Page

550

508

...

...

176

...

...

...

401

...

...

64

44

...

several of the acceptances were dishonoured by the defendant,
and the plaintiffs at his request allowed him to renew the bills.
Some renewals took place in August and September 1866. In
March, May, and July 1866 the defendant made purchases from
the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs made purchases from the defendant.
The plaintiffs were in the habit of closing their accounts on 30th
June in each year. In an action for balance of account brought
on 24th February 1870, held, that the parties were merchants and
traders having mutual dealings under section 8 of Act XIV of 1859.
The year mentioned in section 8 of Act XIV of 1859 is intended
to be reckoned from the time when the balance of accounts is struck.
In this case that was the 30th June 1867; the suit therefore was
not barred.

Quære.--What would be the operation of the section in those
cases in which the merchant or trader balances his accounts at
the lapse of a period of less than one year ?

SRINATH Das v. Park Pittar.
NECESSITY

See Hindu Widow:

LEGAL

See Hindu Law.
NEGLIGENCE

See LANDLORD AND TENANT.
NON-APPEARANCE. See DISMISSAL OF Petition FOR
OF PARTIES

App.
See Act VIII OF 1859, s. 110.
NOTICE

App.
See Act X OF 1859, s. 13.
NUISANCE, REMOVAL OF

See Act XXV OF 1861, s. 62.
NUZZUR

App:
See InstaLMENT-BOND.
OBJECTION IN COURT BELOW, WAIVING

See PRACTICE.

NOT TAKEN IN LOWER COURT App.

See SPECIAL APPEAL.
OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE-Vesting Order--Sale in Execution of

Decree-- Auction-purchaser— Priority - Act XXIII of 1861,
8. 15—Act VIII of 1859, ss. 221, 232, 240, 242, 351– Insolvent
Act (11 & 12 Vict., c. 21 ), ss. 7, 49.] In September 1867, A.
obtained a decree against B.; and on 12th January 1868 caused a

.
piece of land to be attached in execution. On 17th April 1868, it
was sold by order of the Zilla Judge, and bought by C. Before
this, however, the judgment-debtor B. had filed his petition in the
Insolvent Court; and on the 6th March 1868, a vesting order was
made. On 24th July 1868, the Official Assignee sold the premises
by the order of the Insolvent Court.

The purchaser at the last mentioned sale now sued to recover the
property from the purchaser at the sale in execution of A.'s decree.

Held, per Couch, C. J., BAYLEY, KEMP, and Jackson, JJ.,
that the vesting order passed the property to the Official Assignee,
subject to being divested by a sale in execution of the decree ; that
the sale in execution by order of the Zilla Judge was legal, not-
withstanding the vesting order ; that the purchaser at the sale in
execution of the decree acquired a good title to the property, and

...

131

..

1

570

62

Page

...

...

a

the purchaser at the sale by order of the Insolvent Court had no
right to recover it from him. The attaching creditor had a right to
have the attached property sold, and the money realized by the
sale paid to him.

Per Phear, J.-The jurisdiction of the Zilla Judge to order the
sale was not affected by the vesting order; but before making the
order for sale, the Official Assignee should be heard ; and unless
special reason be shown, upon the Official Assignee's application,
the execution proceedings should be stayed or set aside. In the
present case it must be assumed that the Judges made the order
for sale in due course, and, consequently, that sale operated to pass
the property out of the hands of the Official Assignee into those of
the auction-purchaser.
ANAND Chandra Pal v. PANCHILAL SARMA

691
OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE, PRIORITY OF

309
See DistrESS.
OPERATION OF VESTING ORDER, TIME OF

309
See DISTRESS.
ORDER, PROHIBITORY

App. 81
See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Code
REVIEW OF

App. 29
See Statute, 24 & 25 Vict., c. 104, s. 15.
PARDANASHIN-Suit to close Windows.] The defendants having

opened certain windows, and erected a verandah in their house,which
commanded a view of the plaintiffs' female apartments, the plaintiffs
brought a suit against them to have the windows closed, and the
verandah removed.
Held, that no such suit was maintainable.
MAHOMED Abdur Rahim v. BIRJAI SAHU ...

