EASEMENT...

Page

App.

66

529

See RIGHT OF WAY.

EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT SALE ON JAGHIRS ...
See SANAD, Rent-free.

ON APPEAL OF WAIVING OBJECTION IN COURT

EQUITY OF.

...

...

...

EQUITY OF REDEMPTION. See REDEMPTION. See REDEMPTION,

174

389

463

252, 619, 708

54

252

RECEPTION OF, IN APPELLATE COURT, App.
See ACT VIII of 1859, s. 355.

EXAMINATION DE BENE ESSE

27

611

Attachment-Partnership-Property-Act VIII of 1859,

s. 205.] A decree-holder, who was also a partner of the judgment-
debtor, sought to attach, in execution of his decree, the share of
the judgment-debtor in the assets of the partnership business, the
business then being in the hands of the Receiver of the Court under
a decree for dissolution and winding up. Held, that such share of
the judgment-debtor was not property within the meaning of section
205 of Act VIII of 1859, and therefore not liable to attachment in
execution.

ABBOTT V. ABBOTT AND CRUMP ...
... 382
-Act VIII of 1859, ss. 233,
234.] A decree-holder in execution attached and seized certain
property which belonged to the judgment-debtor in partnership with
another person, who alone at the time of attachment was in actual

possession. Held, that such property was the subject of attach-
ment in execution of the decree against the one partner, but such
attachment must be limited to his share, and the attachment should
be by prohibitory order, not by actual manual seizure.

Page

...

386

THAMA SING v. KALIDAS ROY
EXECUTION—Attachment and Sale of Moveable Property―—Decree-
holder, Liability of, to Owner of Property wrongly seized and sold
by him.] In execution of a decree against a judgment-debtor, his
right, title, and interest in an elephant was sold. In a suit by a
third party against the decree-holder and the purchaser for recovery
of the elephant or its value, on the ground that the elephant was
his property, and not the property of the judgment-debtor,--
Held, that the decree-holder, as well as the purchaser, was liable
to make good the loss caused by such sale.

KANAI PRASAD BOSE v. HIRACHAND MANU

App.

OF DECREE-Limitation-Purchase of Decree in
Execution-Act XIV of 1859, s. 20.] G. A. obtained a decree
against M. Afterwards L. N., who had obtained a decree against
G. A., attached the decree which he (G. A.) had obtained against
M., and, upon sale in execution, became himself the purchaser of
that decree. It afterwards appeared that the decree held by L. N.
against G. A. was barred by limitation.

Held, that the execution of L. N.'s decree against G. A. being
barred by lapse of time at the time of sale, the sale was invalid.
GOLAM ASGAR V. LAKHIMANI DEBI

...

71

...

68

CONSTRUCTION OF-Absolute Gift-Petition to Collector
for Mutation of Names.] A., a Hindu, living under the Mitak-
shara law, executed a petition to the Collector, stating that he was
in possession of all his ancestral property; that his only son was
dead; that he had no wife; that his son had left a widow, B., and
two daughters, and no other children or heirs; the petitioner went
on to state, "I declare her (B.) my heir; and as with the exception
of the said B., I have no other heir or malik, nor can there be any,
of which circumstances I have already preferred information in
my petition of 16th April 1830, and life is uncertain, I consequently
request that the name of B., the widow of my late son, be registered
in the Collectory mutation book as proprietor and malguzar in the
place of my name, with regard to the property," &c. "Further, as of
B., there are two daughters who, after marriage, by the blessings of
Providence, may be blessed with children; they and their children,
therefore, are and will be heirs and maliks. But as long as I
live, I shall keep the management of my own affairs in my own hands,
and look after all the transactions of dihat, &c., myself, as hereto-
fore." B. sold and conveyed parcels of the property. In a suit by
her daughter's son against the purchasers, for a declaration of his
reversionary right to the property sold, held, that, under the terms
of the petition, there was an absolute gift to B. That as the gift was
not fettered by any restriction, the alienation by B. was good and
valid.

CHATTAR LAL SING v. SHEWUKRAM, alias RAI DURGA PRASAD

123

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, ACTS OF. See ACTS OF GOVERN-
MENT OFFICIALS.

401

529

442

194

GROWING CROPS

...

See ACT XI of 1865, s. 19.
GUARANTEE-Statute of Frauds (29 Car. II.), c. 3, s. 4—21 Geo.
Ill., c. 70, s. 17.] A contract of guarantee is a "matter of contract
and dealing" within the terms of section 17 of 21 Geo. III., c. 70,

and therefore such a contract made by a Hindu is not affected by
section 4 of the Statute of Frauds. When a defendant raises a
claim of set-off, on the trial of that issue, he must be considered as
plaintiff.

SRIMATI JAGADAMBA DASI v. J. M. GROB
HABEAS CORPUS—Minor-Discretion-Return-Affidavit--Amend-
ment.] The return to a writ of habeas corpus must be taken to
be true, and cannot be controverted by affidavit. In England,
56 George III, c. 100, s. 4, allows affidavits to be used to contro-
vert the return in criminal matters, but that Statute does not apply
to this country.

