Page images
PDF
EPUB

Page

On a reference from the Sessions Judge, on the ground that the
proceedings were irregular under section 66, Act XXV of 1861,
and that, therefore, the order of the Deputy Magistrate was with-
out jurisdiction, held, that the petition was sufficient, and that the
Magistrate was justified in making over the petition to a Deputy
Magistrate, who had the full powers of a Magistrate, for enquiry
and trial.

The Queen v. UMESH CHANDRA CHOWDHRY
ACT-1861-XXV, ss. 68, 77

See MAGISTRATE.

160

274

s. 171

...

100

S. 320

68

[ocr errors]

155

10

...

55

...

...

305

See CONTEMPT OF Court.

App.
See HIGAWAY.

ss. 407, 426. See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Code,
ss. 407, 426.
-1862–VI (B. C.), s. 17

See MoveABLE PROPERTY.
-X, s. 14

App.
See STAMP.
-1863–XX

App
See Suit FOR DECLARATION OF TRUSTS OF TEMPLE.

--XXI, ss. 27, 39.— Appeal-Jurisdiction-- Value of Suit-
Value of Decree.] The Recorder of Moulmein, in trying an
administration suit, valued at rupees 13,000, found as to rupees 6,000
in value of the property claimed that it did not exist. The value
of the amount decreed by him amounted to rupees 7,000.

Held that, under Act XXI of 1863, sections 27 and 39, the
appeal lay in the first instance to the High Court, and not to the
Privy Council.

HAWABI v. IBRAHIM SALI BHAY DAPTI
--1864—III (B. C.), s. 87— Act VIII of 1859, s. 2- Res
judicataLimitation-Suit against Municipal Commissioners for
Possession of Land.] Previous to the institution of the present
suit, one of the shareholders of a piece of land brought a suit
against the Chairman of the Municipality for recovery of possession
of his share. The other shareholders were made pro formâ defend-
ants in the suit. This suit was dismissed as barred by the Law of
Limitation. After the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff brought
the present suit for recovery of his share of the land, on the allega-
tion that his tenant had relinquished the land within three months
in consequence of his having been dispossessed by the Municipal
Commissioners.

Held, that the suit was not barred by section 2, Act VIII of 1859;
and that section 87, Act III of 1864 (B. C.), did not apply.

Semble.--Act III of 1864, s. 87 (B. C.), relates only to actions
brought in respect of acts done by the Commissioner under that
Act for the purpose of the Act.
H. PRICE V. KHILAT CHANDRA GHOSE

App.
-XVI, s. 51--Act XX of 1866, s. 53--Act VIII of 1859,
s. 194—- RegistrationBondPower of Court to alter Terms of a
Specially Registered Bond.] By a bond specially registered under
Act XVI of 1864, the obligor stipulated to pay the entire amount
secured thereby, with interest at the rate therein mentioned, on a
day therein mentioned. There was a further stipulation that, on

50

[ocr errors]

...

...

...

...

$.

Page
default of payment, the bond was to be enforced as a decree. On
failure of payment, the obligee applied for execution under sec-
tion 53, Act XX of 1866, but the Subordinate Judge ordered the
payment to be made by instalments. On an application to the
High Court under section 15 of the Charter Act, held, that the
Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to pass a decree on the bond
altering or varying its terms. Section 194, Act VIII of 1859, did
not apply.
KHETTRA MOHAN BABOO v. RASHBEHARI BABOO

167
ACT-1864-XXVI

500
See MAHOMEDAN Law.

111
See CONTRACT.
s. 8

App. 23, 24
See REFERENCE FROM SMALL CAUSE COURT.
-1865–VIII (B. C.), s. 16—— Act X of 1859, s. 6–Sale of a tenure
for ArrearsRight of Purchaser-Ejectment, Incumbrance by
former Tenant.] A purchaser of a tenure sold under Act VIII
of 1865 (B. C.), for arrears of rent, cannot, under section 16, eject
a ryot who has acquired a right of occupancy, under section 6,
Act X of 1859, under the former tenant.
NILMADHAB KARMOKAR V. SHIBU PAL

App. 18
-Shareholder-Purchaser of Rights
of Holder of Fractional Share.] Section 16 of Act VIII of 1865
(B. C.) does not apply to the purchaser of the rights and inter-
ests of the holder of a fractional share in an under-tenure.
HARASUNDARI Dasi v. Kistu Mani CHOWDHRAIN App. 37

-XI, s. 19— Immoveable Property - Moveable Property
- Growing Crops.] Growing crops are “immoveable property,"
and execution of a decree of a Small Cause Court cannot be
had against them under section 19 of Act XI of 1865.
GOPAL CHANDRA Biswas v. RAMJAN SIRDAR

194
s. 21-Small Cause Court Act ( Mofussil).]. A
defendant, desiring a new trial of a case decreed against him in a
Small Cause Court, must deposit in Court the amount of the decree
passed against him and costs, at the time of giving notice of his
intention to apply for the new trial. A subsequent deposit, though
made within seven days from the date of decision, will not entitle
the party to ask for a new trial.