676
PARTIES—Act VIII of 1859, ss. 73, 350—Act XXVII of 1860, s. 4–

Adding Parties-- Irregularity in an Interlocutory Order not affect-
ing Merits of the Case--Certificate of Administration-Suit by
Co-heir against Holder of Certificate of Administration- Parties
to Suit for Account of an Estate against Holder of Certificate.] In
a suit against a co-heir, who had obtained a certificate under Act
XXVII of 1860, for an account of the estate of the deceased
proprietor, a third party was added as a defendant, under section
73 of Act VIII of 1859, “ it appearing, from the accounts put in,
that a large portion of the assets had been disposed of by him as
agent" of the holder of the certificate. On appeal, held, that a
co-heir is entitled to follow property of the deceased into the hands
of any person who has misappropriated it, and such right is not
taken away by the certificate. Therefore, any person who, with
the consent of the holder of the certificate, has improperly possessed
himself of property belonging to the deceased, and misappropriat-
ed it, may be joined as a co-defendant. The third party was
rightly so joined in this case.

The words in section 73 of Act VIII of 1859, “ who may be
likely to be affected by the result," construed to mean “ likely to
be affected, if added as parties.".
NGA THA YA O. KHAN MHAW

Page 33.] On 12th June 1867, some of the proprietors of an estate applied to the Collector for a partition under Regulation XIX of 1814. On the same day, the Collector issued a notice to all the shareholders, including the plaintiff in this suit, calling upon them to come in within one month, and show such cause, and offer such objections, &c., as they should think fit. It did not appear that the plaintiffs did come in or did anything upon this. Similar applications were made by other shareholders. On 19th August 1867, the Collector drew out a tabular statement, purporting to be in pursuance of section 4, Regulation XIX of 1814. In it was a column giving the shares into which the expenses of the partition were to be divided. On the same day, a notice was issued to the proprietors, ordering them to pay their respective quotas of the expenses accordingly. It was said by the defendants that the apportionment was confirmed by the Commissioner on the 20th January 1868. On the 6th March 1868, it was ordered by the Collector that a proclamation should be issued in accordance with paragraph 4 of section 5 of Act XI of 1859, directing the plaintiffs, as defaulters in two sums of rupees 251-3-2 and 9-9-6, to pay the Government revenue. On the 28th March, such proclamation was issued accordingly. Subsequently, one of the plaintiffs came in, and offered to pay all that was then due and outstanding. His application was rejected ; and on the same day, the 8th April, the sale proceeded, and the whole interest of the plaintiff's was sold for rupees 16,900. The plaintiffs appealed to the Commissioner, but their appeal was dismissed. The plaintiffs, therefore, brought a suit against the purchasers and the Collector for recovery of the property and for cancelment of the sale.

Held, that the sale was void. There was no arrear of Government revenue justifying a sale under Acts XI of 1838 and XI of 1859, section 5. There could be no arrear until demand after sanction by the Board of Revenue and by the Lieutenant-Governor of the estimate of expenses prepared by the Collector, and fixed by the Commissioner. The Board must give its sanction in each case, and the defendants failed to show that it had done so. But even if the Commissioner had power to finally determine the amount and date of payment, it was not shewn that he had done so, or supposing that he had, that any fresh demand had been made upon the parties liable.

Per Bayley, J.-The completion of the partition is not necessary
under Act XI of 1838 before the amount of unpaid expenses can
become an arrear realizable by sale.

Semble.—The Government need not give its sanction in each
case, but a “general” sanction will be sufficient.
Har Gopal Das v. Ram Golam Sahu

135 PARTNER, ADULTERY OF, WITH WIFE OF CO-PARTNER 109

See PARTNERSHIP, DISSOLUTION OF. PARTNERSHIP ...

382, 386 See Execution.

DISSOLUTION OF- Adultery of Partner with
Wife of Co-partner.] Adultery of one partner with the wife
of his co-partner is a sufficient ground for dissolution of the
partnership.
ABBOTT v. CRUMP

109 PATERNAL UNCLE'S DAUGHTER'S SON

15 See Hindu Law. PAYMENT OF BILLS OF EXCHANGE, PRESUMPTION OF 619

See SALE OF Goods.

Page

0

Act IX entitled t of the sui

BHIN POSSESSION

S

...

App. 12

652

PAYMENT OUT OF COURT

2:23
See Act VIII or 1859, s. 206.
PENAL CODE, s. 174

100
See Contempt of Court.
PERIOD OF ENJOYMENT NECESSARY TO CREATE A
RIGHT OF USER

174
See USER.
PERMANENT ALIMONY. See ALIMONY.
PERMISSIVE POSSESSION

See PRESCRIPTION.
PERPETUAL LEASE

See MOKURRARI ISTEMRARI Potta.
PETITION. See DISMISSAL OF PetitioN FOR NON-APPEARANCE.

