work by bringing all the business of the 
trade into one shop, and dividing the price of 
the work done among the members according 
to their skill, is an association that has for its 
object the acquisition of gain, and, if consisting 
of more than twenty members, must be regis, 
tered. 

Where more than twenty artizans signed an 
agreement whereby they constituted themselves 
an association for the above purpose, but which 
association was not registered as a Company 
under Act X. of 1866 : — 



COMPANY— coHtd. 

Held, that the Court could not grant an in- 
junction to restrain the breach of such agree- 
ment. Bhikaji Sabaji o. Bafu Saji. Sargent, 

J X. L. Bep. 1 Bom. 860, 1877. 

COMPANY— WINDING UP— Interest 00 
Debts subsequently to Date of Winding. 

See Power of Directors to bind 
Company by BUI of Exchange. 
New Fleming S. and. W. Co. 
(Limited)... I. L. Bep. 8 
Bom. 437. 
1. Transfer of Assets to Nev Company- 
Indian Companits' Act X. of 1866, ff 149, 154, 
and 175 — Right of Creditors of transferring Com' 
pany — Dissentient Shareholder — Sanction of 
Court.] By special resolutions passed on the 
3rd July 1878, and confirmed on the 31st July 
187S, the shareholders of the Fleming Spinning 
and Weaving Company (Limited) resolved that 
the company should be wound up voluntarily, 
and that all the assets of the said company 
ihould be transferred by the liquidators to a 
lew company then intended shortly to be formed 
and registered in Bombay, called the New Flem- 
ing Spinning and Weaving Company (Limited), 
and that the liquidators should receive as the 
consideration for such transfer, certain fully 
up shares in the new company for distribm- 
imong the shareholders of the old company. 
said transfer was to be made subject to a 
on the part of the new company to 
perform all the agreements and to discbarge all 
the debts and liabilities of the old company. 
The new company was duly formed and regis- 
tered on the same day (31st of July 1878), and 
the specified number of shares was delivered to 
the liquidators of the old company for distri- 
among the shareholders of the old com- 
pany- Two of such shareholders, J. and H-, the 
holders of 50 and 20 shares respectively, dissent- 
ed from the special resolutions in the manner 
required by f 175 of Act X. of 1866, and requir- 
ed the liquidators to purchase their interests, 
as thereupon referred to arbitra- 
tion. In the case of H. an award was made 
filed, but further proceedings were stayed 
by the older of the Court. In the case of J. 
award was made, and he brought a suit which 
3 still pending, against the old and the new 
companies and the liquidators, to recover Rs. 
>, the alleged value of his shares. In Dar- 



by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



COMB AN Y- WINDING XTB-contd. 
suance of the resolution, the liquidators of the 
old company handed over the assets to the 
company. They remained in its possessio 
the 17th of Januaiy 1879 when the new company 
was ordered to be wound up by the Court. The 
petitioners were appointed official liquidators, 
and as such were in possession of the assets at 
the date of the petition. No property whatever 
remained in the hands of the old company, 
except the shares remaining to be distributed 
Among the dissentient shareholders. The ni 
company had discharged debts of the old coi 
pany to the extent of six laksof rupees, and there 
remained debts of over three laks due by thi 
old company. Until after the new company be- 



came insolvent, no creditor of the old c 



npany 



had expressed his dissent from the above speei; 
resolution, or had refused to accept the 
company as his debtor. On the 1st of March 
1879, the voluntary winding up of the old 
pany was directed to be continued as a winding 
up under the supervision of the Court. The 
official liquidators of the new company noi* pre. 
sented a petition, praying that the above special 
resolutions might be sanctioned by the Court. 
Certain unsatisfied creditors of the old company 
opposed the petition, insisting that the sanctior 
should not be granted, except on the conditio! 
that they should be paid in full out of the pro- 
perty of the old company. The two dissentient 
shareholders', H. and J., also objected to the 
sanction being given, unless provision were made 
for the satisfaction of their claims as soo 
they could be ascertained 1 — 

Held, that the sale and transfer of the bus: 
and property of the old company was not 
ab initio by virtue of % 149 of Act X. of 1866 
because the claims of creditors had not been 
previously satisfied or secured. 

As to the considerations which ought to 
influence the Court in granting or refusing its 
sanction, it would not be prudent to attempt a 
more specific statement than is given by Lord 
Matberley in Re Agra and Sfasterman's Bank 
(L. Rep. 12 Eq. 509, note), where hesays :— " In 
truth, the function of the Court seems to be 
reduced to seeing that everything has been fairly 
done and put before the creditors and share- 
holders, and that they have been informed of 
all that they ought to be informed of ; that a 
decision has not been snatched by surprise ; that 
there has been nothing which would induce a 
Court to say that there had been either a fraud or 



COMPANY— WINDING TSS-eonti. 

surprise upon the person sought to be affected 
by it." Applying that principle, under the spe- 
cial circumstances of the case, the unpaid cre- 
ditors could not successfully oppose the applica- 



tion for; 



Their course v. 



o prove 



for their debts under the obligation assumed by 
the new company to satisfy the past debts and 
liabilities of the old company. The debts of the 
old company were not a specific charge on the 
property in the hands of the new company. By 
virtue of § 175 of Act X. of 1866, it was aeon. 
dition of the resolution being binding on the 
dissentient shareholders H- and J„ that they 
should be paid the value of their interest in the 
business and property intended to be trans- 



Under the special circumstances of the case, 
the new company having taken the property 
and assumed all the liabilities of the old com- 
pany, which would include the liability to pur- 
chase the interests of dissenting shareholders, 
there being no laches in those dissenting share- 
holders {H. and y.), and the property being 
within the jurisdiction of the Court and under 
its direct control by virtue of the winding-up 
order, the Court ought to place the dissenting 
shareholders, with respect to the property of the 
old company, in the same position as It would 
have placed them had they applied under f 154 
of Act X. of 1866, for an injunction to restrain 
the transfer until a fund was provided to secure 
the payment of their interests. 
The sanction of the Court, therefore, was given 
> the resoluiion, subject to the value of the 
interest of H. and J. being paid or adequately 
red ; this order being without prejudice to 
any question between the creditors of the old 
ipany and A", and jr. In re The Fleming 
■jning and Weaving Companv (Limited). 
Sargent, J... I. L. Hop. 3 Bom. S98, 1879. 

8. Practice— Notice of Appeal— Exten- 

of Time for Appeal— Act X. of 1866, , 141.] 
Notice of an appeal against any order or deci- 
made or given in the winding up of a com- 
pany by the Court, must, under § 141 of Act X 
of 1866, be given to the respondent within three 
weeks after the order or decision complained of 
has been made. The fact that under that Act 
In connection with the Civil Procedure Code, 
the service of such notice is effected by the 
Court, and not by the appellant himself, so that 
the appellant's right of appeal may depend not 



by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( 



) 



COMPANY-WINDING DP— «*ftfc 

on himself, but on whether the officer of the 
Court performs his duty, makes no difference. 
The appellant should ascertain whether the 
notice of appeal has been duly given, and if he 
finds that it has not, he should apply to extend 
the time. 

The Court has power to extend the time for 
giving the notice after the three weeks had ex- 
pired, upon special circumstances being shown. 
In the matter o/TheSarawAk AMD 
Hindustan Banking and 
Tradino Company, Limited, 
i. allah barroomui. v. the offi- 
CIAL Liquidator. Garth, C.J. 
and White, J....L L Bop. 4 
CaL 704; SCaLBep. 081, 
1878. 

COMPANY— WINDING UP-CONTBL 

BUTOBY— Balance Order—Description of Hol- 
der of Shares— list of Contributories— Evidence- 
Amendment of Plaint.'] Where the holder of 
shares in a company was described in the list of 
con t rib u tones, against whom a balance order of 
the Court of Chancery had been made, as " Devji 
Bhanji, Cotton Merchant," and as being sued 
" in his own right " : — 

Held, that the plaintiff company could not be 
allowed to give evidence that the shares were in 
fact held by a firm consisting of two individuals, 
named respectively Bhanji Zutani and Devji 
Hemraj ; as the balance order being a part of the 
record in Chancery, as such, imports incontro- 
vertible verity, nor could the plaintiffs at the 
hearing of the appeal, be allowed (o amend their 
plaint, originally framed against both partners, 
with a view to make the firm liable for the 
amount of the calls, so as to sue Bhanji Zutani 
only, who alone was alleged to have signed the 
Articles of Association in the name of Devji 
Bhanji, and to make him personally liable as the 
holder of the shares. 

The London, Bombat, and Medi- 
terranean Bank e. Bhanji 
Zutani. Westropp, C.J., and 
Green, J ...I. L. Bep. 3 Bom. 
110, 1877. 

OOMPABATIVE WEIGHT OP AUTHO- 
RITY OP HINDU LAV BOOKS. 
See Hindu Lav— Authority of 

Writers. 



COMPENSATION— Apportionment of— for 
Laud taken up for Public Purposes — 
Finality of Decree— Right of Suit. 
See Land Acquisition Act X of 
1870.3. 
Nilhonice Singh •. Rambuk- 
DHOO...L X. Bop. 4 CaL 787. 

To Complainant. 

See Compensation. 1. 

■ For land taken up for Public Purposes. 

St* Land Acquisition Act X. of 
1870. 1. 

PUHCHAND BURRAL «. THE COL- 
LECTOR of Calcutta. ..I, X.. 
Bep. 3 CaL 108. 

Criminal Procedure Code, Act X. of ifyi, 

f 209 — Complainant.] A lartun on the estab- 
lishment of a Civil Court, entrusted with the 
execution of a writ, reported to the Court that a 
particular person obstructed him in attaching 
property as commanded by the writ ; and a re- 
port was therefore made by the Court to a 
Magistrate, with a view to proceedings being 
taken against the obstructor. The Magistrate 
acquitted the accused, and ordered the kariun 
pay the accused compensation, under f 309 
pf the Criminal Procedure Code : — 

Held, that this last order was wrong, the 
karhun not being a complainant within the mean- 
ing of j 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 
In such a case the Subordinate Judge must be 
considered as the complainant, and be, having 
acted judicially, was not liable to the penalty 
provided by § 209 of the Code. In re Keshav 
LakshhaN. MelhiU and West, JJ...L L. Bep. 

1 Bom. 175, 1876. 

COMPENSATION TO FAMILIES FOB 
LOSS RESULTING PROM 

DEATH CAUSED BY ACTION- 
ABLE WB0NO-. 

See Negligence. 

Lvell v. Ganga Dai... I. L. 
Bep. 1 ALL 60. 
COMPENSATION FOB LOSS OF COM- 
MISSION ON SALES — Dissolution of 
Partnership — Commission on Sales — Implied 
Covenant.] By an agreement made on the 10th 
of January 1857, between K. N. and several 
other persons, it was agreed that they should 
inn a copartnership for the purpose of erecting 
mill for the manufacture of yarn. The capital 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



( £86 ) DIGEST OF CASES. ( 286 ) 

COMPENSATION FOB LOBS OF COM- COMPENSATION FOR LOBS OF COJT. 
MISSION ON BALES— amtd. MISSION ON SALES— ccntd. 



of the partnership was fixed at Ra. 3,00,00a, 
and divided into 100 shares of Rs. 3,000 each. 

By the 4th clause of the agreement, it was 
provided that, in return for the trouble K. N- 
had been at in establishing the factory, " what- 
ever cotton had to be purchased for the factory, 
K N. was to purchase, and whatever yarn should 
be made in the factory, K. N. was to sell, and 
for whatever he should sell on account of the 
factory, he was duly to receive from the copart- 
nership his commission at the rate of 5 percent. 
during his life-time ;" and it was also provided 
that that though the purchases and sates by the 
copartnership should not be made through 
K. N., "yet upon tbe whole amount of the 
sales the copartnership was duly to pay 5 per 
cent, to K. N. during his life-time." 

The factory was built, and its machinery 
procured and set up by AT. .V., and both finan- 
cially and otherwise the factory was wholly 
managed by him. Shortly after it commenced 
work, it was found that the copartnership had 
expended all its capital and was heavily involv- 
ed in debt, — incurred by K. N., without the 
sanction of his copartners, — and that the factory 
was working at a loss ; and at the suit of some 
of them, but against the consent of K. N. and 
a minority of the copartners, the copartnership 
was ordered to be dissolved. K. N. then 
claimed to be entitled to compensation for the 
loss of the commission he would have earned 
upon the sale of the yarn of the factory during 
his lifetime. 

Held, that this was not the ordinary case of 
master and servant, but that of the founder of 
a company, in which he was a partner, and of 
which he had become tbe manager, broker, and 
agent ; that the capital of the company was 
fixed by the agreement of the 20th of January 
1857 at three lakhs of rupees, and that without 
the consent of all the partners that capital 
could not be increased ; that there was no 
obligation on the copartners (o subscribe more 
capital after the original capital had been 
exhausted, and that there was no implied 
covenant on the part of the copartners to con- 
tinue the working of the factory in order that 
K- N. should be in a position to earn his com- 
mission during his life-time, and that he was, 
therefore, not entitled to the compensation 



Held, also, that even if the copartners had 
covenanted to carry on business during the 
life-time of K. N., yet as he had mainly contri- 
buted to, and forced, the dissolution of the 
company, he was not entitled to compensation. 
Distinction between the right to compensation 
for loss of fixed wages, and the right to compen- 
sation for loss of commission, pointed out. 
Lalbhai Vallaehai v. Kavasji Nanahhu. 

Westropp, C.J., and Bailey,] 8 Bom. H. O, 

Hep., 0. 0. J. 209, 1871. 

Held, on appeal to the Privy Council, that the 
contract between K. N. and his partners for 
remuneration to the former for the management 
of the partnership business by a commission on 
the sales, during his life-time, did not, in the 
absence of any express agreement to that effect, 
imply a relinquishment by the copartners of 
their right to have tbe partnership dissolved, if 
they found that it could only be carried on at a 
loss ; and that it did not imply any obligation 
to pay K. N. compensation if they did exercise 
that right. Kavasji Nanabhat v. Lallubhov 
Vuliudhov.-.I. L. Rep. lBom. 468, 1870i 

COMPETENT WITNESS— Accused impro- 
perly pardoned. 

See Evidence. 2. 3. 4. 

Judge or Magistrate. 

See Disqualifying Interest of 
Judge. 

Reg. v. Bholanath Sen L L. 

Sep. S Cal. 23. 
See Evidence. 32. 

Empress v. Donellt I. L. 

Rep. 9 Col. 40B. 
COMPLAINANT— Compensation to— Judge 
directing Proceedings on Report of Kar 
kun, which Magistrate disbelieved. 
See Compensation. 

Keshav ...I.L. Rep. 1 Bom. 176. 

Contempt of Authority of Public Servant. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X of 1873, § 910. 
Muse Adam... I. L. Rep. 2 Bom. 
663. 
OMPO SITION— Insolvency— Assignment by 
Debtor in Trust for Creditors. 
See Arbitration. 3. 

Khkta Mal v. Chvni L.AL...I. Zh 

Rep. 2 AIL 17S. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



< 



) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



COMPOSITION DEED- -Cancelling— Misre- 
presentation — Release— Contract Act IX. 
of 1872, H 18-19. 
See Cancellation of Signature. 

Oriental Bank v. Fleming. ..I. 
L. Rep. 3 Bom. 242, 

COMPOUND INTEREST— Hindu Law- 
Bengal Mofussil. 
&f Interest. 4. 

Deen Dayal ». Kylas Ckundee.. 
I. L. Rep. 1 Cftl. 92. 

COMPOUNDING OFFENCES. 
See Dureas, 

Moung Shoay Att v. Ko Bvaw.„ 

L. Rep. 3 I. A. 61 ; I. L. 

Rep. 1 Cal. 330. 

1.— Cheating .] Cheating is not an 
offence which can be legally compounded. 

Rao. v. Lakhu Sadashiv...L L. Rep. 1 Bom. 
158,ii. 

2. Criminal Breach of Trust.'] Nor is 

criminal breach of trust Reg. •. Lakhhmak 
Gabaji Ibid. 

3. Defamation.'^ Nor defamation. Reg. 

s. Nutty Ibid. 

4. —— Enticing away a Married Woman.'] 
Nor enticing away a married woman. Rug. 
Jetha Ciiatru Ibid. 

5. Criminal Procedure Code, Act X. of 

1872, §5 215, 296— Dismissal of Warrant Case. 
Revival of Prosecution.] A charge of hou» 
breaking and theft was " dismissed " by the 
Magistrate on the parties coming to an amicable 
settlement, and the prosecutrix withdrawing her 
complaint 

Held, that the "dismissal " was equivalent to 
a discharge under § 215 of the Criminal Pro- 
cedure Code (Act X. of 1872), and did not bar 
the revival of the prosecution ; nor did the com- 
position between the parties do so, if that should 
otherwise be thought necessary or expedient. 
Housebreaking in order to commit theft is not 
so offence which, according to § 214 of the 
Penal Code, can be legally compounded ; and 
the withdrawal from the prosecution in such a 
case has not, according to ( 188 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code, Act X. of 1872, the effect of 
an acquittal. Reg. v. Devaiia. West and N. 
Harridan, JJ I. L. Rep. 1 Bom. 04, 187ft. 



COMPOUNDING) OFFJUI OBB— cm ii. 

8. Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt- 
Penal Code, j ZtQ— Criminal Procedure Code, 
Act X. 0/1872, f 210.] Whenever the words, 
" voluntarily," "intentionally," " fraudulently," 
"dishonestly," or others whose definition in- 
volves a particular intention, enter along with a 
specified act into the description of an offence, 
the offence not being one "irrespective of the 
intention," is not one which the exception to f 
214 of the Penal Code by itself allows to be 
compounded without the parties incurring the 
penalties prescribed by that and the preceding 
section. The offence, to admit of compromise, 
must be one in this sense, irrespective of the 
intention ; and must be one for which a civil 
action may be brought at the option of the 
injured person, instead of criminal proceedings. 
The offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt 
is therefore one which cannot legally be com- 
pounded. Reg ■ v. Jetha Bala (10 Bom. H. C. 
Rep. 68) dissented from. Reg. v. Rahinat... 

L L. Rep. 1 Bom 147, 1876, F. B. 

7. Criminal Breach of Trust — Enticing 

away Married Woman.'] The offences of cri- 
minal breach of trust, and enticing away a mar- 
ried woman with a criminal intent,are not offences 
which may be lawfully compounded. Reg. v. 
MUTUAVAK...I. L. Rep. 1 Mad. 191, 1876, 
F. B. 

S. Adultery— Penal Code, § 497— Act 

X. of 1872, § iSS.] N. charged T. with having 
committed adultery with his wife. T. was con- 
victed by the Sessions Court to which he was 
committed. T. appealed to the High Court- 
After TVs conviction, N. took back his wife to 
live with him, and asked the High Court to be 
allowed to compound the offence 1 — 

Held, that at that stage of the proceedings 

ch sanction could not be given, but looking to 

the relation between the parties, and the fact that 

T. had been in custody for t\ months, the Court 

directed the release of T. Ehpeess «. Thoh- 

1. Oldfidd, J...I. L. Rep. 3 All. 339, 

1879. 

COMPROMISE — Criminal Charge against 

Agent — Agent's Power to bind Principal 

by Compromise. 

oVfDnreu. 

Moung Shoav Att. *. Ko Byaw. 

L. Rep. 3 I. A. 61 ; I. L. 

Rep. 1 Ca.1. 830. 



Digitized by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



COMPROMISE; -contd. 
• Pending Appeal set aside for Fraud — Re- 
vival of Right of Appeal. 
,S« Revival of Bight of Appeal. 
Raneb Khujoqroonissa o. Mussr. 

RoUSHUN JEHAN...L. R*p. 3 

I. A. 391. 

1, Suit for Recovery of Immoveable 

Property — Compromise — Breach of Contract of — 
Act XIV. of 1859, § 1, CI. IO and 12.] Immove- 
able property situated partly in Rohilcund and 
partly in Oudh, which had formerly belonged to 
the common ancestors of the appellant and the 
respondent, was claimed by each on the ground 
of heirship. By deed of compromise they agreed 
to divide it in certain proportions, and the 
agreement was carried out in Rohilcund but not 
in Oudh, where the respondent was aod conti- 
nued, in possession. At the end of nine years 
from the date of the deed of compromise, the 
appellant sued for possession of her share of 
the property in Oudh. 

The Judicial Commissioner of Oudh having 
decided that the suit was founded on the contract 
contained in the deed of compromise or for a 
breach of it, and therefore barred by Act XIV. 
of 1S50, % I, CI. 10:— It was held (reversing this 
decision), that the claim did not rest on contract 
only, but on a title to the land acknowledged 
and defined by the contract, which was only pact 
ofthe evidence of the appellant to prove her 
case, and not all her case; and that, consequently 
the suit was not founded on a contract or for a 
breach of it, but was a Suit for the recovery of 
immoveable property "to which no other p 
sion of the Act applies," and, therefore, subject 
only to the limitation of 12 years prescribed by 
§ I, CI. 12. RaniMkwa KirwAHi. Rani Hui.as 

Kuwar.-.L. Rep. 1 1, A. 167 ; IS Bang. L. R. 
313, 1874' 

2. Hindu Lav — Undivided Family — 

Separate Property — Son nhen bound by Compro- 
mise effected by his Father— Re-grant by Govern. 
xtcnr.] Certain ancestral estate was recorded as 
held in four shares of five bis-mas each, held res- 
pectively by four brothers, Darjan Singh, Sundar 
Singh, Des Raj, and Chattarpat. On the death 
of Darjan Singh, Chakarpan, his son, was entered 
as the holder of his share, and after the death' 
of Sundar Singh, and Chattarpat, Des Raj wa: 
at first recorded as the owner of their shares 
but shortly afterwards the names of their widows 
were entered as the holders of their husbands' 



COMPROMISE— contd. 

shares. At a later period, the names of Ajudhia 
ind Budh Singh, sons of Chakarpan, were sub- 
tituted for those of the widows. The estate was 
eventually sold for arrears of Government reve- 
iue, but a farm was given to Chakarpan, Ajudhia, 
Budh Singh, and Des Raj. In 1853 the Govern- . 

: having purchased the estate at an auction 
sale, proposed to re-grant it to the old zemindars 

farmers, and a report regarding the owner, 
ship of the estate was called for. The Tahsildar 
reported that it appeared from the statement of 
Chakarpan and Gandharp Singh, son of Des Raj, 
that the widows of Sundar Singh and Chattarpat 
bad made a gift of their shares to Ajudhia and 
Budh Singh. In 1853, the Collector asked Cha- 
karpan, Gandharp Singh, Budh Singh, and 
Ajudhia how they proposed to divide the estate 

ig themselves if it was granted to them by 
Government, and they replied that all four would 
hold live Aismaj each- The Government even- 
tually agreed to grant the estate on condition 
that the arrears of revenue which had accrued 
should be discharged. This offer was accepted, 
and each of the four persons above named paid 
his quota. In 1855, the same persons appeared 
before the revenue officer and requested that 
each of them might be recorded as the owner 
of five biswas, and a village administration paper 
wasprepared in which they were entered as in 
possession each of five biswas. In 1864, they 
agreed to the appointment of an arbitrator and 
an umpire to divide these shares. The arbitra- 
tion proceedings lasted for two years, when 
Gandharp Sing claimed a ten biswas share, and 
the arbitrators refused to proceed. 

In 1867, Gandharp Singh sued to obtain pos- 
session of a two and a half biswas share out of 
the five originally held by one of the widows, 
then deceased, and for a declaration of his right 
to a two and a half biswas share out of the five 
biswas originally held by the other widow. This 
suit was compromised, the parties agreeing to 
divide the estate into four lots, aud a decree 
was passed in terms of the compromise. Ujagar 
Singh, a son of Gandharp Singh, now sued, in 
his father's lifetime, to obtain the same relief as 
his father had sought in the above-mentioned 
suit in 186;, and a declaration that the arrange- 
ment effected by the compromise and decree 
were ineffectual : — 

Held, that assuming that the family remained 
joint until 1867, the plaintiff's father for alt 



by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



COMPROMISE- contd. 
intents and purpose* represented the interest 1 
the estate which devolved, and would on parti 
lion (all to the separate share of himself and his 
children, and that the plaintiff was bound by his 
acts, In the absence of evidence of such fraud 
and collusion as would entitle him to relief on 
those grounds. The compromise effected by 
Gandharp Singh was a prudent termination of a 
litigation which must have resulted in failure, 
for, besides the cogent evidence provided by 
Gandharp himself by his declarations in 1853 ant 
1S55 of bis acquiescence in the entry of tin 
names of Ajudhia and Rucih Sing, there was the 
difficulty ic his way that the property had beei 
granted to Ajudhia and Budh Singh by the 

Held also, that if, as there was strong evidence 
to show, the property was held in separati 
shares, the shares of the great-uncles of the 
plaintiff descended as inheritance liable to be 
obstructed, and that he could not question his 
father's acts. Fitah Singh v. Ujaoar Singh 
Pearson and Turner, JJ...L L. Rep. 1 All. 
OBI, 1878. 
COMPROMISE OF DECREE. 
See Limitation. 8. 

S row ell ». Billings... I. L. Rep. 
1 All. 360. 
COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OP LIMI- 
TATION— For Appeal under CI. to, Letters 
Patent, Allahabad — Deduction of Time requis- 
ite for obtaining Copy of Judgment appealed 
from, not allowed. 

See Letters Patent, Allahabad, CL 
10.2. 
Fazal Muhammadc. PhulKuar. 
I. L. Rep. 3 All. 102. 
See Limitation. 90. 



JA, 



: Lal 



■ Das... 



I. L. Bep 1 All. 044. 

For Appeal — Error in — no Ground for ad- 
mitting Time-barred Appeal. 
See Time-barred Appeal. 3. 

ZaibulnissaBibii. Kijlsuv Bibi. 
I. L. Rep. 1 AIL 360. 

— For application for Restitution by person 
dispossessed— Exclusion of Day on which 
Order or Decree appealed against wa 

See Limitation. 68. 

Guzar *. Bakvb...I. L. Bep. ; 
Bom. 078. 



COMPUTATION OP PERIOD OF LIMI- 
TATION-nmM. 
■ Deduction of Time occupied in unsuccess- 
ful Enhancement Suit, in Suit for Ar- 
rears of Rent at admitted Rate, not 

See Limitation. 0. 

Brojbndro Coomar Roy v. Ra- 

khal Ch under Roy .L L. 

Rap. 3 CaL 791. 

Deduction of Time occupied in unsuccessful 

Suit for Khas Possession, in Suit for Ar- 
rears of Rent, not allowed. 
Set Limitation. 10. 

Harbo Proshad v. Gopaul Dass. 

I. L. Rep. S CaL 817. 

— — Deduction of Time occupied in prosecuting 

Suits in Court without Jurisdiction — Suits 

under Act XVIII. of 1S73. 

See Limitation. 89. 

TtHAL KuARI S. ASLAKII Ra|... 

I. L Bep. 1 All. 954. 

Deduction of Time occupied by proceedings 

in wrong Court. 
See Limitation. 41. ' 

Seth Kahandas e. Dhaiabhai... 
I. L. Rep. 8 Bom. 183, 

Deduction of Time occupied by former 

Suit. 

See Limitation. 91. 

PuTALI MbHETI 1. TULJEE...I. L. 

Rep. S Bom. 333, 

For Execution of Decree — Exclusion of 

Day on which previous Application for 
Execution was made. 
See Limitation. 83, 

Dhonessur Koobr *. Roygooder. 

Sahoy L L. Bep. 8 CaL 

336. 

- Expiration of Period of Limitation on close 
Holiday — Presentation of Plaint on next 
Court Day. 

See Limitation. 0. 13. 

Bishan Chand v. Ahmad Khah... 
I. L. Rep. 1 All. 303. 

PURKAH C. GhOSE tr. MuTTY L.AI.L 

G.Johira L L. Rep. 4 

CaL 60. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( 2M ) 



COMPUTATION OP PERIOD OP LIMI- 
TATION— eontd. 
~— For Execution of Decree — Exclusion of 
Time occupied in seeking Execution in 
Court without Jurisdiction. 
See Limitation. 40. 

Jivan Singh «. Saknam Singh... 
I. L. Rep. 1 AIL 87. 

As to Parties Added to Suit. 

See Assignment of Mortgage. 

Ganpat Panduranq o. Adarji 

Dadabhai I, L. Hep. S 

Bom. S12- 
Ser Ones Probandi. 2. 

Abdul d. Masji.„L L. Hep. 1 
BOm. £95. 
See Co-sharer* of Land. 4. 

Bovoohath Bao h. Gkish Chun. 

der Rov,..I. L. Bep. 3 CaL 

96. 

For Petition for Leave to Appeal to Privy 

Council — Exclusion of time necessary t( 
obtain Copy of Judgment. 
5« Limitation. 80. 

Jawahir Lal o. Nabaih Das... I 
L. Bep. 1 All. 644. 



COMPUTATION OP VALUE OP IN- 
TEREST CREATED IN IMMOVE- 
ABLE PROPERTY— Present Value of In. 
terest, and Amount of Consideration stated in 
document, irrespective of Future Profits or in- 
terest, governs necessity to register. 

See Registration. 1. 7. 8. 8. 16. 17. 

18.20. 

Karan Sinoh v. Ram Lal . L L. 

Bep. 3 All. 96. 

Satra o. Visram.-.L L. Rep. 8 

Bom. 87. 

Shankarv. Vishnu...!. L. Bep, 



Nai 



II 



t. 67. 



Fazal Muhamad ». Phul Kuar. 
L L. Bep. 2 All. 193. 

■ To Suit Commenced infirrmi Pauperis but 

Continued in the Ordinary Form. 
See Limitation. 87. 

Chundes Mohun Roy e. Rhubo 

Mo him Dabea...I. L. Bep. 

3 Cat. 389. 

See Petition for Leave to Sub in 

Forma Pauperis. 1. 3. 

Skinner v. Orde. I, L. Rep. 1 

All. 230 ; L. Bep. 8 I. A. 
136. 

COMPUTATION OP TIME ACCORDING 

TO ENGLISH CALENDAR. 

See Bengal Act VIII. of 1869, f 39. 

Mahomed v Broiokishors...L L. 

Bep. 4 Cal. 497. 



t. Anant L L. Rep. 3 

Bom. 303. 

Narsappa b-Guruafpa L L. 

Rep. 1 Mad. 378. 

Ram D. Kooeho.ThacoorRov... 

I. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 81. 

Ahmed Baksh v. Gobindi...I. L. 

Bep. 3 All. 316. 

Contra, see Registration. 19. 31. 

Rajpati Singh a. Ram Sukhi 

Kuar I. L. Rep. 2 All. 

40. 

Darshan Sing v. Hanmanta.,,1. 

L. Bep. 1 All. 374. 

CONCEALMENT OP PBIOB CHARGE. 

See Estoppel. 1. 

Munnoo Lalld. Lalla Chooneb 
Lall.-.L. Bep. 1 1. A, 144. 
CONCURRENT JUDGMENTS ONFACT. 

Set Practice— Privy Council. 1. 3. 
CONDITION IMPOSED ON CONSENT 
TO AN ADOPTION, OWING TO 
MISTAKE OP PACT. 
See Hindu Law— Adoption. IS. 

Rangubai -v. Bhagjrthibai I. 

L. Bep. 3 Bom. 877. 
CONDITION OF RESIDENCE, DEVISE 
ON. 

See Will. 10. 

Tagorb tTagore ..L. Bep.ll. 
A. 367. 

CONDITION IN RESTRAINT OP PAR- 
TITION OB ENJOYMENT-Devise 

with. 

See Hindu Law— Will. 1. 

MokoondoLalli'.Gonesh Chun-. 
dkr...L L. Rep. 1 OaL 104. 



by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES, 



CONDITIONAL ADOPTION. 

See Hindu Law— Adoption. 0. IB. 

Radhabai s. Ganesh.I. L.Rep. 

S Bom. 7. 

Rahasawmi 0. Vencatarahatvan. 

L. Rep. 6I.A. 186. 

CONDITIONAL DECREE— In Pre-emption 

Suit. 

See Pre-emption. 3. 4. S. 

Shaikh Ewaz e- Mokuna Bin... 

L L. Hop. 1 AIL 132. 

HtHOAN Khan v-GangaParshad. 

Ibid. 263. 

Mahabir Parshad j.Debi Dial... 

Ibid. 291. 

In Redemption Suit. 

See Mortgage. 35, 86. 

Raja Barda Kant v. Bhagwan... 

I. L. Sop. 1 AIL 344. 

Sahib Zadah v- Par.ueshar Das. 

Ibid. 624. 

CONDITIONAL DEVISE. 

See WilL 10. 

Tagore & Tagore. ..L. Rep. 1 
LA 387. 
CONDITIONAL LEGISLATION. 

See Legislative Powers of the Go. 

vernor- General in Council 3. 

Empress v. Burrah...I. L. Sep. 

4 Cal. 172 ; L. Bop. S I. A. 

178 ; L. Hep. 3 App. Ca. 

889. 

CONDITIONAL BALE— Foreclosure. 

Str Hindu Law— Ancestral Pro- 
perty. 
Shah Narain Singh t>. Rughoo- 
BEKDYAL..X L.Rep. 3 Cal. 
SOS, 

Mortgage by — Redemption. 

See Mortgage. IS. 

Thumbasawiiv Mudelly v. Ma- 
homed HOSSAIN ROWTHBN ... 

L. Rep. 3 L A. S41 ; L L. 
Rep. 1 Mad. 1. 



- Attestation by Magistrate when unn 
sary. 
See Evidence. 16. 

And see Criminal Procedure Code, 
Act X. of 1872, f 846. 
Chuhmun Shah ..L L. Rep. 8 
0*1.766. 



- Of Co-Accused, Admission of, to Exculpate 

Co- Accused. 
See Evidence. B. 

Imfx. d. Pitamber I. L. Rep. 

2 Bom. 01. 

- Of Co-Accused Insufficient of itself to 

support Conviction. 

See Evidence. 0. 9a. 10. 11. 11a. 

- Of Co-Accused no Corroboration of Ac- 

See Evidence. 11a. 



Inducement by Person in Authority. 

See Evidence. 16. 

Empress v. Rama. ..I, L. Rep. 8 
Bom. 13. 
Informally Recorded, under § IJ2 of Cri- 
minal Procedure Code — Defect remedi- 
able by Evidence. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1873, 1 123.8. 

Empress v. Rakanjiva L L. 

Rep. 3 Mad. 6. 
. Contra, see Evidence. 12. 14. 

Reg. o. Shiva. ..L L. Rop. 1 

Bom. 218. 

Empress v. Mannoo Tauoolee... 

LL.Rep.4CaL696. 

Made to Deputy Commissioner of Police. 

Sec Evidence. 13. 

Reg. v. Hur.eibole,..L L. Rep. 
1 Cal. 807. 
CONFIRMATION OF P086E8BT0N- 
Suit for — and Setting Aside Deeds. 
See Setting Aside Deeds. 

Tacoordeen Tewarry v. Nawab 

Svbo Ali... L. Rep. 1 I. A. 

182. 

CONFIRMATION OF SALE— Purchaser's 

Title relates to. 

See Sale in Execution of Decree. 8. 

BKYRUB Ch UNDER V. SOUDAMINI. 

L L. Rep. 3 CaL 141. 

Under Decree — After Reversal of Decree. . 

See Salein Execution of Decree. 31. 

Rasappa v. Dundava.L L.Rep. 

3 Bom. 640. 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



( aw ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CONFISCATION -On Conviction under 
§ 49. Act XXI. of 1856, no Part of the 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1878, f 222. 
Empress v- Baidanath Das... 
L. Bop. 3 Cat 866. 
CONFISCATION FOE REBELLION. 
See Act IX. of 16S0, } 20. 

Mohvmhud Bahaooor Khan v. 

The Collector of Bareillv. 

L.Bep. 1. L A, 167. 

CONFISCATION IN OUDH— EFFECT 

OF. 

I. Lard Canning's Proclamation of 1858 

—Effect of Re-Grant 0/ Confiscated Estate.'] 
The effect of Lord Canning's Proclamation of 
the 15th of March 1858, was to divest all the 
landed property from the proprietors in Oudh, 
and to transfer it and to vest it in the British 
Government. Consequently all who sim 
date claim title to such property must 
through the Government. 

The proclamations of Sir James Outran, dated 
respectively the 21nd of March 1858 and the 
3Jth of March 1858, by the former of which 1 
was " notified for those who have fled from tin 
city, having; locked up their houses, that if they 
would not return within 10 days and re-ot 
their houses, the property within their h. 
will be confiscated," and the latter addiessi 
the landholders, and which tan thus :— ' 
Major.General, Chief Commissioner of Oudh, 
in sending you this proclamation, wishes 
inform you that if you at once come in, ready 
to obey his orders, provided you have taken 
no part in the atrocities committed on helpless 
Europeans, none of your lands will be confiscat. 
ed, and your claims to lands held by you prior to 
confiscation will be heard," cannot be taken as 
having the effect of changing the effect of Lord 
Canning's proclamation, or having any operation 
in as far as they may be inconsistent with it. 

Where a re-grant is made to a former owner 
the new title will depend entirely on the terms 
of the re-grant, and if such re-grant is made for 
life only, no suit can be maintained to rectify an 
alleged mistake, and for a declaration of anabso- 
hrte title according to the tenor of the svnnud 
by which the property was held under the old 
dynasty and prior to the confiscation. Nawab 
Mauca Jam an Samba*. Deputy Commissioner 
ofUckjtow L. Bop. OX. A 63, 1879. 



CONFISCATION IN OUDH—; 
OF— contd. 

2. Lord Cannings Proclamation — 

Houses in Oudh— Abandonment of Confiscation 
— Limitation.] In a suit £0 recover from the 
defendant, who was in possession, certain houses 
in Lucknow and a moujiah in Oudh .— 

Meld, that the effect of Lord Canning's Procla- 
mation of the 15th March 1858, was to confiscate 
all the proprietary rights in the soil of the pro- 
of Oudh, and to put an end to all previous 
titles. The plaintiff, therefore, in order to re- 
sr the mouzah, must show a title acquired by 
e grant or proceeding of Government within 
ve years prior to the commencement of the 
. As to the houses, their Lordships consi- 
dered it unnecessary to determine what was the 
effect of Lord Canning's Proclamation, or what 
was the effect of Sir James Outram's Proclama- 
tion of the i»nd of March 1858 (set out in the 
preceding case), because with reference to all the 
houses in Lucknow which were the subject of the 
present suit it was the intention of the Govern- 
ment to abandon altogether the confiscation, and 
leave the former owners to their rights in the 
same way as if there had never been any confis- 
cation -.—Held, therefore, on a plea of limitation 
by the defendant, alleging that she was in pos- 
of the houses before the Proclamation, 
that the issues must be tried and determined in 
if there bad never been any 
confiscation at all. 

Issues settled accordingly, and case remanded. 

Prince Mirza J ehanKudr Bahadur ». Nawab 

Assur Bahu Bboum..L. Bop. 8 L A. 78, 

1878; X. L. Bop. 4 Cal. 727. 

CONFLICT OF OPINION BETWEEN 
INDIVIDUAL JUDGES NO 

GROUND FOB BEFEBENCE TO 
FULL BENCH. 

See Reference to Full Bench. 

Raj Koomar Sinoh e. Sahebzada 
ROV...L L. Bop. 8 OaL 30. 
CONNIVANCE. 

See Divorce. 2, 

Williams v. Williams L L, 

Bop. 3 CftL 688. 

CONSENT DECREE— Suit against Heirs of 

Deceased Mahomedan In Possession of 

his Estate — Absentee Heirs— Sale in 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CONSENT DEGREE— aMA*. 

See Kahomedan Law. 1. 

ASSAHATHEM NeSSA u. ROY LuTCH- 

MEPUT...I. L. Rep. 4 Cal. 



142. 

CONSENT OP OWNKB. — Property removed 
with— but with Criminal Intent— Theft 
See Abetment. 3. 

Empress tr. Troyuikho Nath .X 
L. Bep. 4 CaL 866. 

CONSENT OP FBISONER. 

See Disqualifying Inter eat of 
Judge. 

Reg. v. Bholanath Sen I. L. 

Bep. 9 CaL S3. 
CONSEQUENTIAL BELIEF. 

See the cases under Declaratory 

Declaration of Title to influence Collector. 

See Declaratory Decree. 10. 

Chakdtj b- Chathu Naubiah ..T. 
L. Bep. I Mart. 381. 

Suit for Declaratory Decree where no— can 

be given, not maintainable. 

See Declaratory Decree. 3. 4. 11. 

Strihathoo Natcbiar «. Doha- 

sinoa Tbvkh...Ij. Bep. 1 1. 

A. 168; 15 lleug. L. 

Bep. S3. 

SlNI Thiruvengadathienoar V, 

S. P. Chinnathamb(a...L L. 

Bep. 1 Had. 60. 

SHEoSistiH Rait.Musst. Dakho. 

L. Bep. D I A. 87; L L 

Bep. 1 AIL 688. 

Suit by Plaintiff in Receipt of Rents and 

Profits, for Possession under Stdl Title, 
by setting aside False Magolei bromuttur 
Title alleged by Defendants. 
See Declaratory Decree. 1. 

Rajah Nilmonek ». Rally 

Churn. ..L. Bep. 2L A. 83. 

■— — Suit by Hindu Reversioner. , 

See Declaratory Decree. 8. | 

Akbab Khan e. Sheoratan . I. 

L. Bep. I AIL 37a I 



CONSEftUENTIAL BELIEF- -tontd. 

Suit to set aside a Pottah granted by Plain. 

tiff's Lessor to Third Person at Invariable 
Rent — Pottah not yet set up against 
Plaintiff. 
See Declaratory Decree. 5. 

Ram Needhee t. Rajah Rughoo 

Nabain...L.L. Bep. 1 CaL 

4S6. 

CONSIDEBATIOK — Absence of — Nudum 
Pactum. 

Set Inam Chitti. 

Rauchandra e. Kalu LL. 

Bep. 3 Bom. 363. 

Absence of— Mortgage by Acceptor of 

Hundis still running, on Drawer's Bank- 
ruptcy, to secure Payment of Hundit. 
See Contract. 6. 

Manna Lalv- Bank of Bengal. 
L L. Bep. 1 All. 309. 

Agreement by Undivided Hindu Brothers, 

to recognize Undivided Brother's Rights 
in Undivided Property— Good. 
See Contract. 3. 

Lakhhi Chand o-Tori Lal...I. L. 
Bep. 1 AIL 618. 
Amount of— slated in Instrument— Mea- 
sures — Necessity for Registration. 
See the Index heading Computation 
of Value of Interest created 
in Immoveable Property. 

Deed — between Hindus does not import. 

See Registration. 38. 

Raju v. Kkishnarav ..I. L. 

Bep. 8 Bom. 873. 
Evidence of — Suit on Unstamped Promis- 
sory Note. 
See Evidence. 4. 

Golap Chand v. Thakurani 

Mohokoow L lb Bep. 3 

CaL 314. 

Evidence to Vary — or show that none exist. 

ed. 
See Evidence. 30. 

Hukum Ckuhd v. HIRALAL......L 

L. Bep. 8 Bom. ISO. 
- Immoral— Past Cohabitation is not. 
See Contract. 4. 

Man Kuar v. Jasodha Kuar...I. 



L. Bep. 1 All. 476. 



Diaxized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CONSIDERATION^ tontd. 



— Inadequacy of. 

See the cases under Unconscionable 

Bargain. 
See Inadequacy of Consideration. 
Administrator General op Ben- 
gal v. Jucgeswar Rov. ..I. 
L. Bop. 8 Gal 18S ; 1 Oal. 
Hop. 107. 
See Purchase by a Trustee. 

DfJONENDEB Ch UNDER V. MuTTY 

Lall ... L. Rep. 9 L A. 

— Love and Affection— Registration, 

See Contract. 8. 

Lakhmi Chand v. Tori Lal ..L 
L. Bop. 1 All. 618. 

— Past Cohabitation. 

See Contract. 4. 

Man Kuarv. Jasodka Kuar..L 
L. Bop. 1 All. 478. 

— Surety Bond — Absence of Consideration. 

See Contract. 14. 

Nanak Ram o. Mbhih Lal...L 
L. Bep. 1 ALL 487. 

— Time-barred Debt— Good. 

See Limitation. 43. 48. 44. 

Ragoji v. Abdul.. .L L. Bep. 1 

Bom. 390. 

Kally Prosonho v. Hbbra Lal... 

I. L. Bop. 3 Csl. 468. 

Muncol Prashad *. Shaha Kan- 

TO...T. L. Bep. 4 CaL 708. 

See Administration. J}. 

DhANJIBHAI *. NAVAZBAI...I. L. 

Bep. 3 Bom. 70. 

See Hindu Lav— Alienation by 

Widow. 8. 

Bhala o- Parbhu...I. L. Bep. 3 

Bom. 67) 71. 

See Time-barred Debt. 

Administrator General v. Haw. 
KINS..I. L. Bep. 1 Had. 267. 

— Time -barred Decree. 

See Kistbandi. 

Hebra Lall v. Dhunput Singh.. 
I. L. Bep. 4 CaL BOO. 

— Unlawful. 

See Contract. 18. 

Fatrh Singh v Sanwal...L L. 
Bep. 1 AIL 751. 



COVBTDEBATIOK-«»f^. 

Written Contract— Parol Evidence to show 

See Evidence. 90. 

HtlKUMCHUND V. HlHALAL...L L. 

Bop. 3 Bom. 169. 
CONSTITUTION OF JUBY. 

See High Court Criminal Procedure 
Code, Act X of 1876, H 83 
to 87. 
Reg. v. Lall- mi ai... I. L. Bep. 1 
Bom. 339. 
Reg. v. ViTHALDAS...Ibid. 463. 
CONSTITUTION OF THE SHALL 
CAUSES COUBT AT CALCUTTA 
See Small Cause Court— Presi- 
dency Town. 6. 
Ohritotall Dev...I. L. Bep. 1 
CaL 78. 
CONSTRUCTION OF ACT. 

See Construction of Statute. 

Relating to Procedure. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act X of 
1877, § 842. 
Rattansi Kalianji...L L. Bep. 
3 Bom. 148. 
CONSTRUCTION OF DECBEB. 
See Decree. 

Shauman Singh v. Ganga Ram... 
L L. Bep. 3 AIL S43. 
Harsukh v. MEGRAj.-.Ibid. 346. 
See Account. L 

Hirji Jina o. NaranMulji...L L. 
Bep. 1 Bom. 1. 

