Page images
PDF
EPUB

...

.

... 557

...

Page
RETURN, CONTRADICTION OF

See IIABEAS CORPUS.
OF PLAINT

App 15
See STAMPS.
REVENUE, BOARD OF

135
See PARTITION.

COURT, CONVICTION BY MAGISTRATE FOR
PRACTISING AS MOOKTAR IN, WITHOUT CERTI.
FICATE...

App. 89
See Act XX of 1865, s. 34.

JURISDICTION OF-Benami Lease-Land-
lord and Tenant-Act X of 1859.] A. brought a suit in the Col-
lector's Court against B., C., D., and E., for arrears of rent in respect
of land demised under a potta to F. He joined G. and H. as defend-
ants. According to the terms of the potta, they were sureties for
F. It was admitted that F.'s name was used benami in the potta,
and that he took no interest. A. sued B., C., D., and E., as the
parties interested and in possession. C. objected that a new settle-
ment had been made, and a new potta granted; that he held a
moiety only of the lands, and was not liable for more; and that D.
was his ryot, and ought not, therefore, to have been made a defend-
ant. D. and E. contended that they were liable in respect of the
lot comprised under the pott:), and had already paid rent for it to
A. under a decree, but objected that they ought to have been sued
separately from B., and C. B. did not appear. The lower Court
held that C. had failed to make out his case, and that D. and E. were
liable in this suit, and passed a decree, ordering them to pay the
amount admitted by them to be due from them; and the other
defendants to pay the remainder of the claim. C. appealed. On the
appeal, Peacock, C. J. (Mitter, J., contra), held, that the plaintiff's
suit must be dismissed, the lease being to F., and not to the defend-
ants; that the Court below had founded its decision on matters
extraneous to the lease, which it had no jurisdiction to enquire
into. C. appealed under section 15 of the Letters Patent.

Held, by KEMP and Jackson, JJ., that the Collector had full juris-
diction to entertain the suit, which was properly brought against
those who were in the actual possession of the land, and that these
persons were really the tenants ; that the form of the decree passed
by the Collector was correct, the plaintiff having consented to the
decree being given in that form ; that the sureties had really made
themselves responsible for those who were really interested under
the lease, and not for F.

Held by Norman, J. (dissenting), that the terms of the lease
under which F. was alone interested could not be contradicted by
oral evidence; that F. alone was bound to the lessor under the lease;
that the defendants could not be sued as tenants, unless, subse-
quent to the potta and kabuliat, something had occurred creating
the relation of landlord and tenant between them and the lessor;
that no such relation or any contract creating such relation between
the parties could be implied from the circumstances of the case,
and the suit should be dismissed. The Revenue Court had, there-
fore, no jurisdiction. But whether in the Revenue or Civil Court,
D. and E. could not be sued jointly with B. and C., nor could G.
and H.
BEPINBEHARI CHOWDARY V. RAMCHANDRA Ror

234
SALE, PURCHASER AT

546
See Act I of 1845, s. 21.

Page

...

SALE OF GOODS

See Cont

...

508

REVERSIONARY HEIRS

See Hindu Widow.
REVERSIONER

See Hindu Law.
REVERSIONERS, SUIT BY

See LIMITATION.

[blocks in formation]

REVIEW

See STATUTE 24 AND 25 Vict., c. 104, s. 15. "See Bena-

316, 321

MI PURCHASE.

[ocr errors]

...

App. 29

of Production of
Limitation- Acknoo
plaintiffs in Londo
which consisted in t
tions to the plaintif
as to price, the det
of such goods, which
that there was an ag
in case of shipment
they should at their
or treat them as con
defendant denied the
made several shipme
plaintiffs treated the
selling them on de
sales, and drawing b
them in the transac-
The plaintiffs forw
which appeared an i
rent down to Dec
however, in respect
letter, dated 22nd
tained the following
of £40 to old accou
the balance due to t
ments which had b
the defendant's accou
The suit was brough
he had sold the bills
produced by the plai

Hell, that the bill
date, and the defen

Apr. 18

.617

...

use.

[ocr errors]

AND APPEAL, ARGUMENTS ON

585
See LIMITATION.

OF ORDER REFUSING PETITION TO SUE IN
FORMA PAUPERIS

See STATUTE 24 AND 25 Vict., c. 104, S. 15.
RIGHT TO BE HEARD ÎN APPEAL. See Co-RESPONDENT'S
RIGAT TO BE HEARD IN APPEAL.
OF PRESCRIPTION. See PRESCRIPTION.

PURCHASER
See Act VIII or 1865 (B. C.), s. 16.

SHEBAIT
See SHEBAIT OF HINDU IDOL.
USER. See USER.