OF APPEAL TO PRIVY COUNCIL-See APPEAL to Prive Council.

UNDER s. 15, LETTERS PATENTTime for presenting the Petition--Practice-Suit for Enhancement of Rent-Act X of 1859, s. 4-Pleading] Per NORMAN and Hobhouse, JJ. (Bayley, J., dissenting), held that, in the present case, the defendant had not either in the written statement filed by him or by his statements in examination raised the question, Whether he was entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of Act X of 1859.

Per Peacock, C. J., and Kemp and MACPHERSON, JJ.-A petition of appeal, under section 15 of the Letters Patent, from a decision

of an Appellate Division Bench, may be presented within thirty · days from the time when the written judgments of the Division

Bench are put in. The difference of practice on the Original and
Appellate Jurisdictions of the High Court contrasted.
Harrak Sing 0. Tulsi Ram Sahu

47
TO COLLECTOR FOR MUTATION OF NAMES... 123
See Gift.

SUE IN FORMA PAUPERIS, REVIEW OF
ORDER REFUSING

See Statute 24 and 25 Vict., c. 104, s. 15.
PLAINT-Signature and Verification-Practice.] Where the plain-

tiffs described themselves as lately carrying on business under the
name of C. and Co., held, that there was no irregularity in the
plaint being signed by C. and Co., and verified only by A. B.,
one of the partners.
Robert Lachlan v. SHAIKH ABDULLA

App.
RETURN OF

See STAMP.
PLEADER

App.
See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE.
PLEADING ...

47 See Petition OF APPEAL UNDER s. 15, LETTERS PATENT. PLEDGEE-Possession-Seizure--Interpleader Suit- Costs.]

obtained a decree in the Small Cause Court against B. In execution of the decree, goods belonging to B., but in the possession of a pledgee, were seized by a bailiff of the Small Cause Court. The pledgee brought an interpleader suit under section 88 of

See Cen:

...

REGISTERED I

See Act

HIGII See App:

App. 29

23 V

See STATU MAGIST See Act I

89

App. 15

See CRIMIN

SUBORD See CONTEX ZEMIND.

...

See SAND,

PRACTICE

A.

See Plaist.

Act VIII of below, Effect of an A Possession of Estate as good objection, such as a

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Page
Àct IX of 1850 to recover the goods. Held, the pledgee was
entitled to have the goods released to him, and to have the costs
of the suit paid by the execution-creditor.
BHINJI GAVINJI V. MANOHAR Das

App. 31
POSSESSION

708
See Act

VIII
of 1859, s. 230.

... App. 31, 86
See Pledgee. See REGISTRATION.
ADVERSE

585
See LIMITATION.
OF LAND, SUIT FOR

App. 50
See Act III OF 64 (B. C.), s. 87.
PERMISSIVE...

App 12
See PRESCRIPTION.
SUIT FOR CONFIRMATION OF

321
See BENAMI PURCHASE.
POTTA

652
See MokurrarI ISTEMRARI.
AND KABULIAT, UNREGISTERED

App. 1
See INSTALMENT-BOND.
POWER OF APPOINTMENT

181
See Hindu Law.

COURT AS TO EXECUTION OF A DECREE ... 467
See Act VIII of 1859, ss. 208, 284, 285, 287, 290.
OF SESSION

660
See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE.

TO ALTER TERMS OF SPECIALLY
REGISTERED BOND

167
See Act XVI of 1864, s. 51.
HIGH COURT

76, 316
See APPEAL TO Privy COUNCIL. Sce STATUTE 24 AND
25 Vict., c. 104, s. 15.

App. 29
See STATUTE 24 and 25 Vict., c. 104, s. 15.
MAGISTRATE
See Acr XXV of 1861, s. 62.

App. 48
See CriminaL PROCEDURE Code, s. 435.
SUBORDINATE MAGISTRATE

100
See CONTEMPT OF COURT.
ZEMINDAR TO RESUME

529
See SANAD, RENT-FREE.
PRACTICE
See Petition of APPEAL UNDER S. 15, LETTERS Patent.

App. 89
See PLAINT.

Act VIII of 1859, s. 2- Waiving Objection in Court
below, Effect of an Appeal—Form of Decree against Widow in
Possession of Estate as Security for Dower.) Where a party has a
good objection, such as an absence of tender before suit, to urge to

...

131

...

47