— — Notes of Judgment in Deputy Registrar's 
Book.'] A note of a judgment of the Appellate 
Court taken by a Deputy Registrar, cannot be 
looked at for the purpose of explaining or aiding 
" e construction of the decree of the Appel- 
late Court ; nor can notes taken from the book 
of the Judge who pronounced the judgment of 
the Appellate Court be looked at for that pur- 
pose. The decree must be construed as it stands. 
Where, therefore, a decree was, on the face of 
ordinary decree, in a partnership suit for 
the taking of the accounts between the partners 
the usual way, the Court refused to allow the 
respondent to show, by reference to such notes, 
that what the decree meant was, that he was to 
be credited, and his partners debited, with cer 
payments in tela, and not with their respec- 



by Google 



( 9W ) DIGEST OF CASES. 

CONSTRUCTION OF DECREE- -centd. CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE - tantd. 
live shares only. Suhar Akued*. Haji Ismail 
Haji Habib. Westropp, C- J.,-and Green, J. ..I. 
L. Bep. 1 Bom. 158, 1876. 
CONSTRUCTION OF INTERPRETA- 
TION CLAUSES IN ACTS OF THE 
LEGISLATURE. 

See Construction of Statute. 7. 
Guk Dayal...L L. Rep. 2 All. 



CONSTRUCTION OF FOTTAH — Grant 
during Continuance oi Lessor's Interest. 
See Grant during Continuance of 
Lenox's Interest. 
Baboo Lekheaj Roy «, Kvnhva 
SiNCH...L.Rep.4L A. 223; 
I. L. Rep. 8 Cal. 210. 
CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE. 

Apparently Opposed. 

See Contraction of Statute. 2. 
— Illustrations. 

See Construction of Statute. 7. 

Imposing Tax. 

Set Madras Act HI. of 1871. 

Leman v. Damodarava I. L. 

Rep. 1 Had. 158. 

In Pari Materia. 

See Jurisdiction. 18. 

Collector op Sea Customs v. 
Punnj AE...I. L. Rep. 1 Had. 



89. 
— — Interpretation Clauses. 

See Construction of Statute. 8. 
-^— Of Limitation. 

See Construction of Statute. 8. 

— Limiting Right to Resort to Courts of Jus- 

tice. 

See Pensions Act »*ttt, of 1861. 
8.4. 
Ravji e. Dadaji...I. L. Rep, 1 
Bom. 523. 

GURUSHIDGAVDAT.RUDRAC.AVDA... 

L L. Rep. 1 Bom. 531. 

Penal Statute. 

See Construction of Statute. 4. 

— Relating to Procedure. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act I. of 
1877, 5 842. 
Rattans!,,. I. L. Rep. 2 Bom. 
148. 



— Words ' May,' 'Must.' 

See Construction of Statute. 1. 

I. Words "May," "Mutt."'] In some 

cases the word "must" or the word "shall" may 
be substituted for the word " may" ; but that can 
only be done for the purpose of giving effect to 
the intention of the Legislature ; but in the ab- 
sence of proof of such intention, the word" may" 
must be taken to be used in its natural, and 
therefore in a permissive and not in an obliga- 
tory sense. Delhi and London Bamk •. Or- 
chard. L. Rep. 4 L A. 127, 1877 ; L L. 

Rep. 3 Cal. 47. 



2. Statutes apparentiyopp-ised.~] "When 

e apparently opposed, it is 
a cardinal principle in the interpretation of a 
statute that the one must, if possible, be read 
as a qualification of the other, so that some 
effect furthering the intention of the Legislature 
may be given to each." Per West, J., in Shan- 
kar Rahchandra v. Vishnu Anant...L L. 
Rep. 1 Bom. 67, 09. 

8. ■ Acts of Limitation — Construction 

>/.] Acts of Limitation being restrictive of the 
ordinary right to take legal proceedings, must, 
where their language is ambiguous, be construed 
strictly, i.e., in favour of the right to proceed. 
Per Westropp, C.J., in Umiash ANKAR Lakhmiram 

v- Chotalal Vajiram I. L. Rep. 1 Bom. 

10-22, 1875. 
S. C. under Limitation. 69. 

4. Penal Statute — Construction.'] A 

penal statute, when its language is ambiguous, 
must be construed in the manner most favour. 
able to the liberties of the subject, and this is more 
especially so when the penal enactment is of an 
exceptional character. Rbq.*. Bhista Madak- 

na L L. Rep. 1 Bom. 308, 1876, F. B. 

S. C. under Act XXVX of 1860. 

6. — — Repeal — Right acquired under Re- 
pealed Act.] The repeal of a statute or other 
legislative enactment cannot, without express 
words, or clear implication to that effect, in the 
repealing Act, take away a right acquired under 
the repealed statute or other enactment while it 



by Google 



{ 80S ) DIGEST OF CASES. ( 306 ) 

CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE— r<™W. CONSTRUCTION OF SANAD-mbM. 



was in force. Per Westropp, V.,]., in Sitarah 

Vasiidf.v v. Khanderav Balkriskna I. Xi. 

Bop. 1 Bom. S86-291. 

6. Interpretation Clauses — Construction 

of."] " Although I do not attach so much- impor- 
tance and force to interpretation clauses in Acts 
of the Legislature as is sometimes claimed for them 
— holding; that they should not be read merely 
by themselves, but that they may be controlled 
and limited by other express provisions of the 
same law, and as a consequence, that if incon- 
sistent with and repugnant to such other pro- 
visions they may be disregarded,— yet they are 
frequently very useful." Per Stuart, C.J., in In 
tht matter of the Petition s/Gur Dayal .X L. 
Rep. 3 AIL. 305, SOB. 

7- Illustrations Annexed to Acts of the 

Legislature—Force of] The illustrations an- 
nexed to the Acts of the Legislature, although 
attached to, do not in legal strictness form part 
of the Acts, and are not absolutely binding on the 
Courts. They merely go to show the intention 
of the framert of the Acts, and in that and other 
respects they may be useful, provided they are 
correct. Per Stuart, C.J., in Nanak Ram e. 

Mehin Lal I. L. Rep. 1 AIL 487, 483, 

1S77. 
S. C under Contract. 14. 
CONSTRUCTION OF BANAD. 

See Grant of Jaghir by th*Haat 

India Company. 

Gvlabdas o. Collector of 

SuRAT...L.Rep. 61. A. 84; 

L L. Rep. S Bom. 180. 

See Grant of Taluk. 

Bhooeun Mohini «. Harrish 

Chundrr...L Ii. Rep. 4 Cal. 

38 ; L. Rep. 6 L A. 138. 

1. Construction of — Ownership in Soil.] 

The plaintiff claimed, as proprietor of one 
moiety of the village of Nanej, to recover from 
the Mamlatdara moiety of ihc land rents wrong. 
fully intercepted by him in the year 1870-71, 
and based his claim on a sanad granted by the 
Raja of Satara in 1833-34, which purported to 
grant to the plaintiff's ancestor in Inam the 
village of Nanej, "including the waters, the 
trees, the stones (including quarries), the mines, 
and the bidden treasures therein, but excluding 
the Hakdars and Inamdars." 



Held, that the determination of the nature of 
the claim and title of the plaintiff must rest on 
the terms of the grant, irrespectively of the use 
which the plaintiff or his ancestors may have 
made of the land. Though, as said in Krishna 
v. Rangrow (4 Bom. H. C. Rep. A. C. J. 7), 
Sanadi grants in /nam, Saranjam, &c., are, 
generally speaking, more properly described 
as alienations of the royal share in the produce 
of the land, t-e., of land revenue, than grants 
of land, although in popular parlance so called, 
yet such is not invariably the case. 

If words are employed in the grant which ex- 
pressly or by necessary Implication indicate that 
Government intends, that so far as it may have 
any ownership in the soil, that ownership shall 
pass to the grantee, neither Government, nor 
any person subsequently to the date of the grant 
deriving under Government, can be permitted to 
say that the ownership did not pass. 

And therefore, under tbe terms of the above 
grant, tbe proprietary right in the soil of the 
village passed to the plaintiff, and not merely 
the land revenue, the reservation of the rights 
of Hakdars and Inamdars not preventing the 
property in the soil, so far as it could be regard- 
ed as having been vested in the Government, 
from passing to the Inamdar. Ravji N. Manu- 
LlKf. Dadaji Bapuji Desai. WtStropp, C.J., 
and Lor pent, J...L L. Rep 1 Bom. 023, 1878. 
See this case also under Pensions' Act 

XXIII. of 1871. 3. 

8. Grant in Inam— Kulbab Kulkann, 

excepting Rights of Hakdars.] A sanad of the 
Satara Government purported to grant a certain 
quantity " out of the Malta waste land" to A. B. 
" from generation to generation without inter- 
ruption," and proceeded : — " The above land is 
granted Kulbab Kulkanv (with all cesses and 
taxes), together with the present and the future 
cesses, exclusive of (i.e., excepting) the (rights 
of) previous hakdars," Westropp, C.J., said (p. 
341): — " The description in the sanad of the 
premises demised as ' ihaisa waste land* is to a 
certain extentagainst the supposition that there 
was then any mints* right in existence, but this 
is counterbalanced by the statement in the same 
sanad that there were then cesses payable out of 
the lands. This sanad is more similar in form 
to the sanad i n Vaman Janardhan Joski v. Tht 
Collector of Thana (6 Bora. H. C- Rep., A. C J., 
191) than to the sanad in Ravji Narayan 



by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CONSTRUCTION OF SANAD-nwW. 

Mandlik v Dadaji Bapuji Dtsai (I. L, Rep. 
Bom. 503) : but in either case, rights existing 
in private individuals at the date of the 
would not pass, under the grant by &>■ 
to the inamdar created there." Babaji v. Na< 

kayan X. L. Rep. 3 Bom. 340, 1879. 

S. C. under Hints. 1. 

And Practice-Civil. 10. 
CONSTRUCTION OF WILL OF HINDU 

IN ENQLISH FORK. 
Set Executor, Estate of. S, 

SALUBHAlv. MaNCUVARBA1.,.I. 1i. 

Rep. 2 Bom. 33S. 
CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION 

THROUGH TWTERTH'FPT ATE 

HOLDERS. 

5tt Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X of 1873, * 630. 1. 

Empress o. Thauoor Dyal I, 

I,. Rep. SCal. 330. 
CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD— Mortgagors 
and Mortgagees— Priority.] M, mortgaged by 
a registered mortgage deed certain property to 
bis brothers, the appellants, to secure repay- 
ment of a loan. Subsequently M. mortgaged 
the same property to P. I., one of M.'s brothers, 
attested this mortgage deed. M. subsequently 
borrowed money from B. to pay off P.'s mort- 
gage ; and S., another brother of M. t attested the 
mortgage deed in favour of B. B. obtained a 
decree on his mortgage, and at a sale in exe- 
cution thereof the respondents purchased the 
mortgaged property. The brothers of M. caused 
their mortgage to be notified at the sale. In 
a suit brought by the brothers of IS. to enforce 
their mortgage lien against the respondents; — 
Held, that the respondents as auction pur- 
chasers were entitled to put forward the same 
pleas as might have been urged by the mortga- 
gees had the question of priority arisen before 
the sale. Though they purchased with notice 
of the appellants' claim, they knew also that the 
claim was contested, and the notification of the 
claim at the sale could not restore tc 
appellants priority if they had already lost 

Held also, that it is a rule of equity that 
where a man by his conduct or language wilfully 
causes another to conceive an erroneous im- 
pression, and to act on the impression he has 
so formed and to alter his position, he cannot 
afterwards be allowed to claim any benefit for 



CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD- tontd. 
himself by asserting that the facts were contrary 
to the impression he had produced ; and a 
man must be presumed to intend the natural 
consequences of his conduct or language. If a 
man stands by and sees another sell property 
which belongs to him, he is bound to proclaim 
his title. If he fails to do so, and a stranger 
is induced by his silence to believe be has no 
title, and, under that impression, expends his 
money on the purchase of his property, equity 
holds the man so standing by, if he fails to 
explain his silence, guilty of constructive fraud, 
and postpones his title to that of the purchaser. 
It is, however, of the essence of constructive 
fraud, that the person sought to be charged 
therewith should be proved to have concurred 
or co-operated in some deceit, or to have been 
guilty of gross negligence. It is not enough to 
show merely that a man, knowing that person* 
are dealing with his property out of his presence, 
keeps silence. But if a person who proposes to 
make an advance on a property informs a mortga- 
gee of his intention in such amannerasto show 
that he intended to be guided by what he might 
hear from the mortgagee, and the mortgagee 
ins silent, still moic if a direct inquiry is made 
of the mortgagee and he remains silent, then in 
either of these cases the mortgagee will be held 
guilty of constructive fraud. Although mere 
tation of the execution of a mortgage-deed 
by a prior mortgagee is not sufficient to create 
stoppel, because it does not necessarily 
follow that a witness is aware of the contents of 
the deed of which he attests the execution, yet 
where that knowledge is brought home to him, 
and there are circumstances to show that he 
acted dishonestly and disingenuously to the 
subsequent mortgagee, and that the subsequent 
ortgagee was deceived in consequence, the 
ior mortgagee will be deprived of his priority. 
Applying these principles, those brothers of 
'. who simply remained silent, though cogni- 
nt that M. was dealing with the mortgaged 
property, were not debarred from insisting on 
their claim. Nor was the case stronger against 
/., who attested the deed to P. The sale was 
not made under that deed, nor was the mortgage 
1 favour of P. kept alive and assigned to the 
ubsequent mortgagees. But, under the circum- 
tances, Held as regards S., that he had by his 
ilence lost his right of priority. Salauamat 
Ali e. Budh Singh. Turner a.n& SpankU, )]... 
I. L. Rep. 1 All. 303, 1876. 



Digitized by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE- Notice to So- 
licitor. 
See Limitation. 38, a. 

Gkeender Ch under Ghose o. 
Mackintosh...!. L. Rep. 4 
Cal. 897. 
CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST. 
See Limitation. 23. 

Durqa Prasad v. Asa Ram... I. L. 
Rep. S Alt 361. 
CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTEE. 
See Insolvency. 3. 

Bhavan it. KiVAsji...!. L. Rep. 
9 Bom. MS. 

CONSUL— British— at Zanzibar— Jurisdiction 
of. 
See Zanzibar. 

Waoji Kokji v. Tharia Topan... 
L L. Rep. 3 Bom. 58. 

CONTEMPORANEOUS ORAL AGREE- 
MENT CONTRADICTING WRIT- 
TEN CONTRACT— Evidence of. 
See Evidence. 19. 80. 

Bakafa o. Sunderdas...I. L. 
Rep. 1 Bom. 383. 

HUKUMCHUND V. HlRALAL ..1 L. 

Rep. 3 Bom. 109. 

See Mortgage. 33. 

MORAN V. MiTTU BlBEE...I. L. 

Rep. 2 Cal. S8. 
CONTEMPORANEOUS ORAL AGREE- 
SCENT TO RESCIND REGISTER- 
ED CONTBACT. 
Set Incomplete Contract. 

Umedmal v. Dada...I. L. Rep. 2 
Bom. 547. 
CONTEMPT OF COURT- -Intentional False 
Evidence is— and therefore not triable by 
Court before which given — different In- 
cumbent of Office may try. 
See False Ev idence. 

Reg. v. Gaji.-L L. Bep. 1 Bom. 
811. 
See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1872, ( 471.1. 
Reo. v. Gur Baksh...!. L. Bep. 
1 All. 183. 
See The Cases under Criminal Pro- 
cedure Code, Act X. of 1872, 
f 478. 1. 3. 3. 



CONTEMPT OF COURT— conld. 

Continuing Nuisance after Injunction to dis. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1872, §478. 1. 
Reo. v. Parsafpa...I. L. Rep. 1 
Bom. 339. 
- — - Imprisonment for — Jurisdiction of High 
Court— Act X- of 1877, (f 341, 342. 
See Imprisonment for Contempt of 
Court. 
Martin b. Lawrence. I. L. Rep. 
40*1665. 

CONTINUATION IN FORMA PAU- 
PERIS OF SUIT COMMENCED 
IN ORDINARY FORM. 

See Suit in forma Pauperis. 

Nirmul Chandra v. Davai. NatH. 

I. L. Rep. 2 CaL 130. 

CONTINUATION IN ORDINARY 

FORM OF SUIT COMMENCED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS. 

See Petition for Leave to sue in 

forma Pauperis. 

Skinner 0. Orde L L. Rep. 1 

All. 230 ; L. Rep. 6 L A. 
126. 
See Limitation. 87. 

Chundek MohuN v. Bhubon 

MoHiNt.,.1. L. Rep. 2 Cal. 
389. 

CONTINUATION OF NUISANCE 
AFTER INJUNCTION TO DIS- 
CONTINUE. 
See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 187S, { 473. 1. 
Reg. d. Parsappa...L L. Rep. 1 
Bom. 339. 

CONTRACT — Affecting Land — Transfer of 
the Land. 
See Covenant running with the 
Land. 

Abadi Begum ■«. Asa Ram.X L. 
Rep. 2 AIL 162. 

- of Affreightment. 

See Contract. 16. 

- Agency— Commission during Agent's Life- 

time—Sale of Subject of Agency— Com- 



DiQxized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



See Compensation for Lom of Com- 



Cowasji o. Lallbkoy 8Bom. 

H. C. Bep. O. C. J. 209 ; 
I. L. Hep. 1 Bom. 468 ; L. 

Hep. 3 L A. 200. 

— Agreement to Alter the Course of Devolu- 

tion of Property prescribed by Law. 
ire Hindu Law— Relinquishment 
of Share by Bon. 

BaLKRISHNA V. SAVITR1BAI...I. L. 

Bop. 8 Bom. 04. 

— Agreement Not to Appeal. 

See Contract. 8. 

An ant Das v. Ashburnbr I. 

Zi. Bep. 1 All. 367. 

— Alteration of. 

See Alteration of Contract. 

Edb v. Kanto Nath Shaw... I. 
L. Bep. 3 Cal. 380. 

— Avoidance of — Duress. 

&r Duress. 

Mounc Shoav Att b- Ko Byaw. 

L. Bep. 3 I. A, 61 ; I. L. 

Bep 1 Cal. 380. 

— Breach of — Jurisdiction — Whole Cause of 

Action. 

See Jurisdiction. 14. 

Muhammad Abdul Kadar o. E. 

1. Rv. Co.,,1. L. Bep. 1 Had. 
878. 

— Breach of — to Purchase Goods — Collateral 

Contract by Vendor — Measure of Da- 

See Damages. 3. 

Cohen «. Cassih Nana. ..I. L. 
Bep. 1 Cal. 364. 

— Capacity of Married Women to. 

See Hindu Law— Capacity of Har- 
ried Woman to contract. 
Natiiubiiai b. Javer...L L. Bep. 
1 Bom. 131. 
See Harried Woman's Property 
Act IH. of 1871. 
Alumuhdv «. Braham—L L. 
Bep. 4 Cal. 140. 
See Harried Woman's Separate 
Property. 3. 8. 
Hurst v. Mussoorie Bank. ..I. 
L. Bep. 1 All. 763. 
Brresford n. Hurst.. .Ibid. 773. 



- Collateral. 

See Damages. 3. 

Cohen e. Cassim Nana. ..I. L. 
Bop. 1 CaL 364. 

- Consideration for. 

See the Index heading Consideration. 
See Inadequacy of Consideration. 

- without Consideration— Void Contract. 

See Contract. 6. 



— to Create an Interest in Immoveable Pro. 

perty. 
See Begistration. 13. 

Valaji o. Thomas. ..I. L. Sep. 1 
Bom. 190. 

— Entered into in England to be performed 

in India.. 
See Contract. 17. 

Oakes & Co. v. Jackson...!. L. 
Bep. 1 Had. 184. 

— Entered into in Foreign Country. 

See Jurisdiction. 7. 

MaTHAPPA V. CHELLAPPA...L L. 

Bep. 1 Had. 1S6. 

— Entire Cargo, Contract to purchase, 

See Contract, 1. 

— Executed and Stamped in England, subse- 

quently executed in India — Stamp. 
See Contract. 17, 

— not to Execute a Decree. 

See Estoppel. 6. 

Param Singh v. Laljt Mal...L L. 
Bep. 1 All. 403. 

— to Give in Marriage — Specific Performance 

of. 
See Injunction. 1. 

Gunput Naraih Sing. T, L. 

Bep. 1 Cal. 74. 

— Hindu Law of — Applicability of, to Bengal 

Mofussil. 
See Interest 4. 

Dbbn Doyal v. Kvlas Ch under.. . 
L L. Bep. 1 Cal 93. 

— Implied. 

See Harried Woman's Separate 
Property. 3. 
Bekbspord o. Hurst.. -L L. Bep, 
1 All. 779. 



D igitl z S dbvGoogle 



( m > 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CONTRACT— emtd. 
— — Incomplete. 

Sk Incomplete Contract. 

Uhedmal v. Dava...I. L. Bep. 3 
Bom. 647. 
— — Interest, Contract to pay at High Rate on 
Default of Payment of Promissory Note 
at Due Date. 
See Contract. IS. 
■ Introduction of New Term into. 
See Contract. 3. 

Mistake. 

See Contract. 6, 11, 

See Mistake. 
1 ■ with Pleader tor Reward proportioned 
Amount decreed. 
Jew Inam Chitti. 

Ramchundra v. Kali;... I, L. 

Bep. 3 Bom. 863. 

— - for Purchase of Immoveable Property 

contemplating Future Conveyance. 

See Registration. 13. 

Valaji v . Thomas. ..I. L. Bep. 1 

Bom. 190. 

— to Purchase Future Interest in Immoveable 

See Contract. 2. 



■ to Refer to Arbitration — Right to rescind 
—Specific Performance. 

Set Contract 8. 
Registration of. 

See Registration. 
in Restraint of Trade. 

See Contract. 17. 17a. 

— Right to rescind. 

See Contract. 8. 
Set Bale of Goods. 

Shoshi Mohunt. Nobo Krishto. 
I. L. Rep. 4 Cal. 801. 

— for Sale of Cargo or Entire Cargo to arrive. 

See Contract. 1. 

— for Sale of Goods — Ownership in Goods 

sold when transferred. 
Ste Sale of Goods. 

Shoshi Mohun a. Nobo Krishto. 
X. L. Bap. 4 Cal.*801. 



CONTRACT- 



■Mid. 



— for Sale of Goods— Right to rescind— for 

Breach of Warranty of Quality. 
See Bale of Goods. 

Shoshi Mohun v. Nobo Krishto-. 

L L. Bep. 4 Cal. SOU 

to Share the Subject of Matter of Litiga- 

Set Champerty. 3. 

Rah Coomar v. Chunoee Canto. 
I. L. Rep. 3 Cal. 388. 
to Settle Property on Adopted Son- 
Specific Performance of. 
Set Hindu Law— Adoption. 16. 
Bhala e. Parbhu.,.1. L. Rep. 3 
Bom. 67, 

— Specific Performance of. 

See Specific Performance. 

to Supply Labour. 

Set Act Zul of 1BS9. 

Rowson v. Hanama Mrstki,..!. 
L. Rep. 1 Had. 280. 

to Take Shares in a Company. 

See AgreemeDt to take Shares in a 

Company. 

Anandji Visram *. Nariad S. & 

W. Co...L L.Bep.lBom. 

830. 

Time of the Essence of. 

See Contract. 0. 

Sooltah Chund v. Schiller. ..I. 
L. Bep. 4 Cal. 303. 

Transfer of Contract of Sale. 

Sit Contract. 1. 

1. Transfer of Contract of Sale— Con- 
struction — Cargo — Entire Cargo — Readiness and 
Willingness.] On the l6th of April 1878, the 
plaintiffs contracted to purchase from Messrs. 
Pinlay, Muir& Co. of Bombay, at Rs. 18 per ton, 
" the entire cargo of coal per ' Culzean,' amount- 
ing to 900 tons or thereabouts." On the itth of 
April, the plaintiff transferred thecontract to the 
defendant and one Nanabbai Bomanasha, and 
the following endorsement was made upon the 
contract : — " The contract to be transferred to 
Messrs. Tullockchund and Shapurji and Nana- 
bhai Bomansha at Rs. soj. For C. H. B- 
Forbes & selves, W. Tennent & Co." Under- 
neath this endorsement the transferees wrote 
the following words :■ — " Accepted 450 tons at 
Rs- 20I per ton. Nanabhai Bomansha. Accept. 



Di,iii,.db»Goo<^le 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



OONTBACT— contd. 

ed 450 tons at Rh. 20). Tullockchand and Sha- 
purji." The " Culzean ' arrived at Bombay 
withacargoof 2,167 tons of coat, of which it 
appeared that 1,300 tons had been shipped to 
the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway 
Company, and 867 tons to (he order of the 
shippers, Messrs. Mason & Co. of Leith. 
Messrs. Finlay, Muir&Co. were agents in Bom- 
bay for the owners of the " Culzean" and for the 
shippers of the coal. On the 21st of June the 
"Culzean" began to discharge coal for the Bom- 
bay and Baroda Railway Company, and on the 
27th of June about 382 tons had been discharg- 
ed. The defendants refused to take delivery of 
the coal, on the ground that the contract trans- 
ferred to them was a contract for an entire 
cargo. The plaintiff sued the defendants for 
non-acceptance, contending that there had been 
no transfer to the defendants and Nanabhai 
Bomansha of the original contract, but that tht 
above endorsements amounted to a new offer 
which had been accepted by the plaintiff, and 
constituted several contracts with the defendants 
and Nanabhai Bomansha : — 

Held, that save as modified by the words of 
the endorsements by the defendants and Nan; 
bhai Bomansha respectively, all the terms of the 
contract between Messrs. Finlay, Mi 
Co. and the plaintiffs were binding as between 
the plaintiffs and the defendants and Nanabhai 
Bomansha respectively. There was no incon. 
sistency between the endorsements and the ori- 
ginal contract, in the fact that the endorsements 
mentioned 450 tons, whereas the original con- 
tract was for 900 tons or thereabouts. The join! 
effect of the endorsements and the original 
contract was that the defendants agreed 
purchase 450 tons, part of an entire cargo of poo 
tons or thereabouts. As the two lots of 450 
tons were to come out of a cargo described 1 
" of 900 tons or thereabouts," the " thereabout; 
of the original contract applied to each of 450 
tons, and the contracts of the defendanl 
Nanabhai Bomansha respectively were in 
case for 450 tons or thereabouts, out of an 
cargo of 900 tons or thereabouts. 



The circumstance that the defendants and 
Nanabhai Bomansha were in some way com 
ed, and operating, as it were, together, though 

not affect the question. Had the contract been 
with the present defendants alone for 450 tons, 



CONTRACT— contd. 

the rest of the 900 tons being sold to a pur- 
chaser quite unconnected with them, or had the 
plaintiffs themselves retained the rest, the defend' 
nts would still have been entitled to decline the 
50 tons, unless the 900 tons or thereabouts was 
he entire cargo. A person who contracts to buy a 
argo or an " entire cargo" is not bound to accept 
goods which though answering in quantity and 
ilitj to the quantity and quality mentioned 
that ill the cargo purchased, are not in fact 
the cargo, by reason that the ship has other 
cargo, and particularly of the same description, 
on board. Bomraman v. Drayton (L. Rep. 2 
Ex. D. 1 5) followed. Semttt :■- -<: if the defend- 
ants had not been entitled to refuse to accept 
delivery for the reasons above set forth, the 
issue of whether the plaintiffs were ready and 
willing to deliver the coals to the defendants 
and Nanabhai Bom&nsba *hould be found in the 
affirmative, notwithstanding that after delivery 
of the 1.300 tons consigned to the Bombay and 
Baroda Railway Company, there would only 
have been 400} tons for the defendants and 
Nanabhai Bomansha respectively, as such deficit 
would be covered by the " thereabouts" of the 
original contract. C. H. B. Forbes o. Tul- 
ManockcHAND. Green, J I. L. 

Bep. 3 Bom. 886, 1878. 

Debentures — Interest— Agreement to 
purchase Future Interest in Immoveable Property 
— Registration.'] A- held debentures of B., a 
Municipal body, and had a right to exchange 
them for lots of equal value, to be selected by 
him from building lands belonging to B. ; the 
rent of which lots was to be set off against the 
interest on the debentures. A. notified to B., 
that he had selected certain lots, and asked 
aid the debentures for a time, 
setting the interest against the rent. B. con- 
sented to i4.'s proposal, and at the same time 
informed A. that the selected lots exceeded the 
value of his debentures, and that he must pay 
the difference. A. made no reply to this com- 



d B. for interest on the de- 



A. afterwards s 

bentures r— 

Held, that A. was not entitled to interest, the 
contract being complete, and the indication by 
S. of the difference in quantity not amounting to 
in introduction of a new term into the negotia- 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CONTBACT- 



■M 



A correspondence between A. and B. amount- 
ed to a contract to purchase a future interest in 
immoveable property i — 

Held, that such correspondence did not require 

registration under the Registration Act XX. of 

i866. The Port Canning Land Investment 

Co. e. Smith.., L. Bep. 1 I. A. 124, 1874 ; L. 

Bep, B P. C. 114 ; 31 V. B. 310 ; 30 

L. T. N. a S31. 

3. Consideration,'] By a written agree- 
ment duly registered, T., in consideration of the 
recognition by bis two brothers of his rights in 
the joint and undivided property of the three 
brothers, and of their undertaking to procure the 
entry of his name in the revenue register in 
respect of a one-third share, agreed not to sell, 
transfer, or mortgage such share except to bis 
brothers, and should he desire to dispose of 
such share, to dispose of it to them for a certain 
price. TVs name was subsequently recorded as 
proprietor in respect of the one-third share, and 
he then in breach of the agreement, gave a 
usufructuary mortgage of bis share to the 
plaintiff. In a suit by the latter to enforce the 
mortgage ; — 

Held, that the agreement was valid. If it was 
made out of natural affection, it was expressed 
in writing and registered. If the consideration 
was that expressed, via., the recognition of 
TVs right to a share, there was a consideration. 
The mortgage to the plaintiff, therefore, was bad 
as against TVs brothers. Lakhmi Chand v. 
TORI LaL. Turner and Spankie, JJ..X L.Bep. 

1 AIL 618, 1B78. 

4. Consideration — Immoral Considera- 
tion—Past Cohabitation.] M. had for many 
years lived with G. as his concubine. In consi- 
deration of such past cohabitation, C, by an 
agreement in writing, dated the aSth of March 
1869, and duly registered, settled an annuity on 
M., charging a portion of his real estate with 
the payment of such annuity. In a suit by M. 
against G.'s heir, his married, wife, to enforce 
the agreement : — Held, that the consideration for 
the agreement was not, under the law in force 
at the time of its execution, immoral, nor was 
the agreement, under the same law, void for 
want of consideration. 

Held also, that before M. could recover from 
the defendant on the agreement, it was neces- 
sary to show that the defendant had received 
funds available to meet the claim from the 



I COKTRXCT-contd. 

profits of the estate charged with the payment 
of the annuity, or from other property of G. 
Man Kuar b. Jasodha Kuar. Pearson and 
Turner,]] I. L. Hep. 1 All. 478,1877. 

8. Act IX. of 1872, if 20, 33, CI. a— 

Mistake of Fact and Law— Error in Statement of 
Account,} Where the property of a judgment 
debtor had been attached in execution of a sum 
claimed to be due under a decree, but which sum 
fact included interest not awarded by the 

Held, that an agreement, whereby the debtor 
obtained the release of bis property on condition 
of paying by instalments the entire amount 
claimed, inclusive of the interest, was not un. 
lawful and void under CI, 2, ( 23 of Act IX. of 
1872 ; and that the mistaken belief of both par. 
ties to the agreement that interest could be re- 
covered by proceedings in execution, was not a 
mistake of fact rendering the agreement void- 
able under } 20 of that Act. Ina written agree- 
ment by a debtor to pay his debt by instalments 
securing the payment by a mortgage of land, the 
amount of the debt was erroneously stated to be 
greater than it actually was. In a suit on the 
agreement 1 — Held, that such an error was 
ground for reforming the account, but not for 
setting aside the agreement. Sbth Gokul 
DassGopal Duis. Muru..,L. Bop. 5 I. A, 

78, 1878 ; I. L. Bop. 3 Oal. 602 ; 2 Col, 
Bop. 106. 
S. C. under Interest. 11. 

6- Act IX. of 1872, ) 2$.— Consideration 

— Void Contract.] While certain hundis were 
running, the drawer having become bankrupt, 
the acceptor gave the holder a mortgage on cer- 
tain property as security for the payment of the 
hundis in the event of their dishonour. In a 
suit on the mortgage deed by the holder, the 
hundis being dishonoured -.—Held, that the mort- 
gage was void under the provisions of g 25 of 
the Contract Act, there being no consideration 
for it ; for even assuming that the defendant had 
received any portion of the hundis when dis- 
counted, and was liable on them, neither that 
antecedent benefit nor the existing liability con. 
stituted a consideration as defined in the Con- 
tract Act, and no act, abstinence, or promise on 
the part of the holder, appeared which would 
constitute a consideration. Manna I.alu. Bank 
Oe Bengal. Turner and Spaniic, JJ...I. L. 
Bop. 1 All. 308, 1876. 



by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CONTRACT— contd. 

7. ■ Act IX. of 187a, i 28 - Agreement net 

to appeal^ The defendant, pending proceedings 
in execution of a decree obtained against 
by the plaintiffs, entered into an agreement 
with them nottoappeal against the decree if they 
would give him until a certain date to satisfy it. 
The agreement having been notified to theCourt, 
proceedings in execution were accordingly 
stayed. The defendant, contrary to the ten 
the agreement, appealed i — Held, that f 28 of 
the Contract Act IX. of 1872 did not apply to 
the case, and that the agreement not to appeal 
was not prohibited by the language or spirit of 
the Contract Act, and that the Appellate Court 
was bound by the rules of justice, equity and 
good conscience to give effect to it, and to re- 
fuse to allow the defendant to proceed with the 
appeal. Anant Das t. Ashburner 3t Co... 
I. L. Sep. 1 AIL 267, 1876, 7. B. 

8. 'Act IX. 1^1872, f 28, Exception 1— 

Agreement to refer to Arbitration — Specific Per- 
formance — Suit for Damages for Breach. - ] A 
contract entered into by the plaintiff with the 
defendants contained a clause providing, in case 
of any dispute, for a reference to two arbitra- 
tors in England, "one to be appointed by the 
buyers, the other by the sellers' agents; such 
brokers' decision to be final." The contract 
Contained no provision for making the submis- 
sion to arbitration a rule of Court, so that 9 and 
10 Wm. HI., C. IS, and 3 and 4 Wm. IV., C. 42, 
did not apply. Matter of dispute arising, the 
defendants refused to appoint an arbitrator, and 
an award was made by the arbitrators appointed 
by the plaintiff. Previous to the making of the 
award, the plaintiffs, Under the provisions of 
the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854, had 
the submission to arbitration made a rule of the 
Court of Common Pleas. In a suit in which 
the plaintiff's claim was for damages awarded by 
the arbitrators and incurred by the plaintiff in 
respect of the breach of contract:— Held, that 
the award was invalid. The effect of making 
an agreement to refer, a rule of Court under 
the provisions of the Common Law Procedure 
Act, 1854, is only to give more extended powers 
to the arbitrators in the matter of the reference 
and to render the parties liable as for contempt 
of Court for improper conduct in the reference. 
It does not at all deprive the parties of their 
Common Law right to revoke the authority of 
the arbitrators, at any time before the award, 



CONTRACT— contd, 

nor prevent a party to an agreement to refer, 
from declining to appoint an arbitrator. 

Held also, that the contract was not within 
the scope of I 28 of Act IX- of 1873. To make 
in agreement conform to the exception 1 of that 
(ection, there must be an exclusion of the Courts 
n all respects except the matter which is the 
result of the arbitrators' award. 

Contracts similar in character to those in Scott 
v. Avery (2 Jur. N. S. 8i S , S. C.5H.L C. Sll), 
and Trtdwen v. Holman, (8 Jur. N. S. 1080, S. C. 
1 H. eV C. 72) which exclude the jurisdiction of 
the Courts until an award is made, are within 
the exception and are not illegal. 

Quare— Whether it was intended by that 
ception to authorize the Court to entertain a 
it for specific performance of an agreement to 
refer to arbitration. , 28 of Act IX. of 1873 
does not forbid an action for damages for the 
breach of an agreement. Koeqler e. The Co- 
rimga On Co. Pkear, J LL, Rap. 1 Cat. 42, 
1375, affirmed on appeal, p. 466, where Garth, 
C.J., says, p. 468— "The defendant contends that 
the contract on which this suit is founded is one 
of the class described in the first exception of , 
28 of the Contract Act, and consequently, that 
as the dispute which has arisen between himself 
the plaintiffs remains undecided by arbitra- 
, no suit can be brought upon it, except for 
specific performance of the agreement to refer- 
Certainly if this were so, the plaintiffs would be 
unfortunate position, because the defend- 
ant has distinctly refused to refer the dispute 
arbitration ; and as, according to the present 
ite of the law, no suit will lie to compel him 
refer, the defendant, if he is right in his 
ntention, may, by his own breach of the eon- 
tract, deprive the plaintiffs of any remedy what- 
" But "the contract is not one of those 
described in the 28th Section of the Contract 
Act. That section does not apply to contracts 
'hicb merely contain a provision for referring 
disputes to arbitration, but to those which wholly 
partially prohibit the parties from having 
ourse to a Court of Law. The first exception 
:hat section applies only to a class of con- 
tracts where (as in the cases of Scott v. Avery 
and Tredven v. Holman, cited by Phear, J., ubi 
supra) the parties have agreed that no action 
shall be brought until some question of amount 
has first been decided by a reference." 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( 332 ) 



CONTRACT— tontd. 

9. Act IX. of 1873, J &—Tltiie of the 

Essence of the Contract — Right to rescind — Reci- 
procity of Obligation.] Section 39 of the Contract 
Act only enacts what was the law in England, 
and the law in India, before the Act was passed, 
in, that where a party to a contract refuses 
altogether to perform, or is disabled from per- 
forming, his part of it, the other side has a 
right to rescind it. 

In a suit for damages for the non-delivery of 
linseed upon a contract to deliver 200 tons of 
linseed, delivery in all April and May, the terms 
of which as to payment were cash on delivery, 
part delivery had been made by the defendants 
between 1st and 8th May, and a sum of Rs. 1 ,000 
had been paid on account by the plaintiffs. 
The balance due not having been paid, the de- 
fendants refused to deliver the remainder of the 
linseed. The refusal was contained in • letter 
of the rath May, in which the defendants' attor- 
ney wrote as follows : — 

" We are instructed to give you notice, that 
as you have failed to pay the price of the linseed 
delivered under Mr. Beer's contract in terms of 
the said contract, they (our clients) hereby 
cancel the said contract, and will make no fur- 
ther deliveries under it." 

The plaintiffs answered, that they considered 
that the whole amount of linseed contracted 
be delivered should have been delivered before 
the defendants were entitled to demand pay- 
ment, but added that they were willing to waive 
that objection on adjustment of a sum which 
they claimed for excess refraction, and an 
allowance for some empty bags which they said 
defendants had used for purposes unconnected 
with the contract 

Further correspondence ensued, but the de- 
fendants insisted to the last, that on account of 
the non-payment by the plaintiffs of the balance 
due, they would make no further delivery. 

The plaintiffs, accordingly, bought in other 
linseed against the defendants, and then sued 
for the loss they had sustained. 

Held, that there was not such a refusal or 
part of the plaintiffs to perform their part of the 
contract as to entitle the defendants to rescind 
under { 30 of the Contract Act. 

Held, per Garth, C.J., that f Ji of the Contract 
Act was not applicable ; the reciprocal obliga. 
lions were the delivery of the seed, and payment 
of the money 00 the occasion of each delivery. 



CONTBAOT—ccfttt 

If the plaintiffs had been unwilling or unable to 
', the defendants would have been justified 
in refusing to deliver the seed ; but the defend- 
ants did deliver the seed ; the neglect to pay in 
this instance was after delivery when the reci- 
procity of obligation had ceased ; and there 
being no evidence that the plaintiffs were un- 
willing or unable to pay for the deliveries which 
the defendants refused to make, the neglect to 
pay for past deliveries was, under the circum- 

!es, no reason for refusing to make all 
further deliveries ; and that time was not of the 

ice of the contract so as to bring the case 
within i 55 of the Act. 

Per Markby, J., that f 51 would have applied if 
the defendants, when they came to make deli. 
very, had insisted upon the contract being strictly 
performed, and payment being made upon deli- 
very, and that if the defendants had so insisted, 
time might have been of the essence of the con. 
tract within the meaning of f 55. Sooltan 
Chund e. Schiller. Garth, C.J., and Markby, 
J...L L. Sep. 4 Cal. 308; 8 Cat Rep. 287, 
1678. 

10. Act IX. of 187a, § 44— Release to 

one of several Partners.'] In a suit for damages 
against a partnership firm, the plaintiffs com- 
promised the suit with one of the defendants on 
the terms contained in the following docu- 
ment: — "Received from G. M. S. the sum of 
Rs. 9,500 in full discharge of all claims upon 
him as an individual and as a partner in the late 
firm of B. S. & Co., and we hereby undertake to 
immediately withdraw the suit against him and 
others in the High Court, instituted in connection 
with certain sales of jute to the firm of B. S. & 
Co. while he (G. M, S.) was a partner," 

Held, that i 44 of the Indian Contract Act 
(IX. of 1873) applied. That section applies not 
only to a release to a man from his promise 
before breach, but also 10 a discbarge after 
breach; and the meaning generally of the section 
is that a release to one of several contractors, 
does not discharge the co-contractors. A. alone, 
therefore, was discharged. 

Held also, that the other partners of the firm 
of B. S.&Co. not being parties to the agree- 
ment expressed in the receipt, by which the 
plaintiff undertook to withdraw his suit, there 
was no breach of faith in the continuance of the 
action against them. Kirtee Chuhder Mrr- 

tert-Struthers. Wilson,] L L. Bop. 4 

Cal. 330 ; S Cal. Bop. 540, 1878, 



Digitized by GoOgle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CONTRACT —contd. 

lL Act IX. of 187*, ( 72— Money 

under Mistake.'] A treasury officer, under the 
imposition of a gross fraud, paid money t( 
defendant, who was the innocent agent of the 
person who contrived the fraud. In paying the 
money (he treasury officer neglected no reason- 
able precaution, nor was he iu any way guilty 
of carelessness ; — 

Held, that § 7a of the Contract Act applied, 
and that the defendant was bound to repay the 
money received by him, and that he could not 
defend himself by the plea that he had paid it 
to his principal ; nor did the circumstance that 
the principal was himself a servant of the plain- 
tiff, and in the course of his employment obtain- 
ed facilities for the commission of the fraud, 
relieve the defendant from his liability, it not 
being shown that the plaintiff in any way faci- 
litated the fraud by the omission of any reason- 
able precautions. Shugan Ckand i. The Go- 
vernment of the N. W. Provinces. Turner, 
C. J. (Offg.), and Oldfidd, J...L L. Sep. 1 AIL 
79, 187B. 

IB. Act IX. of 1872, , U— Promissory 

Note — Agreement to pay Interest at high rate on 
Default in Payment of Note—Penalty.'} The 
defendant and one D. gave to the plaintiff, 
a money-lender, on the 6th April 1875, a joint 
and several promissory note whereby they jointly 
and severally promised to pay the plaintiff on the 
6th September 1875 "the sum of Rs. 400, foi 
value received cash in hand, paid on signing 
this bond ; should we neglect or fail to pay thi 
amount on due date, then only shall it carry 
interest from and on due date to date of pay- 
ment at the defaulting rate of 10 pir cent, pe 
mensem." At the time of the making of the 
note the defendant and D, owed money to the 
plaintiff on other promissory notes, and a 
of Rs. loo was deducted from the amount of the 
note oE the 6th April, in respect of the amou; 
due on one of such notes, which was givi 
up, and for interest on three other notes. The 
plaintiff admitted that at the time of the exe- 
cution of the note in suit he deducted Rs. 125 on 
account of interest in advance for Eve months on 
the amount thereof, and the balance, Rs. 175. 
wis paid to D., who died before the note became 
due, It appeared that the defendant did not 
read the note when he signed it. In a 
brought to recover Rs. 400 as principal and 
Rs. 400 as interest alleged to be due on the note 
on default being made in payment ;— 



CONTRACT --contd. 

Held, that the contract to pay interest at 10 

rr cent, per mensem, if the principal sum were 

it paid on the due date was not in the nature 

of a penalty, notwithstanding that that rate of 

interest was called, in the note, " a defaulting 

rate." It was not a case in which a certain sum 

is agreed to be pud on a breach of contract, and 

% 74 of the Contract Act, therefore, did not 

apply. 

Held also, that looking at the true nature of 

e transaction, the note contained a false state. 

ent of the consideration, which amounted 

ly to Rs. 275 ; and considering that there was 

nothing to show that the defendant understood 

the real nature of the transaction ; that the rate 

.erest was exorbitant, and the consideration 

grossly inadequate, the transaction was not one 

whioh ought to be enforced by a Court of 

Equity. Mackintosh v. Hunt. Garth, C.J., 

md Macpherson, J...L L. Rep. 3 Cftl 303, 

1877. 

13. Act IX. of 1873, § 74— Unconscion- 
able Bargain.] The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 
643.10-6, the value of 1,430 paras of paddy, due 
under an account dated the 8th of September 
876. The account, written on a cadjan, was 
for Rs. 315 payable with interest at 12 per cent, 
within fifteen days, and in default the plaintiff 
obe paid, on the 14th of November 1876, 
paddy for the amount due calculated at the rate 
innas 7 pies per para. Immediately after 
secution of this agreement the price of rice 
the defendant did not pay within the fifteen 
days, and In the plaint the price of rice was cal- 
culated at 8 annas per para : — 

Held, that the bargain was unconscionable. 
Under the Contract Act, § 74, in a case falling 
within its terms, only reasonable compensation 
mid be given, which in the present case would 
be interest at a somewhat high rate. The con- 
tract in effect was that, if the principal with in- 
terest at 12 percent, were not paid on the 22nd 
of September, double the amount should be 
payable on the 15th of November. Such aeon- 
tract a Court of Equity would not enforce, 
Venkittakama Pattar V- Kambanath Kes- 
hava Memon. Morgan, C.J., and Kindersley, ]., 
I. X.. Rep. 1 Wad. 849, 1877. 

