CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME.
Mode of taking account when the mortgagee was in possession as mortgagee, and also as lessee under a lease. [IIunoomanper- saud Panday v. Mussumat Babooee Munraj Koonweree]
See "MAHOMEDAN LAW."
Land formed by gradual accretion belongs to the owner of the ad- jacent soil. [Doe dem. Seebkristo v. The East India Company] - 267
Power of Manager to charge by way of mortgage.
1. Appeal restored after being dis- missed for want of effectual prose- cution within the time limited by the fifth rule of the Order in Council of the 13th of June, 1853; the new rules having been only recently adopted by the Sudder Court at Calcutta, and the Appel- lant, in ignorance of their exis- tence, being engaged in taking steps to prosecute the appeal within the time and according to the prac- tice previously existing. [Gudad- hur Purshad Tewarree v. Mussumat Soonderkoomaree] - 201
2. Appeal from the Sudder Court in India, which stood dismissed under Rule V. of the Order in Council, of the 13th of June, 1853, for want of effectual prosecution, re- stored, as the Appellant was in ignorance of the existence of the new rules, the Sudder Court having served the Appellant (after the in- terposition of the appeal) with notice that two years were allowed after the arrival of the transcript in England, for prosecuting the appeal.
Where Government securities for the prosecution of the appeal and costs were deposited in the Registry of the Sudder Court, the Judicial Committee, in restoring the appeal, dispensed with the usual recogni- zances in England. [Seto Luch- meechund v. Seto Zorawur Mull] 204 3. If leave to appeal be obtained ex parte, the Respondent may, as a matter of course, present a counter- petition to dismiss. [Sibnarain Ghose v. Hullodhur Doss] - 207 4. The Judicial Committee have no jurisdiction to entertain an appli- cation for extension of time to appeal until the petition of appeal is lodged. [Gungadhur Seal v. Sreemutty Raddamoney Dossee] 209 5. An appeal was allowed in October, 1854, by the Supreme Court at Calcutta to England. After the allowance of the appeal no further steps were taken by the Appellant. In March, 1856, the Judicial Com- mittee, upon a certificate of the Registrar of the Supreme Court, that no further proceedings had
been taken after the Order allow- ing the appeal, dismissed the appeal, at the instance of the Re- spondents, for want of prosecution. [Sreemutty Rabutty Dossee v. Rada- nauth Sein] 6. An appeal lies to the Queen in Council from the decision of a single Judge of the Sudder Court, upon the admissibility of a special appeal. The Bombay Act, No. III. of 1843, enacts that such refusal is final, yet not having received the sanction of the Crown: Held that its finality was confined to the Sudder Court, and did not affect the prerogative of the Crown, or de- prive the subject of his right of appeal to the Queen in Council. [Modee Kaikhooscrow Hormusjee v. Cooverbhaee]
In order to enable the Zillah Court,
under Bom. Reg. VII. of 1827, to give an award the force of a decree of Court, the deed of submission to arbitration must contain all the conditions required by that Regu- lation.
Section 3, clause 1, of Bom. Reg. VII. of 1827, enacts among other things, that the deed of reference must contain "the time within which the award is to be given." A deed of submission to arbitra- tion contained no provision for the time when the award was to be made by the arbitrator. Held to be bad, and an award made
reversing the decree of the Special Commissioners, decreed all the costs incurred in the proceedings in India, and in this Court, to be paid by the Bengal Government. [Rajah Lelanund Sing Bahadoor v. The Government of Bengal] 101 4. Where Government securities for the due prosecution of the appeal and costs were deposited in the Registry of the Sudder Court, the Judicial Committee, in restoring the appeal, dispensed with the usual recognizance in England. [Seto Luchmeechund v. Seto Zora- wur Mull] 204
5. Where there had been an irregu- larity in the Court below in the reception of evidence, the Judicial Committee, in affirming the judg ment of the Court below, refused to give costs of appeal. [Rajah Bommarauze Bahadur v. Ranga- sawmy Mudaly -
6. Costs awarded a successful Appel- lant upon appeal, and in all the proceedings in India from the commencement of the suit. The costs incurred in India to be recovered there. [Bamundoss Mookerjea Omeish V. Race]
1. By the constitution of the Supreme Courts in India, the Judges, for the purpose of the trial of an action, sit as a jury as well as Judges, and the same weight is to be given to
2. Principles upon which the Native Courts in India are to proceed in trying issues in suits depending before them.
If, by inadvertence or otherwise, the recorded issues do not enable the Courts to try the whole case on the merits, the suit ought not to be disposed of, but an opportunity should be afforded by amendment, and, if need be, by adjournment, for decision upon the real points in dispute. [Hunoomanpersaud Pan- day v. Mussumat Babooee Munraj Koonweree] 393
balance upon an account between them, the Plaintiff put in evidence the account-books of his firm, and the Inspector of the Court certified that the books were regularly kept, consistently with the rules of bank- ing, and that they agreed with the account rendered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. The Plaintiff, however, examined no witness to prove that the books were regularly kept, or the general accuracy of the particular charges constituting the demand; he proved admissions by the Defendant of the correctness of the account and of an award in his favour of one of the disputed items. The Defendant in his de- fence did not deny the accuracy of the Appellant's account, or of the books put in evidence, but objected to two items in the account, and claimed a set-off, but examined no witnesses to rebut the Plaintiff's
no other Vakeel then acting for him, is such an irregularity, that if objected to at the proper time would be fatal to the reception of such evidence. But where no ob- jection was urged during the trial, or until an appeal was interposed, the Judicial Committee held that the objection came too late, and could not be sustained, as, notwith- standing such irregularity and mis- carriage, that fact did not taint the whole proceeding so as to prevent the Plaintiff recovering upon the other evidence, which was sufficient to establish his case. [Rajah Bom- marauze Bahadur v. Rangasamy Mudaly] 3. Bom. Reg. IV. of 1827, sec. 27,
To assign Raj by deed to single heir. See " INHERITANCE," 2. "EVIDENCE," 3.
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, To defeat sequestration.
A deed of sale conveying real estate, the property of a Defendant in a suit then pending in the Supreme Court at Bombay. Held, in the absence of satisfactory evidence of a bond fide consideration having been paid by the vendee, to be s 2
« AnteriorContinua » |