Semble.—“The next sitting of the Court,” mentioned in section
21, Act XI of 1865, refers to the next sitting after the decision
complained of ; and the words “ within the period of seven days
from the date of the decision," apply to cases in which the sittings
of the Small Cause Court are not held consecutively by reason of
the same Judge being the Judge of more than one Court.

KAILAS CHANDRA SANNeL v. DawLAT SHEIKH App 57

-XX, s. 34-Conviction by a Magistrate for practising as
a Mookhtar in the Revenue Court without a Certificate-Jurisdic-
tion.
IN THE MATTER OF RAMDYAL SING

App. 89
-1866--XX, s. 48

App. 86
See REGISTRATION.

... 167
See Act XVI OF 1864, s. 51.

6

...

[ocr errors]

, S. 53

[ocr errors]

70

[ocr errors]

...

Page
ACT-1867—XXVI, SCHEDULE B, Article 11, Note A. ... App 6

See VALUATION OF Suit.
-1868–XVI, s. 16

App.

6
See VALUATION OF Suit.
-1869–IV, s. 37

71
See Co-RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN APPEAL.
VIII

App.
See Criminal PROCEDURE Code.

See Criminal PROCEDURE Code, s. 435.

ss. 445 A., 445 C. See CriminaL PROCEDURE CODE.
XV

215
See Prisoners' TESTIMONY ACT.
ACTION. See CAUSE OF ACTION.
CAUSE OF

184, 220, 396, 663
See Act VIII of 1859, s. 7. See Act VIII of 1859, s. 2.
See Deposit. See Act VIII OF 1859, s. 2.

App. 14, 61
See MITAKSHARA. See LIMITATION.
ACTS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS BINDING GOVERN.

MENT-Act IX of 1859.] Where, by a decree of the Special
Commissioner's Court, established under Act IX of 1859, a decree
was made directing property to be made over to a claimant, the pro-
ceedings of officials making over that property were, when followed
by a suit against Government to obtain possession of a portion of
that property, in which suit the Government raised no question as
to the propriety of the decree, or of the making over of the bulk
of the property under it, held, to bind the Government as to the
right of the decree-holder to the property.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL v. MUSSAMAT
KAANZADI

312
ADDING PARTIES

371
See PARTIES.
ADMINISTRATION, CERTIFICATE OF

371
See PARTIES.

- Act XXVII of 1860, s. 6.
IN THE Goods OF SHAM LAL DAs

App. 21
ADMISSION IN ANOTHER SUIT WHEN EVIDENCE

529
See Sanad, RENT-FREE.
ADOPTION

362
See Hindu Law.
ADULTERY

71
See Co-RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN APPEAL.

App. 9
See DIVORCE.

OF PARTNER WITH WIFE OF CO-PARTNER 109

See PARTNERSHIP.
ADVERSE POSSESSION

585
See LIMITATION.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

B

Page
28

...