14. Act IX. of lol2,il2j— Surety—Bond 

Consideration— Special Appeal—Evidence.'] The 
plaintiff advanced to one K. a sum of money on 
a bond hypothecating certain property, and which 



D,„i„.db»Googlc 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CONTRACT— contd. 

contained the following clause ; — " I, V. (the 
defendant), do hereby declare that if the money 
due to (he creditor should not be received from 
the property of K., I, the surety, shall pay the 
money out of my pocket to the creditor." The 
defendant did not sign this bond, but two days 
after its date, and after the money had been 
advanced to K,, the defendant execute 
rantee or surety bond to the plaintiff to secure 
l he repayment of the money advanced toJC, the 
plaintiff not promising to do anything, not doing 
anything, for the benefit of K. : — 

Held, on a consideration of the evidence, 

(which the High Court in special appeal was 

entitled and bound to consider, for the sake of 

explanation, and the possible clearing up of 

doubts as to the hue position of the surety), that 

the defendant acted as surety not on behalt of 

the principal debtor, but for the benefit of the 

plaintiff alone, who agreed to do nothing and 

promised nothing in return, and therefore that 

the security bond was without consideration, and 

void under f 137 of Act IX. of 187a. Nana 

Ram v. Mshih Lal. Stuart, C.]., and Spankie, J. 

I. L. Rep. 1 AIL 487, 1877. 

S. C Construction of Statute. 7. 

18. Act IX. of 1873, S ijS^Custody of 

Servant—Possession— Pledge of Goods— Trover.] 
A servant entrusted by his mistress with the 
custody of goods, pledged them during her ab- 
sence. The mistress sued in trover for the 
goods; — Held, that the custody of the servant 
was not " possession" within the meaning of 
5178 of the Contract Act; but that even if he 
was to be regarded as having taken the articles 
into his possession for the purpose of pledging 
them, the case came within the second proviso 
to that section, and, therefore, that the action 
would lie. Biddo moves Dabee v. Sittarau. 
Garth, C.J., and Markby, J...L L. Rep. 4 

Oal. 497 ; 3 Cal. Bep. 388, 1878. 

16. — Contract of Affreightment -Condi- 
tion precedent, "after two Country Voyages."] 
When a shipowner has contracted to give a 
certain notice to a charterer, or to do any other 
act, with a view to inform the charterer when 
theship will be ready, the charterer is not bound 
to ship his goods until the shipowner has given 
him that notice or done that act. 

Held, therefore, in an action for not shipping 
goods under the following contract :— " H. S. 
to arrive after completing two country voyages 



CONTRACT— contd. 

for London on notice in May or June," it appear, 
ing that the plaintiffs had sent the vessel for one 
country voyage only, that the defendants were 
entitled to refuse to ship the goods. Flkmino 
v. KOBOLER. Garth, C J., and Martby, J... I. 

LRep. 4 Cal. 887; s« 2 Cal. Rep. 188; 
8 CaL Rep. 807, 1878. 

17. — Contract in Restraint of Trade— 
Application, of Lam of Place of Performance — 
Lex Loci Contractus— Contract Act IX. of 187a, 
i 37 — English Lam— Stamp— Agreement execu- 
ted in England afterwards executed in India.) 
The defendants by a contract in writing execu- 
ted by them and one of the plaintiffs in 
England, and subsequently executed by the 
remaining plaintiffs in India, agreed with the 
plaintiffs to proceed to Madras to enter the 
plaintiffs' service, for a term of five years, 
terminable at any time, by either side, by 
giving four months' notice in writing, or by 
payment on the one side, or foregoing on the 
other, of three months' salary. The defendants 
covenanted that at the end of the five years, or 
on the sooner determination of the service, they 
" would not, within the distance of 800 miles from 
Madras, directly or indirectly, carry on or take 
service or enter into copartnership with any 
person or persons carrying on any business then 
being carried on, or at any time thereafter to be 
carried on, by the plaintiff, and further agreed to 
to England whenever called upon to do so 
by the plaintiffs, who agreed to pay their passage 
money. The defendants accordingly went to 
Madras, and entered into the plaintiffs' service 
under the agreement. After about at years the 
intiffs terminated the service in the manner 
templatedby the agreement, and requested 
the defendants to return to England, offering to 
provide their passage; but the defendants refused 
to return to England, and set up and commenced 
to do business for themselves in Madras of the 
same nature as that carried on by the plaintiffs. 
In a suit by the plaintiffs against the defendants 
for damages for breach of the contract, and for 
a perpetual injunction restraining the defend- 
from carrying on, in, or within 800 miles 
from, Madras, any business carried on by the 
plaintiffs 1— ■ 

Held, 1st, that the agreement was liable to 
Indian stamp duty, and was inadmissible in 
evidence until such duty and the prescribed 
penalty were paid. 



Diaxized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CONTRACT— cenid. CONTRACT— 

Held also, that the general rule that the 
Validity of a contract is to be determined by the 
lair of the place at which the contract is made, 
is subject to exceptions, one of such exceptions 
being that a contract made in one country for 
the purpose of contravening the laws of another 
country within that country cannot be enforced 
in the Courts of that other country. Id the 
present case the contract was essentially 
of service to be performed in India, and the 
breaches complained of could only have taken 
place in, or in the neighbourhood of, India , and 
the Courts of this country will not enforce: 
tract made abroad, to be performed in this 
try, contrary to the policy of the law of this 
country. And by j 27 of the Contract Act IX. 
of 1 872, by which the present case was governed, 
the agreement sued on was void as being ii 
restraint of trade. Even if the validity of the 
contract depended on the law of England, the 
limit of 800 miles was unreasonable, and th< 
case was not one in which a narrower limit hac 
also been mentioned, which might so far hold 

Held also, that though the defendants were 
bound to go to England when required by the 
plaintiffs to do so, yet that the latter suffered 
damage by the defendant's breach of this part of 
the contract, for if the defendants ha 
up in business, the plaintiffs would have suffered 
no damage by their remaining in India. And 
would only be by its operation improperly 
restraint of trade that the agreement to proceed 
to England could benefit the plaintiffs. Oakbs 
Sc Co. v. Jackson. Kindersley, J...L L. Hop. 1 
Had. 134, 1876. 

17B. Restraint of Trade— Void— Agree- 
ment^ In a suit upon an agreement by which the 
defendants bound themselves to remain subject 
to the orders of the plaintiff the head of their 
caste, and not to cany On their profi 
working in lead with the assistants 
other persons than their caste-people, and by 
which, in case of failure to perform the agree- 
ment, certain penalties were imposed : — 

Held, that it would be against public policy tt 
give effect to the contract, as the provision con 
fining the parties to it to the members of theii 
own castefor all assistance that might be required 
for carrying on their profession might become a 
very serious restraint on trade operations. Vai- 
jhelinga 11. Saminada. lines and Muttusamy 

Ajyar, JJ L L. Bop. 3 Had. 44,1878. 



ntd. 



IB. Unlawful Consideration— Void ~ 

Agreement.'] F. was required by a Magistrate 
under the Criminal Procedure Code, to furnish 
sureties fcho should be responsible for bis 
good behaviour each in a certain sum. 5- agreed 
to become a surety on condition that F- would 
deposit with him the amount of the security. 
F. made the deposit, and 5- became a security. 
The period for which 51 was responsible for F.'s 
good conduct having expired without F. for- 
feiting the security, and S- refusing to return 
the deposit, F. sued 5. to recover it:— Held, 
that as the consideration for the agreement 
defeated the object of the law, the consideration 
was unlawful, and F- was not entitled to relief. 
Fatbh Singh v Sahwal Singh. Turner, C.]. 
{Offg.),andf«irioB,J...I. L.Rep. 1 AIL 761, 
1878. 
CONTRACT ACT IX. OF 1872. 

i »3 — Composition Deed— Resolution of 

creditors of Insolvent Firm to wind up 
voluntarily— Release inserted in Deed 
purporting to be drawn in accordance 
with said Resolution— Cancelling Deed. 
See Cancellation of Signature. 

The Oriental Bank Corpora- 
tion v. John Fleming...!. Ij. 
Hep. 3 Bom. 242. 

H 18 and 19— Misrepresentation — Breach 

of Duty — Negligence — Composition 
Deed, purporting to be in accordance 
with Resolution of Creditors of Insolvent 
Firm to wind up voluntarily the Business 
of the Firm— Introduction of Release. 

See Cancellation of Signature. 
The Oriental Banr Corpo- 
ration v. John Fleming...!. 
L. Rep. 3 Bom. 242. 

H9- 

Sir Sale of Goods. 

Shoshi Mohun ». Nobo Krishto. 
I. L. Rep. 4 CaL 801. 

H to and 22— Mistake. 

See Contract 6. 

Seth Gokul i. Murl]...L.B. 6 

L A. 78 J I. L. Bap. 8 CaL 

609. 

— { 25, CI. 3— Consideration. 
See Kistbandy. 

Heeka Lall Mookhopadhava *■ 

pHUKFtrr Sino-.X L. Sep. 

4 CaL 000. 



Diarized by Google 



( 829 > DIGEST OF CASES. 

CONTRACT ACT IX OP 1872— «m«. 



( MO ) 



— i 35 — Consideration — Void Contract. 

Set Contract. 6. 

Manna Lalv. Bank or Bengal... 
I. L, Bep. 1 AIL 809. 

Mi- 
Set Contract. 17. 17a. 

Oakbs&Co. V- JACKSON...X. L. 

■ Bep. 1 Had. 184. 

f 28 — Agreement not to appeal. 

Set Contract. 7. 

Anant Das ». Ashburner...L 
L. Bep. 1. All. 267. 
— s8— Exception 1. 
See Contract. 8. 

Koeoler v. Coring* Oil Co...l. 
I*. Bep. 1 Cal. 42, 466. 

$37. 

See Alteration of Contract. 

Eds v. Kanto Nath Shaw. ..I. 
L. Bep. S Cal. 220. 

*39- 

Set Contract. 9. 

Sooltan Chand v. Schiller. ..I. 

L. Bep. 4 Cai 253 ; 30aL 

Bep. 287. 

143- 

See Joint OoBtractora. 

Hehendro p. RA)1NDR0LALL...L 

L. Bep. 8 CaL 863 ; 1 Cal. 
Bep. 488. 

S44- 

See Contract. 10. 

KlRTBE ChUNDER V. StRUTHHRS... 

I. L. Bep. 4 CaL 886 ; 8 
Cal. Bep. S46. 

— $ j 1— Reciprocity of Obligation— Right to 

Rescind. 
St* Contract. 9. 

Sooltan Chand t>. Schiller, 

L. Bep. 4 CaL 262. 

— f 55 — Time of the Essence of a Contract. 

Set Contract. 9. 

Sooltan Chard v. Schiller. .X 
L. Bep. 4 CaL 262. 

165- 

Set Arbitration. 2. 

Kheta Mall Chun: Lal...I. Ij. 
Bep. 2 All. 178. 



CONTRACT ACT IX. OF 1872— «"<«■ 
** 65,68, 69. 

See Mortgage. 29. 

Amhassee v- Moharanee Raj- 
soop.-.I. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 88. 
— I 69 — Mortgaged Property sold to several 
—Payment of Whole Debt by one— Con- 
tribution. 

See Contribution. 2. 

1 MoTHOOKANATHn. KrISTOKUHAR. 

L L. Rod. 4 Cal. 369. 
tit- 
See Contract. 11. 

Shuoan Chand v. Government. 
L L. Bep. 1 All. 79. 

*7«- 

Stt Contract. 13.|13. 

Mackintosh c. Hunt. ..I. LBep. 

2 CaL 902. 

Vainkitaramna u. Kambanath... 

L L. Bep. 1 Had. 149. 

. J 76— Cashing Currency Note— Sale. 

See Government Currency Note. 

EHFRESS *. JDGESSL'R MOCHI...L 

I,. Bep. SOei. 879. 

,78. 

See Bale of Goods. 

Shoshi Mohun v. Nobo Krishto. 
I. Ii. Bep. 4 CaL 801. 

(86. 

See Bale of Good*. 

Shoshi Mohun 0. Nobo Krishto. 
I. L, Bep. 4 CaL 801. 
■ — ■ i 113, Illustration 3. 

See Sale of Gooda. 

Shoshi Mohun v. Nobo Krishto. 
I. LBep. 4 Cal. 801. 

f 127. 

Set Contract, 14. 

Nanah v. MKHIN...T, I>. Bep. 1 

AIL 487. 

§§ 133, 134, 135, 139 — Trust Deedin Favour 

of Creditors — Execution of, by Creditor — 
Eventual Remedies of Surety— Discharge 
of Surety. 
Set Principal and Surety. 4. 

Pocose*. Bank of Bengal... t. It. 
Bep. 8 CaL 174. 



mortized by Google 



( fll ) DIGEST OF CASES- ( US 

CONTRACT ACT IX. 07 1872— contd. CONTRIBUTION— contd. 



— JJ 151, 153 — Carriers— Railway Company — 

Loss by Robbery of Goods carried. 

Set Railway Company. 3. 

Kuverji Tvisidas v. Tub G. I. P. 

Rv. Co... 1. 14. Rep. 8 Bom. 

108 

* 178- 

Sn Contract IB. 

BlDROMOYBE v. Sitarah.,.1. L. 
Rep. 4 Owl. 497; 8 0*1. 
Rep. 396. 
Set Jurisdiction. 12, 

Kartik Churn 0. Gopal Kisto.., 
I. L.Rep.SCaL 384. 



taut. 
See Hindu Law— Ancestral Trado. 

JOVKISTO ». NlTTYANUND...!. Ii. 

Rep. 8 Cal. 78S. 
1 1 - 5 265 — Suit (or Dissolution of Partnership 
— Jurisdiction exists where Partners all 
reside, as well as at Place of Business. 
See Jurisdiction. 6. 

Ram as ami v. Theses vbnoada. 

saui L L. Rep. 1 Mad. 

840, 
CONTRIBUTION. 

Sie Mortgage. 8. 

Bhagirath v. Naubat Singh. ..I 

L. Rep. 3 All. 118. 

.S>e Sot-off. 

Udai Simon *. Jaoan Nath...L 
L. Rep . I AU. 18S. 
— Suit (or. 

See Limitation. 60. 

Fuckeruddbbn Mahomed Ahsan 

v. Mohina Chunder Chow- 

DKV...I. L. Rep. 4 CaL 020. 

— - Suit for — by Pattidar who has paid Reve- 

one due on Co-Sharers' Shares. 

See Act XIX. of 1878, f 241. 

Rah Dial v. Gulab Singh.., I. 
3L Rep. 1 AIL 80. 

J. Suit fat— Redemption of Mortgage.'] 

The purchaser of a share in a mortgaged estate, 
who has paid off the whole mortgage debt, ii 
order to save the estate from foreclosure, can 
claim from each of the other mortgagors a con- 
tribution proportionate to his interest in the 
property, but be cannot claim in the lump sum 



from the other mortgagors collectively, the 

hole amount paid by him. 

Where such a claim had been decreed, and 
some only of the defendants appealed, the 
decree was reversed as regards those defendants' 
who had not appealed, as well aa against those 
who had, the ground being common to all. 
Hiha Chunuh. Abdal. Turner and SptmkU,]]. 

I. L. Rep. 1 AIL 4», 1877. 

— Mortgaged Property, Sale of, to 
different persons — Payment of Debt by one-~ 
Contribution— Contract Act IX. of (S73, § 69.J 
A. and B. respectively, at different dates, pur. 
chased portions of a property on which there was 
mortgage- On the mortgagee obtaining a de- 
cree against the property, S. paid off the entire 
debt and brought a suit against A. for contribu- 

Held , that he was entitled to recover, although 
the deed of sale to B. there was an under- 
taking by B. that he would discharge all the 
liabilities of the mortgagor, including the mort- 
gage on the property. Section 69 of the Indian 
Contract Act (IX- of 1873) includes not only 
of personal liability, but all liabilities to 
payments for which owners of lands are indirect- 
ly liable, those liabilities being imposed upon 
land held by them. MothooRanath Chutto. 
PADHAYA o. Kristokumak Ghose. Markby and 

Prinsep,]] L I* Rep. 4 Cal. 868, 1878. 

COM VERSION— Measure of Damages. 
Sec Damage*. 4. 

Burmah Trading Company 0, 
Mirza Mahomed...!. Rep. 
B I. A. 130 ; I. L. Rep. 4 
CaLlie. 
CONVERSION 07 COINAGE. 

See Enhancement of Rent. 8. 

Mbbr Mahomed H ossein e. 
Forbe3...L, Rep. 2LA.1. 
CONVICTED PERSON— is not an " Accus- 
ed Person" — Bail. 
See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1873, (880. 
Rio. v. Thakur Pars had... I. 
L. Rep. 1 AIL 161. 
CONVICTION OF CULPABLE HOMX 
CXDB ON CHARGE OF STURDBR. 
Set Appeal— Criminal 4. 

Empress ». JudoonathGangoolt. 
L L. Rep. 8 0»L 378. 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



( ' 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( «« ) 



CONVICTION ON SEVERAL 

CHARGES. 
.^—Combined Sentence Measures— Right of 

See Appeal— Criminal. S. 

Reg. «. Rama Bkivoowda...L It. 
Sep. 1 Bom. 223. 

— Offence made up of Parts— Sentence. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1873, § 464. 
Ehpbrss s. Budh Singh. ..L L. 
Bop. 3 AIL 101. 

1, Separate Sentences — Housebreaking 

—Theft.] There should be either i 
for both offences in a case of conviction of 
house-breaking by night in order 
theft, and theft, not exceeding that which may 
be given by the law for the graver offence, 
separate sentences for each offence, provided 
that in the aggregate the punishment awarded 
does not exceed that which may be given for 
the graver offence. Reg.*. Tukava Tamana. 
L L. Sop. 1 Bom. 314, 1876, F.B- 

3. penal Code, f f (02, 103, 414— A- 

bricating False Evidence— Voluntarily Assisting 
in Concealing Stolen Property— Separate Offe 
era-] Where the petitioner was convicted of 
having voluntarily assisted in concealing stolei 
railway pins in the house and field of a certain 
person with a view to having such 
person punished as the offender 1 — 

Held, that the Magistrate was right in 
victing and punishing the petitioner for the 
two separate offences of fabricating 
dence for use in a judicial proceeding, under 
f 193 of the Penal Code, and of voluntarily 
nssisting in concealing stolen property, undei 
§ 414 of the Penal Code. Empress v. Ramp. 

sharRai. Sfiankie, J L L. Bop. 1 All, 

878, 1877. 

3. Exposure of Child— Culpable Homi- 

tide— Penal Code, ff 304, 317— Separate Senien- 
era.] Where a mother abandoned her infant 
child, with the intention of wholly abandoning 
it, and knowing tha.t such abandonment would 
be likely to cause its death, and the child died 
in consequence of the abandonment 

Held, that she could not be convicted and 
punished under ( 304 and also under f 317 of 
the Penal Code, but under f 304 only. So long 
as the child remained alive, the charge under 
I 317 of " exposure with intent to abandon " 



CONVICTION ON SEVBBAL 

CH AKGES - co a Id. 
could have been sustained, and had the accused 
been tried before the death of the child, for that 
offence, she could rightly have been convicted, 
and such conviction would have been no 
snt of the child's death to a pro- 
secution for culpable homicide. But the child 
having died before the prosecution of the accus- 
ed, the offence under § 317 became absorbed 
id merged in the more serious charge under 
304 ; and the maxim Nemo debet bis puniri pro 
no delicto applied, and separate sentences could 
more be passed than they could for murder 
id wounding with intent to murder, where the 
death of the party attacked had taken place, and 
the death and wounding involved one and the 
ion. Ekprbssv.Banhi. Straight, 
I. L. Bop. 3 Alt 848, 1878. 



J 

COPABCENEB— Pre-emption— No Right of 
— as against a. 
See Hahomedan Law— Pre-emp- 
tion. 1. 
LallaNowbutb. Lalla Jaw an... 
L L. Bep. 4 Cal. 831. 

Unrecorded— Purchase by — at Sale for 

Arrears of Revenue— Existing Encum- 
brances. 

See Act XI. of 1808, f 53. 

Ahdool Bari ». Raudas Cook- 
DOO...I. L. Bep. 4 CaL 607. 

COPT OP JTJDCHKBNT-Time necessary to 
obtain — not excluded in computing Period 
of Limitation for Leave to appeal to the 
Privy Council. 
See Limitation. 80. 

Narain Das. ..I. L. 
Bep. 1 All. 644. 
See Lotto™ Patent— Allahabad— 
01,10.3. 

FAZUI.MuKAUADe.PHUL KuAR. 

I. L. Bop. 8 AU. 193. 

0OBBB8P0NDENCB — Contract constituted 
by. 
See Contract. 8. 

See Kogietration. 10. 

Port Canning Co. e. Smith. ..L. 

Bap. 1 I. A. 134 ; L. Bep, 

6 P. 0.114. 



jAWAHnt Lal e 



Diarized by Google 



< 8« ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



COBBOBOBATION OP AST ACCOM. 
FXJCE. 

Set Bvidtmce. 9. Sa. 10. 11. 1U. 19. 
12a. 

CO-BHABEBS OF LAND-Suit by One of 
Several— to Eject. 
See Eight of Occupancy. 8. 

Bollve Sateb v. Akrah Aixv... 
I. L. Hep. 4 CaL 961. 
Set Co- In am d arm. 

Krjshnarav«-.Govind LL, 

Hep. 8 Bom. 35, n. 

— Suit by One of Several — for Enhancement 
of Rent 
See Enhancement of Bent. 79. 

DoOKGA pROSAn MVTSK V. JOV- 
NARAIN HuZRAH.,.1. L. Bep. 

S OaL 474. 

Balaji «. Gopal I. L. Bep. S 

Bom. 38. 
See Co-Sharers of Land. 4. 

■ ■■' Suit by — in Mahal against Heir of De- 
ceased Lambardar for Share of Profits. 
See Act XVIII. of 1878, ( 98. a. 
Bhikhan Khan v. Ratan Kuar... 
L L. Bep. 1 AIL 612, 
•— — Suit by— of Mahal for Share of Profits- 
Limitation. 

See Act XVILL of 1873, { 94. 
Bhikhan Khan v. Ratan Kuar... 
L L. Bep. 1 AIL 812. 

1. Arrangement fat Separate Payment qf 

Rent— Separate Suits far Arrears of Rent— Suit 
for Kabulaiyat — Enhancement. .] Where it has 
been arranged between the co-sharers of an 
estate and their tenant, that be shall pay each 
co-sharer his proportionate share of the entire 
rent, each co-sharer may bring a separate suit 
against the tenant for such proportionate share. 
In the absence of such an arrangement no 
such suit can be maintained. 

Such an arrangement may be evidenced 
either, by direct proof, or by usage from which 
its existence may be presumed, and is perfectly 
consistent with the continuance of the original 
lease of the entire tenure. 

But an arrangement of this nature will not 
enable one co-sharer to sue the tenant for a 
iabuiaiyat, for a co-sharer who obtains a 
kabulaiyat is bound at the request of the tenant 
to give him a pottah upon the same terms, and 



giit 
of a 
of the 



OF LAND— contd. 
the grant and acceptance of a binding I 
any separate share cannot e 
neously with the original lease of the 

The cancellation of the original lease 
not to be presumed from the mere fact 
separate payment of rent to one or m 
co- sharers. 

One co-sharer cannot enhance the 
share, such an enhancement being 
with the continuance of the lease of the entire 
tenure. Doorga Prashad Mytse o. Joyna- 

rain Hazra I. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 96, 1878, 

F.B. 
Guni Mahomed*. Mora n... Ibid. 

3. Rent paid jointly to Co-Sharers — 

Inability of one Co-Sharer to sue for kit Short 
separately.'] Where a tenant, who held under 
co-sharers, to whom he had been accustomed to 
pay his rent jointly, was sued by one of the co- 
sharers, the others being made defendants to 
tbe suit, and pleaded that he had paid the rent 
to bis co-defendants, who admitted the receipt 
thereof; — Held, that the suit should bed! missed; 
the remedy of the co. sharer who has not re- 
ceived his share of the rent is against his co- 
sharers, and not against the tenant. Ahahudin 
t>. Grish Chunder Shakmut. Jackson, C.J. 
(Offg.), and Mariby, J...I. L. Bep. 4 CaL 360, 
1878. 

8. Suit by one of several— for Separate 

Share of Rent— Unpaid Balance of Rent— Par- 
ties.'] A co-sharer, alleging that a tenant, in 
collusion with the rest of the co-sharers in the 
estate, had failed to pay the rent for two years, 
brought a suit for the recovery of his share of 
t, making the tenant and al| 
the colluding shareholders defendants in the 
suit. It was admitted that the plaintiff and bis 
co-sharers, the pro formt defendants, had 
together granted the lease, and had hitherto 
jointly received the rent. 

Tbe Court of first instance thought there was 
sufficient evidence to show collusion between 
the first defendant and the pmformi defendants 
and held that the suit was maintainable. Tbe 
lower Appellate Court held that there was no 
proof of collusion ; but was further of opinion 
that even if collusion had been established, the 
proper remedy was a suit for damages against 
the colluding parties, and not for rent ;— 



Diarized by Google 



( (37 ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CO-SHARERS OF LAND— contd. 

Held, that the decision of the lower Appellate 
Court was wrong : for that (0— f°Ho wing Daarga 
Churn Surma v. Jampa Dassee, 12 B. L. Rep. 
3S9 ; 21 W. Rep. 46— a suit by a co-sharer for 
arrears of rent which he had heretofore received 
in proportion to his share, but which he alleges 
now to be withheld by the ryot in collusion with 
the other co-sharers who were also made defen. 
dants, is maintainable ;— and (1) that a co-sharer 
can maintain a suit, to which bis eo.sharers as 
well as the tenant are parties defendants, for his 
share of the rent, where the amount for which 
the suit is brought in fact represents the unpaid 
balance of rent, to the whole of which the 
plaintiff ishimself entitled. Jadu Dass v. Su- 
therland. Jackson, and Tottenham, JJ....L L. 

Rep. 4 Oal. 556 ; 3 Oal. Bep. 323, 1878. 

4. Suit by Co-Sharers of Land — En- 
hanced Sent — Non-Joinder of Parties — Act IX. 
of lSjl, ( m.] In a suit to recover rent at an 
enhanced rate brought by two of four brothers, 
joint and undivided owners of the tenure, the 
other two brothers, on an objection taken by the 
defendants that they ought to have been parties 
to the suit, presented a petition signifying their 
assent to the suit. This application, however, 
was made after the period of limitation pre- 
scribed for such a suit had expired :— 

Held, by Ma>iby, ].,— That though _ the rights 
of such added parties were absolutely barred, 
yet the Court could proceed to adjudicate upon 
and declare the rights of the remaining plaint"*- 
who had originally filed the suit, and that, 
the claim for rent was indivisible, the decreein 
their favour should be for the whole amount. 
By Prinsep, J.,— That the objection as to 
defect of parties after the case had passed through 
two Courts, was not one affecting the merits c' 
the case so as to be a ground of special appeal. 

Semite— i 22 of Act IX. of 1871 does not 
apply to cases of joint claims. Bovdohath Bag 
v. G ws 11 Chunder Roy.. I. L. Hop, 8 Cal. 
26, 1877. Dissented from in I. L. ttep. 6 
CaL 815. 
See VoL 3 ; Col. 1038. 
C 0-BHAREB. IK PATTIDAJU ESTATE 
—Right of Pre-emption of. 
See Pre-emption. 1. 3. 

Naraih Sinoh v. Mvhammeo 

FARUCK...I. It. Rep. 1AU. 

377. 

Fariaho Ali ». Aliii uliah ..I. 

L. Sep. 1 All. 873. 



C0-8HABEE8 OF PATNI TALUK— 

Liability of — Voluntary Payment — Right of 
Mortgagee to prevent Sale of Mortgaged Property 
for Arrears of Zemindars Rent] Two Out of 
certain co-sharers in a patni taluk executed a 
mortgage bond with the object of paying off a 
quota of the rent due on the eMate. In a suit 
brought on the bond, to which all the co-sharera 
were defendants ; — Held, that the liability under 



the bond, 1 



s lirr 






had signed the bond, and to such other co-sharers 
is were present and might be taken to have 
acquiesced in the execution of the bond and in 
the contracting of the loan, and for whose benefit 
in fact the loan was taken. 

The mortgagee of the patni taluk having paid 
certain moneys to prevent the sale ot the mort- 
gaged property for arrears of zemindar! rent : — ■ 
Held, that the mortgagee had an interest to 
elect j he had not merely a right to recover the 
nount of his advance, but held a mortgage to 
certain extent over the property, which, in the 
■erit of non-payment of the sum advanced, 
might have been sold for it; — the payments, 
therefore, made by the mortgagee to prevent 
sale of the taluk, under the patni sale law, 
i not voluntary payments, but constituted a 
good charge on the property as against all the 
persons interested therein for the amount so 
paid ; and it made no difference for this pur- 
pose whether the suit on the bond was followed 
by a decree as against all the defendants sued, 
or against a part of them. In the latter case, 
the mortgagee would stand in the same position 
as if he had a mortgage of an undefined share of 
the property, and that interest would authorize 
him to make the payments be did. 

The circumstance that a mortgagee has pro- 
tected himself by a stipulation in the mortgage 
bond, so that the omission to pay the Govern, 
ment revenue or the patni rent should not 
involve a loss of his advance, will not alter the 
mortgagee's position, or make such payments 
by him voluntary payments. 

Mohesh Chundee Banbrjbb v. 

Rah Puksono Chowdry ... I. 

L. Rep. 4 Oal. S38, 1878. 

See Right to recover Government 

Aaaeeament paid during 

Wrongful FoMeaaion. 

TlLLUCtt CUOMO e. SOUDAMINI 

D*si I. lb Bep. 4 Oal. 

see. 



Diarized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



OF PATNI TALUX- 

Sce Sale in Execution of Dwim, 17. 
Ram Tiluck Sinuh *. Bjsseswar 
Lall Sahoo... L. Bep. 3. I. 
A. 131. 
See Betting aside Bate of Superior 
Tenure, Effect of. 
Skeenarain Bagchekj. Smith. .. 
X. L. Bep. 4 OaL 807. 
CO-BHABEB 07 UNDIVIDED ESTATE 
— Assignee of— Rights of. 
Sir Mortgage. 9. 

Byjnath t. Ramoodsen... L.Sep. 
1 LA. 100; SI W. Bep. 

asa. 

Jir Partition by the Beverrae 
Authorities. 
ShakatCkandsbv.Hubgobindo. 
L L. Bep. 4 Cal. 610. 
COSTS— Appeal as to. 

St* Costa. 1. a. 
■ ' - Application under Rule 149 of Com- 
mon Law Rules of Supreme Court to 
compel Defaulting Client to pay. 
See Attorney and Client. 1. 

Aba Ismail v. Aba Thara... L Xj. 

Bep. 1 Bom. 368. 

■^— of Application for Letters of Administra 

See Costa. 3. 

— Bill of— Limitation. 

See Limitation. 67. 

Hearw v. Bapu Naikin... ... I. L. 

Bep. 1 Bom. 606. 

— Bill of— Right to tax after Declining. 

See Attorney and Client, a. 

MoNOHUR DASV. ROMAKA't'H LAW. 

I. L. Bep. 8 Cal. 478. 
^— Deposit of— Power to enlarge Time. 
See Act vX of 1874, ( 11. 

Sookjmukhi Kobe ... I. L. Bep. 
3 Cal. 373. 
1— — Interest on — Attorney's Right to 
See Attorney and Client. 8- 

MoNOHUR DOSS «. ROMAHATH... 

LL. Bep. 8 Cal. 478. 

— Interest on — not mentioned in Decree. 

See Interest. 10. 

Hahtab Chunder •, Ram Lall 

1 L. Bep. 8 OaL 861. 



COSTS— amid, 

Interest on — cannot be given in Execution, 

unless decreed. 
See Interest. 6. 

Forester «. The Secretary Of 
Stats foe India in Council. 
L. Bep. 4 I. A. 187 ; I. L- 
Bep. 8 Cal. 161. 
Interest on — paid under Decree subsequent- 
ly reversed. 
Set Behind of Costs paid under De- 
cree subsequently reversed. 
Dobab Ally Khan e. Abdcol 

Azeez L L. Bep- 4 Col. 

338. 

Libel. 

See Libel. 

Shepherd v. The Trustees or 

the Poet of Bombay. ..L L- 

Bep. 1 Bom. 477. 

Lien for — Solicitor's. 

See Mortgage. 88. 

BrIJNATH V. JUGGERNATK...L L. 

Bep. 4 Cal. 743. 

— — Materia] Misstatement in Petition for Spe- 
cial Leave to Appeal. 
Set Bengal Begulation VXXL of 
1810, i 8, ci. a. 
Ram Sabuk v. Monmohihi...L. 
Bep. 3 L A. 71. 

Non-Liability of Stranger to the Record 

to— in Absence of Malice and Want of 
Probable Cause. 
See Champerty. 3. 

Ram Coomar v. Chunder Kanto. 

L. Bep. 4 L A. 38 ; I L.Bop. 

3 OaL 838. 

— — As between Party and Party — Pre-emption 

Suit— Pleader's Fees. 

See Pleader's Fees. 

Dbbi Sinoh v. Bhup Singh. ..I. L. 
Bep. 1 AIL 700, 
■■ Refund of — paid under Decree subsequent- 
ly reversed. 
Set Behind of Costs paid under De- 
cree subsequently reversed. 
Dorab Allv Khan v. Abdool 
Azeez L L. Bep. 4 OaL, 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



- Security for— Attorney's Right to contract 

for. 
See Attorney and Client. 3. 

MoNoauR ■ Dass b. Romanautu 

Law... I. L. Sep. 8 Cat 

478. 

- Security for— of Appeal — Poverty no 

ground for Ordering. 

See Security for Coats. S. 

Mahekji*.Goolbai...L L. Rep. 
8 Bom. 841. 

- Security for — Extending Time. 

See Security for Costa. 1. 

Haidki Bai e. E.I. Railway Co. 
I. L. Bep. 1 All. 687. 

- Security for — Practice — Residence. 

See Civil Procedure Code, ActX 

of 1877, * 390. 

Mahomed Shuffi v. La loin Ab- 

DULLA...L L. Bep. 8 Bom. 

887. 

- Security Bond for — Enforcing Bond against 

Surety in Execution Proceedings. 

See Security Bond, 

ClIUTTERDH AKEG V. RAMBELASHEE. 

L L. Bep. 3 CaL 318. 

- Set-off of— against Mortgage Money. 

See Mortgage. 38. 

Brijnath v. Jugoernath .XL 
Bep. 4 CaL 743. 

- Suit for. 

See Bight to Sue. 11. 18. 

Kabir v. Mahadu...I. L. Bep. 2 

Bom. 360. 

Pranshankar o. Govindlal...I. 

L. Bep. 1 Bom. 467. 

- Taxation of— Right of Client to— after Re- 

fusal of Offer to tax and seven years' 
Delay. 
Set Attorney and Client. 8. 

MONOHUR DOSS V. RoMONAUTH 

Law...L L. Bep. 8 Oal. 
478. 

- Tender. 

See Tender. 3. 

Chunmkr CaunT e JODOOXATH... 

L L. Bep. 8 Oal. 460. 

- Tender amounting to Payment— Cheque in 

Payment of Debt. 
See Tender. 1. 

Boyle Chund Sino *. Maulard. 
L L. Bep. 4 Oal. 578. 



Wife's — of Appeal in Suit for Divorce. 

See Divorce. 3. 

Fowls ». Fowls... I. L. Bep. 4 
Oal. 260. 

1. Mortgagee — Usurious Contract — 

Discretion.'] The general rule is that a mort- 
gagee is entitled to the costs of enforcing hi* 
security, but this not being prescribed by any 
express regulation, where the Court, in con- 
sideration of his usurious bargain, declines to 
award them wholly or in part, the High Court 
will not interfere. Carvalho v. Nvrbibi. 
West and Pinhiy, JJ...I. L. Bep. 8 Bom. 202, 
1879. 

2. Special Appeal— Order in Discretion 

of Court.'] Where, in a suit for defamation, a 
decree was given for the plaintiff for nominal 
damages, and the Judge considering the suit 
to be a vexatious one, the defendant having 
already been convicted and fined on a prosecu- 
tion by the plaintiff for the defamation, ordered 
the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs t— 

Held, that the order of the Court below as to 
costs, was within its discretion and was not 
illegal, and therefore that no special appeal 
would lie ; the rule laid down by the Full Bench 
in Cirdhari Lai Ray v. Sundar Bibi (Bengal L. 
Rep., Sup. Vol., 496) being that the High Court 
can, in regular appeal, review the exercise of the 
discretion of the lower Court as to the award of 
costs; but that in Special Appeal the High 
Court cannot interefere unless the order made 
as to costs was illegal. 

In a suit tor defamation, if the Court thinks 
that though the words complained of may have 
been spoken by the defendant, jet that the 
plaintiff is not entitled to damages (he having 
already prosecuted the defendant for the defama- 
tion), the Court is not bound to award nominal 
damages, but may dismiss the suit. Fuvf.r 
Parooee v. Moiiender Nath Mozoomdar. 
Markby and Hitter, JJ...I. L. Bep. 1 CaL 888, 
. 1876. 

8. Costs of Application for Letters of 

Administration^ An applicant for letters of 
administration to the estate of a widow, having 
concealed the existence of claims, of which be 
was aware, of the relatives of the deceased hus- 
band of the widow, on the application being 
dismissed, was ordered to pay the costs of the 
application, and of the caveats entered by some 



by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



COSTS —contd. 

of the relatives of the deceased husband. JAI' 

K1SONDAS GoPALDAS T. HARKISONDAS TULLO- 

chandas. Green, J..X L. Kep. 2 Bom. 9, 
1876, 
COTTON- Adulteration of— in Foreign Terri- 
tory — Possession of Adulterated— in Bri- 
tish Territory — Jurisdiction. 
See Bombay Cotton Frauds Act 
TO. 1878, S3 8 and 14. 
Imps. v. Khinchand Naravan... 
I. L. Rep. 3 Bom. i 

— Possession of Adulterated. 

Set Bombay Cotton Frauds Act 

IX. of 1868, | a. 

Reg. v. Hanmanh Gavda...I. L. 
Bep. 1 Bom. 328. 
COUNSEL -Right of— to be heard on a Refer- 
ence under \ ao6 of the Criminal Proce- 
dure Code. 
See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 

X. of 1872, % 296. 

Reg. «. Dsvaha ... I. L. Bep. 1 
Bom. 64. 

COTJBT OF CO-OBDINATE JURISDIC- 
TION— Injunction to restrain Execution 
of Decree by. 

See Injunction. 2. 

Dhuronidhur Sen v. The Agra 

Bank... I. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 

380. 

COTJBT FBEB— Appeal from Order fixing— 

on Plaint. 

See Court Fees. 4. 6. 6. 

Attachment — Suit to Set Aside. 

See Court Fees. 3. 
Declaratory Decree, Suit for — Consequen- 
tial Relief. 
See Court Fees. 1. 10. 1L 



- Pauper Suit — Prerogative of Crown. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act 

TUX of 1869, § 309, 1. 2. 

OuMPDTa Collector op Kanaka. 

L L. Bep. 1 Bom. 7. 

Gulzari v. Collector op Ba- 

M1LLY..X L. Rep. 1 All. BaO. 



- Prerogative Right of Crown to Execution 

Sale Proceeds of Property of Defendant in 
Pauper Suit. 
See Prerogative of the Crown. 

Collector op Moeadasad*. Hd. 

hahhad I, L. Bep. 9 

AIL 196. 

- On Suit for Declaratory Decree — Conse- 

quential Relief. 
See Court Fees. 1. 10. 11. 

- Probate. 

See Court Fees. 8. 9. 



In Suit Embracing two or more Distinct 
Subjects. 
See Court Fees. 7- 

Chahaiu Rani v. Ram Dai. ..I. 

L. Bep. 1 All. SS2. 

On suit to Establish his Right by Person 

against whom Order is passed under Act 

VIII. of 1859, ( 246. 

Set Court Fee*. 11. 

CHUN1AV.RAMDIAL..X XB«p. 

1 AIL 860. 

On Suit to Set aside an Attachment 
See Court Fees. 8. 

Collector op Thana v. Daoa- 

BHAI..X Ir. Bep. 1 Bom. 

862. 

Valuation of Suit for purposes of — and for 

Jurisdiction. 

See Jurisdiction. 16. 19. 90. 

Kalian*. Nawal,.. I. L. Bep. 1 
AIL 630. 

Bai Makhor «. BULAKH1..X L. 

Bep. 1 Bom. 688, 

Kaluc. Vishrah.X X Bep. 1 

Bom. 648. 

1. On Suit for a Declaration of Right, 

'0 tet aside an order under f 346, Act VIII, 
J59, disallowing a claim to the property 
attached— Act VII. of 1 870, { 8,0. tit., and 
Schedule II., Art. if -Consequential Relief.] 
Held, that a suit for a declaration of the plaintiffs' 
proprietary right to certain property attached in 
execution of a decree while in the possession of 
the plaintiff, and for the cancelment of the order 
of the Court executing the decree, made under ( 
iifio\ Act VIII. of 1859, disallowing his claim to 
'be property, could be brought on a stamp of 



by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



COURT FEES— con td. 

Rs. 30; it., Rs. 10 for each claim ; and that it 
was not imperative that the Court fee should be 
according to the value of property. Gulzari 
Hal «. JapaUH RAI. Spaniie And Oldfield, JJ . . . 

1. L. Rep. 3 AIL 63, 1878. 

3. Act VII. of 1870, , 7, CI. iv.— Revt- 

sienbyjudgt of Valuation of Plaint.] Assuming 
that the concluding passage in CI. iv. of f 7 of 
Act VII. of 1870 is too express to admit of a limi 
tation of the Judge's power and leaves him tin 
Tight to revise the valuation placed on suits by 
a plaintiff under CI. iv., still, generally. 
Dot be desirable that the Judge should enhance 
the valuation on the reception of the pi; 
most cases he could only make a conje 
to the value of the relief sought, and would be 
quite as likely to be wrong as right. Under 
S 7, CI. iv., the fee payable is to be according to 
the amount at which the relief sought is valued 
in the plaint, and not the value of the subject- 
matter of the claim. Monohar Gahesh v- Bawa 
Ra mc h aran das. Westropp, C. J., and Melvill, J. 
X. I* Bap. 3 Bom. SIB, 1877. 
S. C. under 6 and 10. 

8. Act VII. of 1870, f f 7-8, CI. viii.— 

Suit to set aside an Attachment— Value.] The 
meaning of CL viii. of f 7 of Act VII. of 1870 is, 
that a person suing to set aside an attachment 
on land, shall in no case be called upon to pay a 
higher fee than he would have to pay if he were 
suing for possession. Accordingly, in a suit to set 
aside a summary attachment under | 48 of Bom- 
bay Act I. of 1865, placed by the Collector on 
land held on a settlement for a period not exceed- 
ing 30 years, the value was held to be five times 
the assessment, and the stamp duty calculated 
upon it, irrespective of the actual market value, 
or the amount for which the land was attached. 
The Collector or Thana v. Dadabhai 
Bomahji. Metvill and Krmball, JJ...I. L. Rep. 
1 Bom. 852, 1876. 

4. AH VII. of I870, (.12. Appeal.] 

Section 13 of the Court Fees' Act VII. of 1870 
prohibits appeals on questions relating to valua- 
tion for the purposes of determining the amount 
of a fee, but does not prevent a Court of Appeal 
from determining whether or not consequential 
relief is sought in a suit, so that it may determine 
under what class of cases the suit falls for 
the purpose of the Court Fees Act. Chukia 

•>. RamdIAL. Pearson and Turner, JJ I. It. 

Bap. 1 AIL 860, 1877. 
S. C. under II, infra. 



COURT FEES— contd. 

8. Ad VII. of 1870, § 11— Appeal 

from Order fixing Amount of Court Feet on 
Plaint.'] There is no appeal against the order 
of the District Judge fixing the amount of the 
Court fee payable on the plaint. 

The right of appeal to which a plaintiff might 
have been entitled under §§31 to 36 of Act 
VIII. of 1859 has been taken away by , 13, CI. 
i. of Act VII. of 1870. Narrayan Naik ». 
The Collector of Thana. Westropp, C.J ,,and 
West, J I. L. Bop. 3 Bom. 146, 1877. 

6. Act VII. 0/1870, § t J— Appeal from 

Order fixing Amount of Court Fees on Plaint.'] 
Held, following Narrayan v. Collector of Thana 
(I. L. Rep. 3 Bom. 145), that unless the question 
of the amount of the Court fees properly charge- 
able on a plaint be wrongly decided by the Court 
of first instance, to the detriment of the revenue, 
the decision of the Court is final, and therefore, 
where that Court has wrongly decided to the 
detriment of the subject only, there is no appeal. 
Manouar Ganesh v. Bawa Ramckarandas. 
Westropp, C.J., and Melvill, J..X L. Rep. 9 
Bom. 219, 1877. 
S. C under 3 and 10. 

7. Act VII. of 1870, f 17— Multifarious 

Suit — " Distinct Subjects " — Plaint — Memoran- 
dum of Appeal.] Held (Spaniie, ]., dissenting) 
that the words "distinct subjects" in | 17 of Act 
VII. of 1870 mean distinct causes of action or 
distinct kinds of relief ; it is not enough that the 
distinct subjects should be merely separate and 
distinct matters embraced in the claim. 

Per Spaniie, J. — The words mean every sepa- 
rate matter distinctly forming a subject of the 
claim. Chahaili Ram?. Ram Dai... X. L. Rep. 
1A1L 653, 1878, F. B. 

8. Act VII. of 1870, Scked. I..CI. II— 

Ad valorem Duty — Probate Duty.] A testator who 
died in 1863, appointed y. the executor of his 
will, and directed that each of his sons who at- 
tained 31 years should be joined with him as 
executors. In 1862, J. obtained probate of the will 
and paid the only fee then leviable by law, vim. 
a commission fee of Rs. to. In 1878, J. died, and 
two of the testator's sons applied for probate : — 

Held, that an ad valorem duty was chargeable 
under Act VII. of 1870, Sched. I., CI. 11, upon 
the grant of the probate, on the value of the wt. 

administered estate of the testator. 



