Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

dispensed with, and that the Government securities

1854.

MEECHUND ".

for Rs. 10,000 be held in deposit by the Sudder De- SETO LUCHwanny Adawlut, to stand and abide the determination of the appeal, and such costs as might be awarded by SETO ZORAthe Lords of the Committee.

WUR MULL

[blocks in formation]

1854.

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 allegation that certain exceptions taken in the Court below to the return made by Partition Commissioners had been overruled, as of course, in consequence of the absence of the Appellant's Counsel. This allegation turned out to be wholly unfounded, as it appeared that Counsel on both sides had been present on the occasion in question, and that the Appellant's

* Present: Members of the Judicial Committee,-The Right Hon. Dr. Lushington, 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.

(a) See case reported on this point nom, "In re Sibnarain Ghose, 5 Moore's Ind. App. Cases, 322.

If leave to appeal be obtained ex parte, the Respondent may, as a matter of sent a counterdismiss.

course, pre

petition to

Where an appeal had

been granted

ex parte upon unfounded in an allegation fact, the Judicial Com

mittee refused to hear the case, and dis"missed the appeal with costs.

1854. Counsel had stated that he was unable to support the

[blocks in formation]

HULLODHUR
Doss.

30th Nov.,

1855.

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).

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 Respondent.

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.

17

1834.

GHOSE

v.

HULLODHUR

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 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.

Doss.

[blocks in formation]

On appeal from the Supreme Court at Calcutta. THIS was an application by the Appellant for an extension of the time prescribed by the 5th Rule of the Order in Council of the 13th of June, 1853, by which the appeal stands dismissed unless steps for

* Present: Members of the Judicial Committee,-The Right Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh, the Right Hon. Sir Edward Ryan, and the Right Hon. Sir John Patteson.

VOL. VI.

19th Feb., 1855.

The Judi

cial Commitjurisdiction

tee have no

1

to entertain tion for exan applicatension of time to appeal until the petition of appeal is lodged.

Where it appeared that an inquiry was pending before the Master in the Court below, 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.

[ocr errors]

1855.

prosecuting the same be taken within six months GUNGADHUR from the arrival of the transcript and the registration SEAL thereof. The affidavit filed in support of the appliSREEMUTTY cation stated, that an inquiry was then pending before

ሀ.

RADDAMONEY

DUSSEE. 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.

24th March,

1855.*

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.

The Right Hon. T. PEMBERTON LEIGH:

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

Mr. Leith now renewed the motion.

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:

1855.

GUNGADEUR
SEAL

V.
SREEMUTTY

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

DOSSEE.

AMEER-OON-NISSA and others

Appellants,

AND

Respondents.*

MOORAD-OON-NISSA and others

On appeal from the Sudder Dewanny Aduwlut at Agra.

THIS was a suit instituted by Seyud Abdoollah, the ancestor of the Appellants, in which suit he claimed as the full brother and heir-at-law of Seyud Moostefah,

* Present Members of the Judicial Committee,-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,

[blocks in formation]

A Maho

medan of the Shiah sect, by a deed of

dower charged his whole estate 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 had 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 Mahomedan of the

« AnteriorContinua »