WAY-Easement-Limitation-Act XIV of 1859.) A
right of way over the land of another must be kept up by constant

After a discontinuance of such use for a period of six years,
no suit can be brought to re-establish it.
HARIDAS Nandi v. JADUNATH Dutt

App. 66
Questions of Fact]
MAHOMED ALI v. JUGAL RAM CHUNDER
RIGHTS OF HOLDER OF FRACTIONAL SE E, PUR-
CHASER OF

See Act VIII of 1865 (B. C.), s. 16.

PROPRIETORS TO ACCRETION

See DiLUVIATION OF LAND.
RULES FOR INTERPRETATION

1
See Will,
SALAMI

App. 1
See INSTALMENT-BOND.
SALE. See INTERIM INJUNCTION.
OF ANCESTRAL PROPERTY

App.
See MITAKSHARA.
· BY COLLECTOR

See MOVEABLE PROPERTY.
EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT, ON JAGHIRS

See Sanad RENT-FREE.
IN EXECUTION OF DECREE

See Official AssiGNEE. See REDEMPTION, EQUITY OF.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

no demand for paym
bad been paid by the

In exercising the
limits as on their op
the defendant, the
separately, and were
shipments taken all

T'he account sal.
were primâ facie es
the goods.

Held also (on ar
words “remittance
did not necessarily i
stitute an acknowlec
period of limitation
SHEARMAN v. 1
MOVEABI

See Execu
REVENUE

See Act I
SHIP
See Botto

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Page
111

[ocr errors]

SALE OF GOODS

See CONTRACT.

Bills of Erchange, Presumption of Payment
of-Production of, by Acceptor-Account Sales-Evidence-
Limitation-AcknowledgmentAct XIV of 1859, 8. 4.] The
plaintiffs in London and the defendant in Calcutta had dealings,
which consisted in the defendant shipping jute cuttings and rejec-
tions to the plaintiffs in certain quantities and within certain limits
as to price, the defendant drawing bills on the plaintiffs in respect
of such goods, which the plaintiffs accepted. The plaintiffs alleged
that there was an agreement between them and the defendant, that
in case of shipments in excess of the limits given by the plaintiffs,
they should at their option receive the goods on their own account,
or treat them as consignments on account of the defendant, but the
defendant denied there was any such arrangement. The defendant
made several shipments in excess of the plaintiffs' limits, and the
plaintiffs treated them as consignments on the defendant's account,
selling them on defendant's account and forwarding him account
sales, and drawing bills on the defendant for any balance due to
them in the transactions, which bills the defendant refused to pay.
The plaintiffs forwarded accounts current to the defendant, in
which appeared an item of £188-5-6 as the balance of account cur-
rent down to December 1866. It appeared to have been due,
however, in respect of an account for 1863. The defendant sent a
letter, dated 22nd December 1865, to the plaintiffs, which con-
tained the following postscript:—" P. S.—Enclosed a remittance
of £40 to old account.' In an action brought by the plaintiffs for
the balance due to them from the defendant in respect of the ship-
ments which had been treated by the plaintiffs as consignments on
the defendant's account, the plaintiffs included the sum of £188-5-6.
The suit was brought in November 1868. The defendant admitted
he had sold the bills and received the money for them; they were
produced by the plaintiffs, the acceptors.

Held, that the bills being produced by the acceptors after due
date, and the defendant having received no notice of dishonor, and
no demand for payment of the bills, the presumption was that they
had been paid by the plaintiffs.

In exercising their option of treating shipments in excess of their
limits as on their own account, or as consignments on account of
the defendant, the plaintiffs were entitled to treat each shipment
separately, and were not compelled to decide on an average of the
shipments taken all together.

The account sales furnished by the plaintiffs to the defendant
were primâ facie evidence of the amount realized by the sale of
the goods.

Held also (on appeal, reversing the decision of Norman, J.), the
words “remittance of £40 to old account” were ambiguous, and
did not necessarily import that a further sum was due, so as to con-
stitute an acknowledgment of a debt, which would give a
period of limitation.

SHEARMAN v. FLEMING .
MOVEABLE PROPERTY...

App.
See ExeCUTION.
REVENUE

See Act I or 1845, s. 21.
SHIP

See BOTTOMRY BOND-HOLDER.

new

619

71

...

546

...

258

Page
SALE OF TENURE FOR ARREARS

App. 18
See Act VIII of 1865 (B. C.), s. 16.
SANAD, RENT-FREE-Jaghir and Service Tenures-Resumption

Power of Zemindar to resume- Gorernment Sale, Effect of, on
Jaghirs-Admission in other Suit when Evidence.] In 1775 a rent-
free sanad was granted to M. for having put down wild elephants,
the consideration in future being to cultivate and keep up a body
of men, and take care of the ryots. M. died, and a fresh sanad
was in 1786 granted to K. and R., they being thought to be his
heirs ; but in 1807, M.'s true heirs having established their title,
the Government gave them a fresh sanad in lieu of the one to K.
and R., reciting the circumstances; both these sanads were to cul-
tivate, keep up a body of men, keep off elephants, and attend to
the safety of the ryots. Held that this was not a service tenure
that could be resumed, and the subject of service tenures was ex.
plained.