D,„i„.db»Googlc 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



COURT VEBB—eonld. 

In the goods of Chalmers (f> Beng. L. R, Appx. 
•37) followed. 

/* the Goods of Gum, Garth, C. J. 

I. L. Rep. 8 Oal. 783 ; 3 Cal. 

Hep. 4S6. 1878. 

e. — Act vn.of 1807, Schtd. i„a. 11— 

Probate— Ad valorem Foes — Annuity charged on 
Testator's Property.'] Where it appeared that 
property disposed of by a will was bequeathed 
to the testatrix subject to the payment thereout 
of an annuity for life to a person who survived 
her:— 

Held, that the ad valorem fee prescribed by 
Sched, I., CI. It of Act Vtl. of 1870 was levi- 
able upon the present value of the property, less 
the capitalized value of the annuity. In the 
Goods of Ru siit 'ON- Garth, C.J. ..I. L. Rep. 8 

Oal. 736, 1.878. 

10. Act I'll, of 1870, Sched. II., Art. I J, 

CI. iii. Declaratory Decree Suit for — Consequen- 
tial Relief ".] A suit praying merely for a declara- 
tion that the plaintiff is entitled to require the 
defendants' to account to him and to permit him 
to inspect their books, is simply a suit for a de- 
claratory decree, without seeking consequential 
relief, and so within Art. 17, CI. iii., of Schedule 
II. of Act VII. of 1870. 

A suit praying for such a declaration as above, 
and also for a positive order in the nature of a 
mandatory injunction for the production of the 
defendants' books and property in their hands, 
a suit for such a declaration as above, and a 
positive decree for an account to be taken by 
the Court, and for the production of the books 
and property, would range under f 7, CI. 4, Art. 
(<•), as being a suit to obtain a declaratory de- 
cree or order where consequential relief is prayed, 
and also under Art. (d) of the same clause, 
being a suit to obtain an injunction ; and a suit 
of the third species above described would Fall 
under Art. (/) of the same clause, as being 
suit " for accounts. " Manohar Ganbsh v- 
Bawa Rahchakandas. Westropp, C.J., and 

Molvill, ] L L.Rep. 2 Bom. 319,1877. 

S. C. under 3 and 6. 

11. Act VII, of 1870, Sched. II., Art. 

17, a. Hi.— Act VIII. 0/1850, % 246— Suit for 
Declaratory Decreed] A suit by a pers< 
whom an order baa been made under j 246 of 
Act VIII. of r859 disallowing his claim to the 
attached property for a decree declaring his 
right to the property, need not be valued accord - 



COTJBT 

ng to the value of the property, bat can be 

brought on a stamp of Rs. 10, under the Court 

Fees' Act VII. of 1S70, Sched. 11., Art. 17, Q 

ChtjniA t). RamDIAL. Pearson and Turner, 

JJ L L. Rep. 1 AIL 880, 1877. 

S. C under 4, supra, 

COURT FEES' AOT TIL OF 1870— Can- 
not be used to ascertain Value for pur- 
pose of Jurisdiction. 
See Jurisdiction. IB. 10. 90. 

Kalian Das *. Nawal Siwgh .. 
L L. Rep. 1 All. 630. 

Bai Makiiok «. BULAKKI...L Zh 

Rep. 1 Bom. 038. 
Kalu v. VtSHBAM...I. L. Rep. 
1 Bom. 048. 
j 7, CI. iii.— Declaratory Decree — Conse- 
quential Relief. 
See Court Fee*. 1. 

Gulzari Malt. Jadaun Rai .X 
L, Rep. 3 AIL 68. 



, 7, CI. iv.— Revision by judge of Valua- 
tion of Plaint. 

See Court Fee*. 3. 

Manohar e- Bawa. ..J. L.Rep. 3 
Bom. 319. 

*7.CLviiL 

See Court Fee*. 8. 

Collector of Thana v. Dada- 

bhai I. It. Rep. 1 Bom. 

863. 

( 13 — Amendment of Plaint originally for 

Declaratory Decree, by paying Fees, for 
Ejectment Suit, refused. 
See Declaratory Decree. 8. 

Chokaungaprkshana Naickirs. 

Achiyar..,X. I>. Rep. 1 Mad. 

40. 

Appeal from Order Fixing Amount of Court 

Fees on Plaint. 
See Court Fees. 4. 8. 6. 

f 16. 

See Pauper Bee pendent. 

Babaji e. RAJARAU...I. L. Rep. 1 
Bom. 7D, 

Schedule I., CI. 11. 

See Probate Duty. 1. 

Ramckahdra Lak$hmanji...X. L. 
Rep. 1 Bom. 118. 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



COURT FEES ACT VII. OF 1870— amid. 

Schedule I. , CLn & 12— Exemption from 

Probate Duty — Duty paid in England. 
See Probate Duty. 2. 

Gladstone...!. L. Rep. 1. Oal. 
168. 

Schedule I., CI. II— Liability of Property 

on which Duty has been paid in England 
to pay Duty in India. 
See Administration. 4, 

Murch...I. L.llep. 4 Cat. 79U. 

Schedule 1., CI. Il— Probate Duty— Ad- 
valorem Duty. 

See Court Fees. 8. 9. 

Schedule II., Art. 17— Declaratory Decree— 

Consequential Relief. 

See Court Fees. 1. 10. 11. 
COURT OF WARDS— Not bound to take 
Charge of Lunatic's Estate — Appointment 
of Manager by Civil Court valid. 
&«ActXXXV.ofl8BB, f 0. 

Manokar Lal v. Gauri Shan- 
kak...L L. Rep. 1 AIL 470. 

COVENANT NOT TO ALIENATE, 
S« Mortgage. 18. 19. 90. 93. 

Mul Chandu. Balgobind...I. L. 

Rep. 1 AIL 610. 

Chunni v. Thakuk Das. ..I. L. 

Rep. 1 All. 198. 

Ganoa Prasad i, Kusyari Din... 

Ibid. 611, 

Guunoo Singh e. Latafut Hos- 

SAIH...I. L. Rep. SCaL 336. 

See Bale in Execution of Decree. 4. 

Khubcharo e. Kalian Das... I. 

L. Rep. 1 AIL 040. 

COVENANT FOR ftUIET ENJOY- 
MENT— I m pi icd. 
See Darpatni. 

Tarachahd v. Ram Go bind... 
L.Rep. 4 Oal. 778. 

COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE 
LAND. 

See Registration. 98. 

Raju n . Krishnabav.-.X. L. Rep. 
9 Bom. 973. 

1. Agreement relating to Land — Trans- 
fer af the Land.~\ S., being indebted to his wile 
'or her dower, by a duly registered instrument 
d for himself, his heirs, and successor*, 



pay his wife, A., Rs. IS per mensem out of 
c income in lieu of dower, and he also cove- 
nanted not to alienate the land without stipulat- 
ing for the payment of this allowance from 

ncome thereof. He subsequently gave a 
usufructuary mortgage of the land to £., stipulat- 
' ig in the deed of mortgage that the mortgagee 
should pay A. Rs. is per mensem out of the 

ne of the mortgaged property. L. gave R. 

-mortgage of the land, agreeing orally with 
R. to continue to pay A. the allowance himself. 



Held, that A. was not affected by any arrange- 
ent between L. and R- She looked to payment 
of her allowance from the income of the land 
charged with the burden of paying it, and there- 
fore had a claim upon the party who was in 
possession of the lands. The sub-mortgagee, R., 
accepting the mortgage from L., must have 
been aware of the conditions under which the 
latter bad accepted the original mortgage, and 
must also have been aware of the lien created by 
n favour of his wife, which lien, with or without 
:ice, extended to all persons claiming to hold 
the lands, to the extent of the amount of the 
profits set apart for the benefit of the plaintiff. 
AhADi BeguUvAsaRah. Pearson and Spankie, 

JJ I. L. Rep- 9 AH 16S, 1878. 

COVENANT FOR TITLE. 
See Registration. 98. 

Raju v. Krishnarav... I. L.Rep. 
9 Bom. 978. 

CO-WTDOWB— Joint Estate of— Separate En- 
joyment of Shares — Survivorship. 
See Hindu Law- Inheritance- 
Widows. 9. 

Ski Gajapathi Nilahani v. Su 

Gajapathi Radhamani ... Ii, 

Rep. 4 L A. 919; LL 
Bep. 1 Mad. 990. 

CREDIT IN ACCOUNT. 

See Letters Patent— Bo mbay— 
(1866), 01. 19. 1. 

MULCHAND r- SuGAMCHAND,..!. 

L. Sop- 1 Bom. 93. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



( 8M ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( 852 ) 



CREDITOR— Right of— to apply for Revoca- 
tion of Probate. 
See Probate. 3. 

KOMOL LOCH URN D. NlLRUTTUN... 

Z. L. Rep. 4 CaL 360. 
CREDITORS OF ALLEGED HEIR OF 
TESTATOR-RIGHT OF TO OP- 
POSE GRANT OF PROBATE. 
See Probate. 8. 

Desputtv Singh. ..I. Ii. Rep. 2 
Cal. 208. 
CREDITORS OF DECEASED UNDI- 
VIDED HINDU— Right of— to follow 
Estate into the hands of Deceased' 
Heirs for his Separate Debts. 
See Hindu Law- Undivided Fa- 
mily. 8. 
Narsinbhat v Chenapa...L L< 
Rep. 3 Rom. 476. 
CREDITORS OF DECEASED HINDU— 
Right of— to follow his Estate into hands 
of Purchaser from Heir or Devisee. 
See Limitation. 39a. 

Greender Ckunder o. Mac- 
kintosh...!. L. Rep. 4 Cal. 
807. 
CREDITORS OF DECEASED HAHO. 
MED AN— Right of— to follow Estate 
into hands of Purchaser from Heir. 
See Hahomedan Law— Right of 
Creditor! to follow Eatate 
of Debtor into the hand* of 
Purchaser from Heir. 
Baza vet Hosseino.DooliChund. 
I. t. Rep. 4 Cal. 402 ; 
L. Rep. SLA. 211. 
CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST— Not 
Compound, ib lc. 

See Compounding Offences. 1. 7. 
Riiii. o. Lakshnan.-.I. L. Rep. 
1 Rom. IDS, a. 
Reg. s 

. Mad. Reg. VII. of 1817-iri XX. of 1863.] 

A complaint against the trustee and manager of 
a Hindu temple, of criminal breach of trust in 
respect of property belonging to the temple, is 
cognizable by the Criminal Court, the ordinary 
criminal law not being excluded by Madras 
Reg. VII. of 1817 or Act XX. of 1863. Anon. 
I. L. Rep. 1 Mad. 06, 
1876. 



CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS— Irregulari- 
ties in — Waiver by Prisoner. 
See Disqualifying Interest of 
Judge. 
Reg. 3. Bholakath Sen. ..I. L. 
Rep. 2 Cat 28. 
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT 
XXV. OF 1861, f 319— Limitation to 
Suit to recover Property attached under. 
See Limitation. 63. 

Ajil LANDAU MAL V- PeRIASAMM I... 

L L. Rep. 1 Had. 309. 
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODS, ACT 
X. OF 1872, § 4— Sessions Case. 
See Sessions Caae. 

Empress ». Kanchan Singh. ..I, 
L. Rep. 1 AIL 413. 

* $6— Appeal by Person convicted by Deputy 

Commissioner— High Court.'] Quart-.— Whether, 
where a person has been convicted by a Deputy 
Commissioner invested with powers under § 36 
of Act X. of 1872 and sentenced to a term of 
imprisonment requiring under that section to be 
confirmed by the Sessions Judge to whom such 
Deputy Commissioner is subordinate, and such 
sentence has been confirmed accordingly, an 
appeal lies to the High Court against such con- 
viction and sentence. Empress ». Nadua. 
Stuart, C] I. L. Rep. 2 All. 03,1878. 

§ tfi — Conviction — Power to commit.'] A 

magistrate to whom a case is referred for en- 
hancement of punishment under ( 46 of Act X. 
of 1872, may order the committal of the convict- 
ed person for trial by the Sessions Court. In the 

<if Chinnimarigada. Morgan, C.]., Hollo- 
■nay and Innes, ]]...!. L. Rep. 1 Mad. 280, 
1876. 

i JO — Bench of Magistrates— Jurisdiction. 

See fast, § 880. 4. 

Sufferuddin v. Ibrahim...!. L. 
Rep. 3 Cal. 704. 

5 $6— Powers of Magistrates — Summary 

Jurisdiction— Transfer— Furlough.] The peti- 
tioner had been convicted by Mr. Carnegy, the 
istant Commissioner of Kamroop, in the 
■cise of a summary jurisdiction under S u> 
of Act X. of 1872. This officer was, in 1872, ia 
charge of the Jorehaut Division in the district of 
Seebsaugor, " with first-class powers and powers 
under § 222" of the Act. In 1874 he went on 
furlough to England, and, on his return in 1875, 
posted to the district of Kamroop, and 



D.gmzed by GoOgle 



{ 353 ) DIGEST OF CASES. 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE COSE, ACT 
X. OF 1672— contd. X. OF 1873— amfci 



invested with the powers of a Magistrate of the 
First Class. 

Held, that 5 56 of Act X. of 1873 did not 
apply, and that Mr. Carnegy had no summary 
jurisdiction in Kamroop. 

Per Matkby, J— On the ground that by the 
terms in which the Government had conferred 
that jurisdiction on Mr. Carnegy, it had in effect 
"directed," within the meaning of f 56 of Act 
X. of 1872, that he should not exercise that 
jurisdiction anywhere but in Seebsaugor. 

Per Mitter, J.— On the ground that the office 
to which Mr. Carnegy was appointed in Kam- 
roop was not equal to or higher than that which 
he had held in Seebsaugor. 

Quart per Mariby, J.— Whether the posting 
of Mr. Carnegy to Kamroop after his return 
from furlough, was a transfer from Seebsaugor 
within the meaning of f 56 of Act X. of 1872- 

In the matter of PvksookaxBoRo/lH. Mariby 
•od Hitter, JJ..X L. Hep. 3 Cal. 117, 1878. 

764 — Transfer by Judicial Commissioner 

from Session to his own Court — Appeal 
from Sentence to Special Court at Ran- 
goon—Act XVII. of 1875, f 35. 
See Jurisdiction. 17. 

Empress b. Tsit Ooe L It. 

Hop. 4 Cal. 657. 
— — 5 64— Transfer of Case— Power of Judge 
acting in the English Department.'] An appli- 
cation by a Magistrate or Session Judge for the 
transfer of a case under j 64 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code (Act X. of 1871) should be 
made, not by letter to the English Department 
of the High Court, but to the Court, sitting in 
its judicial capacity by motion supported by 
affidavits, or affirmation in the usual way. 
Reg. v. Zuhiruodin...I. L. Rep. 1 Cal. 319, 
1878, F. B. 

t 5 67-— Jurisdiction— Dacoity in the 

CaikaTcadi Territory.] Where a dacoity w; 
committed at Velanpur, a village in the terr 
tory of H. H. the Gailtawad of Baroda, and 
part of the stolen property was found where 
had been concealed by the accused, in British 
territory : — 

Held, that a conviction of dacoity could 
be sustained, as that was a substantive offence 
completed as soon as perpetrated at Velanpur, 
although had Velanpur been in British territory 



the subsequent acts, in the process of taking 
'ay the property, might in the legal sense (as 
they would have the same legal character) have 
coalesced with the first and principal one, so as 
to give jurisdiction, under f 67 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code, in each district into which 
the property wss conveyed. But it wax held, 
that the conviction could be altered to one of 
retaining stolen property knowing it to be sto- 
len, and the sentences upheld. The retaining is 
ncluded in the more comprehensive charge 
viewed as an abstract accusation of an act 
attended with a certain intent or consciousness, 
and the conception of dacoity being independent 
of the place where it was committed, suffices to 
what is embraced within it, though the 
latter was an act done in British territory. 
Reg. 0. I.akhva Govind. Westropp, C.J., and 
A'. Harridass, J...I. L. Rep. 1 Bom. 50, 1876. 
Dissented from in Empress e. S. Moorga 

Chettv L L. Rep, S Bom. 338. 

See Vol. 3, CoL 780. 

2. § 67.— Theft committed in Foreign 

Territory—Jurisdiction.'] The accused stole 
property in foreign territory and was arrested 
with it in his possession in a district in British 
territory ; — 

Held, that § 67 of Act X. of 1872 did not give 
the British Courts of such district jurisdiction to 
try him for the theft. Reg. 0- Adivigadu. Hoi- 
loway, Innes, and Kindersley, JJ...I. L. Rep. 1 

Had. 171, 1878. 

f 00 — Village Accountant — Village Mun- 

siff's Peon not under. 
&<■ Penal Code, { 917. 

In the matter of Ramuki Nayar... 
I. L. Rep. 1 Had. 366. 

1, f go. — Information to Police — Agent 

ofOanerofLand.] Per Mariby ,] .—A tharanchi 
is not an " agent " within the meaning of § 90 of 
the Criminal Procedure Code, Act X. of 1872. 
A deiian might be an agent within the meaning 
of the Act if his master was absent; but the 
section must be strictly constructed, and does 
not apply to a demon who was actingonly under 
the orders of a resident master. 

Per Prinsep, J — As regards { 90, there is con- 
siderable force in the argument that although 
the commencement of the section refers to an 
agent of an owner or occupier of land responsi- 



Digitized by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



crehinai. procedure code, act cbxhtnal procedure code, act 

X OF 1872- contd. X. OF 1872— contd. 



ble (or giving information to a Magistrate, when 
it comes to declare the nature of that informa- 
tion, the terms of the first three clauses seem to 
exclude that class, referring only to the other 
classes- It would seem either that this was an 
accidental omission of the Legislature, or that 
the Legislature expressly intended that an agent 
is responsible only for giving information re- 
garding the last clause, vi*., of the occurrence of 
any sudden or unnatural death. Empress v. 

Achiraj Lall L L. Rep. 4 0*1. 603 ; 

80*1, Bep. 87, 1878. 

2. i go. — Omission to give Information to 

the Polict of Offence,] The provisions of f 90 of 
the Criminal Procedure Code (Act X. of 1872) 
andf 176 of the Penal Code ought not to be 
used for purposes of vexation, but in order to 
secure due information to Magistrates and the 
Police, of offences committed within their juris- 
diction. Provided that information is conveyed 
to the nearest Magistrate or Police officer by one 
of the parties bound to give such information, it 
is not reasonable that every other person who 
may possibly be bound to give information 
should be prosecuted for not having done so. 
Where, therefore, information of a theft had been 
given to the police by a gomastah, and a punch 
of the village, a conviction of another gomastah 
(who had not obtained information thereof him. 
self till after it had been reported to the police), 
under ( 176 of the Penal Code, was set aside. 

Empress e. Sashi Bhusan Chuckrabuttey. 

Ainslie and Broagkton, JJ...X. L. Rep. 4 Cal. 

623, 1678. 

S 123— Confession defectively recorded— 

Secondary Evidence of. 

Set Evidence. 13. 14. 

Reg. v. Shiwa...L L. Rep. 1 

Bom. 218. 

Empress v. Mannoo Ta moo lee... 

I. L. Rep. 4 Cal. 696. 

1. { 122— Paver of a Magistrate to re- 
tard a Statement of a Person not accused of an 
Offence.} Section 122 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure (Act X. of 1872) authorizes a Magis- 
trate to record the statement of a person who 
appears before him as a witness, as well as the 
confession of an accused person. In the former 
case the statement must be recorded in the 
manner prescribed for recording evidence, i.e., 



on oath or affirmation, and in the latter case in 
the manner prescribed by ft 345 and 346 of the 
Code, without oath or affirmation. Impx. *. 
Malka. Sembalt Aad Pinhey, ]]...!. L. Bap. 

2 Bom. 043, 1878. 

2. § 122. — Confession — Magistrate, — 

Evidence— Act I. 0/1862, § 1.] Where a Magis- 
trate in talcing the confession of a prisoner 
under f 122 of the Criminal Procedure Code 
(Act X. of 1872) omits to take it in writing 
with the formalities prescribed by j 346 of that 
Code, such confession is not absolutely inad- 
missible in evidence. Evidence may be taken 
to show tbat such a confession had been duly 
recorded, though the Magistrate's procedure 
had been irregular, 

Reg. v. Shivya and others (I. L. Rep. I Bom. 
219) dissented from. A village Munsiff in the 
Madras Presidency is a "Magistrate" within 
the meaning of f 26 of the Evidence Act I, 
of 1872. 

The word "include" in CI. 13 and other 

clauses of jj I of Act I. of 1868 is intended to be 

enumerative and not exhaustive. Empress o. 

Rahanjiva. Innes and Forbes, J J... I. L. Rep. 

2 Mad. 0, 1878. 

§§ '33 an( l 13S— Inquiry by Magistrate 

into Cause of Death — not a judicial Pro- 
ceeding. 
Sec Report of Magistrate. 

Trovlokanath v. Rah Churn ... 
L L, Bep. 8 Cal. 742. 

{ 142 — Discharge — Rev i vial of Prosecution. 

&v Revival of Prosecution. 6. 

Impx. v. Gowdapa X. L- Bep. 

2 Bom, 534. 

1. f 142. — Sanctionto prosecute— Power 

of the District Magistrate to proceed where Pro- 
secutor has not availed himself ef Sanction, 
—Amendment of Charge.'] Where sanction has 
been given under f 468 of Act X. of 1872 by a 
Deputy Magistrate to a person to prosecute an- 
other under | 211 of the Penal Code, for bringing 
false charge, and such sanction is not proceed- 
ed under, it is open to the District Magistrate 
to take up the case under ( 142 without com- 



Diaxized by Google 



I 387 ) DIGEST OF CASES. 

COUMnTAl PBOCBDTTOK CODE, ACT CRTJfCINAI. PROCEDURE CODE, ACT 
X. OP 1878— amid. X OP 1878— contd. 

Such sanction would authorise the District 
Magistrate to frame a charge under £ 19* of 
the Penal Code. Empress o. Ni PC ha. Jackson 

and Tottenham, JJ I. L. B»p. 4 CaL 712, 

1878. 



1.— S I57-— Extradition,— Warrant.'} It 
n not essential to the validity of a 
issued under ( 1 57 of the Criminal Procedure 
Code (Act X. of 187a) that the Magistrate 
issuing it should be, at the time he issues it, 
within the local limits of his jurisdiction. He 
may issue such warrant from foreign territory. 

Rbo. v. Locha Kala L I.. Bap. 1 Bom. 

340. 

, 1S8. 

See Compounding Offence*. S. 6. 

Reg. o. Devama...I. L. Sep. 1 

Bom. 64. 

Reg. 0. Rahthat.,,1. L. Rep. 1 

Bom. 147. 

195— Discharge — Fresh Evidence. ' 

Set Revival of Prosecution, 9. 
Empress 11. Hurrt Dayal...L L. 
Bop. 4 Oal. 16. 

§209. 

See Compensation. 

In re Keshav L L. B«p. 1 

Bom. 175. 

giro. 

See Compounding Offences. 6. 

Reg *. Rahimat I. L. B«p. 1 

Bom. 147. 

In 



See Revival of Prosecution. 6. 
Impx. v. Gowdapa...L Ii. Bep. 
3 Bom. S34. 

- f 315 — Discbarge by Subordinate Magis- 
trate — Case triable by Magistrate only- 
Course for District Magistrate to pursue. 
See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1872, i 380. 



- — I 310— Complainant — Withdrawal.} 
cases of contempt of the lawful authority of a 
public servant, the complainant spoken of in 
) 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act X. 
of 1872) is the public servant whose authority 
has been resisted, and without whose sanction 
no proceeding could be instituted, and not the 
person injured through the resistance. There- 
fore to make the withdrawal of the complaint 
of such offence legal, it must be based 
application alone of the Court or authority 
sanctioning the proceedings. In re Muss Ali 
Adam I. L. Bep. 2 Bom. 663. 

§"5- 

See Compounding Offences, 0. 

Rao. *. Devama...I. L- Bep. 1 
Bom. 64. 



1. 5 315. — Evidence for Prosecution.] 

A Magistrate is bound, before he discharges an 
:used person under { 215 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code, Act X. of 1871, to examine all 
the witnesses for the prosecution, and should 
.ot refuse to examine witnesses simply because 
heir evidence will be to the same effect as that 
dready taken for the prosecution. Emprrss v. 
Hematulla. Jackson and Cunningham,}]... 
I. L. Bep. 3 Col. 389, 1878. 

A. f 215. — Examination 0/ Witnesses for 

Prosecution — Discharge of Accused.] Before a 
Magistrate discharges an accused person under 
f 315 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Act X- 
of 1873, he is bound, under that section, to exa- 
mine all the witnesses named for the prosecution. 
Empress v. HimatuU* (I. L. Rep, 3 Cal. 389.) 
followed. Empress v. Kashi. Straight,}...!. 
L. Bep. S All. 447, 1879. 
-J 318— Right of Accused to recall and 
cross-examine Witnesses for Prosecution. , 
See Practice- Criminal 1. 

Emprbss V. BaLDEO SAHAJ...I. I". 

Bep. 3 AIL 303. 

-) 320. 

See Conviction on several Charges. 



ff 220, 221— Practice— Committal for Trial 

after Charge has been drawn up.] Section 321 
of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act X. of 1873) 
authorizes a Magistrate, although a charge may 
have been drawn up, to stop further proceedings 
and commit for trial : for this purpose ( 331 may 
be regarded as a proviso to * 220. 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CEnaiWAL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT CEUHHTAI. PROCEDURE CODE, ACT 

X OF 1872—ctmtd. X OF 1872— amid. 



Though the explanation to § 220 pi 
if a charge has been drawn up, tli 
must be either convicted or acquitted, it does 
not require that the conviction or acquittal 
should be by the Magistrate who drew it. ~~ 
PRESS v. Kl-dkutoolah. Jackson and Cun 

ham, JJ...I. L. Rep. 8 Cal. 486; 3 Oal. Rep. 
3, 1878. 

i 322— Act XXI. of 1856, 5 4.9-Ofi 

punishable with Finland Confiscation — Summ 
Trial.'] An offence under f 4g of Act XXI. of 
1856, can be tried summarily by a Magistrate 
under f z%2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 
Act X. of 1872. 

The confiscation, which is provided for by 
% 49, is merely a consequence of the conviction, 
and does not form part of the puoishment for the 

Khetter Mohun Ckowrunghee (22 W. Rep., Cr, 
Rul. 43) and Judoonath Shako. (2] W. Rep. Cr 
Rul. 33) overruled. Empress b. Baidanat* 

Das I. L. Bop. 3 Cat 308; 1 Cal. 

B«p. 443, 1876, F. B. 
See 3 Bom. H. 0. Sep., Or, Ca. 13. 
14. 
§ 228— Record in Appealable Case— Sub- 
tan ce of Evidence. 
See Summary Trial. 

Empress v. Karan Singh. ..X. L, 
Rep. 1 AIL 680. 

S 231— Power of Sessions Court to commit 

to itself Case not triable exclusively by 
Court of Sessions. 
Set Jurisdiction. 16. 

Empress v. Futteh Tyabkhan... 
I. L. Sep. 4 Cal. 700. 

S 263— Appeal against an Acquittal by a 

J<iry. 
See Appeal— Criminal. 3. 

Ia-ex. v- Hart I. L. Bep. 3 

Bom. 528. 

1. } 263.-7™: by Jury—Acquittal— 

Verdict reversed.] On a reference by a Session 
Judge under § 263 of the Criminal Procedure 
Code (Act X. of 1872), the whole case is opened 
up, and the functions of both Judge and Jury are 
cast upon the High Court, and this differentiates 
the position of the High Court very widely from 
that of the superior Courts in England, in deal- 
ing with cases which come before them in the 



exercise of their function of reviewing matters 
disposed of by subordinate Courts. 

But, notwithstanding this difference, and the 
more onerous duties devolving in consequence 
on it, the High Court will be guided, as far as 
may be, by the analogies of English law. It is 
a well* recognized principle that the Courts in 
England will not set aside the verdict of a jury, 
unless it is perverse, and patently wrong, or may 
have been induced by an error of the Judge, 
To this principle the High Court will adhere 
generally, but in a proper case will rectify the 
verdict of a jury. Reg. 11. Khandeeau Bajirav, 
West and N. Harridass, JJ...1. Ii. Rep. 1 Bom 

10, 1875. 

3. § 263.— Dissent of Court from Verdict 

of J<"y-] The " dissent " referred to in CI. 4 of 
§263 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act X. of 
1872) must be such acompletedissent as to lead 
the Judge to consider it necessary for the ends 
of justice to submit the case to the High Court. 
lupx.c. BhawANiBaNdujI. Westropp, C.J. , and 

MHviU,] LL.Eep.3Bom. 83B, 1878. 

3. § 263.— Power of High Court— Ac- 
quittal by Jury.] Where the jury acquitted the 
prisoners on the charges framed, but found cer- 
n facts which amounted to another offence, and 
litted to convict the prisoners of that offence, 
they had the power to do under i 457 of the 
Criminal Procedure Code : — 
field, that the High Court could, on the case 
ming before it under f 263 of that Code, find 
the prisoners guilty of that offence. Empress 
Harai Mirdha. Markby and Milter, JJ...L 
L. Bep. 8 Cal. 186, 1877. 

4. } 263.— Verdict — Disagreement 

among Jurors— Dissent of Judge from Verdict— 
if High Court.] Where a jury are not un. 
is, and the Sessions Judge dissents from 
the verdict of acquittal, it is his duty, on referring 
the case to the High Court under § 263 of the 
Criminal Procedure Code, Act X. of 1872, to 
state his opinion as tothe exact offence of which 
he considers the prisoner is guilty. Where a 
jury are not unanimous in their finding, and the 
Sessions Judge dissents from the verdict of the 
majority, the High Court, on the case being re- 
ferred under j 263 of Act X. of 1872, is compo- 
und the prisoner guilty, notwithstanding 
that the verdict of the majority was a verdict of 



DiQitized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT 
X. OF 1872- -contd. X. OF 1872— contd. 



acquittal. Empress v. Sah as Ras. Markby and 

Prinsrp, JJ...L L. Rep. 3 CaL 623 ; 2 Cal. 
Rep. 304, 187a 
S. C. under Grievous Hurt. 

| 271 — Appeal, Arrest Pending. 

Set Appeal— Criminal. 6. 7. 
' Appeal, Limitation. 

See Appeal— Criminal. 0. 
— — Appeal, Officer appointed to prefer. 

See Appeal— Criminal. 4. 
( 280, 

Bee Enhancement of Sen twice. 

Anon L L.Rep, 1 Mad. 84. 

— ( aS&Seference—Poner of High Court to 
alter Finding.] The High Court as a Court ol 
reference has no power under S aSS to alter a 
conviction of murder into one of culpable homi- 
cide not amounting; to murder, but only to order 
a new trial, unless there ha? been a petition of 
appeal, in which case, the Court being a Court 
of appeal as well as of reference, could alter the 
Ending of the Sessions Court. Where the priso- 
ners were tried on two charges of murder and 
culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and 
• the opinion of the assessors had been taken on 
both charges, but the Sessions Judge recorded a 
conviction and sentence for murder only, the High 
Court being of opinion, on a reference under 
i 287, that the offence proved amounted only to 
culpable homicide not amounting to murder, did 
not order a trial de novo, but directed the Ses- 

On the charge of culpable homicide not amount- 
ing to murder. Reg. p. Balapa Dundapa. Mei- 

vili and Kemball, JJ L X.. Rep. 1 Bom. 

838, 1877. 

— — ( i 294 and 397 — Revision — Power of High 
Court — " Material Error,"'] In a case of appre. 
bended breach of the peace, the Magistrate 
bound over the parties in sums amounting in 
^e aggregate to Rs. 60,000 or upwards. The 
High Court quashed the order, holding it to be 
altogether unreasonable. 

Per Markby, J. — Notwithstanding the very 
general words of f { 294 and 297 of Act X. of 
1871, the Court ought not, in the exercise of the 
powers conferred by Chapter XXII. of that Act, 
to gu into evidence and examine the conclusions 
of the Court below upon the facts. Still the 
High Court is not precluded from interfering 



!, in cases requiring the exercise of discre* 
nun, it appears an the face of the proceedings 
that the Magistrate has exercised no discretion 

at all, or has exercised his discretion in a manner 
-vholly unreasonable. 

Per Hitter, J. — The words " material error" in 
(»97ofActX. of 1872 mean any error appearing 
on the face of a judicial proceeding resulting in 
t order. In the matter of Juggut 

Chunder Chukkbrbutty.,.1, L. Rep. 2 Cat 
110, 1876. 
{ 395— Discharge by Subordinate Magis- 
trate^ — Course- to be pursued by District 
Magistrate. 
See Revival of Prosecution. 6. 

Ihfx. e- Gowdapa-.I. L. Rep. 2 
' Bom. 684. 

fr 29S— Discharge — Sessions Case. 

See Revival of Prosecution. 2. 

Empress *, Harry Doval...L L. 
Rep, 4. CaL 16. 

— fi 29S-296 — Improper Discharge of Accu- 
sed Persons— Course to be pursued by 
District Magistrate. 

See .Revival of Prosecution. 1 

8. a 

- WotttsH Mistree.-I. L, Rep. 1 
Cftl 383. 

Empress v. Donnelly I. L. 

Rep. 2 Cal. 400, 

Empress e. Harry Doyal Karmo- 
KAR...I.L.Rep.4 CaL 18. 

5 295 — Discharge by Subordinate Magis- 
trate — Course to be pursued by District Magis- 
trate.'] The District Magistrate has no power 
to remand a case (triable by a Magistrate only) 
to a Subordinate Magistrate for retrial after the 
latter has discharged the accused under f 215 of 
the Criminal Procedure Code; the courses open 
to him are— (1) to take a fresh complaint on the 
ground of there being further evidence procu- 
rable which was not before the Court when the 
order of discharge was given (and on this ground 
only) ; or, (2) if there be no such additional evi- 
dence procurable, to report the case for the 
orders of the High Court under § 296 of Act X. 
of 1872. In the matter of the Petition of Dija. 
HUB Dun. Ansliennd Bronghton, JJ X, L, 

Rap. 4 Cal. 647, 1878. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



{ S6S ) DIGEST OF CASES. 

QBUCTAIi FBOCEDUBE CODE, ACT OBIKIMAL PROCEDURE CODS, AOT 
X. OF 1872- -amtd. X OF 1872- -amid. 



— i ago" — Discharge by Subordinate Magis- 
trate of Case triable by Magistrate — 
Course to be pursued by District Magis- 

Ste Revival Of Prosecution. 1. 2. 8. 
4.0. 

§ 396— Power of Higb Court to call for 

Report of Magistrate embodying Result 
of Inquiry into Cause of Death under 
t'3S- 

See Report of Magistrate. 

Troylokanath v. Ram Churn... 
I. L. Bop, 8 Cal. 742- 

S 296— Sessions Case. 

See Sessions Case. 
Empress e. Kanchan SlKGH.,.1. 
L. Sep. 1 All. 413. 

— — § 396— Counsel— Right of, to be heard.'] 
Counsel cannot claim as of right to be heard on 
a reference to the High Court under J 296 of 
the Criminal Procedure Code. Reg. v. Devam a. 
West and N. Harridas, JJ...I. L. Bep. 1 Bom. 

64, 187S. 

■ — J 397 — Acquittal without ashing Assessors' 
Opinion — No Ground for Revision. 



Naraih DA5...I. L, Bep. 1 AIL 
610. 

■ § 297 — "Judicial Proceeding" — Revision. 

Set Judicial Proceeding. 1. 
See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
Z, of 1873, g§ 415 to 410. 3. 

5 297 — Right of Private Prosecutor to apply 

(or Revision of Acquittal. 
See in the matter of the Petition of Na- 

rain Das I. L. Bep. 1 AIL 

610. 

And 5M in/*", 1.3. 9. 

1. §397— Acquittals- Penerof Revision 

•f High Court.] Held by Pearson and OldJUld, 
]]., that an acquittal does not preclude revision 
by the Higb Court under f 397 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code (Act X. of 1S73). That se 
authorizes the Higb Court to order the new 
of a person who has been acquitted by re 
of some material error in a judicial proceeding 
of a subordinate Court. 



Turner, J. — Where there has been an ac- 
quittal on tbe merits, where an accused person 
«en acquitted because the Court by which 
he has been tried holds the evidence insufficient 
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the 
High Court cannot interfere as a Court of Revi- 
But where the acquittal has been brought 
about by such a material error in the proceeding 
makes the proceeding bad in law, it is com- 
petent for the High Court to interfere. If the 
facts found by the Subordinate Court constituted 
the offence charged, and, through error of law, 
the Subordinate Court held that they did not 
constitute the offence, and therefore acquitted the 
accused ; or the if the Subordinate Court impro- 
perly excluded relevant evidence, and conse- 
quently acquitted the accused, in both those 
cases, the High Court would have power to 
interfere as a Court of Revision. 

is competent to the High Court to allow a 
private person to move it to exercise its powers 
under § 297. 
By Spaniie, J.— The Higb Court has no power 
revise an order of acquittal on the facts found 
1 the evidence. Any revision must proceed 
on tbe ground of material error in law in the - 
proceedings, e.g., some error or defect, either in 
the charge, or in the proceedings on or before 
the trial, on account of the improper admission 
r rejection of evidence whereby there has been 
failure of justice affecting the due conduct of 
the prosecution. 
By Stuart, C.j — A private prosecutor, who 
in show on the face of his petition a proper 
ise for revision of a judgment of acquittal is 
entitled to have it entertained under § 297 of the 
Criminal Procedure Code, and a petition stating 
that the facts as found by tbe Court acquitting; 
the accused, were sufficient to convict, discloses 
a proper case for revision, and one which enti- 
tles the petitioner to have the record of the trial 
in the Subordinate Court sent for, with a view 
to the consideration of the question whether a 
new trial should be ordered,— the High Court 
having the power to make such an order. 

The first part of j 297 is not merely intro- 
ductory to tbe particular enactments which 
follow, but is, on the contrary, a substantive and 
complete enactment in itself, without any ne- 
cessary reference to the clauses which follow ; 
and the powers thus gives to tbe Higb Costt 



D.gmzed by GOOglC 



DIGEST OF CASES. < 866 ) 

rammjAL procedure code, act criminal procedure code, aot 

X. OP 187a-w»W. X. OP 1878— oontd. 



are large and full, if not unlimited. /« tie mat 
ter f /H*RDBO...L L. Rep. 1 AIL 180, 1876 

S. § 297. — Judicial Proceeding — Arrest 

fending Appeal — Order of Sessions Judge ad- 
mitting to Bail—Power of High Court.'] An 
appeal having been preferred by the Govern- 
ment against an acquittal, an order was made 
by the High Court calling for the record. The 
officer whose duty it was to issue the precept 
misapprehending the effect of the order, issued 
notices to the Magistrate of the District that 
the appeal had been admitted, and would be 
heard on day a named. The persons who had 
been acquitted were arrested and sent to the 
Magistrate of the District, who ordered their 
detention until the decision of the appeal. On 
an application made to the Sessions Court, that 
Court referred the case, under f 20.6 of the 
Criminal Procedure Code, for the orders of the 
High Court, and in the mean time admitted 
the accused to bail under 230 of the Code :— 

Held per Tamer, C.J. (Oflg.), and Pearson, J 
— That the order of the Magistrate directing tin 
detention of the accused, not being a judicial 
proceeding, the High Court had no power under 
f 297 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Act X. 
of 1872, to set it aside. 

Per Pearson, J.— The case was not one which 
could properly he reported by the Sessi 
Judge under f 296 of the Code ; nor could that 
officer properly admit the accused to bail under 
i 53°- But the order made by him under that 
section could not be set aside as null for want 
of jurisdiction, not being a judicial proceeding 
within the terms of the definition contained 
the law. 

Held by Spmkie and OtdftOd, JJ._- That the 
Magistrate's proceedings were judicial proceed- 
ings, and therefore that the High Court had 
power to set aside his order, which was illegal 
under f 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, that 
section applying to interlocutory orders, and 
being confined to orders in cases finally disposed 
of. Rao. o. Gholam Ismail.,, L L. Rep. 1A1L 
1,1879. 



3. — 5 397-— Revision— Powtr of High 
Court.'] In the course of a serious riot, one S. 
was killed by a shot of a gun. The first prisoner 
and others were charged with murder. The 
first prisoner alleged that he bad fired the shot- 



but in self-defence, and his statement was believ- 
ed by the Judge, who acquitted him. 

The widow of the deceased presented a peti- 
tion to the High Court to exercise its powers of 

Held, tstly, that the High Court may exercise 
its powers of revision upon information in what- 
ever way received, and consequently on the 
petition, as in the present case, of a person occu- 
pying the position of complainant ; 

zndly, That it was not intended by the Legis- 
lature that the powers given by CI, I, J 297, 
should be exercised only in the particular in- 
stances of error and in the particular manner 
given in the succeeding clauses, which are mere- 
ly intended to show the particular course which 
may be taken in those particular instances of 

ydly, that it is not a ground for revision by 
the High Court that all the evidence which the 
prosecution might have brought before the 
Session Judge, was not brought before him ; 

4ihly, that the words " material error" in 
(297 cannot be held to include error in the ap- 
preciation of evidence, In the matter of Auho- 
kiam. Innes.C.}. (Offg.), Uurtusami Ayyar, J. 
I. L. Rep. 9 Mad. 88, 1878. 
4. i 297. — Evidence.] On an applica- 
tion to the High Court under ( 297 of Act X. of 
1872 by a person who has been convicted by a 
Magistrate, the High Court will not go into the 
evidence. Empress v. Donnelv. Marhby and 

Prinsefi, JJ L L. Rep. 8 CaL 405, 1877. 

S. C. under Revival of Prosecution. 3. 
And Evidence. 32. 
See 8, infra, 

5. §297. — Acquittal — Revision.] Where 

an officiating Magistrate, being of opinion that 
an accused, prosecuted under § 29 of Act XVI II. 
of 1869, had been improperly acquitted, referred 
ase to the High Court, the High Court 
{Ainslieaxii Morris,]].) said, " unless the Go- 
-nent sees fit to appeal against the acquittal 
under § 272 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 
this Court cannot interferfere in any way. EM- 
PRESS V. DWARKANATH CHOWDHRY... I. L.RGp. 

8 CaL 880, 401, 1877. 

1. — f 207.— Improper Acquittal— Appeal . 
by Government.] The Magistrate of the district, 
thinking that certain accused persons had been 



Diaxized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CRIMINAL PROCEDTJRE CODE, ACT CHIMTNAL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT 

X OF 1878— ronW. X. OF 1872— contd. 



improperly acquitted by a Subordinate Magis- 
trate referred the case to the High Court, being 
of opinion that though § 297 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code did not mention orders of ac- 
quittal as coming under the revision of the High 
Court, still the High Court would, for good and 
sufficient reason, reverse an order of acquittal: — 
Held, that as under the Criminal Procedure 
Code, provision is made for an appeal by Go- 
vernment in cases of improper acquittal, and 
f 297 white expressly giving power to the High 
Court to correct errors in cases of improper 
discharge, conviction and sentence, says nothing 
of improper acquittal, the intention of the 
Legislature was, that there should be no inter- 
ference with an acquittal, except on a formal 
appeal by Government. Empress v. Mivaji 
Ahmed. West and Pinhey, ]] ...I. L. Bep. 8 

Bom. 150, 1878. 

7. ■ J 297. — Order of Division Bench to 

Magistral! to hold Inqviry — Conviction — Refer- 
ence for Confirmation of Sentence of Death— 
Review.'] A Division Court of the High Court 
at Allahabad ordered a Magistrate who had 
refused to inquire into a charge of murder on 
the ground that he had no jurisdiction, to 
do so, considering that the Magistrate had 
jurisdiction. The Magistrate inquired into the 
case and committed the accused for trial to the 
Sessions Judge, who convicted, and sentenced 
the accused to death. The proceedings of the 
Session Court being referred to the High Court 
for confirmation of the sentence, the case came 
before the Full Court :— 

Held, per Stuart, C.J., Spaniie and Oldfitld, 
JJ., that in determining whether such sentence 
should be confirmed, the full Court was not pre- 
cluded by the order of the Division Court from 
considering whether the accused person had 
been convicted by a Court of competent juris- 
diction, but that it was incumbent on, and was 
the absolute duty of, the full Court to satisfy 
itself that the sentence was one which could 
legally be passed by the Session Judge. Em- 
press v. Sarmukh Singh... I. L. Rep. 3 All. 
218, 1879. 
S. C. under Offence committed St 
Cyprus. 

8. — i 297.— Powers of High Court as 
Court of Revision — Material Error — Great Laxity 
in Weighing Evidence. ] The appellant had been 



convicted on the 37th April 1875, with five 
other persons, of the offence of daeoity, and 
sentenced to transportation for life. The five 
other persons appealed and were acquitted and 
released. The accused did not appeal, and was 
sent to the Andaman Islands, from whence he 
forwarded his petition of appeal to the High 
Court in May 1679, urging that through want of 
funds and friends he could not appeal before. 