The return to a writ of habeas corpus can, however, be amended.
A girl, under sixteen years of age, has not such a discretion as
enables her, by giving her consent, to protect any one from the
criminal consequences of inducing her to leave the protection of a
lawful guardian; but where the return to the writ of habeas corpus
stated that a girl was above the age of sixteen (though her mother
stated her to be of the age of thirteen years and nine months), the
Court held that she was of years of discretion to choose for herself
under whose protection she would remain.

THE QUEEN V. VAUGHAN. IN THE MATTER OF S. M. GANESH
SUNDARI DEBI, alias MANI...

...

--Return, Contradiction of-Mahomedan Law-
Marriage--Custody of Wife-Minor.] The return to a writ of
habeas corpus is not necessarily conclusive, and does not preclude
enquiry into the truth of the matters alleged therein, although 56
George III., c. 100, does not apply to this country.

By Mahomedan law the mother is entitled to the custody of a
female child, although married, until she has attained puberty.

Where a husband applied that his wife, stated in the return to a
writ of habeas corpus to be "an infant under the age of sixteen
years, to wit, of the age of eleven years or thereabouts," might be
delivered over into his custody, the Court, on the ground that she
had not attained the age of puberty, and that her dower had not
been paid, refused to order her to be taken from the custody of the
mother, although the mother had taken her away secretly, in the
absence of her father and husband from Bandari, where they were
all living together, to Calcutta.

HEIR

IN THE MATTER OF KHATIJA BIBI

...

See HINDU LAW.

Page

639

418

557

15

HIGH COURT, INTERFERENCE BY, IN CASE COGNI-
ZABLE BY SMALL CAUSE COURT

...

See JURISDICTION.

POWER OF

See APPEAL TO PRIVY COUNCIL. See STATUTE 24 AND 25
VICT., c. 104, s. 15.

See STATUTE 24 AND 25 VICT., c. 104. s. 15.
HIGHWAY-Criminal Procedure Code (Act XXV of 1861), s. 320
-Civil Court Jurisdiction.] The Magistrate had, on the com-
plaint of the defendant, passed an order, under section 320 of the

D

Page

Criminal Procedure Code, forbidding the plaintiff to retain possession
of a piece of land to the exclusion of the public, until he had obtained
the decision of a competent Court adjudging him to be entitled to
such exclusive possession.

The plaintiff, accordingly, brought his suit in the Moonsiff's Court
to recover possession of the land. The Moonsiff gave him a decree
for exclusive possession of the land. On appeal, the Judge held
that the Moonsiff had no jurisdiction to try the question whether
the public had a right of way over the land. The Judge's decision
was reversed in special appeal, and the case remanded to the Judge
to try the issue, whether the plaintiff was entitled to the exclusive
use of the land.

MAHESCHANDRA MOOKERJEE v. RAMUTAM PALIT

App.

68

HINDU AGE OF MAJORITY. See MAJORITY, Age of, of HinNDUS.

-Gift-Religious Endowment-Trustee with Power of
Appointment—Deed of Endowment—Failure to appoint new Trustee
-Reversion to the Heirs of the Endower.] A., a Hindu, by a
deed of wukfnama (deed of endowment), after reciting that he had
"erected and prepared a thakurbari (temple) and the image of
thakur (idol), and also a sadavart (alms-house), and had, in way of
wulf (endowed property), dedicated certain property for the per-
formance of the puja (worship) of the said thakur and repairing of
the house, flower garden and thakurbari, and appointed his sister,
B., the manager and matwali (trustee) of the same, authorized B.
to spend the profits in the performance of the puja, &c. As for
the future, she (B.) should appoint such person to be the manager
and matwali as may be found by her to be fit, &c.; and in like man-
ner all successive matwalis should have right of appointing suc-
cessively matwalis. To these his heirs should not have right to pre-
fer any claim, &c." B. died without having appointed any matwali
(trustee) to succeed her in the management of the trust. On a
suit by the heir of B. to obtain possession of the property covered
by the deed against the heirs of A., held, that the managership,
on failure of appointment of a trustee, reverted to the heirs of the
person who endowed the property.

...

MUSSAMUT JAI BANSI KUNWAR v. CHATTER DHARI SING
Heir- Paternal Uncle's Daughter's Son-Sapinda.]
A father's brother's daughter's son is entitled to be recognized as
an heir according to the Hindu law current in the Bengal School.
GURU GOBIND SHAHA MANDAL v. ANAND LAL GHOSE
MAZUMDAR

...

Inheritance-Mitakshara-Great-grandson-Sapinda-

The great-

Gentile― Bandhu-Cognate-Father's Sister's Son.]
grandson of the great-great-great-grandfather of the deceased is,
according to the Mitakshara, a nearer heir to the deceased thau
his father's sister's son.

THAKUR JIBNATH SING V. THE COURT OF WARDS; THE
COURT OF WARDS U. THAKUR JIBNATH SING.

585

181

15

442