418

66

ADVOCATE- Witness

App.
RAMFAL SHAW v. Biswanath MANDAL.
AFFIDAVIT

See HABEAS CORPUS.
AGENT OF COMPANY, AUTHORITY OF— Corporation-Seal-

Contruct-Companies' Clauses Consolidation Act, 8 and 9 Vict.,
c. 16, s. 97- The Scinde Railway Act, 1857, 20 and 21 Vict.,
c. 160.] The Scinde Railway Company was incorporated by
18 and 19 Vict., c. 115, for the purpose of making and main-
taining Railways in India, and for other purposes. This was
repealed by 20 and 21 Vict., c. 160, which authorized the
Company to extend their operations, and extend their capital, &c.
This Act, by section 3, declared the Companies' Clauses Consoli-
dation Act, 1845, to be incorporated with it. By section 18, the
Company have “ a seal for use in India in lieu of the common seal
“ of the Company, and from time to time may vary and renew it,
"and make regulations for its use; and except, as by this Act
“ otherwise expressly provided, every document sealed with such
“seal, in conformity with such regulations, or in pursuance of any
" order of the directors, or of any authority given by the Company
“under their common seal, shall be as valid and effectual as if the
common seal were affixed thereto.” By section 54, “the Com-
pany, from time to time, inay appoint and remove such commit-
tees, persons, or person, as the Company think fit to act on behalf
of the Company in India or elsewhere, with respect to the mak-
“ing, maintaining, managing, working, and using of the railways
" and other works of the Company, and the control and conduct
"of any of the affairs in India or elsewhere of the Company; and
“ may delegate to any such committee, persons, and person
“respectively all or any of the powers of the Company and of the
“ directors and officers thereof which the Company thinks it expe-
“ dient that such committee, persons, and person respectively
“should possess for the purposes of his or their respective appoint-
“ment." In January 1867, E. was the Agent of the Company in
India, and he entered, it was alleged, on their behalf, into a con-
tract with the plaintiffs

, for 60 sets of iron-work for low-sided
waggons. The plaintiffs' firm did not deal in iron-work, and they
bad to get the goods manufactured for them in England. The
Board of Directors were at the time supplying iron-work for the
Company. There was nothing to show that E. bad been appointed
under the provisions of section 54 of the Act, 20 & 21 Vict., c. 160,
nor was there any evidence of the extent of his power or authority,
A specification of the contract differed from it, in that it stated
the waggons to be covered waggons, and not low-sided waggons.
The contract was not made under seal of the Company, nor was
the iron-work, the subject of the contract, ever accepted by the
Company. The defendants admitted that at the date of the alleged
contract, E. was the Agent of the Company in India, but denied
that his power extended to the making of such contract; they
further stated that the contract, if entered into, had been afterwards

cancelled.
Held, by PAEAR, J., that there was no evidence to show that E. had

authority to make the contract. The contract was one which E.
would have bad power to make in writing only, under section 97
of the Companies' Clauses Consolidation Act, had he been appointed
under section 54, 20 and 21 Vict., c. 160, but there was no proof
of such appointment.

66

...

CL.

...

...

...

[ocr errors]

...

Page
Held, on appeal, that, assuming that E. had been appointed under

section 54 with power as large as in the ordinary course could be
conferred upon him under that section, the contract was not one
by which, acting as such agent, he had power to bind the Company.
STEWART v. The Scinde, PUNJAB, AND DELHI RAILWAY
COMPANY

195
AGENTS, RECOGNIZED

App. 11
See Act VIII of 1859, s. 17, Cl. 2.
AGREEMENT, BREACH OF

App. 46
See CAUSE OF ACTION.
NOT TO ALIENATE

264
See MORTGAGE.
ALIENATION BY LIFE-TENANT

585
See LIMITATION.
ALIMONY

71
See Co-Respondent's Right to BE HEARD IN APPEAL.

PERMANENT.] Principle on which the Court will grant
permanent alimony.
ORD v. ORD

App. 34
ALTERATION OF DECREE. See Decree.
AVEEN, REMUNERATION OF

135
See PARTITION.
AMENDMENT

418
See HABEAS CORPUS.
ANCESTRAL PROPERTY, SALE OF

App. 14
See MITAKSHARA.
APPEAL. See Co-RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO RE HEARD IN APPEAL.

305, 658
See Act XXI of 1863, ss. 27, 39. See CRIMINAL PROCE-
DURE Code.

App. 10, 30
See STAMP. See VALUATION OF Suit.

-Act VIII of 1859, ss. 324, 325-Award.] Two out of three
arbitrators appointed in the case, submitted their award before the
Moonsiff. The defendant, against whom the award had been made,
applied to the Moonsiff to set aside the award, on the grounds of
corruption and misconduct, and that the award was a nullity, inas-
much as only two out of three arbitrators had made the award.
The Moonsiff overruled the objections, and passed a decree in terms
of the award. On appeal to the Judge, the order of the Moonsiff
was set aside, on the ground that the award was illegal, as two only
of the three arbitrators originally appointed had made the award,
and that the evidence did not prove the plaintiff's case.

On an application to the High Court to set aside the order of the
Judge, held, that, under section 325, Act VIII of 1859, the Judge
had no jurisdiction to set aside the award when the Court of first
instance had passed judgment according to the award.

IN THE MATTER OF THE Petition of Sheikh Ilahi Bux. App. 75
AND REVIEW, ARGUMENTS ON

585
See LIMITATION.

« PreviousContinue »