The appeal was heard by Spankie, J., who had 
heard and decided the appeals of the other five 
persons- His Lordship in giving judgment 
said 1—" The period of limitation (for the appeal) 
has so long expired, and the explanation of the 
delay in appealing, though there may be some 
truth in it, is not altogether satisfactory, that 1 
feel compelled to disallow the appeal. It is the 
case that all convicts have a right of appeal 
once, but that right is subject to a law of limi- 
tation, and I think it would be unwise to apply 
f 5 of this taw so as to encourage the idea 
among the convicts of a penal settlement that 
they can at any time, as in this case, five years 
after the date of their conviction, appeal to this 
Court. At the same time, being well acquainted 
with the facts of the case, as I decided the appeal 
of the five Other persons who had been trans- 
ported for life, I am quite prepared to admit the 
petition as one for revision of the proceedings." 
His Lordship then stated thatthe petitioner's case 
was on alt fours with that of the five other per- 
sons, and that the reasons, which influenced his 
decision respecting them, led him to say that 
there was no satisfactory evidence to justify the 
conviction of the petitioner, — and continued — 
" I can only attribute my not having done so" 
(■«'«., considered the case of the petitioner as a 
Court of Revision — on the occasion of the appeal 
of the five other convicts) " to the uncertainty 
which prevailed in this respect as to whether the 
Court was at liberty to interfere with the convic- 
tion of a prisoner who had not appealed, (when 
dealing with the case of a person tried with him 
who had appealed) simply on a question of 
credibility of evidence. Later decisions both of 
this and of other Courts, for years past, have not 
tended to remove this uncertainty as to what is 
or is not a material error in a judicial proceed- 
ing. I am myself inclined — indeed, I have 
acted in other cases in this view — to regard 
great laxity in weighing and testing evidence 
as a material error in a judicial proceeding; 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CBMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT 

X. OF 187B— ccntd. 
and looking at the trial in this case, it would 
■eem to me that there had been great indiffer- 
ence and laxity on the part of the Session* 
Judge in this respect. Accepting, however, the 
judgment of this Court in Full Bench in the 
nutter of Harden (I. L. Rep. I All. 139), 1 
believe that I have the power of interfering 1 
with the conviction of the petitioner. If we 
not precluded by a judgment of acquittal from 
exercising the powers of revision under J 297 
of Act X. of 1871, we cannot be precluded from 
doing so where there has been a conviction on 
evidence which has received no sifting, and 
which in many respects is so transparently false, 
that if it had been at all tested, its falsehood 
could not have escaped notice. Being of 
opinion that I have the power of revisio 
this case, — in which opinion my honourable 
colleagues, to whom the papers have been 
circulated, acquiesce,— I annul the conviction 
and sentence and direct the release of " the 
petitioner." Emfbsss v. Mijru.,..I. L. Rop. 
3 All. 336. 

9. § 397.— Revision— Right of Privalr 

Pnnttutor.'] A private prosecutor can move th 
High Court, in the case of an acquittal by . 
Sessions judge, to exercise its powers of revi 
sion, under ( 297 of Act X. of 1873, on th 
ground of material error in law, or procedure i 
the proceedings of the Sessions Judge, but not 
on questions of fact purely. In the matter of 
Sukhoo. Durga Prasad. Straight,].,.!. L, 
Rep. 3 All. -148, 1870. 

10. — — ( 297- -Court of AppeaL] Where 
there is a Court of Appeal to which resort can 
be had, resort to the High Court as a Court 
of revision is premature, and it has been the 
practice of the Court not to interfere in revision 
when the petitioner has neglected to avail him- 
self of the ordinary channel of relief below. Per 
Spankie, J., in Empress v. Nilambar Bahu...I. 
L. Hop. 8 AIL 876. 
S. C. under Judicial Proceeding, and 
Order for Diapoaition of 
Property alleged to be 
■tola*. 

1.— i yog.— Penal Cede, , 160— Sentence 
Imprisonment in Default of Payment ef Fine.] 
The proper construction of the final clause of 
f 309 of Act X. of 1873 is, that if imprisonment 
and Rue, and further imprisonment in default 



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODS, ACT 

X. OF 1878 -con W. 
of payment of the fine, is the sentence, the 
imprisonment in default cannot exceed one- 
fourth of the period of imprisonment which the 
Magistrate is competent to inflict for the 
offence ; but if the sentence is fine only, the 
imprisonment in default of payment may be the 
whole period of imprisonment which the Magis- 
trate is competent to inflict for the offence. 

Where, therefore, prisoners convicted under 
§ 160 of the Penal Code were sentenced to pay 
a fine of Rs. 25 each, or in default to be rigorous- 
ly imprisoned for 30 days, the full term of 
imprisonment under that section -.—Held, that 
the sentence was legal. Rbc. v. Muhammad 

Saib. Kindenley, J., dissenting I. L. Rep. 

1 Had. 877, 1877, P. B. 

8. i 309.— Imprisonment in Default 

of Payment of Fine— Act VIII. of 1873, J 70— 
Penal Code, §§ 64, 65.] The 309th Section of 
the Criminal Procedure Code, Act X. of 1872, 
makes ( t 64 and 65 of the Penal Code applica- 
ble not only to offences ' punishable under the 
Penal Code, but to offences punishable under any 
law in force for the time being, and therefore to 
offences punishable under Act VIII. of 1873. 
The provisions of that section do not extend the 
period of imprisonment which may be awarded 
under the provisions of § 6 j of the Penal Code, 
but only regulate the proceedings of Magistrates 
whose powers are limited. 

In the case of an offence, therefore, punishable 
under § 70 of Act VIII. of 1873 with fine and 
imprisonment, the maximum period of imprison* 
ment in default of payment of fine allowed by 
law is one-fourth of one month, and if a Magis- 
trate punishes an offender for such offence with 
fine only, be can award, in default of payment of 
the fine, no longer term. Empress r. Darba... 
L L. Rep. 1 All. 461, 1S77, P. B. 

-S314. 

Set Conviction on several 
Charge*. 1. 

Reu.b. Tukava L L. Rep. 1 

Bom. 814. 



S 3'4 ~~ Aggregate Sentence 

Right of AppeaL 
Set Appeal— Criminal. 3. 

Reg. b. Rama Bhivgowda...L L. 
Hop, 1 Bom. 388. 



Digitized by GoOgle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CKZHQTAL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT CRJJSOTAX PROCEDURE CODE, ACT 

X. OF 1870— contd. X. OP 1879-#™W. 



5 344 — Evidence of Accused illegally par- 

Sre Evidence. 9. 8. 

Rec. a Hanmanta...I. L. Rep, 1 

Bom. 810. 

Empress n. Asghar Alt. ..I. L. 

Hep. 2 All. 360. 

§ 346— Confession defectively recorded. 

See Evidence. 18. 14. 

Rig. u. Shiwa I. L. Rep. 1 

Bom. 919. 

Empress v. Mannoo Tamooleb... 

I. L. Rep. 4 CaL 896. 

§ 346— Confession under % in improperly 

recorded. 
See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1873, § 133. 3. 

Empress e. Rahanjiva L L. 

Rep. 3 Mad. 6. 

" — " 8 34*— fi«!/h» , «-' Attestation when unne- 
cessary.] The attestation required by § 346 of 
the Criminal Procedure Code (Act X. of 1871) 
is unnecessary when the confession is made in 
Court t» the Magistrate trying the accused at 
the time of trial. In such case it is not neces- 
sary for the Magistrate to record any "confes. 
*k>n," since he is competent, on the admission 
of the accused, to sentence him without any 
further record (I 314, Act X. of 1871). In tie 
matter d/Chumu an Shah. Markby and Priiutp, 

]] I. L. Rep. 3 Cat. 766, 1878. 

— $ 347 — Accused improperly pardoned. 

Sec Evidence. 9. 8. 

Red. «. HAHMAHTA...Z. L. Rep. 
1 Bom. 610. 

Empress v. Asghar Am I. L. 

Rep. 3 All. 360. 

i 35' — Power of Magistrate to record 

Evidence after Close of Case for Defence. 
Set Practice- -Criminal. 1. 

Empress •■ Baldbv Sa hai.,.1. L 
Rep, 3 All. 253 
—— f 359— Witnesses for Defence— Powers of 
Magistrate.'] Section 359 of the Criminal Pro- 
cedure Code, Act X. of 1879, means that if, 
among the persons named by the accused as 
witnesses to a defence, the Magistrate considers 
that any particular witness is included for the 
purpose of vexation and delay, he is to exercise 



his judgment and inquire whether such witness 

material. But that provision does not enable 

the Magistrate to inquire generally into what 

the defence of the accused person is to be, and 

consider whether on learning the nature of 

the defence, he is absolutely to abstain from 

summoning the whole of the witnesses cited by 

the accused.— Per Jackson, J., in Empress *. 

Rajcoohas Singh. ..I. L. Rep. S Oat 578; 

1 Cal. Rep. 803, 689, 1878. 

S. C. under Land held by Joint 

Owners and under Stat. 94 

and SS Vict. CI. 104, f Iff. 8. 

§ 390— Session Judge admitting to Bail 

persons arrested by Magistrate after 

Acquittal, pending Appeal. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 

X of 1879, ,997.9. 

Reg. u. Gholan Ismail I. Ir- 

Rep. 1 AIL 1. 

1^— S 390. — Bail — Accused Persons — Con- 
victed Persons.'} The Court of Sessions has no 
power under f 390 of the Criminal Procedure 
Code, Act X. of 1873, to admit to bail a person 
who has been convicted and sentenced to one 
rigorous imprisonment, such conviction 
being final and conclusive, and no appeal lying 
from it ; a convicted person not being an accused 
person within the meaning of that section. 

Per Turner, J.— As an appellate Court, a 
Sessions Judge has power on or after the ad- 
mission of the appeal, to admit the convicted 
person to bail- Rsa. v. Thakur Pa us had... I. 
L. Rep. 1 All. 161, 1876, 7. B. 

1. Chapter XXX., §§ 415 to 419— Resto- 
ration of Property] A. was charged before the 
police with theft of certain property. The 
police, having made inquiries, considered that 
there had been no theft, and so reported to a 
Second Class Magistrate, pending whose order 
the police retained possession of the property 
alleged to have been stolen. The Magistrate, 
agreeing with the police, ordered the property to 
be restored to A., but the District Magistrate, 
on the application of complainant, found that 
A. had removed the property, but not dishonestly, 
from B., a deceased person, and ordered it to be 
delivered by the police to fi.'s heirs. It was so 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



( WS ) DIGEST OF CASES. ( «4 ) 

CBIMINAL PROOEDTJBB CODE, AOT OBIHTMAL PROCEDURE CODS, ACT 
X. OF 1872-ctmtd. X. OF 1972— contd. 



Held, that the provisions of Chapter XXX. of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure did not apply tc 
such a case. Section 415 and the two succeed. 
ing sections contemplate proceedings preliminary 
to and independent of inquiry. On general prin- 
ciples, where there has been an inquiry or trial, 
and the accused person has been discharged or 
acquitted by a Criminal Court, that Court is 
bound to restore the property, the subject-matter 
of the investigation, into the possession of the 
person from whom it is taken, unless, as provided 
for in f 418, such Court is of opinion that any 
offence appears to have been committed regard- 
ing it, when such order as appears right for the 
disposal of the property may be made. 

The Second Class Magistrate did not consi- 
der that any offence had been committed in res- 
pect of the property, and therefore § 4:9 gave 
the District Magistrate no jurisdiction to inter- 
fere, and his order was cancelled. But held, 
that the High Court could not direct the resto- 
ration of the property already delivered to the 
complainant under the illegal order of the 
Magistrate. In re Annapurnabai. Kemhall 
and N, Harridas, JJ...L L. Hep. 1 Bom. 030, 
1S77. 

3. §§ 415-419— Act X. of 1872, §41°- 

4I0 — Discharge of Accused far Want of Evi- 
dence — Judicial Proceeding:.'] A. and B. were 
arrested by the police, and, after an investigation 
made by the police, were sent to the Magistrate 
for trial, under § 411 of the Penal Code, on 
charges of dishonestly receiving stolen Commis- 
sariat tea knowing it to be stolen. The Magis- 
trate discharged the accused after recording 
evidence, as there was nothing to establish the 
fact that any tea had been stolen or missed from 
the Commissariat, and no claim on account of the 
tea had been made by the Commissariat depart- 
ment. But the Magistrate, considering that " the 
case against the accused was of the very gravest 
suspicion," and believing that the tea stolen was 
Commissariat property, ordered that " a proclama- 
tion under 1 416 of the Criminal Procedure Code 
should issue regarding" the tea: — 

Held, that the order of the Magistrate wa s 
really passed under i 418 of the Criminal Proce- 
dure Code, and the Magistrate believing that 



an offence had been committed regarding the of the Ci 
property, the order was one within his compe- Court could 
tenca. And it was not necessary 



that the Magistrate' should make the order in 
the form (referred to in j 420 of the Code) of a 
reference of the property to the Magistrate of 
the district, or to a Magistrate of a division of a 
district, as he was already competent to issue 
the proclamation referred to in § 416. EMPRESS 

». Nilambah Babu. Spankie, J I. L. Bop. 

3 AIL 378, 1879. 
S. C. under Judicial Proceeding, 
and i 297. 10. 
( 416 — Judicial Proceeding — Issue of Pro- 
clamation. 

See Judicial Proceeding. 

Empress «. Nilambar Babu. ..I, 
L. Rep. 9 All. 278. 

(f 418 and 410— Order as to Disposition 
of Stolen Property — Appeal. 

See Government Currency Hots. 
Empress d. Joqbssur Mochl.X 
L. Sep. 3 Cal. 879. 
S§ 436 and 431 — Jurisdiction of Criminal 
Courts over Accused declared of Unsound 
Mind. 
See Lunatic. 

Empress v. Joy Hari Kor I. L. 
Hep. a Cal. 366. 
f 430, Illustration (a). 
See Defamation. 

' Sibho Pkosad Pandha I. L. 

Sep . 4 Cal. 124. 

S 4S3 {el seq.)— Joint Trial of separate 

ces— Prejudice to Accused.] The accused 

■ns were tried on 27 charges, comprising 

the offences of theft, abetment of theft, and 

receiving stolen property in 1871-73; similar 

offences in 1873.74; similar offences in 1874-75 i 

the giving and receiving of gratification to and 

by public servants in 1874-75; ""<* finally the 

fabrication and abetment of fabrication of false 

evidence in 1876. One of the accused was 

convicted on two heads of charge, and the 

rest acquitted. The convict appealed against 

his conviction ; and the Government appealed 

against his acquittal on the other heads, and 

against the acquittal of the rest. 

Held, that the trial was irregular, under ( 45a 



nal Procedure Code, and that the 

hear an appeal against the ac- 

this case quittai on each and all of the above charges, for 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODS, ACT CRIMINAL PBOCKDTJUK OODB, ACT 
X. OF 187fl--™.*rf. X. OV W?a-«mtd. 



that would be to rc-try the 'ca.se in the same 
irregular manner in which it had been tried in 
the Court below ; but the High Court allowed 
the appeal in respect of all the offences alleged 
to have been committed in 1873-73 and 1S73- 
' 74, and in respect of fabrication of evidence in 
1876, to be withdrawn, and heard the appeal in 
respect of the offences of theft, abetment of 
theft, and receiving stolen property in 1874-75 
only, it appearing that this course did not pre- 
judice the accused persons, who had been fully 
and fairly tried for those offences. 

Held, also, that in considering the evidence 
relating to these offences, the Court would not 
take into consideration the evidence recorded to 
prove the giving bribes to public servants in 
that year, in order to enable the alleged thefts to 
be committed, because, the accused having been 
tried and acquitted on those charges, the pro- 
secution ought not to be allowed to withdraw 
its appeal as to those charges, and at the same 
time, in order to establish another offence, to 
introduce a subsidiary issue as to the correct- 
ness of the acquittal. But that the evidence re- 
lating to the alleged fabrication of evidence 
might be considered by the Court, that offence 
having been committed in Bombay and beyond 
the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court of Thana, 
whose acquittal of the accused in respect of that 
offence was therefore coram not judice, and did 
not prevent the Court from considering whether 
the fabrication had taken place. Rbg. v, Han- 
manta. Melvill wiA Kemball, JJ...L It, Sep. 

1 Bom. 610, 1877. 
S. C. under Evidence. 3. 

*4S4- 

See Conviction on several Charge*. 



H *S3 to 4S4 — Distinct Offences— Separate 

Ckarga.'] Section 453 of the Criminal Proce- 
dure Code (Act X. of IE72) modifies § 452, 
which requires a separate charge and a separate 
trial for every distinct offence, by allowing three 
charges of three distinct offences of the same 
kind and committed within one year of each 
other to be tried at the same time; but this does 



n that if af 



r within 






■e than three distinct offences 
of the same kind, he shall not in one day be 



prosecuted for more than three such offences. 

Empress v. DoHONJOV BibAj. Ainslie and 

McDonnell, JJ...I. LRep. 8 Cal. B40 ; 1 Cal. 

Rep. 478, 1878. 

S454- 

Set Offence made up of several 



Empress v. Rah Adhih L L. 

Rep. 2 All. 138. 

— i 454 — Criminal Trespass — Mischief.'] 
Where a person committed a trespass with the 
intention of committing mischief, thereby com- 
mitting criminal trespass, and at the same time 
committed mischief -,—Heltl, that he could not, 
under CI. iii. of % 454 of the Criminal Procedure 
Code (Act X. of 1872), receive a punishment ' 
more severe than might have been awarded for 
either of such offences. The provisions of that 
law do not in such a case prohibit the Court 
from passing sentence in respect of each offence 
established. Empress v. Budh Singh. Turner, 

J I. L. Rep. 2 AIL 101,1870. 

S. C. under Criminal Treapaes. 
— — ( 457 — Acquittal by Jury but with Finding 
of Facts amounting to another Offence- 
Power of High Court on Reference. 
See ante, , 283. 

Empress e. Harai Mirdha X. L. 

Rep. 8 CaL 180. 

f 466 — Sanction to prosecute a Mahalkari. 

See Sanction to Prosecute. 4. 

Impx. *. Lukshban.-.I. L. Rep. 
2 Bom. 481. 

1 468— Sanction to prosecute — Relative 

Position of Magistrate and Sessions Judge. 
See Sanction to Prosecute. 4. B. 8. 

§§ 468-469. 

See Sanction to Prosecute. 1. 

Bakkat-uixah.khan e. Rinni*... 
L I, . Rep. 1 AIL 17. 

55 47't 47*, 473— Contempt of Court 

See False Evidence. 

Reg. it. Gaji...L I.. Rep. 1 Bom. 
811. 

— SS 471, 47*— Power of Sessions Court to 

commit to itself Case not triable exclu. 
sively by Court of Sessions. 
See Jurisdiction. 18. 

Empress, v. Futtsh Ttabkham... 
I. L. Rep. 4 CaL 670. 



Diaxized by Google 



( 877 ) DIGEST OF CASES. ( 178 ) 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT 
X. OF 1873— contd. X. OP 1878— amtd. 



I, § 471. — False Evidence— Jurisdic- 
tion^ Section 471 of the Criminal Procedure 
Code, Act X. of 1S71, does not deprive the 
Court, which possesses the power of trying an 
offence mentioned in §§ 467 to 469, of the power 
of trying it when committed before itself. Reo. 
b. GlTR Baksh. Pearson, J..X L. Rep. 1 All. 
188, 1876. 
Overruled, see § 473. 3, post. 

Rkg. o. Kultaran Singh. ..I. L. 

Rep. 1 AU. 139. 

Reg. v. Jagat Mal ..Ibid. 163. 

Res. v- Kashmiri LAL.Ibid. 835. 



a.— §471.— Act XXIII. 0/1861, § 16- 
Order sending Case to Magistrate for Inquiry 
into Offence of giving False Evidence— Preli 
nary Inquiry — Vagueness of Charge — Abetment'] 
Although $ 16 of Act XXIII. of 1861 gives C 
Courts powers similar to those conferred 
Civil and Criminal Courts alike by § 47 of 
Act X. of 1872, yet the whole law is now embo- 
died in § 471 of the latter Act, and the jurisdic- 
tion of the High Court to interfere is not affected 
by a suggestion that the order complained of 
or might have been, made under § 16 of Act 
XXIII. of 1861, and not under § 471 of Act X. 
of 1872. 

In a suit brought to recover possession of cer- 
tain property, the Judge decided one of the 
issues raised, in the plaintiffs favour, but on the 
important issues as to whether the plaintiff ever 
had possession, he found for the defendant. The 
plaintiff was not examined, but on the issue as 
to possession he called two witnesses. The 
Judge disbelieved their statements, and consider- 
ing that the plaintiff had failed to prove his case, 
he gave judgment for the defendant, without 
requiring him to give evidence on that issue. 
In the concluding paragraph of his judgment 
the Judge directed the depositions of the 
witnesses above referred to, together with the 
English memoranda of their evidence, to be 
seat to the Magistrate with a view to his ir 
ing whether or not they had " voluntarily given 
false evidence in a judicial proceeding," and he 
further directed the Magistrate to in 
whether or not the plaintiff had abetted the 
giving of false evidence on the ground that 
the witnesses were the plaintiff's servants 
must personally have influenced them, and also 
to inquire whether the plaint which the plaintiff 



had attested, contained averments which the 
plaintiff knew to be false. On a motion to 
quash this order: — 

Held, that under i 471 of Act X. of 1872, the 
Judge has no power to send a case to the 
Magistrate except when, after making such pre. 
lary inquiry as may be necessary, he is of 
on that there is sufficient ground, is., 
ground of a natnre higher than mere surmise, 
for directing judicial inquiry into the matter of 

specific charge. 

There is no such legal presumption as that 
because the plaintiffs witnesses are bis own 
servants, he must personally have influenced 
them so as to make him liable for abetting the 



giving 



of false evidence, 1 



n if they have done 

The Judge was bound to indicate the parti- 
cular statements or averments in respect of 
which he considered that there was ground for 
a charge into which the Magistrate ought to 
inquire. Something more than a mere indica- 
tion that a witness has spoken falsely is needed 
before a Civil Court is justified in initiating 
a prosecution for giving false evidence. There 
must be evidence of a direct and substantial 
nature before the Court, evidence going to show 
that the statement made by the witness is ab- 
solutely false ; and the Judge, having made no 
preliminary inquiry as was necessary, and the 
order being too vague and general in its character, 
such order was quashed. Kali Prosunno Bagcktt 
(33 W. Rep. Cr. Rul. 39) followed. Reg. v. 
BAIJOO LalL. iiacpkersoit and Morris, JJ...I. 

L. Rep. 1 Cftl. 4B0, 1876. 
1 — % 473.— Contempt of Court — Nui. 
Sana — Injunction to discontinue.'] Section 473 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act X- of 
1S72), which, except as therein provided, forbids 
the Court to try any person for an offence 
committed in contempt of its own authority, is 
not limited to offences falling under Chapter X. 
of the Penal Code, but extends to all contempts 
of Court. 

A Magistrate, therefore, cannot try a person 
for the continuance of a nuisance after an 
injunction issued by himself to discontinue it. 
Reg. v. ParsapaMahadbvapa. MelvilUn&N. 
Harridas, JJ...L L. Sep. 1 Bom. 339,1876. 
3. — § 473.— Contempt of Court.— Offence 
against Public Justice.] An offence against 
public justice is not an offence in contempt of 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



( 379 ) DIGEST OF CASES. ( 880 ) 

CBIHUf AL PBOCBDTJKE CODE, ACT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OODB, ACT 
X. OF 1872— contd. X. OF 1878- 



Court within the meaning of | 473 of the Cri. 
roinal Procedure Code, Act X. of 187a; but 
the Court, Civil or Criminal, which is of opinion 
that there is sufficient ground for inquiring into 
a charge mentioned in §§467 to 469 of that Act, 
may not, except as is provided by § 471, try the 
accused person itself for the offence charged. 
Rao. e. Kultaban Singh...I. L. 
Bap. 1 AIL 199. 
Reg. it. JaoatMal ..I. L. Hep. 1 
All. 168. 
Overruled by Empress «. Kashmiri Lai.... 
Ibid. 085, 1877, 
where the Full Bench (Stuart, C. J., dissenting) 
decided that an offence under § 193 of the Penal 
Code, being an offence in contempt of Court 
within the meaning of J 473 of Act X of 187; 
could not, under that section, be tried by the 
Magistrate before whom such offence was com- 
mitted. 

See False Evidence. 

Reg, v. Gaji...L L. Bep. 1 Bom. 
811. 

8.^— 5 473- — Construction."} Theprohibi- 
uon in I 473 of Act X. of 1871 is a personal 
prohibition, the mischief to be prevented being 
that the same person should not decide 
which he may have already prejudged. 

Therefore, where proceedings were instituted 
against a person who had made at false charge 
against the prosecutor, before the Magistrate to 
whom such false charge was made, and who had 
sanctioned the prosecution, but before the com- 
pletion of the inquiry such Magistrate was 
succeeded in office by another 1 — . 

Held, that there was nothing to prevent the 

Magistrate succeeding from trying the case. 

Anom. Inn—, C.J. (Offg.), and Bustled, 1...I. 

L. Bep. 1 Mad. 308, 1877. 

4. Contempt of Court— Penal Code, § 174 

—Criminal Procedure Cede, Act X. of 187a, %% 
471, 473.] Where a settlement officer, who was 
also a Magistrate, summoned, as settlement 
officer, a person to attend his Court, and such 
person neglected to attend, and such officer, as 
a Magistrate, charged him with an offence under 
§ 174 of the Penal Code, and tried and con. 
victed him on his own charge : — 

Held, that such conviction was, with reference 
to {§ 471 and 473 of the Criminal Procedure 



Code, Act X. of 1873, illegal. Empress », Su- 

khari. Oldfieid, J. ..I. L. Bep. S AIL 400, 

1878. 

% 489.— Security to kef the Peace— Penal 

Code, |5 503, 506— Criminal Intimidation.'] 
The operation of the words « taking other un- 
lawful measures with the evident intention of 
committing a breach of the peace" in \ 489 of 
the Criminal Procedure Code, Act X. of 187a, is 
not limited to riot, assault, actual breach of the 
peace, or abetting the same, or unlawful assem- 
bly, but is intended to comprehend a wider range 
of offences, and it must be for the Magistrate or 
Court to decide in each case, whether from the 
nature of the charge upon which conviction takes 
place, there has been direct force or violence to 
the person, or conduct inducing an apprehension 
of force or violence, or a direct threat of force or 
violence, or a provocation to the commission of 
force or violence; but those words do not include 
the offence of intimidation by threatening to 
bring false charges. 

Where, therefore, a person was convicted un- 
der |§ 503 and 506 of the Penal Code of such 
offence : — Held, that the Magistrate by whom 
such person was convicted could not, under §489 
of the Criminal Procedure Code, require him to 
give a personal recognisance to keep the peace. 
Empress v Raouba. Straight,]...!. L. Bep. 
8 AIL 801, 1879. 

~~ i 503 — Proceedings on Forfeiture of Recog- 
nisance — Evidence— Sight of Cross-Eaamina- 
lion.] According to the fair construction of J 
503 of Act X. of 187Z, a Magistrate is not justi- 
fied in forfeiting a recognizance under that 
iless the party charged with a breach 
of the peace has had an opportunity of cross- 
examining the witnesses upon whose evidence 
the rule to show cause has been issued. 

That opportunity may arise either upon the 
prosecution of the accused person before the 
Magistrate for a breach of the peace, or for any 
other offence, in which case the accused would 
have the right to cross-examine the witnesses for 
the prosecution ; or it may arise upon a snbstan- 
ipplication made to the Magistrate to forfeit 
cognizance ; in which case the witnesses 00 
whose evidence the rule is granted ought to be 
present and subject to be cross-examined by the 
accused, on the occasion when cause is shown 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CRIMINAL PBOaEDtTBE, OODE, ACT 
X. OP 1872— «mW. 

Against the rule. Empress v. Nobis Chundbr 

Dutt I. L. Kop. 4 CaL 866 ; 4 Oal. Bap. 

242, 1879, V. B. 

(Jos- 

Br* Security for Good Behaviour. 
Empress v. Dbdar Sircar. ..I. L. 
Rep. 2 Cal. 384. 
r, S°S — Procedure— SecurityforGoodBeha- 

Stt Whipping Act. VI. of 1804, 
§§ 2 and 8. 

Emphess v. Pariah. ..I. L. Rep. 

lAiieee. 

( 51S — Superintendence of High Court. 

See Stat. 24 and 2S Vict., Oh. 104, 
i IS. 6. 
Chundeb NathSbn...I. L. Bep. 
2 Cal. 283. 

-SS3°- 

See Land held by Joint Owners. 
Empress v. Rajcoohak Singh ... 
L L. Bep. 8 Cal. 678. 
— 5 53° — Tenant from Year to Year— Notice 

See Ejectment. 1. 

RamRottoh v. Ketro KALLY...L 

L. Bep. 4 Cal. 839. 

., ( 530. — -Constructive Possession.'] In 

a ease of disputed possession between two rival 
zemindars, constructive possession through 
termediatc holders (ticcadars) to whom the ryots 
pay rents, is not such possession as is eontem. 
plated by § S3 °* the Criminal Procedure Code 
Empress e. Thacoor Dval Si no. Ainslie and 
jtcDonnell, JJ..X L. Bep. 8 Cal. 320, 1878. 

S. % 530.— Possession— Butwarra Pro- 
ceedings— Possession given by Ameen, Effect of. 
The possession given by an Ameen in a butmrnm 
proceeding is simply one of ownership, and not 
of occupancy. Such possession, therefore, can- 
not, in proceedings under § 530 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code (Act X. or 187a) be held to oust 
tenants occupying lands previously to such deli- 
very of possession. Mackenzie v. Shere Ba- 
HAOOOR SaHI. Jackson and McDonnell, JJ....L 

L. Bep. 4 Cal. 378, 1878. 

8. 5 S3°. — Possession — Ouster without 

Authority of Civil Court.} On the death of A., 
his property was vested in B., his trustee. One 



AT., who claimed the property on behalf of his son, 
obtained a certificate under Act XXVII. of i860, 
on the strength of which he induced a number of 
ryots to give him Kabuliats. The Magistrate, 
hearing that there was likely to be a breach of 
the peace, instituted proceedings under f 530 of 
the Criminal Procedure Code (Act X. of 1872), 
filing on K. and B. to establish their possession, 
and found that K. in asserting his possession 
under the certificate, was unable to obtain 
n of the dwelling-house and cut cherry, 
part of the property of A., but that he had 
obtained possession of the villages, by inducing 
the ryots to acknowledge their tenancy from 
him and pay him the rents due, so establishing 
the relation of landlord and tenant ; and the 
Magistrate made an order confirming K. in pos- 
session of the villages, and B. of the remainder 
of the property 1 — ( 

Held, that B., being lawfully in possession on 
the death of A., until there had been a yielding 
up of possession by B., or the person to whom 
he chose to make over the property, anybody 
coming forward to take it without the sanction 
of the Civil Court was, so far as the Magistrate 
was concerned, in the position of a trespasser. 

If, a breach of the peace was imminent, the 
Magistrate ought to have bound over K. to 
maintain the peace, and not to have ousted B., 
whose possession was undoubted. If of two 
parties— the one lawfully in possession, and the 
other struggling for possession — the latter suc- 
ceeds in ousting the former, the Magistrate, in 
a proceeding under § 530, is not to recognize the 
party so ousting the other as the one to be 
maintained in possession. He must look to 
possession which may be termed peaceful, and 
must go back to the time when the dispute 
originated, and not to the result of the dispute 
itself. In the matter of the Petition of Mohesh 
Chundeb Khan. Ainslit and Maclean, JJ..X 
L. Bep. 4 CaL 417, 1878. 

4. — — i 53O. — Powers of Magistrate — 
Notice to Parties to attend, Form of — Intervener.) 
A Magistrate, being led to the belief, from pro- 
ceedings before him, that there was a likelihood 
of a breach of the peace in consequence of a 
dispute about certain lands between A. and 8., 
directed proceedings to be held under % 530 of 
Act X. of 1871, and caused a notice to be served 
on A. and B. Prior to the bearing A. and H. 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



( 883 ) DIGEST OF CASES. ( 884 ) 

CRIMINAI. PROCEDURE CODE, ACT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, ACT 
X. OP 1873— amid. X OP 1873-n.nW. 



came to an amicable settlement of their dispute ; 
bat, in the mean time, shortly before this settle- 
ment, one C. came in and put forward a claim 
to possession of a portion of the land covered 
by the Magistrate's notice, and eventually the 
Magistrate made an order declaring C. ti 
the party in possession of the part claimed by 
him:— 

Held, that a proceeding, such as is required 
by § 530 of Act X' of 1872, was a necessary 
preliminary to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate 
to make an order. The power given to Magis- 
trates to make a binding declaration as to the 
possession of property is an exceptional one, and 
§ 530 limits the exercise of this power to cases 
in which the Magistrate is satisfied that a dis- 
pute, serious enough to be likely to Induce a 
breach of the peace, exists ; and it is this 
likelihood, with the consequent necessity for 
immediate action, which alone warrants action 
by the Magistrate under Chapter XL, and the 
Magistrate is obliged to certify the grounds on 
which be believes in the existence of a likelihood 
of a breach of the peace by recording them in a 
proceeding. 

Though no particular mode is prescribed, of 
giving notice to parties to attend before the 
Magistrate under this section, yet the language 
of the section shows that the notice shall be 
addressed to known individuals — the parties 
indicated in the information on which the Ma- 
gistrate's action is based — and not be in the form 
of a public notice or proclamation calling upon 
all parties concerned, to attend the Magistrate's 
Courts. There is no provision in the Criminal 
Procedure Code for allowing an intervenor to 
come in in the middle of proceedings held 
under $ 530. As to such third party the Ma- 
gistrate has no information of any dispute likely 
to lead to a breach of the peace between him 
and any one else, and, therefore, the only 
ground on which he could enter upon an inquiry 
as to the possession of such third party at the 
date of the commencement of the pending 
proceedings is wanted. The order, therefore, 
relating to C'a possession was quashed, as hav- 
ing been made without jurisdiction. In the 
matter of ih* Petition o/Kunund Naraih Bhoof. 
Ainslie and Brcughtnn, JJ ...I. L. Sop. 4 Cal. 

660 ; 8 Cal. Rep. Ml, 1878- 

5. § S3°- — Bench of Magistraies—Juris- 

dittien Act X. of 1871, % 50.] A Bench of Magis- 



trates has no power to deal with cases under 

530 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act X. of 

1871). A Bench may be empowered under J 50 

of that Act " to try such cases or such classes 

of cases only and within such limits as the Go- 

: may direct." The definition of the 

ial" shows that it refers only to trials 

for " offences," and not to miscellaneous matters 

;h as those coming within , 53a Sufferud. 

j v. Ibrahim. Mariby and Prinsep, JJ...I L. 

Rep. 3 Cal. 754; 2 Cal. Rep. 203, 1878. 

Chapter XII. 

See Maintenance). 

Lal Das v. Nekunjo Rmaishiani 
L I., Rnp. 4 Cal. 874.' 

CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION - Con viction 
of— by Threatening to bring False Charge 
— Convict cannot be required to give 
Security to keep the Peace. 
See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1872, 5 481). 

Empress *. Rachubar I. Ik 

Hep. 8 AIL 361. 

CRIMINAL TRESPASS. 

See Laud held by Joint Owner*. 
Empress b. Rajcookar Singh... 
I. L. Rep. 3 Cal. 678. 

1. PenalCode, §447.] A., who had been 

warned off B.'s lands, subsequently having shot 
the boundary of B.'s land, and the 
deer having run on to B.'s land, followed it on 
to such land for the purpose of killing it 1— 

Held, that his doing so did not constitute 

criminal trespass. Chunder Narain o. Far- 

gifHARSOH Birch and Milter, ]] ..L I.. Rop. 

4 Cal. 887, 1B78. 

3. Penal Cede, f 441 — Public Ferry.J 

A person plying a boat for hire at a distance 
of three miles from a public ferry, cannot be 
said, with reference to such ferry, to commit 
"criminal trespass" within the meaning of ( 44! 
of the Penal Code. Muthra o. Jawahir. 

Spankir,) I. L. Rep. 1 All. 637, 1877. 

S. C under Disobedience of Order of 
Public Servant, 

8. Penal Code, f 447- Infringement of 

Exclusive Right of Fishery in a Public Kivtr.] 
Where it was proved that the accused bad fished 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CBIKINAl TKRSPASB-contd. 

in a public river at a place where the prosecutor 

bad the exclusive right of fishery :— 

Held, that this did not constitute the offence 
of criminal trespass within the meaning of § 447 
of the Penal Code. Though a fishery is pro- 
perty, a man who fishes in a public river does 
not enter upon property in the possession of 
another, though he may have no right to fish 
there. The river on which the accused entered 
being a public one was not in the exclusive 
possession of any one, and a right of fishery is 
not property of such a nature as that a man who 
unlawfully infringes that right can be said to 
enter on property in the possession of another 
within the meaning of the above section. Em- 
press o. Charn Naiyak. ttarkby and Prinsefi, 
II - I. I.. Bep. 3 Oal. 354, 1877. 

4. -Mischief —Penal Code, §§ 425 to 441 

—Claim of Right.] If a person enters on land 
in the possession of another in the exei 
int fide claim of right, but without any inten- 
tion to intimidate, insult, or annoy the person 
in possession or to commit an offence, then, 
although he may have no right to the land, he 
cannot be convicted of criminal trespass, be- 
cause the entry was not made with any such 
intent as constitutes the offence. So also If 
person deals injuriously with property in the 
bmi fide belief that it is his own, 
be convicted of the offence of mischief, because 
his act was not committed with intent to cause 
wrongful loss or damage to any person. 

But the mere assertion of a claim of right is 
not in itself an answer to charges of Ci 
trespass and mischief. It is the duty of the 
Criminal Court to determine what wi 
intention of the alleged offender, and if it 
at the conclusion that he was not acting in the 
exercise of a tonifide claim of right, then it 
cannot refuse to convict the offender, assuming 
that the other facts are established which con- 
stitute the offence. Empress o. Budh Singh. 

Turner, J I. L. Bep. 2 All. 101,1879. 

S. C. under Criminal Procedure Code, 
Act X. of 1872, 5 404. 



B.—PenalCode, ,441 — Criminal Trespass.] 
The word "annoy" in § 441 of the Penal Code, 
fust be taken to mean annoyance that would 
reasonably and generally affect an ordinary 
person, not what would specially and exclusively 
annoy a particular person. It does not ni 
wrUy follow that because an entry on property 



CRIMINAL, TRESPASS- tentd. 
in the possession of another is illegal, it is there' 
fore, and without more, criminal trespass. The 
intent with which the act is done must be 
established by clear and convincing evidence of 
such character and description as the particular 
Lture of the case requires. 
The possession contemplated by that section, 
the person against whom it is alleged that 
the offence of criminal trespass baa been com. 
1st be actual in the sense and meaning 
of f 530 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Act X. 
of 1873. 
Re-entry into or remaining on land from which 
person has been ejected by civil process, or of 
which possession has been given to another for 
the purpose of asserting rights he may have 
solely or jointly with others, is not criminal 
trespass unless the intent to commit an offence. 
intimidate or annoy, is conclusively proved. 
Certain immoveable property was the undivided 
property of C, G., and another. R. obtained a 
decree against G. forpossessionof such property, 
and possession was accordingly delivered to him 
in execution of that decree, under £ 364 of 
Act X- of 1S77. C, in good faith, with the inten- 
tion of asserting her right, and without any 
intention to intimidate, insult, or annoy R., or 
to commit an offence, and G., in like manner, 
with the intention of asserting the rights of his 
co-owners, remained on the property :— 

Held that, under the circumstances, they could 
not be convicted of criminal trespass. 

In the matter of the Petition of Go- 
bind Prasad. Straight, J...L 
It. Bep. 3 AIL 465, 1879. 

GROSS— Standing— Immoveable Property for 
purposes of Act IX. of 1871. 
See Standing: Crops. 

Panda H Gazi s. Jehnuddi.,.1. 
L. Bep. 4 Cal. 665. 

Suit for— Value of — Jurisdiction of Small 
Cause Court 
See Bengal Ant VTJX of 1809, ( 98. 

Hydee A1.1 o. Jafar Au ...I, L. 
Hep/1 OaL 183. 



GROSS- DECREES— Act X. of 1877, ( 346. 
See Execution of Decree. 3. 

Murli Dhar e. Paksotah Das ... 
I. L. Bep. 2. AIL 91. 



by Google 



( W7 ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CROSS-EXAMINATION— On Affidavit. 
See Practice-CMl. X. 

Kennbl.lv c. Wvman ...I. L. 
Sep. 1 CaL 178. 

Right of — of Witnesses on whose Evidence 

Rule issued to show cause why Recog- 
nizance should not be forfeited. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1878, § 603. 
Empress «. Nobin Chukoer Dutt, 
I. L.Kep.4Cal. 866. 

CROSS EXAMINATION OF WITNESS- 
ES FOB PBOSECUTION— Right of 
Accused to recall for. 
See Practice— Criminal. 1. 

Empress v. Baldeo Sahai...I. L- 

Bep. 3 All. 358. 

CROWN DEBT— Court Fees— Pauper Suit. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act 

VIH. 0(1868, (808.1. 9. 

Ganpat p. Collector of Canara. 

I. L. Rep 1 Bora. 7. 

Gulzari Lal ». Collector op 

Barfjlly...I.L, Bep. 1 All. 

690. 

See Prerogative of the Crown. 

Collector op Moradabad e. Mu. 

hamad... I. L. Bep. 3 AIL 

196. 

CRUELTY. 

See Restitution of Conjugal Right*. 
1. 
Yauunabac v. N. M. Pendse . I. 
L. Rep. 1 Bom. 164. 
CULPABLE HOMICIDE. 
See Murder. 

Reg. v. Govimo...L L. Bep. 1 

Bom, 843. 

Req. v. B a lap a... I. L. Bep. 1 

Bom. 038. 

See Penal Code, { 804s. 

Empress s. SafAtulla...!. L. 

Rep. 4 Cal. 816. 

Reg, v. Acharjya...L I.. Rep. 

1 Mad. 221. 

Exposure of Infant with' : intent to abandon 

— Death caused by— Separate Sentences. 

See Conviction on several Char gee; 

3. 

Empress v. Banni...I. L. Bep. 

3 All. 848. 



CULPABLE HOMICIDE, CONVICTION 
OF, ON CHARGE OF XUBSBB. 

See Appeal— Criminal. 4. 

Empress v. Joodookath Gan- 

G00U...I. L. Rep. a Cal. 

373. 

CULPABLE HOMICIDE— Penal Code, §§ 
304. 304A, 356, 337, and 33&-/tosltnes~NegIi- 
gence.] Section 304A of the Penal Code does 
not apply to a case in which there has been the 
voluntary commission of an offence against the 
person. If a man intentionally commits such 
an offence, and consequences beyond his imme- 
diate purpose result, it is for the Court to 
determine how far he can be held to have the 
knowledge that he was likely by such act to 
cause the actual result. If such knowledge can 
be imputed, the result is not to be attributed to 
mere rashness ; if it cannot be imputed, still 
the wilful offence does not take the character of 
rashness, because its consequences may have 
been unfortunate. Acts probably or possibly 
involving danger to others, but which in them- 
selves are not offences, may be offences under 
§§ 336, 337/ 33 8 i ■" 3P4 A ° f th* Pena! Cofe, 
if done without due care to guard against the 
dangerous consequences. Acts which are offen- 
ces in themselves, must be judged with regard 
to the knowledge, or means of knowledge, of 
the offender, and placed in their appropriate 
place in the class of offences of the same 

In judging of knowledge had by the accused, 
the circumstances must be considered ; the blow 
that to one person, or under ordinary circum- 
stances, may not, in the ordinary course of 
nature, be likely to cause death, may yet be 
imminently dangerous to another, or under 
special circumstances. To kick a girl of tender 
age with such force as to cause rupture of the 
abdomen in a healthy subject, is an act of 
such a nature that no reasonable man could 
be ignorant of the likelihood of its causing 
death. Empress e. Ketabdi Mundul. Ainsiie 
and Brought™, J.J...I. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 704, 
1879. 

CULTIVATING RYOT— Ejectment of. 
See Partition Suit. 

Samihda Pillai v. Subba Rid- 
D1AR...I, L. Bep. 1 Had. 888. 



Diarized by Google 



( 



) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



-Title 



CURRENCY NOTE-Theft 
Original Owner. 
See Government Currency Note. 
Empress v. Jogessur Mochi .1. 
L. Rop . 3 Cal. 379. 

CUSTODY OF ILLEGITIMATE 
CHILD. 

See Maintenance. 

Lai. Das v. Bhai Skiani...L L, 
Rep. 4 Cal. 374. 

CUSTODY OF INFANT CHILDREN— 

Loss of Caste does not deprive Father of 

Right to. 
See Loaa of Casta. 

Kanciii Rah v. Biddya Rah. ..I. 
L. Rep. 1 AH. 648- 

CUSTODY OF HTNOS CHILDREN. 

SeeMahomedan Law— Divorce. 1. 

' Ha mid Am «. Mitiazan...L 

L, Rep. 3 AIL 71. 

Prostitution disqualifies Legal Guardian 

for Right of. 

See Mahomed an Law— Guardian. 

Abasi b- Dunne L L. Rep. 1 

AIL 698. 

CUSTODY OF SERVANT. 
See Contract. 15. 

BlDDOHOYE Da BSE V. SlTTAKAH ... 

I. L. Rep. 4 CaL 467. 
CUSTOM. 

See Pre. eruption. 6. 

RajaRamv. Bansi...L L. Rep, 

1 All. 207. 

. Alienation of Trusteeship for Pecuniary 

Advantage of Trustee. 

Set Alienation of the Right of 

Management of a Pagoda. 

Rajah Vurhah Valia b. Ravi 

Vurma Mutha...L. Rep. 4 

L A. 76 ; L L. Rep. 1 

Mad. 236. 

Set Pre-emption. 10. IS. 
Chadami 1 

Baksh L L. Rep. 1 

Maiutib Au e. Abdul Hakim. ..I. 
L. Rep. 1 AIL S67. 



I CUSTOM-toBtrf. 

| Caste — For a Married Woman to contract 

Second Marriage during Life-time of her 
first Husband and without his Consent. 
See Penal Code, f 404. 

Reg. v. Sambhu... I. L. Rep. 1 
Bom. 347. 
See Custom. 0. 
- Divorce. 

See Hindu Law — Divorce. 



..X L. 
Rep. 3 Cal. 306. 

See Mahomed an Law— Dower. 3. 8. 

Eidah v. Mazhar Husais ..L L. 

Rep. 1 All. 48a 

Taupik-un-Nissa o. Ghulam 

Kambar...I. L. Rep. 1 All. 

606. 

— Family — Primogeniture. 

See Hindu Law— Inheritance— 

Primogeniture. 

Chowdhrv Chintamun v. Musst. 

Nowll-kho...!. L. Rep. 3 I. 

A. 263 ; L. Rep. 1 Cal. 

163. 

— among Gosavis — Recognizing Legitimacy 

of Illegitimate Children, Offspring oi 
Adultery— Void. 
See Cuatom, 6. 

— Immoral. 

See Custom. 5, 

See Penal Code, § 494. 

Reg- e. Sambhu. ..I. L. Rep. 3 
Bom. 140. 
See Immoral Custom. 

Chinna Uhhayi e. Teoarai 

Chetti ..I. L. Rep. 1 Mad. 

168. 

— for Kaziship to be Hereditary. 