The zemindari in which these lands were situated was settled in
1802, and was in 1850 sold for arrears of Government revenue ;
the appellant claimed to set aside the sanad of 1807, on the ground
that Government had no right to give such a sanad, but he con-
tended that, if it had, it could be set aside by a purchaser at a
Government sale. Held, that the sanad was not a new grant, but a
confirmation of the one made before the decennial settlement, and
that Government was competent to give such confirmation.

An admission by a jaghirdar in a suit brought by Government to
assess the lands that the lands were comprised in a zemindari, is
evidence of that fact in a suit by the zemindar to resume those
lands.
ALEXANDER JOIN FORBES v. Mir MAHOMED TAKI ...

529
SAPINDA

15, 442
See Hindu Law.
SATISFACTION OF DECREE

223
See Act VIII of 1859, s. 206.
SCINDE RAILWAY ACT, 1857

195
See AGENT.
SEAL

See Agent.
SEIZURE

App 31
See Pledgee.
OF MOVEABLE PROPERTY

App 27
See Act VIII of 1859, s. 233.
SERVICE AND JAGIIIR TENURES

529
See SANAD, RENT-FREE.
SET-OFF

App. 1
See InstalMENT-BOND.
SIIAREHOLDER

App. 37
See Act VIII of 1865 (B. C.), s. 16.
SHEBAIT OF HINDU IDOL-Right of a Shebait not Transferable.]

The right of a shebait of a Hindu 'idol to perform the services
and receive the customary remuneration is not transferable, and
cannot be sold in satisfaction of a decree against the shebait.
Dubo MissER v. SRINIBAS MISSER

617
SHIP, SALE OF

258
See BOTTOMRY BOND-HOLDER.

[ocr errors]

...

...

...

...

...

...

... 195

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

[ocr errors]

..

...

57

...

...

...

Page
SIGNATURE AND VERIFICATION ...

App. 89
See PLAINT.
SISTER

App. 87
See Hindu Law.
PROMISED BY BROTHER TO GIVE IN MARRIAGE 395

See CONTRACT.
SMALL CAUSE COURT. See REFERENCE FROM
ACT (MOFUSSIL)

App.
See Act XI of 1865, s. 21.
ACTS

500
See MAHOMEDAN LAW.

INTERFERENCE OF HIGH COURT
IN CASE COGNIZABLE BY

App. 91
See JURISDICTION.
SPECIAL APPEAL

App. 44, 91
See Act X OF 1859, s. 13. See JURISDICTION.

--Objection not taken in the Courts below.] The
High Court allowed objections to be taken by a defendant which
had not been taken in either of the lower Courts.
Bhuban CINDRA SHOME V. RAMDYAL SHAMANTA

App

62
SPECIALLY REGISTERED BOND, POWER OF COURT TO
ALTER TERMS OF

167
See Act XVI OF 1864, s.
STAMP— Promissory Note.] A. B., by an instrument in writing,

dated 6th August, promised to pay C. D., “ on demand," rupees
4,310-13-3. In the margin of the instrument was written "due
30th August," and annexed to A. B.'s signature, was the following
memo. :-" The sum of rupees 4,310-12-6 only; forty-five days from
the 5th of August.” Held, that the instrument was properly stamped
as a promissory note payable on demand, and ought to have been
admitted in evidence.

Per Peacock, C. J.--A promissory note payable on demand
ought to be stamped as such, notwithstanding there may be a col-
lateral agreement between the parties that the holder will not pre-
sent it for a given time, or if paid on demand that the (maker) shall
be entitled to discount.
CHANDRAKANT MOOKERJEE v. KARTICKCHARAN CHAILE

103
INSUFFICIENT- Plaint, Return of- Act VIII of 1859,
8. 30—Jurisdiction.] Held in special appeal that the lower Appellate
Court was right in setting aside the proceedings of the Moonsiff,
on the ground that the property in suit was valued at an amount
beyond his jurisdiction; but the plaintiff was entitled to have the
plaint returned to him that he might present it with the proper
additional stamp before the proper Court.
MUSSAMAT IADU v. Sheikh HIFAZAT HOSSEIN

App.
WANT OF-Act X of 1862, s. 14- Act VIII of 1859, s. 350
- Appeal.] An Appellate Court has no power to reverse the judg-
ment of a Court of first instance merely on the ground that the
document on which the suit was based did not bear a stamp at all,
SRINATH SAHA v. SARODA GOBINDO CHOWDHRY

App. 10
STATUTE 29 CAR. II, c. 3, s. 4

639
See GUARANTEE.

15

...

« PreviousContinue »