Imatges de pÓgina


dispensed with, and that the Government securities for Rs. 10,000 be held in deposit by the Sudder De- Sero LUCHwanny Adawlut, to stand and abide the determination MEECH UND of the appeal, and such costs as might be awarded by Seto ZORAthe Lords of the Committee.


[blocks in formation]


appeal be


In this case special leave to appeal was granted by 30th Nov., the Committee (a) on an application made ex parte by the Appellant, upon, among other grounds, an If leave to allegation that certain exceptions taken in the Court obtained ex below to the return made by Partition Commissioners parte, the Re

spondent may, had been overruled, as of course, in consequence of as a matter of the absence of the Appellant's Counsel. This alle- sent a countergation turned out to be wholly unfounded, as it ap- dismiss.

petition to

. peared that Counsel on both sides had been present

Where an 1 on the occasion in question, and that the Appellant's been granted

appeal had

ex parte upon * Present : Members of the Judicial ('ommittee,- The Right unfounded in

an allegation Hon. Dr. Lushington, the Right Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh, the fact, the JuRight Hon. the Lord Justice Knight Bruce, the Right Hon. Sir dicial Com

mittee refused Edward Ryan, and the Right Hon the Lord Justice Turner. to hear the

case, and dis(a) See case reported on this point nom, In re Sibnarain Ghose,'

» missed the 5 Moore's Ind. App. Cases, 322.

appeal with



Counsel had stated that he was unable to support the SIBsArais exceptions.




Mr. Rolt, Q. C., now moved for leave to present

a petition to dismiss the appeal.

The Right Hon. Dr. LUSHINGTON : This application is unnecessary, as you are entitled, as of course, to move to dismiss, upon presenting a counter-petition for that purpose (a).

30th Nov.,


Upon the appeal coming on for hearing,
Mr. R. Palmer, Q. C., Mr. Leith, and Mr. Maude,

appeared for the Appellant ; and
Mr. Rolt, Q. C., and Mr. A. Gordon, for the Re-

spondent. When the Respondent objected to the hearing, as leave had been granted upon an erroneous allegation that the Appellant's Counsel had been absent at the hearing of the exceptions in the Court below, whereas the certificate of the Judges in India distinctly showed that Counsel was present, and that he declined to argue the exceptions.

The Lord Justice TURNER : We consider it a matter of the utmost importance that parties who come here for an indulgence upon an ex parte application, should take care and speak the

(a) See In re Ames, 3 Moore's P. C. Cases, 413.

* Present : Members of the Judicial Committee,- The Right Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh, the Right Hon. Sir Edward Ryan, the Right Hon. the Lord Justice Turner, the Right Hon. Sir John Patteson, and the Right Hon. Sir William H. Maule.





truth. In this case, the Appellant in his petition for leave to appeal, has erroneously alleged as a ground SIENARAIN for the indulgence of the Court, a fact to which the Judges in the Court below certify the contrary." Their HULLODHUR Lordships are fully satisfied that this is so, and, that this case may operate as a warning in future, they dismiss the appeal with costs (a).

(a) Seo Wilson v. Callender, 9 Moore's P. C. Cases, 100, where the Judicial Committee, under similar circumstances, stopped the hearing of an appeal, aud dismissed it with costs.

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

On appeal from the Supreme Court at Calcutta.

19th Feb., THIS was an application by the Appellant for an 1855. extension of the time prescribed by the 5th Rule of

The Judithe Order in Council of the 13th of June, 1853, by cial Commit

tee which the appeal stands dismissed unless steps for juristiction

to entertain * Present: Members of the Judicial Committee, The Right tion for ex-'

an applicaHon. T. Pemberton Leigh, the Right Hon. Sir Edward Ryan, and tension of

time to appeal the Right Hon. Sir John Patteson.

until the peti: tion of appeal

is lodged. Where it appeared that an inquiry was pending before the Master in the Court balow, arising out of the decree, which was the subject of the appeal, the result of which might render the prosecution of the appeal unnecessary, the Judicial Committee enlarged the time prescribed by Rule V. of the Order in Council of the 13th June, 1853, for prosecution

thereof, until further Order. VOL, YI,






prosecuting the same be taken within six months Gungadate from the arrival of the transcript and the registration

thercof. The affidavit filed in support of the appliSREEMUTTY cation stated, that an inquiry was then pending before

the Master of the Supreme Court at Calcutta, arising out of the decree appealed from, and that it was anticipated that the finding of the Master would render the prosecution of the appeal unnecessary, and that the Appellant was desirous of waiting the event of the proceedings in the Master's Office in India, before prosecuting his appeal, as he might be saved the expense attendant upon the prosecution thereof.

The transcript had arrived and was registered in the Council Office on the 12th of October, 1854, but no petition of appeal had been lodged.

Mr. Leith, for the Petitioner, was stopped.

We cannot entertain this application, as we have
no jurisdiction until the petition of appeal is lodged.
When it is lodged you may renew the application.

A petition of appeal was afterwards lodged, and

24th March,

Mr. Leith now renewed the motion. 1855.

The six months expire to-morrow, and unless the indulgence is granted the appeal will stand dismissed.

* Present: The Right Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh, the Right Hon. the Lord Justice Knight Bruce, the Right Hon. Sir Edward Ryan, and the Right Hon. the Lord Justice Turner.


The Lord Justice TURNER :

GUNGADE OR Enough has been shown to induce us to retain the SEAL appeal, notwithstanding the new rules, and to direct that the Petitioner be at liberty to suspend proceed- RADDA SON EZ ings thereon until further order.


[ocr errors]

Å MEER-OOX-NIssa and others



MOORAD-OON-NISSA and others Respondents.*
On appeal from the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut at Agra.

This was a suit instituted by Seyud Abdoollah, the 18th, 19 h, & ancestor of the Appellants, in which suit he claimed 20th July,

1855. as the full brother and heir-at-law of Seyud Moostefah,

A Maho* Present : Members of the Judicial Committee, -The Right medan of the

Shigh sect, by Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh, the Right Hon. the Lord Justice

a deed of Knight Bruce, the Right Hon. Sir Edward Ryan, and the Right dower charged

his whole ese Hon. the Lord Justice Turner,

tate with a

certain sum when demanded by his wedded wife, but did not impignorate his estate to secure the sum put in settlement. The dower was not demanded during the lifetime of the husband, and his widow at his death took possession of his estate in satisfaction of her claim. Held, by the Sudder Dewanny Court, and such decision upon appeal affirmed by the Judicial Committee, that the widow had a lien upon her deceased husband's estate as being hypothecated for her dower, and could either retain property to the amount of her dower, or alienate part of the estate in satisfaction of her claim.

Held also, upon appeal, that a demand during the lifetime of the husband was not necessary, and that, although more than twelve years hal elapsed from the date of the deed and the time the widow set up her claim for dower, she was not affected by the provisions of Ben. Reg. iii. of 1793, sec. xiv., and that the limitation there provided for, formed no bar to her claim.

In a suit by the only brother and heir-at-law of a Mabomedan of the

« AnteriorContinua »