See KaeL 1. 3. 

Jamal Ahmed v. Jamal Jallal... 
I. L. Rep. 1 Bom. 633. 

DAUDSHA b, lsMALSHA I. L. 

Rep. 3 Bom. 72. 

— Occupancy Rights transferable by. 

See Transfer of a Portion of Occu- 
pancy holding. 

TlRTHANUND THAKOOR V. MuTTY 

Lall Miseek...L L. Rep. 8 
Cal. 774. 



Diarize* by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



CUSTOM— contd. 

Onus Probandi of — among Kliojas opposed 

to Hindu Law of Inheritance. 

Rahihatbai v. Hirbai I. L. 

Hep. 3 Bom. 34. 

Pagoda — Alienation of Right of Manage- 
ment of. 
See Alienation of Bight of Man age- 
meat of a Pagoda. 
Rajah Vubmah Valia v. Ravi 

VURMAH MuTHA ... L. Bep, 

' 4 I. A. 7(1 ; L L. Bep. 
1 Mad. 385. 

— Proof of. 

S« Khojas. 

Rahihatbai v. Hirbai I. I. 

Bep. 3 Bom. 34. 

Religious Brotherhood — Mohunts. 

Set Mohunt. 

Rajah Muttu Ramalinga v. Prr- 
...L. Bep. 1 1. A. 



1. Conditions for Validity of—] 

"Among the conditions essential for establishing 

quity, that it has been continued and acquiesced 
in, that it is reasonable, and is certain and not 
indefinite in its character." Per Oldfield, j.,'in 
Lala v. Hira Singh...I. L. Bep. 2 All. 49- 
51, 1878. 

3. Essentials of— ] A custom is a 

rule which in a particular family, or in a parti- 
cular district, has from long usage obtained the 
force of law. It must be ancient, certain and 
reasonable, and, being in derogation of the 
general rules of law, must be construed strictly. 
Hurpurshad *. Sheo Dyal.„Ii. Bep. 3 I. A. 
259-286. 
S. C. under Oudh Proclamation in 
1868, para. 8. 
3. Limitation.'] No custom can beat- 
lowed to override the positive prescriptions of 
the Limitation Act. Mohanlal Jbchahd v. 
AmraTLAL BSCHAKDAS. West and Pinkey, JJ...X. 

L. Bep. 3 Bom. 174, 1878. 
S. C. under Easement. 9. 

4. Proof of— Manorial Dues and Cesses.] 

The plaintiffs, zemindars, sued for a declaration 
of their ancient right, as against all the tenants 



OVBTOM-contd. 

of a certain village, to appropriate alt trees of 
spontaneous growth, and the fruit of other trees 
planted by the tenants ; also to receive as mano- 
rial tribute a certain number of ploughs annual- 
ly, and a certain offering of poppy seed and 
other farm produce on the occasion of the 
marriages of certain persons of the lower class of 
tenants, with a further right to levy a certain 
proportion of the produce of the sugarcane 
manufactories and fields in the village : — 

field, (1) that where a custom regarding'seve- 
ral cesses is alleged, the existence of tbe custom 
regarding each cess should be tried as a separate 
issue : (2), that parol evidence given generally as 
to the existence of the custom should be tested 
by ascertaining on what grounds the opinion of 
each witness is based : (3), the most cogent 
evidence of custom is'that afforded by the enu. 
roeration of instances in which the alleged 
custom has been acted on, and the proof afford- 
ed by judicial or revenue records or private 
accounts and receipts that the custom has been 
enforced : and (4), that a custom to be good must 
be definite- Lachhan Rai «. Akbar Khan. 
Pearson and Turner, J J...L, L. Bep. 1 AIL 440, 
1877. 

5. Among Qosavis — Immoral Custom.] 

A Custom among Gosavis to recognize a right of 
heirship in the son of a Gosavi by a woman who, 
in the life time of her previous husband, and 
without his consent, has married the Gosavi 
would be a bad custom, and such as could not be 
treated by Courts of Justice as valid. Narayan 
Bharti tr. Laving Bharti. Westropp, C.J., and 
Afelvill.l I. L. Bep. 3 Bom. 140, 1877. 

S. C. under Hindu Law — Inheri- 
tance— Illegitimate Son. 5. 

CY-PBES— Application of Doctrine of— when 
Residuary Bequest to Charity. 
See Wul 11. 

Mayor of Lyons o. Advocatk- 

General of Bengal L, 

Bep. 8 1.1 32; I. L. 

Bop.lCal.303 ;L.Bep. 1 

App. Oa. 91. 

CTFBTJS —Offence committed at— Jurisdiction . 
See Offence committed at Cyprus. 
Empress ». Sarmukh Singh. ..I. 
L. Bep. 8 AIL 818. 



Diarized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



DAMAGE BY OVERFLOW OF WATSB 
FBOM TANKS. 

S« Tanks. 

Madras Railway Co. v. Zemin- 
dar of Ca rv ate nao arum ... 
L.Sep. II. A. 804. 

DAMAGES-for Arrest. 
Set Damages. 4. 

— Against an Intruder into the Office of Choi- 

See Disturbance cf Office. I. 

Shankara v. Hanma...!, L. Hep. 
2 Bom. 470. 
— — Against an Intruder into an Office — Watan- 
dar Joshi. 
See Disturbance of Office. 2. 

Raja Shivappa *. Krishhabhat.. 
L L. Rep. 3 Bom. 833. 
—r Infringement of Patent. 

See Infringement of Patent. 

Sheen t>. Johnson I. L. Rep. 

8 AIL 366. 

— Liability of Execution Creditor in — for 

Wrongful Seizure. 

Set Liability of Execution Creditor 

in Damage* for Wrongful 

Beisure. 

Gopal Mahad Path, v. Goculdas 

Khimji...!. L. Bep. 3 Bom. 

74, 

— Measure of— Wrongful Attachment of Pro. 

perty of Third Person— Loss of Property 

while under Attachment. 

See liability of Execution Creditor 

in Damages for Wrongful 

Beiaure. 

Gopal Mahad Patii. e. Goculdas 

Khimjc.L L. Bep. 8 Bom, 

74. 

Wrongful Dismissal. 

See Master and Servant. 1. 

MacGillivkay v. Jokai Assam 
Tra Co..X L. Bep. 2 Cal. 



1. Suit for— Joint Undivided Froprie- 

ten— Revenue Salt.'] No suit for damages as be- 
tween joint owners of undivided estates will lie, 
in consequence of the sale of the whole estate 
through the default of one or more of such 
owners in paying their shares of the Govern- 



DAMAGES- -tentd, 

merit revenue. Odoit Roy v. Rndha Pandey 
(7 W. Rep. 7*) followed. Lalla Ramksshuk 
Daval Singh v. Lalla Bissa DayAL, Kemp and 
Pontifex, JJ I. L. Bep. 1 Cal. 406, 1876. 

S3. Defamation — Nominal Damagts."] 

suit (or defamation, if a Court thinks that 
though the words complained of may have been 
spoken by the defendant, yet that the plaintiff is 
ntitled to damages, he having already 
ially prosecuted and procured the convic- 
tion of the defendant for the defamation,— and 
that the suit is therefore, under the circum- 
exatious, it is not bound to award the 
plaintiff even nominal damages, but may dismiss 
it FuraBK Parooee v. Mohhndbr 
Nath Mozoohdar. Markhy and Hitler, JJ... 

L L. Bep. 1 Cat 886, 1876. 
S. C. under Costs. 2. 
8. — - Measure of— Action for Breath cf 

Contract— Collateral Contract.} The defendant 
nto a contract with the plaintiffs to 
purchase from them a eertain quantity of gunny 
bags, of which the defendant was to take deli- 
very at certain stated intervals. On failure by 
the defendant to take delivery, the plaintiffs 
brought a suit for breach of the contract, esti. 
iting the damages at the difference between 
the contract price and the market prices on the 
days when the defendants ought to have taken 
delivery. It was proved that the plaintiffs 
had the goods in their possession, but 
that they could have obtained them from a third 
person with whom they had a contract, and it 
as found that they were ready and willing to 
iliver them at the times contracted for. 
The Lower Court held that the measure of 
damages was the difference between the con- 
tract price of the bags, and the amount which 
it cost the plaintiffs under their collateral con. 
tract to procure and deliver them. 

Held on appeal, reversing the decision of the 
Court below, that though it was right to in- 
quire into the arrangements between the plain- 
tin's and the person with whom they had their 
collateral contract for the supply of bags, in or- 
der to ascertain whether the plaintiffs were 
ready and willing to deliver the bags ; yet on 
that question being decided in their favour, the 
terms of that arrangement did not effect tho 
question of damages as between the parties to 
the suit ; and that the plaintiffs were entitled to 



mortized by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



DAMAGES- contd. 

recover, according to the ordinary and well estab- 
lished rule in cases of a breach of contract to 
take delivery of goods, the difference between 
the contract price and the market prices at the 
dates of failure by the defendant to take delivery. 
Cohen - Casscm Nana. Garth, C.J., and 
Pontifix,] LL.Rep. 1 CaL 364, 1876. 

4. i Measure of Damages — Conversion of 

Timber— Cost of Conveyance to Starlet.] In 
estimating the damages for the conversion of 
plaintiffs goods, the value of the goods at the 
place where the principal market for them ex- 
ists, is the right basis of calculation ; but there 
must be deducted from the price at which they 
could have there been sold, the cost of convey- 
ing them thereto. 

Morgan v. Powell (3 Q. B. 278) approved. 
Bukhaii Trading Corporation, Limited, 9. 
Mirza Mahomed Ally Sherazee...L. Rep. 

5 L A. 130, 1878'; I. L. Rep. 4 Cal. 116. 
S.C under Principal anil Agent. 1. 

8. For Arrest — Reasonable and Probable 

Cause— Ait VIII. of 1S59, f 201.] A suit to re- 
cover damages on account of injuries caused by 
an arrest in accordance with an ex-parte decree 
of a competent Court can only be maintained 
under special circurnslances — >(*., the plaintiff 
must show — 1st, that the original civil action 
out of which the alleged injury arose has been 
decided in his favour , sndly that the arrest was 
procured maliciously and without reasonable 
and probable cause; and ydly, thai the injury 
or damage sustained was something other than 
that which has or might have been compensated 
for by an award of costs of suit, i.e., that the 
plaintiff has suffered some collateral wrong. 

Possession of property by the judgment-debtor 
does not make it wrongful In the creditor to 
arrest his debtor in execution of a decree. 
Section 201 of Act VIII. of 1859 gives an option 
to the creditor of enforcing the decree either 
against the person or the property of the debtor, 
tnd the fact that the decree is an ex-parte decree 



lakes ; 



. differ, 



Where the plaintiff must show an absence of 
reasonable and probable cause, malice alone is 
not sufficient to entitle a plaintiff to a verdict. 
If a person has reasonable and probable cause 
for asserting a legal right he cannot-be sued for 
setting the law in motion to enforce that right, 
however vindictive may be his feelings against 



DAMAGES -contd. 

lis adversary. A Court is not warranted is 
nferring the absence of probable cause from the 
fact that enmities or malice existed between the 
parties. Raj Chvmoer Rot ■. SkamaSundaki 
Dew. While and Tottenham, J J ...I. L. Rap. 
4 Cal. 688. 
DAK-DTJPAT— Rule of— not applicable to 

See Hindu Law- Inter oat, 3. 

Balkrishna 1. GOPAL...I. L.Kep. 
1 Bom. 78. 
- Rule of — Applicable to Mortgagees. 
See Hindu Law— Intereat. 3. 

RamcHandra v. BHIMRAV...I. L. 
Rep. 1 Bom. 677. 
See Alignment of Mortgage. 

Ganpat Pandurang O. A DAK] I 

Dadabhai ..L L. Hop. 3 

Bom. 313. 



See Hindu Law— Interest. 1. 

Nanchand n, Bapu Saheb ..L Ih 
Bep. 3 Bom. 131. 

Role of — not Applicable to Suits in Bengal 

Mofussil- 
See Interest. 4. 

DbbnDovalv. Kylas Chunder. 
I. L. Bep. 1 CaL 08. 
DANCING GIRL- Dedication of. 
See Penal Code, f 373. 

Rao. 9. A run a Chellah.,,1. L. 
Bep. 1 Mad. 164. 

Right of — to Exclusive Dedication of. 

See Immoral Custom. 

Chinna Uhhavi jr. Tegarai 

Chktti.,,1. L. Bep. 1 Med. 

168. 

1. Suit by— to establish Mirasi Sight 

—Hereditary Office.} The plaintiff sued to 
establish her right to the mirasi of dancing girls 
at a certain pagoda, and to be put in possession 
of the mirasi, with the honours and perquisites 
attached, thereto ; and she alleged that the de- 
fendant, the Dharmakarta of the pagoda, wrong. 
fully dismissed her from the office, because she 
refused to acquiesce in the admission by him of 
new dancing girts into the pagoda service, of 
which she claimed the monopoly for herself and 
the then existing families of dancing girls. The 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



DANCING GIBL-w«W. 
defendant denied that the plaintiff had an/ 
mirasi to the office of dancing girl, which office, 
however, he admitted that the plaintiff had held 
for £2 years, and claimed ft right as dharma- 
karta to appoint and dismiss pagoda servants at 
will, and alleged that the admission by him of 
the new dancing girls complained of by the 
plaintiff in no way interfered with the plaintiff's 
rights, if any such existed. The District judge 
dismissed the suit on the authority of Ckinna 
Ummayi v. Ttgarai Chetii (I. L. Rep. I Mad. 
168) : — 

Held, that the present case was distinguish- 
able from Chinna Ummayi v. Ttgarai Chetii (uii 
supra), in that there was no allegation in that 
case of any endowment attached to the office. 
The question of the existence of such an here- 
ditary office as that claimed in the present suit, 
with endowments or emoluments attached to it, 
ought to be inquired into, as that would materi- 
ally affect the question whether the plaintiff 
had sustained injury by the defendant's inter- 
ference. Kamalam v. SaDAGOfA Saw. Morgan, 
C.j.,and Innes, J...L L. Bep. 1 Had. 366, 
1878. 
DANGEROUS GOODS— Duty of Persons 
sending — to Carrier. 
See Negligence. 

L vell u. Ganga Dai. ..I. L. Rep. 

i aii. eo. 

DABPATNI— Refund of Bonus.') The de- 
fendants, after purchasing a patni taluk at an 
auction sale for arrears of rent under Beng. 
Reg. Till, of iSig, granted a darpatni lease to the 
plaintiff (the former darpalnidar), and re 
a bonus of Rs. 1,199. Thc ,ea5e COIlt3 
stipulation that if the patni tenure should 
time lapse through the default of the defendants, 
the bonus should be refunded by them 
plaintiffs. The auction sale to the defendants 
was subsequently set aside. The result was 
that the plaintiffs reverted to their former posi- 
tion of darpatntdars under the former patnidars, 
though they were not dispossessed : — 

Held, that the plaintiffs were entitled to a 
refund of the bonus. The special stipulation 
for the refund in the particular contigency, 
which had not happened, of the patni tenure 
lapsing through the defendant's default, did not 
deprive them of this right. 

Though patnis, darpatnis, and sepatois may 
not be in strict analog; with leases in England, 



DABPATNI-«»W. 
1 they contain in themselves sufficient of the 
, nature of a lease to incline the Court to give the 
grantee or taker, in cases where it is otherwise 
equitable, that protection which a lessor in 
England is understood to guarantee his lessee for 
possession of the land. Takackand Biswas 0. 
Rah Gobind Chowdhry. Jackson and Mc- 
Donnell,)]... I. I,. Bep. 4 Cal. 778; 4 Cal. 
Bep. £0, 1879. 
S. C. under Landlord and Tenant. 7. 

DABIS— Dedication of. 

See Immoral Custom. 

Chinna Uiimavi cTegabaiChst- 
ti...L L.Bep. 1 Mad. 188. 
See Penal Code, § 373, 

Reg. v. Aruna Chbllak ..I. L. 
Bep. 1 Had. 104. 
DASITUTRA. 

See Hindu Lav— Inheritance- 
Illegitimate Son. 4. 
Rah: *, Govind...L L. Bep. 1 
Bom. 97. 
DASTUBI— Acceptance of— by Public Ser- 

See Fenal Code, § 160. 

Empress e. Kahfta Prasad.., 
I. L. Bep. 1 Alt 080. 

SATE 07 PUBLICATION 07 NOTICE 
OF BALE 07 PATNI TENURE 
FOB ARREARS OF BENT. 

See Beng. Beg. VIII. of 1819, § 8, 
OLfl.8. 
Matunoee v. Moorbarv...I. L. 
Bep. 1 CaL 176. 

DATTAXA MXMANBA. 

See Hindu Lav— Authority of 

Writer*. 1. 



DATTAXA CHANDBDXA AND DAT- 
TAEAHIHANSA. 

See Hindu Law— Authority of 
Writers. 0. 

Mvrarji*. Pabvatibai I. L. 

Bep. 1 Bom. 177. 



D.gmzed by GoOgle 



( 



) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



DAUGHTER— Indigent Childless Widow- 
Right of— to inherit Father's Estate- 
Benares Law. 
Set Hindu Lav — Inheritance— 
Daughter. 3. 
Shrimati Uma Devi o. Gokool- 
ahand .L.Rep. 01. A. 40; 
I. L. Rep. 3 Cat. S87. 
— — Succession ol — inter »t. 

Set Hindu Law — Inheritance — 
Daughter's Bona. 3. 
Baijnath t>. Mahabir I. L. 

Bap. i All. eoe. 

DAUGHTER'S ESTATE — Succeeding to 
Father— Absolute. 
Set Hindu Lav — Inharitanca — 
Daughter. 1. 

Haribat v. Dakobarbhat I. 

L. Rop. 3 Bom. 171. 

DAUGHTER'S INHERITANCE FROM 

HER FATHER IB NOT STBI- 

DHAN. 

See Hindu Lav — Inheritance — 

Daughter. 4. 

Ckotay Lall v. Chunnoo Lall. 

L. Rep. 6 X. A 13 ; L 

L. Rep. 4 Cal. 744. 

DAUGHTER'S SUCCESSION BY SUR- 
VIVORSHIP HOI DEFEATED 
BY BECOMING A CHILDLESS 
WIDOW. 
See Hindu Lav — Inheritance — 
Daughter. 3. 
Auritolall e. Rajonbskant... 
L. Bep. 3 I. A. 113. 

DAUQHTBB-XN LAW— Right of—to Main. 

tenance from Father.in.Law. 
See Hindu Law -Maintenance of 
Widow. 8. 

GAMCA B*l v. StTAHAH I. L. 

Rep. 1 AIL 170. 
DAUGHTER'S SON— Adoption of— void 
among Brahman;, Kshatryas and Vaisyas 
— Lingayets are Sudras. 

Set Hindu Lav— Adoption. 6. 7. 

Go pal o. Hanuant ...I. L. Rep. 

8 Bom. 273. 

Bhaoirthibai «. Radhabai... 

Ibid. 998. 



DAUGHTER'S SON— contd. 

Adoption of — Valid among Jains. 

Set Jain Lav. S. 

Sbeo Sikoh Rai ■ 

Dakho...L. Rep. I. A. 87; 

L L. Rep. 1 All. 088. 

— — Right of— to succeed to Maternal Grand. 

father's Estate— excluded by Daughter. 

Set Hindu Law— Inheritance— 

Daughter's Son. 1. 9. 

AmKJTOI.ALL S. RaJONEEKANT ..L. 

Rep. 3 I. A. 113. 

Baunath b. Mahabir I. L. 

Bep. 1 AIL SOS. 

DEATH- Presumption of. 
See Evidence. 91. 

PaRMHSHAKD. BlSHESHAR ..I. L. 

Rap. 1 All. 63. 
DEATH OP APPELLANT— Effect of. 

See Abatement of Appeal— Civil. 1. 

MORBSHWAR r. KlPSHABA ...I. L. 

Bep. 3 Bom. 348. 
DEATH OP APPELLANT CONVICT- 

Effect of. 

See Abatement of Appeal — 
Criminal. 1. 
I mm. v. Dokcaji... I. L. Rep. 3 
Bom. 684. 
DEATH OF DEPENDANT— Order on- 
Reviving Decree against a Person not 
the Legal Representative of Deceased — 

See Stat. 34 and 96 Vict., 01. 104. 
5 IS. 7. 8. 
Pooost v. Ca re hick... I. L. Rep. 
3 Cal. 708. 
P.N.Pogom..XL. Rep. SCal. 
710, n 
DEATH 07 JUDGMENT - DEBTOR— 
Effect of— on Sale of Share of Deceased 
Judgment Debtor. 
See Hindu Lav— Alienation of 
Ancestral Property. 4. 
Suraj BuNsr Koee v. Shro Pir. 
shad Singh... L. Bep. 8 I. 
A. 88. 
DEBENTURES, 

Set Contract. 8. 

Port Canning Land, &C, Co. *. 

Smith L. Bap. 1 I. A. 

184 ; L. Bap. 5 P. 0. 114. 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



( «1 ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



DEBT— ASSIGNEE OF— by Devise— Right 
of Representative of — to sue without 
Probate or Certificate under Act XXVII. 
of i860. 
See Assignee of Debt. 

ShODONE «. HALALCORE...L Xl. 

Rep. 4 CaL 645. 

DEBTS 07 DECEASED HAHOHE- 
DAN. 

Set Jffahomedan Law— Right of 
Creditor to follow Estate of 
Debtor into the hands of 
Purchasers from Heir. 

B AZ A vit H ossein «. Dot)!, i Ch u nd. 

L L. Rep. 4 CaL 402. 

DEBTS INCURRED BT MANAGER, 
OF JOINT FAMILY IN CARRY- 
ING ON THE JOINT ANCES- 
TRAL TRADE. 
See Hindu Law— Maintenance of 
Widow. 9. 

JOHUKRA BlBEE >. SrEEGOPAL 

Missbk.,,1. L. Rep. 1 Cal. 

470. 

Sn Hindu Law— Ancestral Trade. 

JOTKRISTO COWAB V. NlTTYAWUNt) 

Nundy...L L. Rop. 3 Cal, 
73S. 

DECISION ON ONE OF SEVERAL 

ISSUES— Appeal from. 
Set Letters Patent (186 B), f 16 
(Calcutta). 

Khrahim v. Fackrunnissa Be- 
gum...!. L. Rep. 4 CaL 



531. 
DECLARATION OF RIGHT TO PRO- 
PERTY ATTACHED- Court Fees 
on Suit for. 

See Court Fee*. 1. 

Gulzaki Mai. 0. Jadaun Rai...L 
L. Rep. 8 AIL 63. 
DECLARATION OF TITLE- Adverse Pos- 
session for la Years justifies, though ■ 
Specific Title also alleged, but not proved. 
See Declaratory Decree. 0. 6a. (J 
Shivo v. Govind...I. L. Rep. % 
CaL 418. 

Goluck CKUHDBB v. Nil moo 

Cohak...I. L. Rep. 4 CaL - 
698. 

GOMAIH*. IMC* CHVM9U...X. L. 

Bap. 8 CaL 884. 



DECLARATION OF TITLE— contd. 

Suit for— by Person in possession of Land. 

See Declaratory Decree. 13. 

PORAN SflOKH V. PARBUTTY...L 

L. Rap. 3 Cal. 613. 

DECLARATION OF ZBVTNDARI 
RIGHTS TO CESSES AND COL- 
LECTIONS-Suit for. 
Sir Declaratory Decree. 18. 

Akbar Khan 1. Sheo Ratam... 
L L. Rep. 1 All. 378. 

DECLARATORY DECREE— Court Fees 
on Suit for. 
See Court Pees. 1. 10. 11. 

Gulzaki v. Jadaun... I. L. Rep. 

8 All. 63. 

Manohak v. Bawa...L L. Rep. 

3 Bom. 319. 

Chunia v. Rahidial.-.L L. Rep, 

1 AIL 360. 

Court Fees on Suit for— by Person against 

whom Order is passed under Act VIII. of 
i8j9, \ 246. 
See Court Fees. 11. 

Chunia «. Rai»dial...I. L. Rep. 
1 All. 860. 

- Of Defendant's Liability to account. 
See Court Feea. 10. 

Manohak e. Bawa Ramcharan- 
DAs...lL.Bap.3Bom.319, 

- Discretion of the Court. 
See Declaratory Decree. 0. 16. 

And see Ree Judicata. 4> 

ttkait doorga pbrshad v. 

TekAItni DoorqA Konwali. 

L. Sep. 8 I. A. 149 ; I. 

L. Bep. 4 Cal. 190. 

- Of Heirship to Hindu Widow. 
See Jurisdiction. 19. 

Bai Makhor *. ButAKHi...LL. 
Rep. 1 Bom. 638. 
And tee infra, 7. 

- Of Invalidity of Adoption. 
See Limitation. 97. 

Kalova ». Padapa.-.L L. Rep. 



D.gmzed by GoOgle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( 



) 



DECLARATORY DECREE- centd. 
— — Right to graze Cattle in Village Grazing 
Grounds. 

See Eight of free Pasturage. 

Collector of> Thana v. Bal Pa- 
ul...!. L. Rep. 3 Bom. 110. 

Of Right to Office of Hereditary Kazi, 

SffKiid, 1. 

Jahal*. Jahal I. L. Rep. 1 

Bom, 633. 

Of Right to Officiate as Hereditary Officer. 

See Declaratory Decree. 17. 

Chinto v. Lakshmibai I. L. 

Rep. 9 Bom. 870. 

Of Right to Officiate as Sole Representative 

of a Watandar Family. 
See Declaratory Decree. 18. 

Khahoo «. Apaji ..L L. Rep. 2 
Bom. 870. 

Of Right to Share in Patilki Vatan. 

See Declaratory Decree. 18. 90. 

■ Suit by Heir for Confirmation of Possession 

and Setting aside Deed— Proof of Heir- 

ship and Invalidity of Deed — Failure to 

prove Possession. 

See Betting aiide Deed. 

Tacoordeen Tewarrv «r. Nawah 

Syed Ali Hossein Khan.. 

L. Rep 1 1. A. 189. 

1. Act FW/.o/ 1859,115— Consequential 

Kelief.'] A suit by a plaintiff, in receipt of the 
rents and profits, for possession of a share .of 
certain mouzahs, under a mil title, "by setting 
aside the false mogolee bromutlur title stated by 
the defendants";— Held, not to be maintainable, 
it being in substance a suit for a declaration of 
title, and to set aside not any deed nor any act, 
but a mere allegation of the defendants that 
they had a certain tenure, and one in which, 
therefore, no relief could be granted. Section 
15 of Act VIII. of 1850 gives a right of obtaining 
a declaration of title only in those cases where 
the Court could have granted relief if relief 
had been prayed for. Rajah Nilmony Singh 
v. Kalli Churn Battachariee...L. Rep. 9 
L A. 83; 14 Bene>. L. R. 
382 ; 93 W. R. 180, 1874. 

8. Act Vttl. 0/1859, I IS— Consequen- 
tial Relief— Watte by Widow-Suit by Rever- 
sionrr.} In a suit by the respondent foradecla. 



DECLARATORY DECREE- centd. 
ratory decree to the effect that he was entitled as 
next heir after the death of the first appellant to 
the Skevagunga zemindary. for immediate part 
possession and management thereof, for mainte- 
nance and other relief in respect of waste coot' 
mitted by several of the appellants, the Courts 
in India held, after the case with regard to re- 
lief had totally failed, that the respondent was 
entitled to a decree declaratory of his title as 
heir nezt. Held, by the Privy Council, th»t 
such decree must be reversed. The application 
of i 15 of Act VIII. of 1S50, must be governed 
by the same principles as those upon which the 
Court of Chancery in England proceeds in re- 
ference to Stat. 15 and 16 Vict., Ch. 86, J 50, 
with such slight qualifications as may be re- 
quired by the different circumstances of India, 
and the different constitutions of the Courts in 
that country. 

A declaratory decree cannot be made unless 
there be a right to consequential relief capable 
of being had in the same Court, or, under spe. 
cial circumstances as to jurisdiction in some 
other Court. 

The fact that the first appellant (a Hindu 
widow in possession of the zemindary), favour- 
ing the second appellant's title, had employed 
an agent, and executed a power of attorney to 
him, for (he purpose of assisting the second ap- 
pellant to possess himself of the zemindary, and 
withhold possession after death, held to be no 
ground for making a decree declaratory of the 
plaintiff's title. 

The plaint having originally made a case of 
waste against the first appellant, and it being 
argued at their Lordships' bar, that it was ne- 
cessary that the right of the respondent as 
nearest reversioner should be ascertained, to 

ipport such suit, and that if the suit had been 
tried out as it was framed at first, there would 
have been a case for consequential relief, their 
Lordships (after disposing of the argument by 
reference to the conduct of the respondent in 
the Lower Courts) say, p. 191 :— *' The argu- 
s now under consideration are founded on 
the right of a reversioner to bring a suit to re - 
1 a Hindu widow or other female in posses- 
from acts of waste, although his interest 
during her life is future and contingent. Suits of 
that kind form a very special class, and have 
been entertained by the Courts ex necessitate 
■ei. It seems, however, to their Lordships 
that if such a suit is brought it must be brought 



boozed by Google 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



DECLARATORY DECBEE— ctmtd. 



by the reversioner with that object and for 
that purpose alone, and that the quest! 
be discussed is solely between him and the 
widow; that he cannot by bringing such 
suit, E'-t, as between him and a third party, 
adjudication of title which he could not j 
without it. Here if the plaintiff had brought his 
suit to restrain the widow from acts of waste, he 
might, no doubt, have had to prove, not merely 
the acts of waste alleged, but a title sufficient 
to give him a locus standi in Court. Their Lord- 
ships are not prepared to say that by showing 
that he was a grandson of the istitnrar zemindar, 
although a doubtful question might arise there- 
after between him and the second defendant as to 
which should succeed to the zemindary, he wouli 
not have established a sufficient locus stand 
against the widow, and the right to have he 
acts of waste restrained for the protection of the 
estate ; but even if he had proved acts of wash 
against the widow, that would not have given 
him a right as against the second defendant 
to have the question which arises between 
them determined by a declarator. Strimathoc 
Moothoo Vijia Raooonathah Rahbb Kolan- 
dafurbe Natchiar v. Dorasinoa Tevbr...L. 
Bop. 2 I A. 169, 1975 ; 15 Beng. L. 
Rep. 83 ; 2SW.E, 314. 

3. Consequential Relief— Court Fees' Act 

VIZ. 0/1870,, 13— Amendment of Plaint.'] The 
plaintiff sued on a stamp of Rs- to for a declara- 
tion of his title to land worth Rs. 19,000 in the 
possession of the defendant, and for the can- 
cellation of certain proceedings by the demar- 
cation officers whereby the land in dispute had 
been, as the plaintiff alleged, improperly de- 
marcated, so as to include them in the lands of 
the defendant The defendant, among other 
defences, denied that the lands had ever be- 
longed to the plaintiff. The Lower Court dis- 
missed the suit as improperly stamped, holding 
that it was not a suit for a declaratory decree 

Held, that if the plaintiff had merely com. 
plained of errors of demarcation, his prayer for 
a declaration of title to land alleged to have 
been erroneously omitted from his land by the 
demarcation officers would have been correct in 
form. But the plaintiff sued for a declaration of 
title to landsworth Rs. 19,000, which had been 
in the undisturbed possession of the defendant for 
several years, the object of the suit plainly being 



DECLABATOBY DECBEB- tontd. 
to get possession of the land by way of declara- 
tion, and thereby deprive the defendant of the 
benefit of pleadings open to him in an ejectment 
suit, which was the proper form in which the 
plaintiff's claim should be brought forward. 

The provision as to declaratory suits requires 
great care and circumspection in its application, 
and should not be entertained where the object 
is to defeat the stamp laws, or to throw difficul- 
ties in the adversary's way by preventing his 
raising questions which would be fairly open to 
him in an ejectment suit, but which are irrele- 
vant allegations in a suit simply for a declara- 
tion of title. The suit, therefore, was rightly 
dismissed. 

Held also, that though the law allows a plain- 
tiff who has paid an insufficient stamp-duty in 
some cases to rectify his mistake, this privilege 
is subject to qualification. Whereby mistake or 
miscalculation, a plaintiff undervalues his claim, 
he ought to have an opportunity of putting in 
the additional stamps. But there is not the 
same privilege where the relief to be granted is 
altogether distinct from that originally sought. 

An application to allow the plaintiff to put an 
additional stamp on his plaint, and go on with 
thesuitas an ejectment suit, was therefore refus- 
ed. Chokalinga'peshna Naickbr v. Ac hi yah. 

Hollowqy and Kinderslty, JJ L L. Bop. 1 

Mad. 40, 1875. 

4. Consequential Relief.'] The defend- 
ant, the purchaser at an auction sale in execu- 
tion of a decree against the deceased zemindar of 
S., of the right, title and interest therein of the 
nder, obtained delivery in the usual 
form under { 264 of Act VIII. of 1859, procla- 
being made to the ryots that the rights 
of the late zemindar rested with the defendant. 
The defendant also issued, and sent into all the 
illages in the zemindary, notices and orders to 
all the kamams stating that he had purchased 
the whole zemindari, and was coming to distri- 
bute the pattas, and that all accounts should be 
submitted to him, and the rents be paid to his 
igent only. In consequence of these acts some 
few of the ryots refused to take their pattas, or 
ithheld their rents from the plaintiff, the 
successor of the late zemindar. The plaintiff 
also applied to the Collector to be registered as 
lindar. In a suit by the plaintiff, who was in 
possession of the zemindari for a declaration 
that the right, title and interest of the late 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



( «7 ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( «8 J 



DECLARATORY DECREE- -can id. • 
icmindar purchased by the defendant extended 
only to the rents and profits due From the zemin 
tothedeceasedzemindarat the date of bis death, 
and that the defendant had no right . to the ze- 
min ; and foran injunction to restrain the defend- 
ant from disturbing the plaintiff's enjoyment : — 
Held, that the true construction of f. 1 5 of Act 
VIII. of 1859, and the effect to be given to it must 
be considered as now settled by the decision of 
the Privy Council in Kalkama Nauchiar v. Do- 
rusinga Tenet (I. Rep. 2 I. A. 163; 15 Bcng. (., 
Rep. 83). It was there determined that a decla- 
ratory decree cannot be made unless there be a 
right to consequential relief capable of being had 
in the same Court, or, in certain cases, in some 
other Court. If, therefore, the case stated is one 
in which no relief could be given, if asked for, 
the Court should make no decree declaring 
lights; nor should any decree be made unless 
the relief capable of being given is consequential 
relief. The mere fact that some infringement of 
the proprietary right or title may have taken 
place, which, under certain conditions, might 
confer a right of suit for damages is m 
cient to support a suit of this descriptioi 
decree, therefore, of the lower Court granting the 
plaintiff a declaration, was reversed, on t! 
ground that it was a declaratory decree given 
a case in which no consequential relief could 
have been granted if asked for. The plaintiff 
proved no actual injury, and no apprehension of 
such injury as to justify a prayer for relief. 
Sini Thiruvrngadathiengar v. Sangiuveer- 
*pfa P. Chinnathahbuk. Morgan, C.J., and 
Holiday, J......I, L. Hep. 1 Mad. 68, 1876. 

S. Consequential Relief— Act VIII. of 

1859,} 'S-] vl granted a lease of hisentire pro- 
perty to the plaintiff for a term of years, with 
power to enhance the rents and make settle. 
ments. Immediately after, A. executed a pottah 
to £., covering a portion of the same estate, 
whereby B.'s rent was to remain unchanged for a 
period conterminous with the plaintiff's lease. In 
a suit by the plaintiff against B. and A.'t repre- 
sentative to set aside the pottah, it was objected 
that the plaintiff had no cause of action, 
much as the pottah had not yet been ! 
against him, nor was any injury shown to have 
been occasioned to him thereby : — 

field, that the suit was maintainable, li 
laying down the rule in Strimathoo Mothao Vijia 
Ragoonadah v. Doratinga Tever (15 Beng. I.. 



DECLARATORY DECREE <«U. 
Rep. 106), that " a declaratory decree cannot be 
made unless there be a right to consequential 
ilief capable of being had either in the same 
Court, or, in certain cases, in some other Court," 
Privy Council did not intend to deny to the 
Courts in India the power to grant decrees in any 
case, in which, independently of the provisions 
itained in f 15 of Act VIII. of 1859, those 
Courts have power to grant a decree. In the 
High Courts that power is generally the same as 
that of the Court of Chancery in England. That 
s the power of the Supreme Courts, and 
s extended to the High Court. There is 
valid ground for holding that the Courts in 
the Mofussil have a jurisdiction in this respect 
different from or less than that of the High 
Courts. At any rate, in the absence of all special 
provision or authority on the subject, it Would be 
difficult to suggest any other guide than the 
practice of the Court of Chancery in England, 
according to which such a suit as this was main- 
tainable. Rah Nebdheb Koondoo v. Rajah 
Rughoo Natk Narain Mullo. Atarkby and 
McDonnell, JJ..X L. Rep. 1 CaL 406, 1876. 

See Limitation.. 68. 

Fakharoodeen M. Hossain v. 

P0GOSE...I. L. Rep.4Cal. 

809. 

6, Declaration of Title— Advene Pos- 

tssion.~] A declaration of title may be made 
n proof of adverse possession for twelve years, 
lthough the title has not been based on that 
ground in the plaint, provided that the plaintiff 
has drawn the attention of the defendant to the 
fact that he is going to claim a declaration of 
title on such adverse possession, and that the 
question of such adverse possession has been 
clearly raised in the issues. 

Tirumalasami Reddi v. Ramasanti Reddi (6 
Mad. H. C. Rep. 420) dissented from. Ram 
Lachun CJiuckerbutfy v. Sam Soondur Chudter- 
iutfy, 3o W. Rep. 104) followed. Skiro Kirn- 
ari Dbbi *, Govind Shaw Tahiti. Markby and 
Prinsep, JJ I. L. Rep. 3 Cat 418, 1877. 

6a. Specific Title — Adverse Possession.] 

A distinction exists between cases where the 
plaintiff sues for a decree, declaring himself to 
be the owner of property on the strength of 
some particular title, and cases where he claims 
generally the possession of land under some 
alleged title, but coupled with a p 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



( MB ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



DECLABATORY DECBiEE— contd. 
tending over twelve years or upwards. In the 
first class of cases be is not entitled to a decree 
declaring him to be the owner by virtue of the 
particular title, unless he proves that title. 

But in the latter class of cases, whether be 
proves the origin of his title or no, if he can 
show a twelve years' continuous adverse pos- 
session as against the defendant, that is suffi- 
cient by the law in India to give him a title of 
itself. 

Gossain Dots Guilder v. Issur Chnnder Nath 
(I. L. Rep- 3 Cal. 325) followed. Goluck 

CHL'NDKK M ASA NT A v. NUHDO COOHAR RAI. 

Garth, C.j., and McDonnell, J...L L. Bep. 4 
Cal. 699, 1878. 

6b. Title— limitation.] Twelve years' 

continuous possession by a wrong-doer not only 
bars the remedy and extinguishes the title of 
the rightful owner, but confers a good title upon 
the wrong-doer. Where a plaintiff seeks I 
recover possession of property of which he hi 
been dispossessed, and bases his claim on tl 
ground of purchase, and also on the ground of 
a twelve years' possessory title, be is entitled 
succeed if he proves his possession, even if he 
fails to prove his purchase. 

Although it may be doubted whether the law 
as laid down by the Privy Council in Gunga 
Gebind Mundul v. Collector of the 1\-Purgt 
nahs (11 Moo. I. A. 345) was meant to have 
the extended operation of enabling the title of 
the wrong-doer to be transferred to a third 
son, whilst it is in the course of acquisition, and 
before it has been perfected by a twelve years' 
possession, yet such a construction of it tends to 
convenience in this country, and the High Conrt 
was not disposed to question its correctne 
applied to the present case. Gossain Dass 
Ch under v. Issue Chunder Nath. Garth, 

C.J., and Birch, J I. L. Bap. 3 OeX 224, 

1877. 

7. Suit by Rnersiener,~\ The plain. 

tiff's mother was entitled to certain property for 
her life under an award under which the plain- 
tiff was entitled to succeed to the property after 
her mother's death. The plaintiff sued her 
mother and the holder of a decree, in executi 
of which tbe property had been sold, pray i 
for a declaration of her right to succeed to the 
property, and that tbe said decree might be 
declared void against her; alleging that 



DBCUULAIOBT DECREE- «««. 



Held, that the suit was maintainable, under 
the ruling in Kattama Natchiar v. Dorasinga 
Tew (15 Beng. L. Rep. 83: L. Rep. a I. A. 169) 
which expressly excepted the case of a suit 
brought by a Hindu reversioner from the opera- 
tion of the general rule that a declaratory 
decree should not be granted where no right to 
consequential relief is involved. UusamaT 
Jaqeski Kuar v. Rah Nath B hag at. Stuart, 
C. J., and Turner, J...I. L, Bop. 1 All. 371, 
1877. 

8. Beng: Reg. Vlll. of iSai, § 9, Q. 1— 

Act XIX. of 1873, f (A— Declaration of Zemin- 
dar's Right to Cesses and Collections— Jurisdic- 
tion.] A Civil Court is not precloded by the 
terms of Beng. Reg. VIII. of iSas, } 9, CI. 1, 
from inquiring into and declaring a right on the 
part of the zemindar to cesses and collections, 
although not avowed and sanctioned, not taken 
into account in fixing the Government Jama at 
the time of settlement, notwithstanding that till 
so avowed and sanctioned they cannot be col- 
lected by the xemindar, and there is nothing 
in §66 of Act XIX. of 1873 to a contrary 
effect. Akbar Khan c Sheoratan. Stuart, 

C.J., and Oldfield, J L L. Bop. 1 All 

373, 1877. 

8. Discretion — Remand,'] Since a de- 
claratory decree is a matter of discretion, a claim 
for a declaration ought not to be remanded by 
an Appellate Court for further inquiry, which 
is likely to entail expense and delay, where the 
plaintiff's claim is contingent on his surviving 
the defendant, and where the declaration will 
not be binding on parties with possibly preferen- 
tial titles who have not been joined in tbe suit. 

DOORGA PBRSAD SfNliH V. DOORGA KONWABl... 

I. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 190, 1878 ; L. 
. Bep. 6 I. A. 149. 

S. C under Bea Judicata. 4. 

10. Suit for — Malabar Lou— Kamavan 

Lands acquired by Member of Malabar Tarwad.] 
In a suit brought to obtain a declaration that 
the land mentioned in the plaint formed the 
common property of the tdm&d, of which the 
plaintiff was the present karnaoan, and to have 
the revenue registry of those lands transferred 
to his name, the plaint alleged that the lands in 
question were the private acquisitions of three 
of the deceased members, of tbe tdrw4d, of whom 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



{ «1 ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



DECLARATORY DE CR'ES—can td. 
the last, in whose name the land was last assess- 
ed, on becoming karnavan, applied to the Sub- 
Collector to have the registry oE those lands 
transferred to the names of his own nephews, 
the first and the second defendants ; that the 
plaintiff protested against the proposed transEt 
and was referred by the Sub-Collector to a Civil 
Court to obtain a declaration that the registry 
could not be so transferred. The Revenue 
authority was not made a party to the suit. 

Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to have the 
declaration prayed for, as it would enable him to 
go to the Collector for substantial relief iu the 
shape of registration in his name; but the relief 
sought, in the shape of the transfer of registry 
to his name, could not be granted, the Revenue 
authority not being a party to the suit. Chan. 
dv v. Chathu Nakbiab, Morgan, C.J., and 
/«««,] I. L.Rep.l Mad. 881, 1878. 

U. Act VIII. 9/1859, § IS— Consequen- 
tial Relief.} " Their Lordships desire to adhere 
to the opinion declared in several decisions of 
ftis Board, that § 15 of Act VIII. of 1859, re- 
lating to declaratory decrees, ought to receive 
the same construction as § 50 of the English 
Act, 15 and 16 Vict., C 86, which is similarly 
worded, has received from the English Courts. 
A declaratory decree ought not to be made 
unless there is a right to some consequential 
relief which, if asked for, might have been given 
by the Court, or unless in certain cases a decla- 
ration of right is required as a step to relief in 
some other Court. 

" The question whether a right to some con- 
sequential relief exists must therefore arise in 
all suits in which a declaration oE title is sought. 
A right to come to the Court to have a docu. 
merit or act which obstructs the title or enjoy- 
ment of property cancelled or set aside, or for 
an injunction against such obstructions, would 
be sufficient to sustain a declaratory decree." 

Upon the death of the grantee for life of a 
zemindari, his widow, the respondent, purchased 
the same from Government. The Settlement 
Officer (in excess of his powers) while making 
up the Wajib-ul-urz, called on the respondent 
to name her successor in order to enter his 
name in the paper. The respondent requested 
that the name of her adopted son might be so 
entered, but on the appellant's objecting to this 
being done, on the ground of the invalidity of 
the adoption by the widow, the Settlement 



DE0LABATOBY DEOBEE-cwiW. 
Officer referred the parties to the Civil Court 
for the determination of the validity of such 

The respondent thereupon filed a suit, to 
which the adopted son was afterwards joined as 
co-plaintiff, claiming to be maintained in pos- 
session " by establishment of plaintiffs exclu- 
sive right of inheritance to the estate of her 
deceased husband, and to uphold the adoption 
of her daughter's son, as well as his right 
permanently to succeed after her death, by 
voiding the defendant's pretensions under the 
customs and usages of the Sarogi religion." 
The appellant by his written statement denied the 
validity of the adoption, and set up a nuncupative 
will in his favour by the respondent's husband. It 
being contended on behalf of the respondents 
that the intervention of the appellant in the 
proceedings of the Settlement Officer, and his 
objection to the entry of the name of the first 
respondent's adopted son, on the Wajib-ul-urz, 
on the ground that the adoption was invalid, was 
an act of obstruction against which she was enti- 
tled to relief ; their Lordships said, " IE it had 
been shown that the entry thus objected to had 
been necessary to the settlement of the mouzah, 
or the completion oE the title, or the right to 
present possession, the contention might have 
been well founded. But this has not been 
shown. It would seem that the mouzah had 
been already granted by the Government to the 
first respondent, and she had been already 
recorded as proprietor. The object of the paper 
(the Wajib-ul-urz) appears to be to record pecu- 
liar customs for the information of the Settle- 
ment Officers ; and although the Deputy Collec- 
tor asked for information as to the first respond- 
ent's successor, and, upon the appellant's objec- 
tion to the entry of the adoption, placed his 
objection on the Wajib-ul-urz, and referred the 
parties to a Civil Court, their Lordships would 
have felt great difficulty, to say the least, if it 
had been necessary to give a decision on this 
point, in coming to the conclusion that these 
proceedings were such an obstruction to the 
title or right of possession as would sustain the 
decree. As to the other ground on which it was 
alleged that the plaintiffs (respondents) were 
entitled to relief, 111., that the appellant had put 
forward a nuncupative will of his deceased bro- 
ther by which he was made the proprietor oE 
the estate, and that the plaintiffs (respondents) 
were entitled, if they had asked for it, to a 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



DECLARATORY DECREE- -contd. 
decree annulling the nil) ; their Lordships said, 
" It would probably not be disputed that if a 

fictitious will in writing be set up, upon a proper 
case being made, the plaintiffs might claim to 
have the document cancelled, and their Lord- 
ships are not prepared to say that, in cases 
where property may legally pass by an oral will 
an analagous right to have it declared null may 
not exist. A claim under such a will is not 
a bare assertion of title, but the setting up of a 
specific act by which title to property may be 
conferred. The reasons, too, for giving such 
relief in the case of written wills would seem to 
apply to nuncupative wilts, and one of them, the 
probable death of witnesses, with even greater 
force to the Utter than the former. Sheo Singh 
Rai v. Mussumut Dakhc.L. Rep. 6 I. A. 
87, 1878 ; 7. L. Rep. 1 All. 698 ; 2 
C&l Rep. 188. 
S. C. under Jain Law. 2. 

Practice— Privy Council. 9. 

IS. Cancellation of Document— Void Do- 
cument — Apprehension of Injury^ In a suit for a 
declaration that a certain document, purporting 
to be an acknowledgment by the obligee of a 
bond of the receipt of money from the obligor in 
part payment thereof, was not a genuine docu- 
ment, the plaintiff alleged that the document 
had been fabricated with the object of reviving 
the right of suit on the bond, which, being dated 
the 6th of November 1856, was barred by limi- 

Held, that the receipt contd not be used for the 
purpose apprehended by the plaintiff. To sup- 
port a plea that a new period of limitation had 
accrued from part payment of principal, the fact 
of payment must appear in the handwriting of 
the person making the same on the instrument 
on which the debt arose, or in his own or the 
creditor's books. The plaintiff, therefore, could 
not be held to have reasonable ground to appre- 
hend injury from the document, and his suit was 
not maintainable. Shib Lal v. Hika Lal. 
/Vanon and Turner, JJ..X L. Rep. 1 All. 639, 

1878. 

13. Suit by Person in Possession of Land to 

establish Title— Act VIII. of 1859, f 15— Practice 
—Ground! of Appeal taken in the Argument— 
Specific Relief Act I. of 1877.] The defendant 
sued the plaintiff in the Munsiff's Court for rent 
on certain lands in the plaintiff's occupation, and 
the amount sued for being less than Rs. jo, the 



DECLARATORY DECREE- ■■ contd. 
Munsiff tried the suit in his jurisdiction as Small 
Cause Court Judge, and gave judgment for the 
present defendant, the then plaintiff. The pre- 
sent plaintiff then brought the present suit, al- 
leging that she was entitled to the lands in 
question under the will of her husband, who had 
purchased them as lakkeraj or rent-free lands, 
and that as there was no appeal against the Mun- 
siffs decision, her lakheraj right in respect of 
the said lands had been injured, and she there- 
fore prayed for the establishment of her lakheraj 
right to the lands: — 

Held, that the suit was not maintainable. It 
is settled law that a suit cannot be maintained 
where the plaintiff who merely seeks for a de- 
claration of title is in possession, and the claim 
which the defendants had set up was no longer 
in the condition of a mere assertion or a claim 
for right ; it had passed into a decree. The 
plaintiff, therefore, could not bring this suit for 
the purpose of setting aside the judgment of the 
Smalt Cause Court, and therefore no relief 
could be had in respect of that. 

Heldnho, that the fact that the plaintiff, unless 
the present suit were allowed to be maintained, 
would be without remedy, was not a reason for 
allowing a suit to be maintained which the law 
did not allow. 

But the plaintiff was not without a remedy, 
for if a further suit for rent were brought, she 

ild immediately file a suit in the Munsiff's 
Court, and apply for an injunction to prevent 
the other party from proceeding so long as her 
own suit was not disposed of and an absolute 
relief given to her. 

Held, further, that though as a general rule 
the High Court will not allow grounds of appeal 
to be taken in argument which have not been 
taken in the memorandum of appeal ; yet where 
a decree comes before it which is upon its very 
face illegal — a decree which goes beyond the 
power of the Court which passed it — the High 
Court will take up the point itself and rectify 
the mistake. 

Semble—Per Jackson, J.— That the plaintiff 
might, if a fresh suit for rent were brought 
against her, again raise the same question, be. 
cause the Small Cause Court had no power to 
determine finally a question of right. Poran 
Sookh Chundeb ». Pakbutty Dossbb.-.L L. 
Rep.3Cftl.818, 1878. 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



( *".) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( •» ) 



DECLARATORY DECREE- -amid. 

14. Suit for Declaration of Rigki only.) 

In a suit merely for a declaration of right to 
certain property, the lower Appellate Court, on 
an objection as to the insufficiency of the stamp 
on the plaint, allowed the plaintiff to make up 
the full amount of fees required for a suit for 
possession of the property, which the judge con- 
tidered to be the real object of the suit. The 
plaint was not amended, and the lower Appellate 
Court eventually gave a decree only for a de- 
claration of right; — 

Held, on second appeal by the defendant, 
who objected that a suit merely for a declaration 
of right could not be maintained, that such 
objection could not under the circumstances be 
allowed. SARASUTI b. Manhlt. Pearson and 

Oidfield, JJ ... ... I. L. Rep. 2 All. 134, 1879. 

S. C- under Hindu Law— Inherit- 
ance Illegitimate Son. 8. 

IB. Specific Relief Act I. of 1877, § 4*] 

The defendant was in possession of the estate 
of a deceased Gosavi as his Shishya (spiritual 
son). The plaintiff sued on a stamp of Rs. 10 
for a declaration that he was the true Shishya of 
the said Gosavi by a previous adoption, his real 
object being to establish a title to the estate in 
the hands of the defendant:— Held, that under 
any circumstances the Court would not exercise 
in the plaintiff's favour the discretionary power 
vested in it by { 42 of Act I. of 1677, inasmuch 
as to do so would enable the plaintiff to obtain 
relief on a stamp of Rs. to, which the Legisla- 
ture intended should be chargeable with a higher 
fee, and thus would have the effect of giving 
countenance to an evasion of the stamp taw. 
Ganpatgir Guru Bholagir v. Ganpatgir. 

West and Pinhey,]] .1. L. Rep. 3 Bom. 

230, 1879. 

18. Qnuequttttal Relief— Discretion of 

Courts— Act VIII. of 1859, § lj.] " It is true 
that the law (Act VIII. of 1859, f 15) allows the 
Courts, without granting consequential relief, to 
make binding declarations of title ; but it has 
been held both here and in England (f 15 being 
almost a transcript of Stat. 15 and 16 Vict., CI. 
86, i 50) that it is discretionary with Courts 
whether they will give a declaratory decree or 
not ; and it has also been held that a declaratory 
decree will not be made unless the plaintiff 
would be entitled to consequential relief if he 
asked for it, e.g., where an abstract decision on 
the point is asked, the plaintiff being either in 



DECLARATORY DECBKK ■ contd. 
full possession, or out of possession beyond tlie 
statutable period for the institution of suits." 
Bai Makhok a. Buuakhi Chaku. Per Kemball, 

J I. h. Bop. 1 Bom. 888, 849. 

S. C. under Jurisdiction. 19. 

17. Suit for a Declaration of Right to 

Officiate as an Hereditary Officer— Bombay Act 
III. of 1874 — Jurisdiction.] Since Bombay Act 
III. of 1874 came into force, no suit will lie in a 
Civil Court for a declaration that a person is 
eligible to officiate as an hereditary officer fall- 
ing within the scope of that Act. 

Since that Act became law, none but repre- 
sentative Watandars or their deputies, or sub- 
stitutes, as provided for in the Act, can officiate, 
and the duty of determining what persons shall 
be recognized as representative Watandars is 
vested in the Collector, whose proceedings are 
judicial proceedings, and from whom an appeal 
lies to the Revenue Commissioner. Chinto 

AhAJI KULKARNl O. LaKSH KIBAI. Westropp, 

C.J., and iWWei«, J...X. L. Rep. 2 Bora. 375, 
1B77. 

18. Suit for a Declaration of Right to 

Officiate as sole Representative of a Watandar 
Family— Bombay Act III. of lo7\— Jurisdic- 
tion.] Since the coming in to force of Bombay Act 
III. of 1874, it is not competent for the Civil 
Courts to entertain a suit for a declaration of 
right to officiate as sole representative of a 
Watandar family, because not only can they not 
afford a consequential remedy, but because they 
can no longer establish a right which the Collec- 
tor would be bound to respect, he having been 
made by that Act a Judge for the particular 
purposes of the Act, and the relations of all the 
Watandars inter se being placed entirely at the 
disposal of the Collector, whose jurisdiction 
cannot be interfered with so long as it is exer- 
cised in the way provided by the Act. Khakdo 
Narravan Kulkahni e. Afpaji Sadashiv Knt- 
KARNI. West and Pinhey,]] t L. Rep. S 

Bom. 870, 1877. 

19, Suit for a Declaration of Right to 

share in Patilki Watan and Officiate in Rotation 
—Eligibility— Adverse Possession,] An admitted 
ownership of a share in the lands appurtenant 
to a. PatiHi Watmn raises a prima foci* presump- 
tion of eligibility for the office of Patil -, and the 
exercise by the Collector of his right, under Act 
XI. of 1843, to appoint one of several copar. 
ceners to officiate as Patil, is not a denial of the 



by Google 



( *» ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( 418 ) 



DECLARATORY DECREE -contd. 
eligibility of the others, and does not, therefore, 
give to the one so appointeda possession adverse 
to the other coparceners. Nindan Gavda 
MaLAn Gavda, Wtstropp, C.J., and Kemball,] 

I. L. Eep. 1 Bom. 683, n., 1872, 

SO. Though a suit will not lie for 

declaration of the right of an admitted sharer in 
a Patitki Watan to a preference ove 
sharer in the enjoyment of the office of Patil, 
yet a suit will lie for a declaration of the pla 
tiff's right to share in the Watan, and of his 
eligibility to officiate as Patil, when that right 
is denied by the other sharers, Babaji v. Nana. 

Westropp, C.J., and West, J I. X., B«p. 

1 Bom. SS5,n., 1876. 
" DECREE." 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act X of 
1S77, § 3. 
Dalpatbhai e, Ab>arsang...I. L. 
Bop. 3 Bom. B63. 

— Order Passed in Execution— Appeal. 

Set Appoal- CivU. 2.1. 36. 38. 

Murli Dhar b. Furs hot am... I. 

L. Bep. 3 Bom. 61. 

Thakur Prasad e. Ahsan Au... 

I. L. Bop. 1 All. 668. 

Uda Begum t>. Imam- tn>. Din.. .X. 

L. Bep. 3 AIL 74. 

— Order of Reference to take Accounts, 

Set Civil Procedure Cods, Act X of 
1S77, i 3. 



Rustomji Burjorji «. Kessowji 

Naik I, L. Bep. 8 Bom. 

161. 

- Order Rejecting Petition for Leave to Sue 

informd Pauperis. 

St* Appeal— Civil. 18. 

Collis v. Manohar Das. ..I. L. 
Bep. 1 AIL 74S. 

- Order Refusing to Set Aside Ex-partt 

See Appeal-Civil. 2. 19. 

GlIJ.AB SlNOH V. LACHMAN Das... 

1. I* Bep. 1 AIL 748. 

La km id as v Ebrahim. I. L. Bep, 

fl Bom. 644. 



"DECREE "—cantd. 

Order Returning Plaint after Issues framed 

is not a— under Act XII. of 1870, f 2. 
Set Appeal— Civil. 22. 

Abdul SaMadb. RajindroKishor 
Singh...!. I,. Rep. 3 All. 8S7. 
DECREE— Acknowledgment of Barred. 
See Kistbandi. 

Kbera Lal «. DHUNPUT...I. L. 

Bep. 4 Cal.600. 
Set Limitation, 43. 44. 

Kally Prosonno v. Hbera Lal... 
I. L. Rep. a Oal. 468. 

MuHGAL PRASHAD v. ShaUA KAN- 

TO...I. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 708. 

Administration Suit— Effect of. 

See Certificate to collect Debt*. 3. 

TREE POOR ASOONDEEY v. Deeend- 

RONATH...I. L. Rep. 2 Cal. 40. 
— Agreement not to Execute. 
Set EetoppeL 6. 

Param Singh «. Lalji Mal...I, L. 
Bep. 1 All. 403. 

Assignment of —Cross Decrees — Execution. 

See Execution of Decree. 3. 

Muru Dhar v. Purshotuh Dass. 

1 L. Bep. 3 AU. 81. 

Attachment and Sale of Money— in Exe- 

Set Civil Procedure Code, Act X of 
1877, f 373. 
Sultan Kuarh. Gulzari Lal... 
I. L, Bep. 3 AIL 290. 

Charging Lands is an Interest in Immove- 
able Property. 

5m Sale in Execution of Decree. 7. 

MUSAMAT BHAWANl KuAR B. 

Gulab Rai I. Xi. Bep. 1 

AIL 848. 
1 1 ■ Conditional — in Pre-emption Suit. 
Sit Pre-emption. 3. 4. 8. 

Shaikh Ewaz v. Mokuna Bibi... 
I. L. Bep. 1 All. 133. 
Hingam Khan b. Ganga Par- 
brad I. L. Bop. 1 All. 



Diaxized by Google 



( «8 ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



{ *so ) 



BEOBEE «'iU. 

Conditional — in Redemption Suit. 

See Mortgage. 3S. 36. 

Raja Baeda Kant v. Bhagwan... 

I. L. Rep. 1 All. 344. 

Sahib Zadak d. Parmeshar Das. 

I. L. Bep . 1 AIL 024. 

Construction of. 

See Construction of Decree. 

Suhar Ahmed v. Haji Ismail... 
L L. Bep. 1 Bom. 168. 

— Cross. Decrees— Execution. 

Set Execution of Decree. 3. 

Murli Dhar b. Pursotam Das... 
I. L. Bep. 2 All 91. 

— Erroneous Construction of — by Court pro- 

nouncing it. 
See Account. 1. 

HiRJi Jiva o. Naran Min.][...I. 
L. Bep. 1 Bom. 1. 

Execution of. 

Sec Execution of Decree. 

See Pre-emption. 88. 

Shaikh Ewaz b. Mokuna Bibi... 

I. L. Bep. 1 AIL 132. 

Hingan Khan v. Gang a Par. 

shad Ibid. 293. 

— Final — o( Appellate Court. 

See limitation. 69. 76. 

Umiashankar b. Chotalal I. 

L. Bep. 1 Bom. 19. 

Imam Ali v. Dassaundhi Ram... 

L L. Bep. 1 All. 608. 

— Form of — against Mortgaged Property. 

See Hindu Law- -Undivided Fa- 
mily. 7. 
Luchmi Dai e. Aswan Sing... 
X. I* Bep. 2 Cal. 213. 

— against a Hindu Widow — Personal. 

See Personal Decree against a 
Hindu Widow. 
Raijun Doobry e . Brij Bhookun. 
L. Bep. 2 I. A. 276. 



D T. CBBE- -to n td. 

against Hindu Widow— Reversioners when 

bound by. 
^Bm Judicata. 17. 

Rrommove Dasss v. Krjsto Mo- 

hun LL.Bep.2CaL 

233. 

— Interest on. 

See Interest. 11. 

Seth Gokdldas Gopaldas ». 
Muru...L. Bep. 6 L A. 78. 

— Interest— Rule of Dam-Dufat inapplicable. 

See Hindu Law— Interest. 2. 

Balkriskna v. Gopal... L L. 
Bep. 1 Bom. 73. 

— For Maintenance— Suit on. 

See Multiplicity of Suits. 1. 2. 

Lakshman v. Satvabhamabai...L 
L Bep. 2 Bom. 494. 

SlDLlNGAPA*.SlDAVA...LL.Bep. 

3 Bom. 634. 630. 

— For Maintenance— Varying Decree. 

Set Multiplicity of Suits. 2. 

SlDUNOAPA V. SlDAVA.,-1. Ih 

Bep. 2 Bom. 624. 

— For Mesne Profits— Execution of— Interest. 

See Execution of Decree. 20. 

Hurroduroa v. Sharrat Soon- 

bery I L. Bep. 4 CaL 

674. 

— Money Decree — Attachment and Sale of. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act X. 
of 1877, { 273. 
Sultan Kuar e. Gulzari Lai.... 
I. L. Bep. 2 All. 39a 

— Money Decree obtained on Mortgage — 

Sale— Right of Purchase. 
See Sale in Execution of Decree. 4. 
9. 
Khub Chundo. Kalian Das... I. 
L, Bep. 1 AIL 340. 
Balwaht Singh v. Gokaran Pra- 
sad Ibid. 433. 

See Mortgairo. 40. 

Gakput Rai e. SABUPI...I. I* 
Bep . 1 All. 443. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



— Money Decree unconnected with his Mort- 

gage, obtained by Mortgagee— Execution 
Sale— Right of Purchaser. 
See Mortgage. 8. 

TuKARAM V. RAMCHUHDRA...I. Xi. 

Hep. I Bom. 814, 
Sec Sheriff's Bale. 3. 

BhUQGOBUTTY v. ShAMACHURN... 

I. L. Sep. 1 Cal. 887. 

— Payable by Instalments — Discreti 

See Decree payable by Instal- 
ment*. 

— Payable by Instalments— Limitation for 

Execution of. 
Sie limitation. 71. 71a. 79. 

Dulsook v. CMUCOH...I, I,. Bep, 

2 Bom. 308. 

Kaschan Singh p. Sheo Prasad. 

t L, Bep. 2 AIL 901. 

Shib Dat i. KALKA...L L. Bep. 

9 AIL 448. 

— Payable by Instalments — Suit on — Limita- 

See Limitation. 69. 

Sakharam v. Gangs h L L. 

Bep. 8 Bom. 198. 

— Payable by Instalments in Suit on 

charging Immoveable Property. 
See Civil Procedure Code, Act X. 
of 1877, i 910. 
Hurdbo Das v. HuXAM Singh... 
I. L. Bop. 9 All. 320. 

— For Performance of Specific Act— Execu- 

tion of. 
See Civil Procedure Code, Act 
VIII. of 1859, j 900. 

AjNASl KUAR t. SURAJ PRASAD... 

LL. Bep. 1AU. 601. 

— Purchase of — by Joint Judgment. Debtor. 

See Limitation. 51. 

Abdul Munsoor v. Abdool Ha- 
urn... I. L. Rep. 2 Cal. 98. 

— Reversal of — after Sale in Execution, but 

before Confirmation. 
See Bale in Execution of Decree. 91. 

BASAFPA *. DUNDAYA I. L. 

Bep. 9 Bom. 540. 



( «M ) 

— Sale in Execution of. 

See Bale in Execution of Decree. 

— Against a Sirdar — Elocution of — against 

his Heir not being a Sirdar. 
See Limitation. 69. 

Sakharam v. Games h L L. 

Bep. 3 Bom. 193. 

- Against Sirdar's Heir— Execution of. 

See Execution of Decree. 5. 

Govihd v. Sakharah I. L. 

Bep. 3 Bom. 49. 

- Of Small Cause Courts (Presidency 

See Execution of Decree. 94. 

la re Jagjiyan Nanabhai...I. L. 
Bep. 1 Bom. 89. 



See Execution of Decree. 91. 99. 98. 

— Of Small Cause Court, Suit on. 

See Suit on Decree. 9. 

Khoblal v. Ramchunder.,,1. L. 
Bep. 9 Cal. 434. 

— Subsequently reversed— Refund of Costs 

paid under. 
See Befund of Coste paid under 
Decree subsequently re- 
versed. 
Dorab Ally Khan «. Abdool 

Azkez I, L. Bep. 4 Cal. 

299. 

— Suit on. 

See Multiplicity of Suits. 

SlDLINOAPA V. SlDAVA L L. 

Bep. 2 Bom. 694,630. 

— Suit upon a. 

See The Cases under Suit on a 
Decree. 

— Time-barred — Revival of. 

See Limitation. 43. 44. 

Rally Prosoho Hrrra Lai.... I. 
L. Bep. 9 Cal 469. 

MlJNGOL PRASHAD «. SllAMA 

Kanto.,1. L. Bep. 4 Cal. 
708. 
See Eiatbandi. 

HEERA LALLb. DHUNPUT.-.Ibid. 

500. 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



L Boundaries— Specific Statement of Re- 
lit/ granted iy Decreet.} A. claimed certain lands, 
claiming one portion of such lands under one 
title, and the remainder under another tfnd sepa- 
rate title. In the schedule to his plaint he gave 
the boundaries of the entire lands claimed by 
him, but did not give any boundary between the 
lands claimed by him under one title and' the 
lands claimed by him under the other title. The 
Lower Court decreed the whole of the plaint 
claim. The Lower Appellate Court confln 
so much of the decree of the Court of first 
stance asdeclared the plaintiff's right to the first 
portion, and dismissed his suit as to tl 
der; and there being no evidence to show what 
lands in particular out of the whole cla 
comprised in the first portion for which it gave 
him a decree, directed them lo be ascertained 
execution. 

Held, that the decree was bad, as it should 
have specified the lands decreed. Kungal 
Chandar Ruj v. Kanyk I.all Ruj. Jackson 
and Tottenham. JJ I. I,. Rep. 4 Cat 

69, 1878. 

3. Construction of— What it m 

tain— Civil Procedure Code, Act X. of 1877, 
§ 206.] The plaintiff sued on a bond by which 
real property was hypothecated. In his claim 
the property hypothecated was detailed, 
property itself was impleaded as a defendant 
but the decree was in the following tei 
" Decree for plaintiff in favour of his claim and 
costs against the defendant" .— 

Held, that § 206 of Act X. of 1877 lays down 
in the most explicit way what the contents of a 
decree are to be ; and if there be an omission 
in the decree so that the relief given by it does 
not in terms go to the extent asked, it is no part 
of the duty of the High Court, or any other 
Court, to import words for the purpose of 
stretching its operation. The Court maki 
the decree must be presumed to have expressed 
the relief it was prepared to give, and the words 
" Decree for plaintiff in favour of his claim and 
costs against defendant" had nothing about 
them specifying clearly, as required by the Act, 
any relief in the shape of enforcement of lien 
against the property hypothecated ; the decree, 
therefore, was simply a decree for money. 
Thamman Singh v. Gang a Rah. Oldfield 

and Straight, JJ 7. L. Rep. 2 All. 

342, 1879. 



■ntd. 
Construction of— What it must 
contain — Civil Procedure' Code, Act X. of 1877, 
j 206.] Where the plaintiff by his claim sought 
for a decree for money and enforcement of a 
en on the property hypothecated by the bond 
n which the claim was based, and the judgment 
eclared the lien good and Valid, but the decree 
'as simply for the " claim as brought," without 
.ny specification in it as to the relief sought by 
the plaintiff by charging the property hypothe- 
cated: — 

Held, that such a decree was nothing more 

than a money decree, and did not enforce the 

charge on the property. Muluk Fuqueer Bahhsh 

Manohar Das (H. C. Rep., N. W.' P. 1870, p. 

2g) followed. Harsukh 0. Meghraj I. I.. 

Rep. S AIL 845. 



N FICTITIOUS 
MORTGAGE — NULLITY AS 
AGAINST SUBSEQUENT PUB- 
CHASER BONA FIDE FOR 
VALUE. 
See Mortgage. 7. 

Gopi v. Markandb...I. Xi. Rep. 
3 Bom. 30. 

DECREE BY CONSENT IN A SUIT 
BY A CREDITOR OF A DECEAS- 
ED MAHOMETAN AGAINST 
THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 
IN POSSESSION OF HIS PRO- 

| PERTY— When binding on Absentee 

Heirs. 

See Mahomed an Lav. 1. 

Assam avhee Nessa Bibee r. 

Rot Lutchmeput Singh... 

I. L. Rep. 4 Cal. 143. 

DECREE FOR EJECTMENT IN BUTT 
FOR ARREARS OF RENT, 
RIGHT OF PURCHASER TO 

ftUESTION THE VALIDITY OF 
—BY SUIT, IF NOT A PARTY 
TO RENT SUIT. 

See Rent Suit. 

Madho Proshad Singh 9. Pur- 

■ shan Ram I, L. Rep 4. 

CWLS60. 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



DECREE FOR PARTITION— Execution 
of. 
See Execution of Decree. It. 

Rajcoomakke v- Gopal Chunder. 
I. L. Rep. S Cal. 514. 

Execution— Limitation— Right of Co Sharer 

in Partition Suit to enforce Decree. - ] A decree for 
partition is not like a decree for money or for 
the delivery of specific property, which is in 
favour only of the plaintiff in the suit. It is a 
joint declaration of the tights of persons interest- 
ed in the property of which partition is sought, 
and having been so made it is unnecess 
those persons who are defendants in the 
come forward, and institute a new suit 1 
the same rights declared under a second order 
made. A decree in such suits is a decree, when 
properly drawn up, in favour of each sharehpld< 
or set of shareholders having a separate share. 

A.,on the 29th June 1871, obtained a decree 
for partition against B., his co-sharer, and on the 
igth November 1876 applied to have the execu 
tion proceedings struck off the file. The appli 
cation was refused, and the partition was ordered 
to be completed at B.'s expense -.—Held that, 
the execution proceedings taken either by one 
or the other shareholder were taken on behalf of 
both, limitation did notapply. Sheikh K 

SHED HOSSEIN «. NUBBBE FaTIMA. Ainslie 

and McDonnell, }} ,.L L. Rep. 3 Cat, 651 ; 2 
Cal. Rep. 1S7, 1878. 

DECREE PAYABLE BY INSTAL- 
MENTS— Act X. of 1S77, § aio.] Sembte.per 
Turner, J.~ The provisions of § 3iO of Act X. of 
•877 were intended to apply only to what are 
commonly known as money decrees and not to 
decrees in which a sale is ordered of immoveable 
property in pursuance of a contract specifically 
affecting the property. 

Per Oldfield, J. :— Whether the decree decrees 
the payment of money simply, or proceeds to 
direct its realization by sale of a particular pro- 
perty mortgaged as security in the event of 
non-payment, it is still a "decree for payment of 
money," in the words of the section (J 1941 At 
VIII. of 1859), when the Court may order the 
amount to be paid by instalments. 

Where a contract is distinctly made for pay- 
inent on a date certain for the purpose of en- 
abling the creditor to obtain punctual payment, 
the circumstance that the payment is secured 
by an hypothecation of property, ought not to 
deprive him of that right. 



Where a Court, on the ground that the de- 
fendant was "hard pressed," directed the amount 
of a decree to be paid by instalments extending 
over ten years, and allowed only one-half the 
usual rate of interest ; — 

Held, that there was no sufficient reason for 
directing the payment of the amount of the 
decree by instalments, and (hat the Court had 
xercised its discretion injuriously to the plain- 
ff by the length of time over which the instal- 
ments were extended, and by allowing a rate of 
Interest less than the ordinary rate. Binda 
Pbrsad*. Madho Pebsad. Turner and Old. 

field,]) I. L. Rep. 2 AIL 129, 1878. 

2. Discretion— Act VIII. of litf, % 194.] 

Where the Courts below, out of consideration 
for an innocent purchaser forced to satisfy a 
mortgage, awarded payment by instalments at 
short intervals: Held, not to be unreasonable 
under the circumstances. Carvai.hu v. Nwr- 
bibi. West znAPinhey, JJ...1 L. Rep, 3 Bora. 
SOS, 1879. 
S. C under Interest. 7. 

DECREE AGAINST' REPRESENTA- 
TIVE OP DECEASED BLAHOME- 
DAN— Right of Purchaser at Sate in 
Execution of. 
See Bale in Execution of Decree. 20. 
Hendry d. Muttv Lall Dhur... 
I. L, Rep. 2 CaL 39S. 

DECREE FOR SALE OF MORTGAGED 
PROPERTY— Assignment of. 
See Registration. IB. 

Gopal «. Trimbak...L Ii. Rep. 
1 Bom. 267. 

DECREE OF SMALL CAUSE COURT. 
ait on— will lie in High Court. 
See Suit on Decree. 2. 

Khoblall v. Ramchunder ..L L. 
Rep. 2 CaL 434. 

DECREE SUBSEQUENTLY SUPER- 

it to recover Money paid under. 

See Money paid under Decree nub. 

sequently superseded. 

Joobsh Chunder p. Kali Churn. 

I. L. Rep. 3 Cal. 30. 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



( 427 ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( 



) 



DECBEE AGAINST SOKE OP THE 
WIDOWS AS REPRESENTA- 
TIVES OF DECEASED MAHOHE- 
DAN— Sale by such Widows to satisfy 
Decree — Minor when bound by. 

See Mahomedan Law— Infant 

Hamik Singh a. Musahhat Za- 
kia I. L. Rep. 1 All. 67. 

DECREE ON SPECIALLY REGISTER- 
ED AGREEMENT— Appeal from. 
See Appeal— Civil. 7. 11. IS. 

Bkyrub (Thunder v. Golap Coo- 

maky I. L. Rep. 8 Oal. 

017. 

Rah ana nd v. Bank oe Bengal... 

I. L. Rep. I AIL S77. 

Wilay At -un- Nissa v. Waiib-un. 

Nissa Ibid. 683 

— Limitation for Execution of. 
Set Limitation. 79. 

Jai Shankar v. Tetley L L. 

Rep. 1 All. 680. 
See Appeal— Civil. IS. 

Wilayat-un- Nissa «. Waji&-vn. 

Nissa I. L. Rep. 1 AIL 

683. 

DECREE ON SPECIALLY REGISTER- 
ED MORTGAGE BOND— Sale in 

Execution of — Right of Purchaser. 
' See Sale in Execution of Decree. 6. 
Akhe Rah v. Nand Kishohe.,.1. 
L. Rep. 1 All. 236. 

DECREE AGAINST WIDOW OF DE- 
CEASED MEMBER OF UNDIVID- 
ED KITAKSHARA FAMILY, 
FOR HIS DEBTS— Liability of Undi- 
vided Share of Deceased under. 
See Hindu Law— Alienation of 
Ancestral Property. 8. 
Musst. Phoolbas *. Lai.lA Jo. 
CBSHUR..L. Rep. 8 L A. 7 
I. L. Rep. 1 CaL SS6. 

DEDICATION TO TEMTLE-Of Dtta 
Dasis — Rights of Dancing Girls. 

See Immoral Custom. 

ChinnaUuhayi v. Tegarai Chkt- 
ti.,.1. L. Rep. 1 If ad. 168, 



DEDICATION TO TEMFLE-ttmW. 
Of Minor Girt 

Se, Penal Code, , 372. 

Reg. u. Aeuna Chellah ..I. I*. 
Rep. 1 Had. 184. 

DEDUCTION OF TIME NECESSARY TO 
OBTAIN COPT OF JUDGMENT 
IN COMPUTING PERIOD OF LI- 
MITATION FOR PETITION FOR 
LEAVE TO APPEAL TO PRIVY 
COUNCIL. 
See Limitation. 90. 

Jawahir Lal t. Narain Das... L 

L. Rep. I All. 844. 

See Letters Patent (Allahabad), 

CLIO. 8. 

Fazal Muhamad «. Phul Kuar.. 

L L. Rep. S All. 193. 

DEDUCTION OF TIME OCCUPIED IN 

SEEKING EXECUTION OF DE- 
CREE IN COURT WITHOUT JU- 
RISDICTION. 

Set Limitation. 40, 

Jiwan Singh u. Sarnah Singh... 
L L. Rep. 1 All. 97. 

DEDUCTION OF TIME OCCUPIED IN- 
UNSUCCESSFUL ENHANCE- 
MENT BUTT, IN SUIT FOR AR- 
REARS OFRENT AT ADMITTED 
RATE, NOT ALLOWED. 
See Limitation. 9. 

Brojendro Coomar e. Rakhal 

Chuhdek-.I. L. Rep. 8 CaL 

791. 

DEDUCTION OF TIME OCCUPIED IN 
UNSUCCESSFUL SUIT FOR 
EHAB POSSESSION, IN SUIT 
FOB ARREARS OF RENT, NOT 
ALLOWED. 
See Limitation. 10. 

Hureo Proshad Roy f. Gofaul 

Dass Dutt L L. Rep. 3 

CaL 817. 
DEDUCTION OF TIME OCCUPIED BY 
PROCEEDINGS IN WRONG 
COURT. 
See Limitation. 41. 

Shetii Kahahdas*. Dhaiabhai... 
X. L. Rep. 8 Bom. 188. 



D,g ltl zed by G00gle 



> 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( 410 > 



DEDUCTION OF TDXE OCCUPIED IN 
PROSECUTING SUITS IN 
COURTS WITHOUT JURISDIC- 
TION— In suits under Act XVIII. of 
l»73- 
Sec Limitation. 30. 

Tihmal Kliaki v. Ablakh Rai .. 
I. L. Rep. 1 All. 364 

DEDUCTION OF TIME OCCUPIED BY 
FORMER SUIT. 
See Limitation. 91. 

Putali Meheti e. Tulja... I. L. 
Rep. 8 Bom. S33. 

DEED — Of Assignment of Mortgage for mora 

than Rs. 100, for Consideration less than 

Rs. 100. 

See Registration. 7. 

Satra «. Visram L L. 1 



See Registration. 38. 

Raju Balu b. Krishnarav I. 

L. Rep. 3 Bom. 378-281. 

In English Form, between Hindus — Con- 
traction. 
See Mortgage. 81. S3. 

Pita m bar v. Vanhali I. L. 

Rep. 3 Bom 1. 

Jagjivan o.Suriohar Ibid. 

303. 

■ By Parda Woman. ' 

See Pardanoahin Female. 3. 

Tacoordben «. Nawab Syed Au. 
L. Rep. 1 L A. 183. 

Cancelling Signature to — Misrepresenta- 
tion— Contract Act IX. of lS73, ft 18-19. 
See Cancellation of Signature. 

The Oriental Bank v. Fleming, 
I. L. Rep. 8 Bom. 343. 

■ Setting Aside. 

Set Betting aaide Deed. 

See Fardanuabin Female. 3. 

Tacoordbbn Tewarkt v. Nawab 

Syid Ali H ossein Khan... 

L. Rep. 1 1. A. 198. 



DEED DECLARED A FORGERY -Suit , 

See Limitation. 07. 

Fakharcodsen Marked Ahsan 

v. Poqose L L. Rep. 4 

Oal. 809. 
See Declaratory Decree. 13. 

ShibLalv. Hira Lal I. L. 

Rep. 1 All. 633. 
DEED OF PARTITION— Registration of. 
See RegUtration. 9. 

Shankarv. Vishnu. ..L L. Rep. 

1 Bom. 67. 

DEED OF TRUST GIVTNO TRUSTEES 

POWER OF BALE OF LAND IN 

MOFUSSIL— Suit by Creditor to have 

Trust carried out. 

See Suit for Land. 8. 

Delhi and London Bank «. 
Wordie.,,1. L.Rep. ICaL 
349. 
DE FACTO GUARDIAN— Powers of. 
See Mortgage. 39. 80. 

Abiiassi Begum v. Moharanee 

Rajroop...!. L. Rep. 4 Cat 

38. 

Delsi Dutt Sahoo v. Subodra 

Bibee...I. L. Rep. 3 Cal.393. 

DEFAMATION — Damages for — Nominal 

Damages. 

See Damagea. 3. 

FltTBEK PABOOBB V. Mo HINDU 

Nath.,.1. L. Rep. 1 CeJ. 
885, 

Parties to Suit for. 

See Parties to Bait. 6. 

SuBBAYAR V. KRISTNAYYAR. 

L L. Rep. 1 Mad. 888. 

Penal Code, ff 52,499 (Exception!)— Bona 

Fides— Act XVIII. 0/1862, §g 3&-2J— Evidence 
Act I, 0/1872, 5 105.] Sections 26 and 37 of 
Act XVIII. of 1862 are still law, but apply only 
to the High Courts, and not to the Mofussil 
Courts. 
Since the passing of the Evidence Act (I. of 
S73, ( 105), it is, in all criminal cases tried in 
the Mofussil, incumbent on the accused to show 
iiistence of circumstances, if any, which 
bring his case within any of the general excep- 
ions in the Penal Code, or within any special 



by Google 



( *» J 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( «2 ) 



DEFAMATION— contd. 
exception or proviso contained in any other part 
of that Code, ot in any law defining the offei 
with which he is charged. 

In dealing with the question of the good fa 
of a person accused of defamation, contained 
a petition to a Magistrate, in which he stated 
that the prosecutor was preparing to bring false 
charges against him, and which petition was 
founded upon statements made to the accused 
by third persons that they had overheard the 
prosecutor discussing with others the possibility 
of getting up a case against the accused : the 
proper point to be decided is, not whether the 
evidence of the persons so giving such inform- 
ation to the accused is true, but whether the 
accused was told of the conspiracy against him 
by his witnesses, and had reasonable ground, 
with due care and attention, for believing their 



Per Markby, J . — Although %% 235 and 237 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure, Act XXV. of 1861, 
have oeen repealed, and the New Code of Cri- 
minal Procedure does not contain any analo- 
gous provisions; yet from % 439, Illustration 
(a), it may be inferred that the absence of all 
general exceptions is to be assumed as before 
without allegation, and that the averment of the 
absence also of some other exceptions is to be 
assumed, but whether this applies to all excep- 
tions is not clearly stated. It affects, however: 
only the statement of the offence in the charge 
In the mailer of the Petition of SiBHO PrOSaD 
Panda. Markby and Prinsep, JJ...L L, Bop. 

4 Cal. 124 ; 3 Cal. Rep. 122, 1878. 
DEFAULT IN APPEARANCE. 

Power of Small Cause Court to restore 

Case struck off for. 
See Small Cause Court, Presidency 
Town. 1. 
Sib Cmundeh v. Kissen Dyal...L 
L. Rep. 1 Cal. 476. 

DEFAULTING PURCHASER — Appeal 
lies from Order on Application to make 
— liable for Loss on Resale. 
See Appeal— Civil. 17. 

Rah Dial t. Ram Das. ..I. L. 
Rep. 1 All. 181. 

DEPUTED SHARK -Gift of. 

See Mohomedan Law— Gift. 1. 

JlWAN Baksh 1: Imtiaz Beoam... 
I. L. Rep. 3 All. 83. 



DEFINITE SHARE (IN ZEMINDAR!)— 
Gift of. 
See Mahomed au Law— Sift. 2. 
Ameeroonissa Khatoon v. Abe- 
doonissa Khatoon. ..L. Rep. 
2 L A. 87. 
DELAY. 

See Acquiescence. 1. 

Uda Bsgam ir. Ihau-ud-Din... 
L L. Rep. 1 All. 8a 
See Attorney and Client. 2. 

MoNOKUR DOSS O- ROMON'ALTTh! 

Law.,.1. L. Rep, 3 Cal. 473. 
See Divorce. 2. 

Williams v. Williams... L L. 
Rep. 8 Col. 683. 

In applying for Writ of Habeas Carpus. 

See Privilege from Arrest. 

In the matter of OmroitolAll. 

Dev...I. L Rep. 1 Cal. 78. 

^— In Suing for Obstruction to Ancient Lights, 
See Mandatory Injunction. 

Atmakam v. Jamnadas...I. L. 
Hep. 2 Bom. 183. 

DELEGATION— Of Legislative Powers. 

See Legislative Powers of the 

Governo r General in Council. 

1.2. 

.Empress v. Bukrah...I. L. Rep. 

3 Cal. 63 ; I. L. Rep. 4 Cal. 

172; L.Rep.6 LA. 178; 

L. Rep. 8 App. Ca. 889. 

DEMAND AND REFUSAL — Dower — 

Unsuccessful Petition for Leave to sue 
in forma Pauperis. 

See Mahomed an Law— Dower, 1. 
Ranee Khajooroonissa v. Ranee. 

RyEE50ONIS3A...L, Rap. 3 

I. A. 385. 

- Of Maintenance. 

See Hindu Law— Maintenance of 
Widow. 4. 7. 

jivi v. Ramji I. L. Rep. 3 

Bom. 307. 

N array an o. Ramabai L L. 

Rep. 3 Bom. 415 ; L. Rep. 
OLA. 114. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



( 



) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



{ «* ) 



DEMOLITION OP BUILDING. 

See Mandatory Injunction. 

Jamnadas b. Atmaram L L. 

Sep. -a Bom. 133- 



See Enhancement of Kent. a. 

HURRONATH jp. GOBIND ChUNDER. 

L. Hep. 2 I. A. 193. 

DEPOSIT OP OOSTS-Power to enlarge 
Time for. 
See Act VL of 1874, f 11. 

Soorjmukhi Koer.,.I. L. Rep. 
a Cal. 273. 

DEPOSIT OP MONEY FOB COSTS OP 
APPEAL TO PRIVY COUNCIL— 

Vacation— Power of Court to grant Spe- 
ci.il Permission. 
See Act VT. of 1874, §8. 

Laixa Gopee Chand.-X L, Rep. 
a CaL. 128. 

DEPOSIT OP SECtJBITY-DISMISSAL 

OP APPEAL TO THE PRIVY 

COUNCIL FOR DEFAULT IN. 

See Appeal to the Privy Council. 4. 

Thakooe Kapilnath Singh u. 

The Government L L. 

Rep. 1 Cal.. 143. 

DEPOSIT OF SECURITY BY PEBSON 
ENT ITLED TO A CERTIFICATE 
UNDER AOT XXVII. OF 18QO— No 
Appeal from Order for. 
See Appeal— Civil. 4. 

Mfc-NHOHINEE DasEE V. KhETTER 

Gopaul Dev.,.1. L. Rep. 1 
CaL 127. 
DEPOSIT OF TITLE-DEEDS. 

See Equitable Mortgage. 

D.AYAL JAIRAZl.. JCVRAJ RaTANSI. 

I. L.Hep. lBoin. 237. 

DEPOSITIONS TAKEN BY BRITISH 
CONSUL AT ZANZIBAR. 
See Offence committed in Foreign 
Territory. 
Empress b. Dossajt Gulah Hus- 
sein I. L. Rep. 3 Bom. 

334. 



DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OP PO- 
LICE — Confession to— Admissibility of. 
See Evidence. 13. 

Reg. «. Hl-rribole. . .1. L. Rep. 1 

Cal. 307. 

DEPUTY MAGISTRATE— Power of— to 

question Sanction to prosecute given by 

Superior. 

See Sanction, to Proeecute. a. 

Empress v. Irad Ally 1 L. 

Rep. 4 CaL 889. 
DESERTION. 

See Divorce. 1. 3. 

Wood v. Wood L L. Rep. 3 

CaL 480. 

Fowlh o. Fowls... I. L. Rep. 4 
Cal. 280. 



See Pensions' ActXXm.of 1871 

a. 

Vasudev «. The Collector of 

Ratnagiri I. L. Rep. 2 

Bom. 99; L. Rep. 4 LA. 
119. 
DESHMUKHI HAKS— Suit for. 

See Pensions' Act XXITX of 1871. 

e. 

Vasudev b. The Collector op 

Ratnagiri. L L. Rep. 3 

Bom. 99; L.Rep. 4 1. A. 
119. 

DESHPANDE WATAN— Right to Share 
' ' — Suit for Declaration of. 
i , wPenaione , ActXXm.ofl871.5. 
Babaji d . Rajaram...I. L. Rep. 1 
Bom. 76. 

DETERMINATION OP LSSUE NOT 
ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOB 
THE DECISION OF THE CASE. 
See Re* Judicata. 37. 

Man Singh b. Narrayan Das... 
L L. Rep. 1 All. 480. 
DEVADASIS— Dedication of. 
See Immoral Custom. 

CHINNA UliMlYJ B. TEGARAI 

Chetti..,L L. Rep. 1 Mad. 
168. 
See Penal Code, g 873. 

Reg. v. Aruna Chellam...!. L. 
Rep. 1 Mad. 184. 



boozed by Google 



( «5 ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( «6 ) 



DEVISE— Of Debt —Representative of Devisee 
cannot sue without Probate or Certificate 
under Act XXVII. of i860. 
See Assignee of Debt. 

Shodoneb. Halalkhore...X. L. 
Bep. 4 Cal. 640. 

DEVISE ON CONDITION OF RESI- 
DENCE. 
See Will. 10. 

Ganendro Mohum Tagors t. 

Rajah Juttendbo Muhun 

TAGORE...I- Bep. 1 I. A. 

3S7. 

DEVISEE OP DECEASED HINDU— 
Liability of Lands purchased from — for 
Debts of his Testator. 
See Limitation. 38a. 

Greender Chunder Gkose o. 

Mackintosh... I, L. Bep. 4. 

Oal. 887, 

DEWASTHAN PROPERTY— Suit relat- 

See Right to Sua. 10. 

Radhabai b. Chihnaji Rahji Sao. 
LL.Rep.3Bom.87. 
DE V UTT OB, 

See Hindu Law— Partition. 7. 
Rah Coomar 1. Jogrndar Nath. 
1. L. Bep. 4 CaL 60. 
Set Hindu Law— WilL 13. 

ASHUTOSH s. DOOROA CHURN 

L. Bep. 6 1. A. 183. 



1. Res judicata — Paver o/Sebait to bind 

the IdoVs Estate.'] On the 27th February 185a, 
and the 35th July 1854, the respondent obtained 
two decrees against the sebait of an idol upon 
two bonds for the repayment of money alleged 
therein to have been borrowed for the service of 
the idol, and the expenses of the temple. Both 
decrees directed that the debt should be paid 
by the sebait personally, or else realized from 
the rents and profits of the deauttur lands. 

In a suit by the appellants as sebaits in succes- 
sion to the judgment debtor to set aside the 
decrees, and to have the deauttur property of 
the idol released from the attachment issued in 
execution thereof: — 

Held, that the decrees were entitled to the 
force due to judgments of competent Courts. 
The determination of the issues was ret judicata, 



DB W UTT UB— contd. 

and in the absence of proof of fraud and collu- 
1, the necessary and proper issues having 
been raised, tried, and determined, the judgments 
founded upon them could not be re-opened and 
iewed; but were binding upon the succeeding 
sebaits, who formed a continuing representation 
the idol's property. Although property devot- 
ed to religious purposes is, as a rule, inalienable, 
:ompetent for the sehait of property dedica- 
ted to the worship of an idol, in the capacity of 
sehait and manager of the estate, to incur debts 
and borrow money for the proper expenses of 
keeping up the religious worship, repairing the 
temples or other possessions of the idol, defend- 
ing hostile litigious attacks, and other like 
objects. The power to incur such debts must be 
measured by the existing necessity for incurring 
them, the authority of the sebait of an idol's 
estate being, in this respect, analogous to that 
of the manager for an infant heir, Peosunno 
Kuuari Drbya v. Go lab Chand Baboo L. 

Bep. 3 I. A. 14B ; 22 W. R. 

263; 14 Beng. L. B. 460, 
1876. 

9. Hindu Lata — Endowment— Powers of 

Sebait— Notice to Purchaser.'] A plaintiff who 
seeks to set aside an alienation of lands on the 
ground that they are dewuttur, i.e., dedicated in 
perpetuity to support the worship of an idol 
must give very strong and clear evidence of the 
endowment. The mere fact that the rents of a 
mehal have been applied for a considerable time 
to the worship of the idol, is not sufficient proof 
that the mehal is dtwuttur. 

The sebait of a dewuttur estate has authority, 
where it is requisite for the benefit of the endow- 

, to raise money by alienating a part of the 

e, his position being analogous to that of 
the manager of an infant. 

The deeds of conveyance of certain lands 
stated them to be dewuttvr, and that the temple 

jut of repair, and that the purchase money 
was necessary for the repairs and for various 
other things requisite for the idol. In a suit to 
aside the sale it appeared that at the time 
of the transaction the temple required repairs, 
but that the vendor had not applied the whole 
of the purchase- money to them. There was 
no evidence of any collusion on the part of 
the purchaser, or that he was aware at the time 
of the purchase that the money was to be applied 
otherwise than the conveyance expressed :— 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



( 437 ) 



DIGEST OF CASES, 



( «8 ) 



SSW TTTJR— to Hid. 

Held, that the sale was valid. The admi 
sions in the deeds must be taken as a whole, 
and according to them the sate was justifiable 
even if the property were demutlur. Even if 
part of the money only was required for the 
repairs of the temple, or was represented to 
so required, and this was bona fide believed 
' by the purchaser, the deeds would not be wholly 
void by reason that some of the money was 
raised for another purpose, and that would not 
be a ground for setting the deeds aside alto- 
gether, as the purchaser would be entitled to be 
reimbursed so much of the money as had been 
legitimately advanced. KooNwak Doorga- 
nath Roy v. Ram Chunder Sen...L. Sep, 4 
I. A. 53, 1876 ; I. X,. Bep. 3 Cal. 341. 

DB ABBK&IU. 

See Kabulayatdar Knot. 

Krishna j] v. Rauchandra...!. 
L, Hep. 1 Bom. 70. 

DH ARWAKARTABH1T' OF PAGODA— 
Limitation to Suit for. 
See Limitation. 04. 

Mam ally Chenna «. Mangadu... 
I. L. Reu. 1 Mad. 343. 
DIGNTT Y- -SUIT TO VINDICATE. 

See Suit to Vindicate a mere Dig- 
nity. 

DILDVIATED LAND. 
See Alluvial Land. 

Radha Proshad «. Ram Coomar. 

I. L. B«p. 3 Cal. 796. 

— — Non-Payment of Rent on account of— Ex- 
tinguishment thereby of Right of Occu. 
pancy in — on their Re-formation. 
See Extinguishment of Bight of 
Occupancy. 

HBMNATH DUTTC. AsHGUR SlN- 

dar I. L. Bep. 4 0al. 

884. 

— Re-formation of. 

See Re. formation of Submerged 
Lands. 

DBSINTJTION OF WATER BTJPPLY. 

See Penal Code, § 430. 
* Ram Krishna e. Palanivahdi...I. 

L. Rep. 1 Mad. 399. 
SO 



DIR ECTOR 6— Power of —to borrow Money. 
See Power of Directors to Borrow 
and Mortgage. 
Irvine v. Union Bank of Aus- 
tralia L. Hep. 4 I. A. 

86 ; I. L. Sep. 8 Cal. 280. 
See Power of Director* to bind Com- 
pany by Bill of Exchange. 
New Fleming S. & W. Co., Unit- 
ed I. L. Bep. 3 Bom. 

439. 
DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED— Evidence for 
Prosecution must all be taken before. 
See The Caaea under Criminal Pro- 
cedure Code, Act X. of 1872, 
1815. 

Revival of Prosecution. 

Sec Compounding Offences. S. 

Rec. v. Dgvaha I. L. Bep. 1 

Bom. 64. 
See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1878, ( 396. 1. 

Dijahuk Dutt I L. Bep. 4 

Cal. 647. 
See The Cases under Revival of 
Prosecution. 
DISCHARGE PROM IMI'RISONntENT 
— Application for. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act X. 
of 1877, §343. 
Rattans! Kalianji.-.I. L. Bep. 
3 Bom. 148. 

DISCHARGE OF SURETY— Accommoda- 
tion Acceptor — Bankruptcy of Drawer — 
Trust Deed for Benefit of Creditors—, 
Equitable Mortgage to Acceptor by 

See Principal and Surety. 4. 

Pogosk t. Bank of Bengal L 

L. Rep. 3 Cal. 174. 
— ■ Giving Time— Acceptance of Interest in 
Advance . 
See Principal and Surety. 9. 

MoTab Chunder v. Govs. Chun. 
BBB...L L. Bep. 4 Cal. 133. 

Giving Time— Execution of Decree. 

See Principal and Surety. 3. 

Ramanand Koondoo e. Chow- 

IjHRV SoONDKR SARUN.GY — L 

L. Rep. 4 Cal. 331. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



< «9 ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( MO ) 



DISCONTINUANCE OF EASEMENT. 
See Easement 1. 

Shama Churn h. Tariney Churn. 
L L. Reji. 1 Cal. 432. 

DISCONTINUANCE OF FAMILY CUS- 
TOM. 
See Family Custom. 

Rajkishen v. Ram joy Surma. ..I. 
L. Rep. 1 CaL 186. 

DISCRETION. 

See Decree payable by Instal- 

Binda Persad v. Madu Persad. 
I. L. Rep. 2 Ail. 129. 

Carvalho t. Nurbibi I. L. 

Rep. S Bom. 203. 

— — As to Amount of Commission awarded to 
Administrator General, when interfered 
with on Appeal. , 

See Administrator General** Act 
II. of 1874, j 37. 

SOMASUNDARAM V. ADMINISTRA- 
TOR General... I. L. Rep. 
1 Mad. 148. 

-■■ — As to Costs — Mortgagee's — Usurious Con- 
tract. 

Set Co»ts. 1. 

CauvalHo a. Nurbihi I. L. 

Bep. S Bom. 302. 

■ As to Costs reviewable on Appeal, but not 

Special Appeal unless Order Illegal. 
See Coats. 3. 

FUTEEK PaROOEB a. MoHEHDER 

Nath I. L. Bep, 1 Cal 

386. 

Interest — Award of, after Suit, at less than 

agreed Rate. 
See Interest. 7. 
Carvalho b. Nurbihi...!. L. Bep. 8 
Bom. 303. 
DISHONOUR— NOTICE OF 
See Hundi. 1. 

GobindRah «. Mat hook a... I. L. 
Bep. 3 Cal. 330. 



DISMISSAL OF APPEAL TO THE 
PRIVY COUNCIL FOB DE- 
FAULT IN DEPOSIT OF BKCTJ- 
BTTY, AND IN TRANSCRIBING! 



See Appeal to the Privy Council. 4 . 

Thakoor Kapilnath Sahai *. 

Tub Government...!. I*. 

Rep. 1 Cal 143. 

DISMISSAL FOB INCOMPETENCE. 
See Master and Servant. 

MacGillivrav v- Jokai Assam 
Tea Co. ..1 L. Bep. 8 Cal. 
33 
DISMISSAL OF SUIT. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act 
Till, of 1859, f. 148. 
Rvall o. Sherman. ..I. L. Bep. 
1 Mad. 387. 
DISMISSAL OF A WARRANT CASE. 
See Compounding Offences. S. 

Reg. v. Devaka L L. Bep. 1 

Bom. 64. 

DISOBEDIENCE OF ORDER OP PUB- 
LIC SEBVANT— Beng. Reg. VI. of 1810, § 6 

— Public Ferry— Plying Boats near.] Section 6 
of Beng. Reg. VI of 1S19 prohibits all persons 
from employing a ferry.boat for hire at or in the 
immediate vicinity of public ferries without the 
previous sanction of the Magistrate. If, in the 
case of a prohibition distinctly made known to a 
person, he continues to ply a boat for hire at or 
in the immediate vicinity of a public terry, he 
renders himself liable to punishment under the 
Penal Code, for disobedience of that order. 

Muktha «. Jawahir. SpankU, J I. L. 

Bep. 1 AIL B87, 1877. 
S- C. under Criminal Trespass). 3. 

DISPOSING OF MINOR GHtL FOB 
PURPOSES OF PROSTITUTION. 
See Penal Code, § 872. 

Reg. v. A run a Chellam...L L. 
Bep. 1 Mad. 164. 

DISPOSSESSION OF LESSEE BY 

LESSOB— Jurisdiction of Civil and Re- 

Set Act XVHX of 1878, § 05, CL m. 

Abdul Aziz v. Wali Khan I. 

L. Bep. 1 All. 133. 



Diaxized by Google 



( 441 ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



DISPOSSESSION OF SECOND BY 

FIRST MORTGAGEE -Re-Entry by Mm 
gage* after first Mortgage settled — Cause of 
Action.'] In a suit brought in 1*72, by the re- 
presentatives of a second mortgagee, to recover 
possession of the mortgaged land from the re- 
presentatives of the mortgagor, it appeared that 
the second mortgagee had obtained possession 
thereof in 1846 under a decree, but had been 
ousted at the suit of some prior mortgagees in 
1847, upon whose being paid off by the mort- 
gagor in 1870, the latter had again obtained 

Held, reversing the decree of the High Court, 
that the decree obtained by the second mort- 
gagee in 1846, gave him as against the mortga- 
gors a title to the land, which was not destroyed 
by his ouster by the prior mortgagee, and that 
having a good title when the first mortgagees 
were paid off in 1870, the cause of action accrued 
to the second mortgagee when the mortgagors . 
after that period entered into possession of the 
estate, to which they had no title, and that he 
was entitled to recover possession of the land. 

The decree of the Court of first instance wa 
also reversed so far as it decreed interest upoi 
the mortgage money during dispossession. Tb 
mortgagee might have sued for interest, though 
turned out of the land, and all that he n 
titled to was possession of the land; and if , 
when he obtained possession, the mortgagors 
sued to redeem, the question would be how much - 
was due to the mortgagee under the mortgage, 
and how much he was entitled to receive before 
the mortgagors could redeem. Narain Singh 

e. Shiubhoo Singh L. Sep. 41. A. 15, 

1870 1 1. L. Sep. 1. AIL 320. 

DISPOSSESSION* OP THIRD PERSON 

UNDER SALE IN EXECUTION 

OF DECKER 

St* Sale in Execution of Decree. IS 

Harasatqollah e. Brojonath 

Ghosh I. L, Sep. 8 Cal. 

728. 

DISttUALIFICATION TO INHERIT. 

■ See the cases under Hindu Law — 

Disqualification to Inherit 

-1 ■ Blindness if Congenital is a. 

Set Hindu Law — Disqualification 
to Inherit. 1. 9. 

MlJRARJEE V. PARVATIBAI ...L L. 

Sep. 1 Bom. 177. 
Uhabai v. BHAvu...,„Ibid. 807. 



DISQUALIFICATION TO INHESIT- 

contd, 
Childless Widowed Indigent Daughter- 
Benares Law — not disqualified. 
See Hindu Law — Inheritance — 
Daughters. 3. 
Srihati Una Devi v. Gokool- 
ahanddas L. Sep. 5 I- 



- Childless Widowhood, according to Bengal 

Law, excludes from Inheritance to Fa- 
ther, but not from Succession by Survi- 
vorship to Sister. 

See Hindu Law — Inheritance — 
Daughters, a. 

AUMIRTOLALL BoSE «. P.AJONEE- 
KANT MlTTER.-.L. Rep. 3 L 

A. 118. 

- Illegitimacy — Offspring of Adultery. 

See Hindu Law — Inheritance — 
Illegitimate Bon. 4. 5. 0. 

Rahi *. Govind I.L.Sep. 

1 Bom. 97. 

Naravan «. Laving ,..L L. Rep. 
9 Bom. 140. 

VlRARAMUTHI v. SlNGARAVELU... 

L L. Rep. 1 Had. 80S. 

- Incontinence of Hindu Woman does not 

disqualify her from Inheriting or Keep- 
ing inherited Stridhan. 

See Hindu Law— Disqualification 
to Inherit. 8. 
Musahat Gahga Jim h. Gha- 

sita LL.Bep.l All. 

48. 

- Incontinence of Widow after Inheritance 

vested does not Work a Forfeiture. 
See Hindu Law— Disqualification 
to Inherit. 4. 
Bhayani v. Mahtab Kuar. L L. 
Sep. Z AIL 171. 
See Hindu Law — Inheritance — 
Widow. 1. 

Nhhalo v. Kishih Lal.. L 

L. Sep. 9 AIL 160. 
See Hindu Low— Maintenance of 
Widow. IS. 

HONAHHA if. TIWANBHAT...I. L. 

Rep. 1 Bom. 558. 



Digitized byGOOC^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( 



> 



DISQUALIFICATION TO INHERIT— 

conld. 

— Incontinence of Mother disqualifies from 

Inheriting to Son. 

See Hindu Law— Disqualification 
to Inherit. S- 

RaMNATH ToLAPATT«> V. DltRGA 
SuNDARl DeBI... .L IhBep. 

4 Cftl. 050. 

Leprosy— Si nious Ulcerous— is a. 

See Hindu Law- Disqualification 
to Inherit, e. 
Amamta v. Rawabai...!. "L. Rep. 
1 Bom 654. 

Loss of Caste is not a. 

SrrjHindu Law- Disqualification 
to Inherit. 7. 

HONAMMA ». TlMANBHAT ...I. L. 

Rep. 1 Bom, 889. 
DISQUALIFYING INTEREST OF 

JUDGE— Criminal Proceedings— Irreg tdariiy 
—Effect of Water by Prisoner— Judge giving 
Evidence.'] The prisoner, while occupying the 
post of jailor, was accused by one of the jail 
clerks of falsifying his books and defrauding the 
Government. The District Magistrate, H-, 
inquired into the matter, and by his order the 
prisoner was placed on trial for criminal breach 
of trust before a Bench of Magistrates consisting of 
//.himself and four Honorary Magistrates. One 
of the latter was £., who at the time of the 
commission of the alleged offences, and at the 
time of trial, was officiating superintendent of 
the jail and the prisoner's immediate superior. 
The prisoner and his pleaders were asked before 
the commencement of the trial whether they 
had any objection to the composition of the 
Bench, and they distinctly said that they had 
none whatever. The prisoner's consent, how- 
ever, was not formally recorded, and after the 
charges were drawn up, his counsel objected to 
the Bench as formed. H. instructed the Go- 
vernment prosecutor to prosecute, and both H. 
and £. gave evidence for the prosecution, After 
the case for the prosecution was closed, two 
distinct charges were framed against the accused, 
the first of debiting Government with the price 
of more oil-seed than he actually purchased, 
and the second of receiving payment for certain 
oil at a higher rate than he credited to Govern- 
ment. As regards the first charge, the prisoner 



DIflQUALIFYTNQ 

JUDOE— run Id. 
was alleged to have received money for the oil- 
seed on the strength of certain vouchers which 
he had induced L. to countersign as correct ; 
and as to the second charge, the prisoner's 
defence was that /.. had himself sanctioned the 
sale at the rate credited to Government. On 
the accused giving the names of bis witnesses, L. 
was deputed by his brother magistrates to exa- 
mine some of them who were connected with Ike 
jail, and to take down their statements at onee 
in the presence of the agents of both parties, in 
order to prevent any suggestion that the wit- 
nesses had been tampered with, and " to guard 
against subsequent deviation." The deposit ion i 
so taken were placed on the record " for the use 
of either party, though not in themselves as 
evidence." The prisoner was convicted. On 
a motion to quash the conviction; — 

Held, that under the circumstances of the case 
the presence on the Bench of L., who had a sub- 
stantial interest in the prosecution, vitiated the 
proceedings and necessitated the quashing of the 
conviction. It is one of the oldest and plainest 
rules of justice and common sense that no man 
shall sit as judge in a case in which he is sub- 
stantially interested, and that is the law of India 
as much as it is the law of England. 

Without saying that it is illegal for a Magis- 
trate to give evidence in a case with which he 
is dealing judicially, it is, on general principles, 
most undesirable that a Judge should be examin- 
ed as a witness in a case which be himself is 
trying, if such a contingency can possibly be 
avoided. The mere fact that H. and L. were 
necessary witnesses for the prosecution, was a 
most cogent reason why neither of them should 
have been members of the Bench by which the 
prisoner was to be tried. Though a Magistrate 
may not be incapacitated from dealing with a 
case judicially, merely because in his character 
of Magistrate it may have been his duty to 
initiate the proceedings, yet it was wrong that 
the District Magistrate should deal with this 
case judicially when there was no necessity for 
his doing so, when he had himself discovered 
the alleged fraud, and initiated the prosecution, 
and was one of the principal witnesses against 

The examination, in the manner stated above, 
of the witnesses named by the accused, was a 
most unfair and irregular proceeding, and was 
illegal and unjustifiable. 



Di,iii,.db»Goo<^le 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( *« ) 



INTEREST OF 

Criminal proceedings are bad unless conduct- 
ed in the manner prescribed bylaw; and if 
they ate substantially bad in themselves 
defect will not be cured by any waiver or 
sent of the prisoner. Rhg. it. Bholanath Sen. 
Macphcrstm and Mortis, JJ...L L. Rep. 2 Cfil. 

28, 1876. 
See Evidence. 22. 

DISSENT OP COURT FROH VERDICT 
OP JURY. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1872, ( 263.2. 

Ihfx. v. Bhawani ...I. L. Sep. 2 

Bom. 625. 

See Appeal— Criminal. 2. 

Reg. v. Hari...I. L. Bep. 2Boin 



DISSENTIENT 

Right of— on a Transfer of Assets to New 
Company. 
See Company— Winding up. 1. 

In re THE Fleming S. & W. Co. 

(Limited). I. L. Sep. 3 

Bom. 298. 

DISSOLUTION 07 PARTNERSHIP- 
Suit for — Jurisdiction exists where all 
partners reside, as well as at Place of 
Business. 

See Jurisdiction. 6. 
Rahasami 

LL. Sep. 1 Had. 840. 

DISTINCT OFFENCES— Separate Charges 
of. 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1872, ( 462. 
Reg. v. Hanmanta...!. L. Bep. 
1 Bom. 810. 
See Criminal Procedure Oode, Act 
X. Of 1872, §§ 4B3, 454. 
Empress ii. Dunonjoy Baraj.,,1. 
L. Eep. 3 Cal. 040. 
DISTINCT SUBJECTS— Suit embracing 
two or more — Court Fees. 
See Court Feee. 7. 

Chamaili Rani v. Ram Dai. ..I. I>. 
Bep. 1 All. 052. 



DISTRAINT. 

.SwHadras Act VOL of 1SSS, f 49. 

Shrinivas v. Emperumana...!. L. 

Rep. 2 Had. 42. 

Suit to set aside Wrongful. 

See Bight to Sue. 9. 

HokroNarainv.ShoodhaKrish- 
TO...1 L. Bep. 4 Cal. 890. 

Suit for Value of Crops— Jurisdiction of 

Small Cause Court. 
See Beng. Act VOT. of 1889, § 98. 
Hyder Alc v. Jafar Ai.l.X L. 
Bep. 1 Cal. 18S. 

DISTBIBTJTION— Postponement of Period 
of— of Gift of Residue to a Class. 
See Will. 4. S. 

Masevk ». Ferqusson I. L. 

Bep. 4 Cal. 804, 870. 

DISTRD3UTI0N0F EXECUTION SALE 
PROCEEDS OP PROPERTY OF 
DEFENDANT— Pauper Suit— Prero. 
gative Right of Crown in respect of Court 
Fees. 

See Prerogative of the Crown. 

Collector or Moradabad p. Mir. 

HAMMAD DaIU KHAN I. L, 

Bep. 2 All. 196. 

DISTRIBUTIONS— STATUTE OF— (22 
* 23 Car. IX, C. 10)— Advancement- 
Rule as to — not preserved to Parsis. 
See Act XXI. of 1866, J 6. 

Dhanjibhai e. Navazbai...I. X* 
Bep. 2 Bom. 76. 

DISTRICT COURT OF AXYAB— Jurisdic- 

See Jurisdiction. 9. 



DISTRICT COURTS MENTIONED IN 
REGISTRATION ACT VIII. OF 
1871, SUBJECT TO SUPERIN- 
TENDENCE OF HIGH COURT. 

See Review. 8. 

Reasut Hossein v. Hadjee Ab. 
D001.LA11...L. Rep. 31.4. 
221 ; I. L. Bep. 2 Cal. 131. 



D.gmzed by GoOgle 



( «7 ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



DISTHrlCT JUDGE— Appeal to— in Suits for 
Rent less than Rs. 100 — Question of Pro- 
prietary Right. 
See Act XVm. of 1873, { 98. 8. 
Bisheshur Singh j>. Musst. Su- 

OUNDHI...I. L. B«P. 1 All 

866. 

Appeal to — Value of Subject. matter of 

Dispute. 
See Bengal Civil Courts' Act VI. 
of 1871, s as. 

Kali Charan Rai v. Ajudhja 
Rai...I. L. Hep. S AIL 148. 

——jurisdiction of — Suit against a Municipa- 
lity. 
See Suit against a Hunic ipality. 
The Ahmedabad Municipality 
Mahomed Ismail... I. L. 
Hep. 3 Bom. 146. 

Jurisdiction of — Suit against Defendants 

resident within Jurisdiction, For disturbing 
Plaintiff's Right to fish in the Sea. 
See Jurisdiction. 10. 

Baban b . Nacu...L L. Bap. 9 
Bom. IB. 

Power of— to interfere with Order for Local 

Investigation. 
See Local Investigation . 

Nirod Krishna Roy v. Wooma- 

NATH MoOKERJBE I. Ii. 

Hep. 4Cal. 718. 

"— Power of — to transfer to his own Court, 
Execution Proceedings pending in Subor- 
dinate Court. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act 
TZU. of 1858, §6. 
Gaya Pakshad v. Bhup Singh... 
L JL. Bop. 1 AIL 180. 

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE— Course to be 
pursued by — on Improper Discharge of 
Accused Persons by Subordinate Magis- 

See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1873, 5 285. 

DijahurDutt I. L. Rep. 4 

Cal. 647. 
See the cases under Revival of Pro- 
■ecution. 



DISTRICT MAGISTRATE— eontd. 

Power of— to remand a Case triable by a 

Magistrate only, after a Discharge by 
Subordinate Magistrate. 
See Criminal Procedure Code, Act 
X. of 1873, §895.1. 

DijahurDutt I. L. Rep. 4 

CaL 647. 

DISTURBANCE OF OFFICE- -Of Dancing 
Girl. 

See Dancing Girl. 

Kamalam «, Sadaoopa Sahi... 
L L. Rep. 1 Mad. 3S6. 

1. -QJf« of Chalwadi— Caste Question.'] 

The plaintiff was the hereditary holder of the 
office of Chal-aadi, or bearer.on public occasions, 
of the insignia or symbols of the Lingayat caste 
at Bagalkot. No fees were as of right appurte- 
nant to that office, but members of the caste 
might bestow voluntary gratuities on the Chal- 
wadi, 

In a suit by the plaintiff against an intruder on 
his office to establish his right to perforin the 
duties of Chalwadi, and for damages for loss of 

Held, that the action would not lie if it were 
brought merely for gratuities received by the 
uder, as moneys alleged to be received by the 
to the use of the plaintiff. 

Held, also, that the claim of the plaintiff to be 
Chal-aadi of the Lingayat caste at Bagalkot was 
a caste question within the meaning of the 
unrepealed portion of CI. I off 21, Regulation II. 
of 1817, for the alleged duty of the Chal-aadi 
being to carry the insignia of tbe caste at public 
ceremonials, without any right to levy fees or 
receive salary for the performance of that duty, 
it was essentially a matter which concerned the 
caste exclusively. Shankara Marabasapa «. 
Hanma Bhima. Westrapp, C.J., and iieivill, J... 
I. L. Sep. 2 Bom. 470, 1877. 

9. ——Damages — Vatandar Joshi — Injunc- 
tion— Onus Probandi.] The burden of proving 
that the vatandar josMi of a village is not entitled 
to officiate and take fees in the families of any 
particular caste, lies upon the persons asserting 
the exemption. The vatandar joshi of a village 
is entitled to recover damages from a person 
who has intruded upon his office and received 
fees properly payable to him ; but the Court will 
not grant an injunction against such intruder 
which would have the effect of forcing upon any 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



( *« ) 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



( 



MSTTJRBANCE OF OFFICE-.-. 

section of the community, the scrv 
priest whom they are unwilling to recognize, and 
forbidding them to employ a priest whose minis- 
trations they desire. Raja Shivappa q. Khish- 
NaBNaT. Meivill and Kemboll, JJ..X L. Hep. 

3 Bom. 338,1878. 
DrVEHTING 07 PROPERTY VESTED 
BY INHERITANCE. 
Set Hindu Law— Adoption. 13. 
Kally Pbosonno v. Gocool 
Chusd«r...L L. Rop. 2 CaL 
990. 
DIVESTING OF VESTED INTEREST 
GIVEN BY WILL. 
Set Will. 9. 

C. M. Hunter. ..I. L. Rep. 4 
CaL 420. 
DIVISION BENCH— Appeal from Judgment 
of. 

See Letter* Patent — Allahabad- - 

01. 10. 1. 

Ghasi Rah o. Mvsahat Nuraj 

Begum.. .1 L. Rep. 1 All. 

31. 

Appeal from Judgment of — where Judge: 

differ, not confined to Points of Differ. 

See AppBftl -Civil. 17. 

Ram Dial*. Rah Das L L. 

Rep. 1 AIL 181. 

DIVORCE— Hindu Law. 

See Hindu Law— Divorce. 

KUDOMEE DOSSEE V. JOTEBRAH 

Kolita.,.1. L. Rep. 3 CaL 
SOS. 
See Hindu Law — Inheritance 
Illegitimate Son. 4. 
Rahi v. GOVIHD...L L. Bop. 1 
Bom. 97. 
See Penal Code, § 494. 

Rso v. Sahbhu.,.1. L. Rap. 1- 
Bom.347. 
— Hahomedan Law. 

See the cases under Mahornednn 
Law— Divorce. 

L Act IV. of 1869— Suit far Dissolution 

of Marriage — Adultery — Desertion.] In a suit 
by a wife For a dissolution of her marriage on the 
Kround of her husband's adultery and desertion, 



DIVORCE —contd. 

the adultery was proved, and it was Eound that 
the wife, notwithstanding the gross misconduct of 
her husband, continued to live with him for some 
years, during which time she supported her hus- 
band and herself by her own earnings, he contri- 
buting nothing for her support; that eventually, 
under the pressure of pecuniary difficulties 
brought about by her husband's extravagance and 
dissolute habits, they came to an arrangement 
by which she went to live with her friends, and he 
at his mother's house, until they could find means 
again to provide a common house ; that for two 
years previously to the separation, though they 
lived together, no conjugal intercourse took 
place between them, owing to the husband's 
misconduct ; that he left his mother's house 
without telling his wife where he was going, and 
subsequently went to Madras, where he had 

Held by Kennedy J., following Fittgeratd v. 
Fitmgerald (L. Rep. I P. & D. 694), that the 
separation having originally been by mutual 
consent, desertion could not take place until 
cohabitation had been resumed ; desertion not 
being proved, the wife was only entitled to a 
decree for judicial separation. 

Held on appeal, that though where the sepa- 
ration is the act of the wife, or where she of her 
own free will assents to a complete separation, 
there can be no desertion; nor until the husband 
and wife have again cohabited, can subsequent 
conduct transform what was a voluntary sepa- 
ration into desertion by the husband ; yet the 
present was not a case of that kind. The sepa. 
ration was not brought about by the wife, nor 
tn accordance with her wishes, but by the mis- 
conduct of the husband, and that, under the 
circumstances, the desertion was proved, and 
petitioner entitled to a decree for a dissolution 
of marriage. Wood c. WooD...G«rrt, C.J., and 
Markby, J...L L. Rep. S CaL 486 ; 1 CaL 
Rep. 48ft, 1878. 

S. Divorce Act IV, of \lb$, § 14 -Delay 

— Connivance.] Though there is no absolute 
limitation in the case of a petition for dissolu- 
tion of marriage on the ground of the adultery 
of the wife, yet the first thing which the Court 
looks to when the charge of adultery is preferred 
is whether there has been such delay as to lead 
to the conclusion that the husband had either 
connived at the adultery or was wholly indiffer- 
ent to it ; but any presumption arising from 
apparent delay may always be removed by an 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



DIVORCE— contd. 

explanation of the circumstances. That prin- 
ciple is recognized in { 14 of Act IV. of 1869. 
Williams e. Williams. Garth, C.J., Markby 
and Birch, J] ..I. L. Rep. 3 Cal. 638, 1878. 
8. ZWwn* Act IV. of 1S69, s 3, a. »-i 

IO and f 37 — Desertion — Adultery— Judicial 
Separation— Alimony — Form of Decree— Costs .] 
A husband and wife living in British Burmah 
separated in 1861 ; the wife, for reasons of con- 
venience, going to England, but with no inten- 
tion of a permanent separation. After her de- 
parture her husband contracted an adultt 
permanent connection with a Burmese wo 
Which was however, unknown to the wife, a 
as exact information went, until 1875. During 
the separation he kept up cocrespondence w 
his wife, and in some of his letters expressed 
intention of never returning to England ; and 
in 1868 expressed his willingness Ki ail 
wife in obtaining a divorce. 

The husband and wife continued to live apart 
till 1876, when the wife, having received posit! 
information of the adulterous connection formed 
by herhusband,returned toBurmah.not with the 
intentioo of demanding a renewal of conjugal 
relations, but with the view of commencing pro- 
ceedings for a divorce. During the period of 
the separation the only complaint ever made by 
the wife, was as regards the insufficiency of the 
allowance made her by her husband. 

Held, that the wife was not entitled to a 
divorce, but only to a judicial separation, as 
there was no evidence of desertion. 

Desertion, by the Indian Divorce Act (IV. 
of 1869) implies an abandonment against the 
wish of the person charging it, and though 
" abandonment " is not defined, yet the effect of 
that clause is to introduce into the Indi 
Statute Law, the view adopted by the Courts 
in England in construing the English Act. 

The words " against the wish " must be 1 
atrued as meaning, contrary to an actively 
pressed wish of the person charging, and : 
withstanding the resistance or opposition of such 
person, and not simply as meaning an act done 
when the wish of the person affected by 
the other way. 

The decisions of the Probate .and Divorce 
Courts in England, must usually and necessarily 
be a guide to the Courts in India under the 
Divorce Act, except when the facts of any parti- 
cular case, arising out of the peculiar tiicum 



DIVORCE-roMW. 

ances of Anglo-Indian life, constitute a situa- 
>n such as the English Court is not likely to 
ive had in view. 

Even if the permanent adulterous connection 
formed by the husband amounted to desertion, 
uld only have commenced when the wife 
became aware of it. The wife was bound to 
evidence of conduct on her part showing 
unmistakably that such desertion was against 
her will ; in other words, to have taken some 
steps towards the renewal of that intercourse 
which had been so long suspended. This she 
had not done ; the facts, therefore, which were 
relied upon as desertion, amounted only to a 
prolonged and systematic adultery. 
In granting alimony to a wife, the Courts 
ight not, even if they have the power, to tie up 
the property of the husband (he being a mercan- 
nan and requiring the unfettered use of his 
capital), or convert alimony into an absolute 
interest in, and charge upon his estate. Hyde 
v. Hyde (4S. & T. 80) followed. 

With regard to the costs, the Court said {p. 
281) ; " We End that this is an appeal which 
was not unreasonably preferred. There were 
undoubtedly points of difficulty in it, and 
though it is true that the question of cruelty 
was pressed on one side, we must, on the other 
hand, bear in mind the aggravated and unex- 
pected turn given to the case in the Court be- 
low by the charge of misconduct suddenly 
brought against Mr. Fowle (the appellant). 
We think, therefore, in accordance with the 
practice which is laid down in Jones v. Jones 
(L. Rep. 2 P. &. D. 333) that the wife should 
have the reasonable costs of her appeal." To 
give the Courts in this country jurisdiction to 
dissolve a marriage solemnized out of India, the 
adultery complained of must have occurred in 
India. Per Jackson, C.J. (Offg.) Fowls a. 
Fowle. Jackson, C.J., (Offg.), Markby and 
Prinsep, JJ...L L. Rep. 4 Cal. 280 ; 3 C&L 
Sep. 484, 1878. 
DIVORCE ACT IV. OP 1889.—, 3. CI. 
9—55 10 and 37— Desertion— Adultery. 
Sre Divorce. 3. 

Fowle 3. Fowle. ..L L. Rep. 4 
Cal. 260. 

§ 14— Delay. 

See Divorce. 9. 

Williams v. Williams I. L. 

Rep . 3 Cal. 688. 



D.gmzed by G00gle 



DIGEST OF CASES, 

DOWEE- ran«. 



See Probate. 5. 

In tkt Goods of Sir J. Wenyss...L 
L. Bep. 4 CaL 7S1. 



See Pone.1 Code, f 804a. 

Empress c. Safatulla L L. 

Rep. 4 Cal. 810. 

DOMICILE — English — Applicability of Act 
III. of 1874 to Persons having an. 



Alluhodv o. Bra ham I. L. 

Sep. 4 Cal. 140. 

Service under the E. I. Company — Act X. of 

1S65, (( 2, 5, 10.] A Scotchman who had en. 
tend into the service of the East India Company 
and continued in that service after the Act of 
1858 (Hand 22 Vict., CI. 106,) transferring the 
Government of India from the East India Com- 
pany to the Crown was passed, died in 1878, 
leaving a holograph will, which was not attested 
according to the provisions of the Indian Suc- 
cession Act (X. of 1865}, but was admittedly 
good according to the Scotch law. Held, on an 
application for a declaration that the document 
was a good will, and for a grant of probate, that 
the deceased had acquired an Anglo-Indian 
domicile, which he had not lost at the time of his 
death, notwithstanding the Act of 1858 and the 
Succession Act, and, therefore, the will not 
having been properly executed, probate was 
refused. Wauckopt v Wauckopt (4 Court of 
Session Cases, 4th Series, 945,) followed. 

In the Gauds o/EluoT. Pontifex, J I. L. 

Bep. 4 Cal. 108 ; 2 Cal. Bep. 486, 1878. 
DOWER— Alienation by Heir-at- Law— Right 
of Widow to follow Estate into hands of 
ben&fide Purchaser for Value. 

See JCabomedan Law— Eight of 

Creditors to follow the Estate 
of Debtor into the hands of 
a Purchaser, from the Heir. 

SVUD BaYAZET HoSSEIN F. DOOLl 

Ckand «...Il Rep. 5 I. 

A. Sll ; X. L. Bep. 4 
Cal, 402. 



■ " Prompt " and " Deferred " — Custom. 

See Mahomed an Law— Dower. 3. 
Taufik.Nissa v, Ghulau Kam. 

bar I. L. Bep. 1 

AIL 606. 

Prompt and Deferred — Demand — Petition 

for Leave to sue in formi Pauperis — 
Limitation. 
See Hahomedaii Law— Dower. 1. 
Range Khajooroonisa v. Ranee 

Rveesoonis3a L. Bep. 2 

;L A. 235. 

Prompt and Deferred— Right of Wife to 

refuse Cohabitation until Payment of, 
5»Mahomedan Law— Dower. 2. 
ElODAN 11. Mazhar Hussain...L 
L. Bep. 1 All. 483. 
BOVTL.TEHBIBH— Registration.] A dual- 
frhrist, which was merely a memorandum or re- 
cord by the zemindar's agents of the rent which 
had been settled between the zemindar and the 
ryots, and to which the ryots affixed their signa- 
tures in testimony of their admission of the 
19 of. the jumma therein recited as 
having been imposed on them : — Held, not to be 
Contract, or a document which required to be 
either registered or stamped. Gltngapeksad 
v. Gogun Sihoh. yackson and McDonnell, 

JJ LL- Bep.S Cal. 322 ; 1 Cal. 

Bep. 828, 1877. 
DRAWER AND ACCEPTOR OF BILL 
OF EXCHANGE-] oinder of— De- 
fendants. 

See Civil Procedure Code, Act X. 

of 1877, § 22. 
And see Practice— Civil. 6. 

Pestonjhh v. Mirza Maho- 
med., XL. Bop. 3 Cal. 
541. 

DBA WEB AND ACCEPTOR— Of Hundi- 
Residing within Jurisdiction of different 
Courts — Misjoinder of. 
See Procedure- Civil. 1. 

Basant Ram b. Kolahal..,L 
L. Rep. I All. 383. 

DBAWEB, DRAWEE, AND PAYEE 
OF HUNDI- RIGHTS AND LIA- 
BILITIES OF. 
Set Hundi. 2. 



H KAHAKDAS *. DHAFABHAt. 

L L. Rep. 3 Bom. 182. 



D.gmzed by GoOgle 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



DUE DILIGENCE. 

See Execution of Decree. 18. 

SADIK ALI «. Mil HAMAD HUSAIN. 

I. L. Rep. 2 AD. 384. 

DUES FOR RELIGIOUS SERVICES 
FBRFORKED-^t VIII. of 1850, § 32— 
Right to perform Religious Services] A suit 

vices performed ] and if to determine the right 
thereto it becomes necessary to determine in- 
cidentally the right to perform those religious 
services, the Court has jurisdiction to do so. 
Tiru Krishhama Chariarv. Krishna Swaui 
Tata Charia...L. Rep. 61A. 120, 1879 ; 
I. L. Rep. S Had. 62 ; 6 Cal. Rep. SOI. 

DURESS— ,4 voidance of Contract — Principal 
and Agent— Compromise of Criminal Charge- 
Authority.] The agent of the responder 
British subject, who had been employed by the 
respondent to purchase timber for him, placed 
his mark on certain logs of timber, some of which 
had been cut by himself, and some by other per. 
sons who bad been employed by the appellant. 
The appellant thereupon complained to a Siam- 
ese officer, styled binyaiin, under whose orders 
the respondent was arrested, and put into i 
with an iron collar round his neck, and charged 
with having stolen the logs. 

By the terms of the treaty between the British 
and Siamese Governments, it was provided that 
" with reference to the punishment of offences or 
settlement of disputes, it is agreed that all cri- 
minal cases in which both parties are British 
subjects, or in which the defendant is a British 
subject, shall be tried and determined by the 
British Consul." 

While in custody under the above circum- 
stances, and to get rid of the charge of having 
stolen the logs, the respondent's agent made an 
agreement to purchase them from the appellant 
on behalf of the respondent, at a price consider- 
ably above their value : — 

Held, that the respondent was entitled to repu- 
diate the agreement as having been made by his 
agent when under duress; and was entitled to 
recover certain moneys paid and the value of 
certain elephants delivered under it, less the 
value of the appellant's timber which the re- 
spondent had, or might have bad, possession of 
under the agreement. 



DURESS— eontd. 

Held also, that the respondent's agent being 
custody on a criminal charge, had no au- 
thority to part with his employer's property, or to 
^ an agreement to part with it, to relieve 
himself from such a charge. If there had been 
my question of a civil nature, it might have 
been within the scope of his authority as a 
general agent to compromise such a claim, but 
when charged with personal misconduct and 
a crime, which it could not be assumed that his 
principal had authorized, no authority from the 
employer could be implied that his property 
should be handed over to the man making the 
charge, in order to relieve his agent from it. 

Semble — Though by the law of England if a 
man is under lawful imprisonment for a civil 
debt, an agreement made by him while subject 
to restraint is not, by reason of his being so 
subject to it, capable of being avoided, provided 
It be not unconscionable, yet imprisonment in 
a country where there is no settled system of 
law or procedure, and where the Judge is invest- 
ed with arbitrary powers, is duress, which will 
avoid a contract made under such circumstan- 
ces. Moung ShoavAtt v. Ko Byaw L. 

Rep. S I. A. 61, 1876 J L L. Rep. 

lOftLaao. 

DTJRFATHI TALOOK. 

See Patni Talook. 

Brindabun Sircar c. Brindabun 

Dey...!,. Rap. 1 LA. 178. 

DUTY— Ad valorem— on Probate taken out 

after Court Fees Act came into operation. 

See Court Fees. 8. 

Gasper,. .1. L. Rep. 8 Cat 738. 

Ad valorem — Probate — Annuity charged On 

Testator's Estate. 
See Court Fees. 6. 

RusHTuN...I.Xi.Rep. 8 CaL73fl. 

Liability of Property on which— has been 

paid in England, to pay— in India. 
See Administration. 4. 

Morch.,.1. L. Rep. 4 Gal 729. 

Probate — Exemption from. 

See Probate Duty, 3. 

Gladstone... I. L. Rep, 1 Cal. 
168. 

Probate — paid on Probate taken out before 

Act VII. of 1S70, leviable on Probate 
taken out after that Act. 
See Court Fee*. 8. 

Gasper.. . I. L. Rep. 3 Cal. 783. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 



DUTY— cenid. 

— Probate— Annuity charged on Testator's 
Estate. 
See Court F«ea. 9. 

Rushtoh.,.1. L. Bep. S Cal. 
786. 

Probate— Annuity— " Value." 

Set Probate Duty. 1. 

Rasichandra Laksiimasji.,.1. L. 
Bep. 1 Bom. 118. 
DUTY 07 COUBT EXECUTING DE- 
OBEE 07 ANOTHEB COUBT. 
See Execution of Decree. 16. 

Mercer v. Narpat RaI-J. L. 
Bep. 1 All. 780. 
DUTY 07 JUDGE IK FBAMING IB- 
SUES. 
S« Issues. 1. 

Apaya v. Rama I. L. Bep. 3 

Bom. 210. 
DUTY 07 FEBSONS BENDING DAN. 
GEBOUS GOODS. 
See Negligence. 

Lyell o. Ganga Dai .X L. Bep. 

1 AH. eo. 

DVYAMUSHYANA-Onlj Sen of Separa- 
ted Brother. 
See Hindu Law— Adoption. 8. 
Srikati Uha Devi b. Gokool- 
anandDas ..L.Eep. 61. A. 
40 ; I. L. Bep. 8 CaL 687. 
DWELLING. 

See Jurisdiction. 3. 

Fatiha Began o. Sakina Begam. 
I. L,|Bep..l All. 61. 

EASEMENT- Abandonment of. 

See Basement. 1. 
■ Acquisition of. - 



Apparent and Contin nous — Grant of, by 

Implication. 
Sec Easement. 4. 

Artificial Watercourse— Right to Flow of 

Water through. 
See Easement. 4. 
Discontinuance of. 

See Easement. 1. 
Interruption of User. 

See Basement. 1. 
■ Interruption of — Acquiescenoe. 

See Limitation. 48. 

SUBBRAMANIYA « RAHACHAHDRA 

I. L. Bep . 1 Kad. 336, 330. 



EASEMENT— amid. 

Jalkar is not an. 

See Jalkar. 

Parbuttt Nath e. MudhoParok. 
L L. Bep. SCal. 376. 

Light and Air — Appropriation. 

See Light and Air. 

Sarubhai «. Bapi:...I. L. 
Bep. 3 Bom. 660. 
Light and Air — Obstruction to. 
See Mandatory Injunction. 

Jahnaoas p. Atuaram.,1. L. 
Bep. 2 Bom. 133. 
Prescription — Acquisition of Right by. 
See Easement. 1. 

I. Prescription— User— Limitation Act 

IX. of 1871, t a 7 — Abandonment — Discontinu- 
ance.'] In a suit for a declaration of the plaintiffs 
right of way over a blind lane leading from a 
public road to the plaintiff's house, which lane 
the defendant, who resided at the end of the lane, 
had obstructed so as to prevent access to the 
plaintiffs house, it appeared that the house in 
respect of which the easement was claimed be- 
longed in 1S55 to one H. C-, during the time of 
whose occupation there was user of the right of 
way over the lane to the door of the house, but 
that H- C. had had the door bricked up and 
built a wall across, and blocking the entrance 
to the lane. In April 1865 the house was sold' 
by M. C, and in June 1867 was conveyed by the 
purchaser to the plaintiff. From the blocking 
up of the door until the plaintiff's purchase no 
user was proved. The suit was brought in June 
1875, about a month after the erection by the 
defendant of the obstruction complained of : — 
Heldby Phear, J., that supposing there was an 
easement during the earlier part of H- C.'s pos- 
session of the house, it was entirely abandoned 
and intentionally put an end to by him, by the 
blocking up of the door. Without deciding 
what the effect of such abandonment might be, 
qui abandonment, which might perhaps not be 
materially operative until something had been 
done by the defendant on the faith of it, which 
should make the abandonment a cause of estop- 
pel against the plaintiffs preferring his claim ; 
yet the abandonment in the shape of effectually 
stopping up and putting an end to the means 
of access to the land of the defendant had the 
effect of putting an end 10 the continuous enjoy, 
ment of the easement, whether actual or ton. 



Digitized byGOO^Ie 



DIGEST OF CASES. 






stmctive, and, therefore, that the plaintiff had 
(ailed to make out the basis of his right, which 
was necessary to satisfy § 2J of Act IX- of 187: 

Held, on appeal — 1st, that the plaintiff's claim 
to the property in the soil of one-half of the lane, 
on the ground that, it being a road lying be- 
tween his house and his neighbour's, the pre- 
sumption of la